NYTimes research suggests that Nike Vaporfly may actually be 4% faster based on Strava data

Interesting , but the lack of a quote from Alexi Pappas leads me to believe it really wasn’t in the New York Times.

1/10

They do make me run faster, placebo effect or not

Current issue of Discover magazine says Kipchoge may have gotten a minute benefit from the shoes in the nike stunt marathon.

The Nike less than 1% shoe.

I am not sure how much faith people can put in Strava data being all that accurate. Does anyone know the sampling frequency on the GPS that a persons watch or phone operates? I am sure it works fine if going in a straight line on urban streets. My guess is it is far less accurate if someone is running on winding trails as the sampling frequency is probably not all that great in order to preserve your phone's / watch's battery.

Im sure it is faster than average, but is it faster than the puma faas 300 12 mm heel drop hard sole light weight for 40-50 dollars? Maybe slightly, 250 is grossly overpriced and I am sure you could find something comparable for less.

In the absence of a prospective randomised controlled double blinded trial, that article is a superb interpretation of the available data (albeit observational). Highly compelling arguments and an appropriate acknowledgement of statistical limitations.

Vaporflys almost certainly worth their price.

Though perhaps the best message is that the Nike Zoom Streak is the world’s best kept marathon shoe bargain.

comedyrelief wrote:

I am not sure how much faith people can put in Strava data being all that accurate. Does anyone know the sampling frequency on the GPS that a persons watch or phone operates? I am sure it works fine if going in a straight line on urban streets. My guess is it is far less accurate if someone is running on winding trails as the sampling frequency is probably not all that great in order to preserve your phone's / watch's battery.

More faith than in your poor understanding of statistics.

Strava is clearly not that accurate. But that’s not relevant, as the measurement error of Strava would equally affect all runners regardless of shoe.

So unless you can hypothesise why the Strava inaccuracies would disproportionately affect Vaporfly wearers, your argument is pointless.

Good scientist wrote:

comedyrelief wrote:

I am not sure how much faith people can put in Strava data being all that accurate. Does anyone know the sampling frequency on the GPS that a persons watch or phone operates? I am sure it works fine if going in a straight line on urban streets. My guess is it is far less accurate if someone is running on winding trails as the sampling frequency is probably not all that great in order to preserve your phone's / watch's battery.

More faith than in your poor understanding of statistics.

Strava is clearly not that accurate. But that’s not relevant, as the measurement error of Strava would equally affect all runners regardless of shoe.

So unless you can hypothesise why the Strava inaccuracies would disproportionately affect Vaporfly wearers, your argument is pointless.

+1

Collective stats aside. I ran a 5k PB. The 4% didn’t feel comfortable and I didn’t feel any benefit in running in them as or feedback from others at this distance. I did a 4 minute PB on the HM wearing the 4%, that was more than 4% for me and the shoes made me feel fast and I ran at a pace that I struggle to maintain in training!

Until you’ve ran at least a HM in the shoe, I dong think you can call them out.

Are you kidding? 4 percent isnt even that much, only a good runner would be able to justify spending 250 instead of increasing mileage 10 percent. I am sure its a fast shoe. The fastest? Maybe not.

It's a sort of racing flat isn't it? Of course people run faster when they go for training runs in light-weight trainers or flats, but the correlation runs the other way. I put racing or lightweight shoes on BECAUSE I'm going to go for a harder workout, not an easy jog. 4% over a marathon is about 4.5 minutes for an elite marathoner. Yeah right, all of a sudden we would have a handful of guys running 1:58-59 if that were true.

The more expensive the shoe, the more you selectively use it (you don't want to add wear on just training miles). So you will save it for those races.

I asked this in the other thread as well, but never received an answer.

What's the shortest distance you could possibly benefit from wearing these, ie would these Nikes improve mile or 3k track times, versus spikes or flats?

They never said 4% faster. They said you will be 4% more efficient or use 4% less energy. Thats a big difference, kinda like how the difference in your 5k and 10k pace arent that much different, but going that little bit slower makes it WAY easier

kartelite wrote:

It's a sort of racing flat isn't it? Of course people run faster when they go for training runs in light-weight trainers or flats, but the correlation runs the other way. I put racing or lightweight shoes on BECAUSE I'm going to go for a harder workout, not an easy jog. 4% over a marathon is about 4.5 minutes for an elite marathoner. Yeah right, all of a sudden we would have a handful of guys running 1:58-59 if that were true.

They compared marathon race times, not race day vs. training pace

I'm curious if they took into account the fact that many of these people may have been running marathons in trainers. The VF4% is a maximal racing flat, so this allows people who may have likely been training AND racing in heavier training shoes to switch to a lightweight racing "flat". Take my wife for instance, she's a novice runner and does most of her training in brooks ghost which weight like 11-12oz. She was planning on running her 1st marathon in them but I bought her some zoom fly's because they are much much lighter. For her 2nd marathon, I bought her a pair of VF4% because she like the zoom fly. But if I hadn't intervened, she would have been racing in 11oz trainers. There is no way I could have convinced her to run in even zoom streaks because she's just not efficient enough for a minimal racing flat like that.

So I'm curious if this study took into account what shoe the runners were switching FROM? Anyone glean that from the article?

If they had taken the results ONLY from people running their previous marathon in a racing style flat, would the results be different?

Jimmy21 wrote:

They never said 4% faster. They said you will be 4% more efficient or use 4% less energy. Thats a big difference, kinda like how the difference in your 5k and 10k pace arent that much different, but going that little bit slower makes it WAY easier

I was very disappointed that it took this far into the thread for someone to point out that the 4% referenced running economy not final performance.

Alas, if the people were using Strava data from races did the researchers also take into account terrain and weather. The heat index can play a huge role in race performance.

Good scientist wrote:

comedyrelief wrote:

I am not sure how much faith people can put in Strava data being all that accurate. Does anyone know the sampling frequency on the GPS that a persons watch or phone operates? I am sure it works fine if going in a straight line on urban streets. My guess is it is far less accurate if someone is running on winding trails as the sampling frequency is probably not all that great in order to preserve your phone's / watch's battery.

More faith than in your poor understanding of statistics.

Strava is clearly not that accurate. But that’s not relevant, as the measurement error of Strava would equally affect all runners regardless of shoe.

So unless you can hypothesise why the Strava inaccuracies would disproportionately affect Vaporfly wearers, your argument is pointless.

Statistics is not a science.

A whole lotta people here are commenting on an article they haven't read.

morpheusss wrote:

What do people think?

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/07/18/upshot/nike-vaporfly-shoe-strava.html

Articles such as these are simply an attempt to legitimize Strava as a repository of useful data when really, it's not.

By the way, did you know Strava uses your data without telling you?

Cheers.