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

I'm disappointed that no one commenting seems to have read the article

The speed increases associated with Vaporflys are consistent with the increases in a Nike-funded study by University of Colorado researchers published in the journal Sports Medicine. That experiment measured the energy output of 18 male elite runners on a treadmill at various speeds and concluded that, on average, runners in Vaporflys exerted 4 percent less energy than they did in other racing shoes. They estimated such a savings would translate into a performance improvement of around 3 percent for a three-hour marathoner. Our findings were similar but showed a smaller effect. We found Vaporflys to be 1 percent faster than the next-fastest running shoe in our data (the Nike Streak), but our sample included a much wider range of athletes, and included men and women.

Luv2Run wrote:

[quote]Jimmy21 wrote:

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.

They have taken into account different terrain and weather by using data from a lot of people from the same few races. For example if you take two big city marathons you can easily find a few hundred runners out of maybe 25 thousands, who have run both races, switched shoes, and recorded their data on strava. If all the runners who switched to Vaporflys even decreased their performance by 5% (due to bad weather like boston this year), but the average of runners who switched to all different kinds of shoes decreased even more, like 9% in the same race, then the relative difference is 4% gained by wearing Vaporfly shoes.

However, it would easily be possible to further divide the existing set of samples not just by different shoes, but also by gender, age and performance level.

The reason why I would be interested in this is because I think a possible energy return is more likely for bigger, heavier, slower, less economic runners, whereas small, light, fast (sub-)elite runners with good running economy would not really see the same advantage. Thus we don't see the high number of 1:58-2:02 marathon times, which should be expected if every elite runner would wear vaporfly shoes.....

read it you fools wrote:

I'm disappointed that no one commenting seems to have read the article

yeah it would be nice if people who disagree would read the article and quote it and then explain why it is unconvincing.

I don't buy anything strava says their wildly inaccurate. I cant tell you how many times I ran on a track and could do 1 mile in 6:00 flat, my watch says 6 minutes, the native app says 6 minutes but when I upload to Strava it will say 6:15 or something crazy.

Strava is garbage.

Because from both my experience and the article, I'm fairly convinced but perhaps I have missed something and would like to know what I've missed, but everyone disputing the article seems to have not read it.

Saywhat2 wrote:

I don't buy anything strava says their wildly inaccurate. I cant tell you how many times I ran on a track and could do 1 mile in 6:00 flat, my watch says 6 minutes, the native app says 6 minutes but when I upload to Strava it will say 6:15 or something crazy.

Strava is garbage.

Here's a perfect example of someone who hasn't read the article. They're only using race times from half marathons and marathons, so the distance has been measure apriori and they are not relying on Strava for distances, only times and gear.

biogen wrote:

Saywhat2 wrote:

I don't buy anything strava says their wildly inaccurate. I cant tell you how many times I ran on a track and could do 1 mile in 6:00 flat, my watch says 6 minutes, the native app says 6 minutes but when I upload to Strava it will say 6:15 or something crazy.

Strava is garbage.

Here's a perfect example of someone who hasn't read the article. They're only using race times from half marathons and marathons, so the distance has been measure apriori and they are not relying on Strava for distances, only times and gear.

You're right I didn't read the article and dont have too my reasons are below.

1. I know the vaporfly makes a runner more efficient thus making them a run a smidge faster in the HM/Marathon distances due to tge carbon fiber plate. No different than going from Eva to the boost foam material. It helps a runner from breaking down energy and form wise. Thus allowing them to run harder longer.

2. Strava is garbage and I don't need their opinion to know the shoe is a solid shoe for more efficient running. Strava and their algorithms are still garbage.

Saywhat2 wrote:

biogen wrote:

Here's a perfect example of someone who hasn't read the article. They're only using race times from half marathons and marathons, so the distance has been measure apriori and they are not relying on Strava for distances, only times and gear.

You're right I didn't read the article and dont have too my reasons are below.

1. I know the vaporfly makes a runner more efficient thus making them a run a smidge faster in the HM/Marathon distances due to tge carbon fiber plate. No different than going from Eva to the boost foam material. It helps a runner from breaking down energy and form wise. Thus allowing them to run harder longer.

2. Strava is garbage and I don't need their opinion to know the shoe is a solid shoe for more efficient running. Strava and their algorithms are still garbage.

Strava didn't do the study, the times did

read it you fools wrote:

Saywhat2 wrote:

You're right I didn't read the article and dont have too my reasons are below.

1. I know the vaporfly makes a runner more efficient thus making them a run a smidge faster in the HM/Marathon distances due to tge carbon fiber plate. No different than going from Eva to the boost foam material. It helps a runner from breaking down energy and form wise. Thus allowing them to run harder longer.

2. Strava is garbage and I don't need their opinion to know the shoe is a solid shoe for more efficient running. Strava and their algorithms are still garbage.

Strava didn't do the study, the times did

I'm not a VF hater though, I know it makes a runner more economical.

You are a Moran though.

Bad Scientist wrote:

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.

Did you know this site uses your data without telling you? Did you know nearly all sites on the internet do? Moran

Looks pretty strong to me. However, this is a very expensive shoe and it does not last very long and those are two factors that might be confounding, since there might be particular circumstances in which one is more likely to go in for one, and people may be racing them when the shoes are newer, hence, springier, because they know they won't last through much training. So, people might be wearing other shoes when they are older and slower (the shoes, that is). Note too that there are plenty of shoes that give an advantage over the average, of about 1-3%, so that the Nikes are giving not a 4% advantage even in this study, but only 1-3% over many of the other shoes. If the Nikes really do have a spring effect beyond the norm, as this suggests, I will definitely not wear them even if they drop to below $40, which is my self-imposed ceiling on shoe prices, because I wouldn't want to cheapen my pr's by getting them via new technology rather than hard work with the same technology as the previous attempts.

Dril wrote:

You are a Moran though.

Didn't stop your mom from going down on me though.

I'm not entirely sure what the reported technologies in this shoe are but if it's lighter than a typical racing shoe then that is where the majority of your '4%' comes from. It also depends what they are comparing to.

Numerous studies have shown how tiny differences in weight on the end of your swinging pendulum of a leg makes a big difference to efficiency and ultimately performance.

If you can hack it, just wear the lightest shoe you can find. There are some extremely light racing flats out there. Things weighing a little over 4oz. Most wouldn't attempt to run a marathon in them though.

If you are racing 5k/10k on the roads and really care enough to spend $250 then just wear something very very light such as the mizuno wave ekiden or saucony type a8. Shoes in the 5.5oz range (160g).

There is a pair of New Balance's the RC5000v1 that weigh 3.2oz which is half of what the 4% weigh. I'll bet any money they are faster.

If they claim the saving is from the carbon plate then the evidence there is mixed at best

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/19424280.2016.1143038

Luv2Run wrote:

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.

Running economy is just the difference between VO2 max and time; unless the shoe changes your VO2 max then a 4% improvement in time or running economy is equivalent.

I've done my last couple marathons in the 4%. I like them and whether they help or not the placebo effect is real.

That being said it's too hard to compare amateur marathon times. Weather, courses, and training all can change dramatically from one race to the next. Most amateur runners will crush their PRs pretty easily by running more mileage. Shoes alone cannot count for much if people are doing better training and getting good weather for race day.

I think we would see the 4% margin a bit easier at the pro level but the marathon world records have not dropped by 4% on either side. Pros are not PR-ing by 4% when they wear the shoes.

This is far too difficult to measure.