Can't read the full article because I don't have a WSJ subscription. Is Ward's 4.4% lab-measured or coach-reported?
If I'm coaching a contender, I definitely want the competition to think they are at a disadvantage. Mind games work. When things get tough, you know some guys are going to be thinking, "Ward's getting 4.4%, there is no way I can hang on with my measly 2.2%. "
Could it be that Huddle is a 105 pound runner going 2:21 pace and Ward is 140 going 2:08 pace? I’m guessing at those weights, but you get my point: the shoes will be more responsive to more power.
The shoes were designed for Kipchoge to go sub 2:00- and incredible amount force on each stride.
Let’s compare the effect on other elite women, not compare elite women to elite men.
Is there any data on the effect of vaporflys on a hilly course? Do hills amplify the advantage or is it the same advantage? I almost wonder whether hills might mute the benefits of the vaporflys because there might be more effort involved running up a hill with longer legs. And the bracing your quads do on significant downhills might be more difficult with the leg lengthening that vaporflys provide. Or does the carbon fiber plate make it all good?
the gooch wrote:
For me, running is meant to be technology free.
The only way if could be technology free is if everyone ran barefoot, and gave up the PEDs. That hasn't been the case in a long, long time.
I wonder about what outcry existed the first time someone wore spikes on a track. Or when shoes converted from leather to synthetic material. Those changes probably changed distance running more than any modern super shoe.
Let's flip the tables a bit and say that Vaporflies are banned.
Would it by fair that others are slowed down more by having to run in a more traditional racing flat? Wouldn't it put Molly at an advantage because she would benefit more because she's arguably more efficient than others in a less cushioned shoe?
Just let everyone wear what they're most efficient in. Most of those runners would probably wear Vaporfly's, while some are better suited to something else.
wejo wrote:
So that is what Ross Tucker pointed out and that some people may be responders to super shoes and some aren't. Unfortunately if Huddle isn't she might be at like a 2-3% time disadvantage in the race.
Article here
https://www.wsj.com/articles/as-
That's not exactly what Tucker pointed out. With the Vaporfly's there are responders and super-responders. What makes them unique in the history of running shoes is that there aren't any non-responders - everyone responds positively to some degree.
The Endorpin Pro is more in line with previous shoes than the VFs if Huddle isn't responding at all. Could also be Ward is responding so well because he's been more involved in the design process, at least it sounds that way from listening to his interview on Clean Sport.
Running economy varies by quite a bit anyway. Have none of you noticed this? It depends a lot on muscle stiffness, which varies a lot. Why aren't you all talking about this?
Well, hopefully Saucony has now created a shoe that gives Huddle a 4% gain in performance. That's what a performance footwear company does - make custom shoes for elite athletes.
So it's a 4.4% economy boost. What does that even mean? It doesn't say they run 4.4% faster. What improvement in economy equals what amount of time improvement? And what is their baseline? 4.4% economy boost over what? If I wear the streaks in this same test, would they come back as a 3.9% economy boost compared to whatever their baseline is?
This is all a load of crap. People are running tests because they're looking for some sort of data to prove something. Huge bias in these. Nike's original 'tests' to say it was a 3-4% economy improvement which is where the vaporfly 4% name came from. What was their baseline? Of course they benefit to structure a test to have some sort of results.
i am a strong believer if a shoe feels good then you run good. You have to find the shoe that works with your body to perform at your best.
[/quote]
For me, running is meant to be technology free
[/quote]
But here is the fundamental issue with this - the sport or act of running hasn't been technology free ever since a shoe was first made. The first shoe was technology - it was a technology that protected the foot from being f%$ked up by the surfaces humans run on.
So I'm sorry but this statement is completely void and has been for many many decades. I can even make a case that what we see now isn't even the largest jump in footwear technology for the sport of running - the case I gave above is.
At some point the first shoes for running (in whatever form they were) were invented and used by somebody. Those shoes probably enabled somebody to complete a distance previously impossible due to cumulative damage caused over a distance by running without shoes. These exact same jumps happened when the cushioning technologies like rubber, PU or EVA were found and introduced - again arguably with way larger performance benefits than "4%".
The big difference we have no are labs that quantify these benefits, "experts" that have a plethora of arbitrary takes on these results and the internet which perpetuates and exacerbates furor and panic surrounding these takes.
So unless you suggest we all go back to barefoot running on grass, you need to live and accept shoes like the 4/NXT/Alpha% and just embrace them for fundamentally what they are - no different on a first principal level to what we have seen before.
Some people respond better to wearing shoes vs running barefoot. Should we ban all shoes then?
Orange Joe wrote:
super wrote:
Its this site. its the site owners hill to die. The rest of the world is going to make it.
