The spikes are not worth ‘several seconds’ in the 1500

CopperRunner wrote:

As many of these super fast lads are saying, I don’t think it’s the shoes during the race effecting middle distance times, I think it’s during the training. I’ve noticed especially at >4:30 pace I don’t need nearly as much rest time between intervals wearing these spikes. Reps still feel just as hard, but it becomes more of just a matter of letting my breathing come back down, rather than waiting for my muscles to recover and be ready to go again.

I think it's similar to the Similar with the VaporFly and road workouts. After using the VaporFly, or probably any recent super shoe, you don't feel as sore the next day.

The cardiovascular system recovers much faster than the muscles in a runner's legs. With better shoes this is still true, just less so, allowing for either: more workouts without injury, more intense workouts, or more base miles.

I also agree that the lack of a racing season has helped.

fxhjb wrote:

Then why wear them? Everyone is wearing them but no one wearing them will admit they improve performance. If this is the case then it shouldn’t matter what spikes you wear…right?

(1) I readily admit there could be some benefit and seems likely that there is, I simply contend it’s not ‘several seconds’ in the 15

(2) people very much enjoy running in the shoes and there could be other reasons (comfort, freshness next day) other than improved speed

(3) psychology, the marathon shoes clearly work so if people start running fast in their track cousin then everyone will want to wear them

(4) they are the most current and most expensive Nike shoe so obviously a lot of pros will have to wear them

objection, relevance wrote:

Deanouk wrote:

Not a great example. The first athlete was busted for EPO use and the next 3 have all been somewhat implicated for doping.

The new spikes have been around since 2019, and there were some ridiculous performances in the Worlds that year by Nike athletes.

Doping is irrelevant. If the “super spikes” are actually worth ~1 second per lap, four men would’ve broken the world record in Monaco in 2015 had they been wearing them. I guess you don’t like the example because it highlights how ridiculous the shoe hype is.

+1. There simply isn’t a lot of data yet and the best way of determining if they make you faster, so far, is applying T&F expertise to the relatively small number of performances we’ve seen and thinking critically. In the case of the marathon shoes there’s enough lab work, results data, etc to conclude that yes they improve performance and yes it’s somewhat significant, even if we can quibble about the exact magnitude of the effect (eg is it a 0.5% or 1% or 1.5% or 2% or 4% improvement for your average elite). We simply do not have that in track and although there have been loads of amazing performances the last couple of years,:

- there are frequently very very good performances

- wave light could explain some

- at least one wasn’t even in the shoes (shelbo low 14:20s)

- lack of doping control could explain some (not accusing any particular athletes whatsoever)

- lots of TTS last year could explain some

- great uninterrupted training for a lot of folks during covid

- on the 1500 point, hs / college has been fast but we haven’t seen anything crazy at the pro level on the men’s side or women’s side, same for 800 (3K and up there has been)

Now there are a lot of reasons to think they help / might help, and it is probably not an unreasonable position to say ok it seems *likely* there’s some benefit and that benefit might scale progressively as you go up in distance:

- pros have testified as much

- crazy results from 3K up

- everyone wanting to wear them

- engineered to help

But none of these things say very definitively that they’re a huge aid and certainly it doesn’t say it’s 1s a lap at the 1500, which as demonstrated by the fast that nobody is going to run 3:25, is very likely not true

I think the fact they do not help as much for very fast paces seems like an underrated observation.

They return energy in a way to save your legs. This helps you stay relaxed longer. It does not help you increase your max pace. Maybe the return does not work for faster paces well, similar to the way soft tracks favor distance and hard tracks sprints.

Let me add one more thing. ‘Several seconds’ in the 1500, to quote rojo, is more or less 1% (.01 * 3:35 = 3.58333s). So, I’m going to say for argument’s sake that 1% is roughly the amount of improvement the proponents of the shoe improvement theory are suggesting. And, while that’s way more modest than some of the marathon shoe suggestions… it’s still way too aggressive. Anything close to 1% is logically suspect

lookism wrote:

I think the fact they do not help as much for very fast paces seems like an underrated observation.

They return energy in a way to save your legs. This helps you stay relaxed longer. It does not help you increase your max pace. Maybe the return does not work for faster paces well, similar to the way soft tracks favor distance and hard tracks sprints.

+1 very good point and likely telling as to the mechanism by which they improve performance at long distances assuming they indeed do

Yeah, the shoes help more the longer the distance. Also, as some poster noted, the effect is individually decided, but I think an average of 1-1,5s is fair, at least for athletes running 3:40-4:00. Maybe the return of energy diminishes when you are running sub 56 laps and then we're talking 0-1s in help.

I'll buy the argument that the spikes aren't tech doping when I see athletes voluntarily racing in standard spikes. When I see Joe Klecker and Oli Hoare in On spikes, when I see Nico Young and Yared Nguse wearing something other than crudely painted Dragonfly's, or Gudaf Tsegay turning up to a race with Adidas back on her feet instead of Nike's. Athletes aren't waiting on scientific studies, they are believing the evidence of their own eyes and their own testing of these spikes. The fact is, if every single college or pro athlete was asked which spikes they would wear if they could, without incurring the wrath of their sponsors, they would ALL choose the Dragonfly, and it's not because they look pretty.

The vague idea that there might be a marginal benefit would be enough I think for almost all of the NCAA and pro runners to pick a spike. From my experience, when you are working as hard as most of those guys do, the idea that you might possibly be leaving a fraction of a percent of performance on the table due to something like wearing the wrong shoe would feel so wrong. Could you imagine someone just missing out an olympic qualifying spot and then wondering if it was because they were too cheap to go buy a pair of shoes? Or because they chose the wrong sponsor?

