No, only you can. Shoes are merely things you wear on your feet. A few minor changes and that's about it. But drugs can change your physiology.
Only me? I just provided six studies (out of hundreds if not thousands if not more) with researchers who do say that about supershoes and superspikes.
In this thread, in order to compare the benefits of "*alleged* steroid use" and "EPO from the 90s", to answer the question "which is more beneficial?", we need to first establish that such a benefit exists from steroid use and EPO use, for the sport of distance running, and then quantify what that benefit is, and then compare it to the observed benefit of the supershoes and superspikes.
Until then, we can cannot answer the OP's question, without appealing to faith.
No, only you can. Shoes are merely things you wear on your feet. A few minor changes and that's about it. But drugs can change your physiology.
Only me? I just provided six studies (out of hundreds if not thousands if not more) with researchers who do say that about supershoes and superspikes.
In this thread, in order to compare the benefits of "*alleged* steroid use" and "EPO from the 90s", to answer the question "which is more beneficial?", we need to first establish that such a benefit exists from steroid use and EPO use, for the sport of distance running, and then quantify what that benefit is, and then compare it to the observed benefit of the supershoes and superspikes.
Until then, we can cannot answer the OP's question, without appealing to faith.
Drugs are present throughout the sport. If you can't calculate the effect they have on performances you can't claim to have an accurate measure of what the shoes might do. As you like to say - the presence of drugs is a "confounder".
Drugs are present throughout the sport. If you can't calculate the effect they have on performances you can't claim to have an accurate measure of what the shoes might do. As you like to say - the presence of drugs is a "confounder".
Not quite true.
Drugs are not a confounder in controlled studies measuring supershoe efficiency/economy against a control group.
Drugs could be a confounder in observational studies based on race results, but their mere presence does not explain the observation that performances are significantly better after supershoes/superspikes, since drugs, like steroids and EPO of the past, were present both before and after supershoes/superspikes, so their presence cancels each other out, all things being equal.
The point remains that without establishing the benefits, both before and after, we simply cannot answer the OP's question, unless, like you, we appeal to the faith in the, as yet unmeasured, power of drugs.
And rekrunner will match that, post more questions than all other the posters combined, and have the last word.
Rekrunner "wins" with 8 : 4 posts, didn't ask too many stupid questions, and had the last word. Business as usual.
Rekrunner is the doping denial equivalent of Truth Social. Posts just as long, as incoherent and mad. But all in support of a Big Lie. Doping scarcely exists and doesn't help most athletes.
For the women, there is a massive difference between the golden era of doping and today. They can only microdose due to the biological passport nowadays. Women naturally have lower testosterone and respond to steroids better than men. When they were using full throttle ped's in the 70s and 80s, they set records that are just now being approached, or in some cases will never be approached like the discus and shot put. No advancements can catch up to the full throttle usage by women.
For the men, I would say better surfaces, shoes, training, and micro dosing has bridged the gap to full throttle doping. Some of the bonkers records are finally being approached: 1500 multiple guys have run 327, hammer throw katzberg is the first guy over 84m in 2 decades and still improving, hj a few years ago with Barshim/Bondarenko. There are still others that have never been approached like the long jump. Beamon's record was already insane, and it took a track surface that was likely illegal and the greatest field event competition of all time for Powell to break it. No one this millenium has been within 6 inches of Beamon's mark not to mention Powell. I'm 99.9% sure Beamon was clean so the record can be broken clean.