Why do so many tank on this topic? SHOES are an advantage over the natural way of running, which would be without shoes. When rubber came along for the soles of the shoes as well as lighter materials, the shoes became more advanced and provided benefit over previous shoes that didn't use these materials. Shoes have now taken ANOTHER advancement in technology. But this one is bad? Now, if the "unfairness" is tied to availability, I would tend to agree that all athletes should have equal access to the tech. But I wholeheartedly disagree that it's an advantage that shouldn't be allowed. If it is, then get rid of all shoes.
Why do so many tank on this topic? SHOES are an advantage over the natural way of running, which would be without shoes. When rubber came along for the soles of the shoes as well as lighter materials, the shoes became more advanced and provided benefit over previous shoes that didn't use these materials. Shoes have now taken ANOTHER advancement in technology. But this one is bad? Now, if the "unfairness" is tied to availability, I would tend to agree that all athletes should have equal access to the tech. But I wholeheartedly disagree that it's an advantage that shouldn't be allowed. If it is, then get rid of all shoes.
And all these years people have thought that wearing SPIKES is somehow natural. All of a sudden, a bouncier foam is controversial and some sort of doping.
- Foams that are more energy efficient but very squishy on their own - Carbon fiber plates that make said foam feel less squishy and more responsive via increased stiffness without adding much weight to the equation - More foam allows higher stack height, giving longer strides at the same energy expenditure
All these things combined into the same product make super shoes "super". (shoe work more muscle work less). But yeah sure, no one understands them at all.
There are countless research studies and whole labs (like the UMass Integrative Locomotion Lab) dedicated towards understanding the science behind advanced footwear technology (AKA "supershoes"). Just because you/this person doesn't understand, doesn't mean there's no science behind them.
Remember when you made a video about them? That was greatness.
yeah, how did it go again? He was like, "wow, as I ran a mile without supershoes and pushing a baby stroller in 9 minutes, as then I not push baby stroller with supershoes and run a mile in 8 minutes." And we are all like, um, yeah, okay
They are only slightly beneficial on road surfaces. They do not help on trail or grass or track surfaces.
Anyone who thinks they help on any surface besides a hard concrete road is out of their mind.
A modern track is more responsive than a road.
Sounds like you need to grab a dictionary and look up the definition of the word responsive. Not only are you wrong, but you are absolutely wrong. Not only are you wrong, but you are also incorrect.
Responsive, in a shoe sense, means that the shoe itself is bendable and flexible. I.e.- the nike free. This is not what we are talking about.
Responsive, in the sense we are talking about, means "boingy." The idea behind carbon plated shoes is that the carbon "boings" the runners step up and forward, and does not absorb the shock like a cushion does. This is exactly why super shoes are not effective on track surfaces or any other soft surface.
A running track would absorb all of the runners shock and pressure of each step and defeat the entire purpose of wearing a carbon plated supershoe.
Again, not onlybare you wrong. But you are absolutely wrong. Not only are you wrong, but you are also incorrect.
Sounds like you need to grab a dictionary and look up the definition of the word responsive. Not only are you wrong, but you are absolutely wrong. Not only are you wrong, but you are also incorrect.
Responsive, in a shoe sense, means that the shoe itself is bendable and flexible. I.e.- the nike free. This is not what we are talking about.
Responsive, in the sense we are talking about, means "boingy." The idea behind carbon plated shoes is that the carbon "boings" the runners step up and forward, and does not absorb the shock like a cushion does. This is exactly why super shoes are not effective on track surfaces or any other soft surface.
A running track would absorb all of the runners shock and pressure of each step and defeat the entire purpose of wearing a carbon plated supershoe.
Again, not onlybare you wrong. But you are absolutely wrong. Not only are you wrong, but you are also incorrect.
Does anyone talk like a grown up anymore? I'm sure high school kids respond well to your condescending prick routine.
The reality is most roads are made of asphalt, which is a relatively soft material, thus the need for constant road repairs. Asphalt actually absorbs more energy than a modern running track.
The science is of course there. I someone says 'We have no idea', he means more 'he has no idea'.
3 hints:
1) running can be seen as 2 springs. Shoe and foot is a spring.
2) less muscle damage (cushion) at the same pace, especially on longer runs
3) lower weight of the shoe
Science needs to be explicable and verifiable. If it's not, it's not science. At the same time there are a lot of things that claim to be science aren't, like most of the non-DNA "science" involved in criminal investigations.