The effect doesn't have to be real, people just have to think it is - science be damned.

Random question xyz wrote:

objection, relevance wrote:

Doping is irrelevant. If the “super spikes” are actually worth ~1 second per lap, four men would’ve broken the world record in Monaco in 2015 had they been wearing them. I guess you don’t like the example because it highlights how ridiculous the shoe hype is.

https://gfycat.com/enchantingexemplaryhoverfly-michael-scott-steve-carell-the-office

Then don’t wear them. Prove us wrong. Fact of the matter is no one already wearing them will stop. Why? Because they know they’ll be at a disadvantage. I’ve seen races wear every single athlete was wearing a nike super spike. The athletes know that they’ll run faster in them. The two Oregon guys who ran 3:50 indoors aren’t 3:50 milers in a different shoe. So how did they run 3:50? Forget that they ran faster indoor than any other American ever (except 1).

I think I’m going to cut 20 seconds of my 10k time and tell people that’s my pr because that’s what it would be in the new shoes. When they call me out I’ll tell them “super shoe converted.” They’ll understand.

secondalap wrote:

Unfortunately, this is anecdotal.

Where is your biomechanical and statisical evidence?

Even Rojo's basic NCAA statistics is superior to your reasoning.

Yes, 800m and below (<14.5/100m pace) we have seen a significant diminishing propulsion return in the lab. For slower runners heel strikers/the less efficient the performance enhancements are amplified. Conversely, unshod trained "stiffer springed" East African athletes will be less responsive to this technology.

Rojo's a moron. He made no attempt to control for confounding variables. These "super shoes" were introduced at the same time as a pandemic that shut down schools and the entirety of last season. Perhaps the NCAA athletes are benefitting from no cross country season, and the flexibility of online classes so they can train more optimally. That is a HUGE confounding variable.

In comparison, the pro times this year have been fairly mediocre aside from BTC. The WRs from Chep that we saw in the fall are more due to the wavelight pacing technology than the supershoes.

Thus, Rojos "analysis" is completely worthless, as expected.

Random question xyz wrote:

Call me when someone runs 3:25. Until then the spikes are not worth several seconds (pre spike most years someone would run 3:28 or better and ‘several’ seconds off that is 3:25 or better), and probably not even a full second.

All the roads lead to Monaco wether you wear super-spikes or not....

The current super spikes are totally overrated.

They’ve got nothing on the real super spike... The Zoom Jasari. Those only come out for pr races and championship wins.

Nobody is disputing that these new spikes are superior. We are disputing that they give you MULTIPLE SECONDS over 1500m. That is ridiculous, and something we haven't seen duplicated in the pro ranks.

Do the Nike Victories give you multiple seconds over something like the Jasari? If it's not the same thing, why did everyone switch to Victories then?

Again, marginal improvements. VERY marginal.

runderun wrote:

I'll buy the argument that the spikes aren't tech doping when I see athletes voluntarily racing in standard spikes. When I see Joe Klecker and Oli Hoare in On spikes, when I see Nico Young and Yared Nguse wearing something other than crudely painted Dragonfly's, or Gudaf Tsegay turning up to a race with Adidas back on her feet instead of Nike's. Athletes aren't waiting on scientific studies, they are believing the evidence of their own eyes and their own testing of these spikes. The fact is, if every single college or pro athlete was asked which spikes they would wear if they could, without incurring the wrath of their sponsors, they would ALL choose the Dragonfly, and it's not because they look pretty.

^This!!!!!!!!

fxhjb wrote:

runderun wrote:

I'll buy the argument that the spikes aren't tech doping when I see athletes voluntarily racing in standard spikes. When I see Joe Klecker and Oli Hoare in On spikes, when I see Nico Young and Yared Nguse wearing something other than crudely painted Dragonfly's, or Gudaf Tsegay turning up to a race with Adidas back on her feet instead of Nike's. Athletes aren't waiting on scientific studies, they are believing the evidence of their own eyes and their own testing of these spikes. The fact is, if every single college or pro athlete was asked which spikes they would wear if they could, without incurring the wrath of their sponsors, they would ALL choose the Dragonfly, and it's not because they look pretty.

^This!!!!!!!!

If the spikes gave an advantage of 0.01s over 1500m, is that "tech doping"? Because that is the type of marginal improvement that is possible with these spikes.

Aren’t the victories a super shoe? I don’t know. Nike got so many shoes out it’s hard to know other than the dragonfly’s. But I think they’re the same as the dragonfly’s.

If you’re a 3:55 miler and shoes are allowing you to take 2 seconds off your time that is huge. In an elite race that could be as much as 5 places. I get that it might be 4 seconds but is 2 seconds a lot for an elite 1500 runner - of course.

I think the Oregon guys are 3:53 milers, maybe 3:52. But the shoe has allowed them to run 3:50 indoor. Guaranteed there are former American milers on the indoor list scratching their heads wondering how two guys only a few years out of HS ran faster than they did their whole career.

No, I was talking about the ORGINAL victories. The ones from 2009. Spike tech is always "improving", which is why we don't run in shoes that were made in 1970. Now, is the difference between these "super shoes" and the previous shoes 2 seconds over a mile? No chance! Maybe a millisecond or two, at most.

Where are you getting your numbers from? You're just pulling them out of your a$$.