Sick of supershoe whining - runners actually like them!

When they put wheels on Nike Fire Wheels Roller in 5 years you will be complaining too.

But they're making everyone else faster as well so it's not like 2016 when the shoes gave a competitive advantage to a few Nike athletes. They aren't getting also-rans closer to medals, if anything, the times of the medallists are getting even further away.

My point is that there are no complaints about the shoes coming from inside the sport. When the UK developed a technological advantage in track cycling, other professional cyclists complained to the UCI. When the shark-suits were developed for swimming, there were complaints from athletes because of the effect they were having. But in athletics, none of the competitors are complaining. There's no push to revert back to the old tech like there was in swimming. The only people complaining are those that never made it and are now annoyed because their 2:45 marathon doesn't look as impressive as it once did when they're bragging to people at work

If you believe that you can "buy" your way to faster times, then you are effectively outing yourself as slow. Nobody who's ever run fast has had the experience of suddenly jumping ahead of the competition after buying a new pair of spikes.

I am old enough to have been running competitively to have bought both the Nike Victory 2's and the Dragonfly's. They were both innovative at the time and were a cut-above the rest of the spikes on the market. The difference was, compared to the rest of the spikes sold up until those points, was that I felt more stable running, and that I could run on my toes without my feet and calves being in pain. My times didn't drastically change, in fact after I got the Dragonfly's I didn't improve my PR's at all, I just felt more comfortable running. That's the benefit of the "superspikes."

That is only people who can be honest with themselves. I recently ran a race. Not in a good shape now but still ran a decent time. I am positive VF 3 gave me at least 12 secs/mile over traditional flat. I can feel the difference in pace in training when I wear VF3, Brooks non-plated flat and training shoes.

This is the question right? Is there actual major variation between shoes and athletes' level of response on an individual level? Ross Tucker theorizes there is, but I think even he has to admit that he has little proof of that. It's merely a possibility at this point.
The only athlete I've ever heard complain too much about it was Molly Huddle, who just couldn't wear supershoes. You'd hear athletes who didn't have supershoes (e.g. Fauble, Kara) complain, but that's a different world now that every brand is competitive. At this point, you rarely if ever hear an athlete suggest they are not a responder or feel at a disadvantage. So, Tucker's theory isn't really believed or worried about by the athletes at least publicly.

There is a something known as "Work Smarter, not Harder".

Running faster is great, no question about it. But the real benefit for the recreational runner is that it seems you recover quicker and take less of a beating with the super shoes. I've noticed my injury rate decreasing and that I bounce back from hard sessions faster. That's a big benefit. Being able to train more consistently equals improvement long-term.

I guess that means you're wearing wool running clothes and leather shoes with hard soles.

While I agree that technological advances are just part of the sport (think fiberglass poles, foam pits, synthetic tracks, etc., etc.), I don't understand why carbon plates haven't been banned but shoes with springs built into the soles were banned immediately when they were introduced years ago.

Seems to me that a carbon plate is just a spring in a different form.

The carbon plate is hard and doesn't bend. At most it has some lever-like effect.

It's the foam that is spring-like. No super shoes without super foam.

He does admit, in passing, that all the info we have is based on sub-elite athletes. Some of those have responded to a high degree in terms of improved running economy, but there's no hard data on how that translated into times.

More to the point, if you think about how the shoes function, there's every reason to think they'd be less variation among elite athletes. The shoes compensate for poor biomechanics by helping to improve running economy. The group of people who have the very best biomechanics are elite runners. How much further can you really improve the running economy of people like Kipchoge and Gidey? There's hardly a wasted motion in their every stride. Even Paula Radcliffe had great mechanics from the neck down. These people are so incredibly efficient that the space to improve is already limited. So, I don't really buy the idea that there's "super responders" among elite athletes, and if they are, they're likely to be below the very top tier to begin with.

I've got no problem with the shoes. Just admit that the shoes boost performance.

I've got a problem with super shoe enhanced times being measured against non-super shoe times and having pretend like there's a level playing field. There isn't.

No. That it is silly to say a more cushioned show with a plate improves form. It gives energy back. The faster you go, the more you exert. Imagine a 14 minute miler jogging and how much the shoes help. None.

You're welcome to your own opinion on the shoes, but you're wrong about this. Plenty of runners who are currently running don't like the super shoe phenomenon. I myself hate that the shoes exist and I'm not old and I still race competitively (I pick up a bit of prize money here and there, but nowhere near elite). I have running buddies who feel the same and one friend refuses to buy them even though he knows he's at a disadvantage in races.

Great Post!

I totally agree. I won't say what age group I represent, but let's just say I'm a bit "Old School" and totally agree that there's too much whining and complaining about "Super Shoes and Spikes". I never competed or trained with the new shoes or spikes, and am actually jealous I didn't. Mainly for the reason of comfort and cushioning which I've been told has decreased recovery time substantially which in turn allows more training thus faster times. It's all relative, and the current generation of runners are all benefitting. Let them run as fast as they can, I'm good with my PB's from "Back in the day".

Sorry, but you sound like a loser who gets his sh*t pushed in at the end of races by actual competitors because "it doesn't matter."

And at exactly what point does it start to matter? Because you don't need to be anywhere near Olympic or "racing for a living" level to be racing with hundreds (maybe even thousands) of dollars on the line.

I didn't say that they improve form, I said that they help compensate for poor form. There's a difference. Runners with better biomechanics expend less energy per stride because they're more efficient.