It's not unusual that medications will work, and their efficacy clinically verified, without the mechanism of their effectiveness being understood. People have a hunch that something will work. They probably have a model in their head of how it will work. They verify that it does work - i.e. lower oxygen consumption in a marathon - but when the details of the model are tested, the model doesn't work, so you're stuck with something that has some verifiable efficacy, but you still don't know exactly how it works.
This post was edited 2 minutes after it was posted.
Sounds like you need to grab a dictionary and look up the definition of the word responsive. Not only are you wrong, but you are absolutely wrong. Not only are you wrong, but you are also incorrect.
Responsive, in a shoe sense, means that the shoe itself is bendable and flexible. I.e.- the nike free. This is not what we are talking about.
Responsive, in the sense we are talking about, means "boingy." The idea behind carbon plated shoes is that the carbon "boings" the runners step up and forward, and does not absorb the shock like a cushion does. This is exactly why super shoes are not effective on track surfaces or any other soft surface.
A running track would absorb all of the runners shock and pressure of each step and defeat the entire purpose of wearing a carbon plated supershoe.
Again, not onlybare you wrong. But you are absolutely wrong. Not only are you wrong, but you are also incorrect.
I promise you from my experience that road supershoes are effective on track surfaces, and the many NCAA athletes who wear them would agree. Whether they are more or less effective than track spikes depends on the runner and the distance, but obviously you will run faster on the track in Vaporflys than in regular trainers.
A governing body should just create a list of rules for shoes. Those rules should be built from the philosophy that shoes are for the purpose of:
- Protecting the skin on the bottom of the foot.
- Improving traction with the ground
- Energy return should come from the runners body and not from their equipment
- Shoes should be available to the general public within reason. If a runner is wearing a custom shoe from x supplier, that supplier should be able to produce custom shoes for the general population for under y$.
This could then me translated to technical requirements such as
- Maximum stack height.
- Maximum force needed to fold the shoe 90 degrees
Disagree. Well, I guess I should first ask, how many roads where you train are concrete? Zero? They are likely asphalt/tarmac. It is summer, should be warm or hot out. Asphalt, an oil containing product, is slightly softer than concrete and in warm weather even better.
Also, track spikes today are indeed contributing to faster times, for sure, denying that would give credit to doping for every great result or a change in human physiology, which last I checked has not changed in thousands of years.
Nor has great training methodology. For example 70 years ago Arthur Lydiard worked out a training method that +/- is still very much used today. Even the Norwegian method that has all this hype around it very much resembles the great training method of Lydiard. Certainly, the overarching volume at easy - to - steady efforts first as a base, then the quality after a strenth phase.
I interviewed the scientist who discovered the 2 - 6% improvement of the first Nike fly shoes. Arbitrarily, he gave it a 4% average improvement. Hence, Nike naming it the 4%.
Who benefits 2% and who benefits 6%? We can assume pretty safely that the shufflers get a small benefit and the bounding, high knee, forefoot strikers get the 6%. And now today, the shoes are even better.
We do know how they improve running speeds, carbon plate and specialized rubber with "X" drop = quicker turnover, slightly longer stride (air time, actually distance) and quicker lower leg recovery. However, for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction, so there now appears to be an issue to do with femur stress fractures to those who train exclusively in super shoes on asphalt.
We know the action that the shoes create in the foot.
As I babble on....
There is a ton of power that can be developed in the foot/ankle/lower leg area that is not being as developed with super shoes. The big soft cushiony mattress protects the feet from natural action.
Where, dare I say, minimalism creates damage (stimulus) and therefore you can adapt and improve (the strength in the foot), taking on a little of the benefit that your $500 shoe is providing.
I think and this is my assumption, not based on science, but a person training 100 - 150 miles per week partially in super shoes and partially in less of shoe with some barefoot striding or minimalist shoe wear can benefit massively with a combination done with the right ratios.
For those who train with consistancy (no injuries) and tactically race smart can have big days. I don't know if that is the mix of how Jess Hull dropped her time or Faith or some of the others, but the shoes and or spikes for sure have a role in it. There is no denying it. But you must be fit and peaked to take advantage. Everything matters. What is everything volume, efforts, tactics, nutrition, health, natural ability, determination, mental strength, we have known this for a very long time. But add super shoes or super spikes to the list.