Well, I agree with them. It IS a big deal. Prior to the new shoes, the sport really was more of a meritocracy (as the previous poster called it). At least as far as equipment worn in the actual races went. Nobody wasted any time worrying about what their opponent was wearing, because it was all assumed to be neutral and beside the point. And that is a key component of the sport - its simplicity, and the belief that in a given race, the best racer would win. Not to say there weren't problems (doping, etc), but equipment wasn't one of them. Now it is. So you might decide that you are in favor of the new shoes, but that doesn't mean the sport hasn't been changed fundamentally.
But remember before "the shoes," the narrative on this site was all about how running is basically a genetic lottery.
Our neoliberal overlords have conditioned us to think that a "meritocracy" is a term for a system which rewards people who were born in the right place at the right time.
Bullet the Blue Sky wrote:
Can't read the full article because I don't have a WSJ subscription.
I posted an archived link on page 1 of this thread.
runderun wrote:
wejo wrote:
So that is what Ross Tucker pointed out and that some people may be responders to super shoes and some aren't. Unfortunately if Huddle isn't she might be at like a 2-3% time disadvantage in the race.
Article here
https://www.wsj.com/articles/as-
That's not exactly what Tucker pointed out. With the Vaporfly's there are responders and super-responders. What makes them unique in the history of running shoes is that there aren't any non-responders - everyone responds positively to some degree.
The Endorpin Pro is more in line with previous shoes than the VFs if Huddle isn't responding at all. Could also be Ward is responding so well because he's been more involved in the design process, at least it sounds that way from listening to his interview on Clean Sport.
Is there any evidence to this, I don’t remember his article/rant referring any studies or peered reviewed “experiments”
Esterhazy1 wrote:
I must say that the controversy about these shoes is just about ruining this sport for me. The fact of the shoes themselves, and the fact that the community is split over them--both factors feel like a tragedy for the sport. Combine that with the inability of the sport to govern itself with regard to doping--I am losing hope that track has much of a future as a meritocracy, rather than a sort of technological arms race. Maybe I am alone in this feeling? Not sure.
I'm in agreement with you. I was about to post a thread about how I don't care for the marathon trials because it probably will be a race of who has the best shoes more than anything. Previously you just ran a marathon in something that was lightweight with enough cushion and the talent and training did the talking but now it's about who has the best shoes.
Also, i agree with you about the sport's inability to govern itself. There are a number of factors that have caused me to lose interest over the past year and I am traditionally a huge fan.
What does it even mean? wrote:
So it's a 4.4% economy boost. What does that even mean? It doesn't say they run 4.4% faster. What improvement in economy equals what amount of time improvement? And what is their baseline? 4.4% economy boost over what? If I wear the streaks in this same test, would they come back as a 3.9% economy boost compared to whatever their baseline is?
This is all a load of crap. People are running tests because they're looking for some sort of data to prove something. Huge bias in these. Nike's original 'tests' to say it was a 3-4% economy improvement which is where the vaporfly 4% name came from. What was their baseline? Of course they benefit to structure a test to have some sort of results.
Running economy is measured by your oxygen intake. So you basically use 4% less when running in the Vaporflies. This is compared to running in a standard racing flat - in one study I know they used the Adidas Adios as a baseline and in another it was the Saucony Endorphin Racer.
All of the papers I've read on this issue are well-designed studies, not your L'Oreal "87 of 102 women agree" kind of junk researvh.
As to how this translates to time: 4% improved economy is about 2-2.8% improvement in time. For an elite marathoner, around 1m30s-2m.
matbar wrote:
Is there any evidence to this, I don’t remember his article/rant referring any studies or peered reviewed “experiments”
There's four scientific studies and then the NYT observational analysis which is useful but not as robust. Go on Google scholar and search for vaporfly.
peachrunner wrote:
i am a strong believer if a shoe feels good then you run good. You have to find the shoe that works with your body to perform at your best.
That was Jared Ward's final opinion when discussing the Endorpin Pro. He said that whicveer shoe gives you the most confidence at the start line, is the best. Shoe tech helps, but it's notreally a big deal. That was his conclusion after all the development and lab testing.
JustGonna SayIt wrote:
peachrunner wrote:
i am a strong believer if a shoe feels good then you run good. You have to find the shoe that works with your body to perform at your best.
That was Jared Ward's final opinion when discussing the Endorpin Pro. He said that whicveer shoe gives you the most confidence at the start line, is the best. Shoe tech helps, but it's notreally a big deal. That was his conclusion after all the development and lab testing.
Those are good points but people's opinions mean nothing against hard data. Like if I feel okay in the Endorphin Pro and great in the Fastwitch but I'm actually 2% faster in the Endorphin Pro, I should take the Endorphin. Although if a shoe makes me 2% faster, I'm sure that I'll feel great in it.