Remind me again, what has any of your personal obsession with another poster to do with whether the shoes take 5 seconds off a mile time?
Remind me again, what has your personal obsession with doping to do with whether the shoes take 5 seconds off a mile time?
It isn't the shoes that will be doing it. The obsession with doping is the countless athletes who are doing it.
So can El G's records be converted to 3:21 for the 1500 and 3:38 for the mile if the shoes reduce times over the distances by 5 secs? Or is this gain somehow only for schoolboys and second-tier athletes?
Remind me again, what has your personal obsession with doping to do with whether the shoes take 5 seconds off a mile time?
It isn't the shoes that will be doing it. The obsession with doping is the countless athletes who are doing it.
So can El G's records be converted to 3:21 for the 1500 and 3:38 for the mile if the shoes reduce times over the distances by 5 secs? Or is this gain somehow only for schoolboys and second-tier athletes?
This is partly right -- 5 second efficiency gains for the inefficient schoolboy will not be the same 5 second gains for the more efficient El G.
We have already seen evidence above that shoe-related gains are a function of speed.
It isn't the shoes that will be doing it. The obsession with doping is the countless athletes who are doing it.
So can El G's records be converted to 3:21 for the 1500 and 3:38 for the mile if the shoes reduce times over the distances by 5 secs? Or is this gain somehow only for schoolboys and second-tier athletes?
This is partly right -- 5 second efficiency gains for the inefficient schoolboy will not be the same 5 second gains for the more efficient El G.
We have already seen evidence above that shoe-related gains are a function of speed.
So how do shoes aid inefficiency but not efficiency?
I might offer a contrary example. A pro tennis player's racquet is typically heavier than an amateur's racquet and has finely customized strings. Amateurs couldn't play with them. Their game would suffer if they did, whereas the pro's racquet is what enhances elite performance. The same should apply to the shoes. They aren't being manufactured for recreational athletes but elites and pros. They aren't intended to reward or correct "inefficiency" but to enhance the performance of top athletes. And that is the claim, that that is what the shoes are doing. It is nonsense that a club runner will get 5 seconds from the shoes. The shoes don't correct "inefficiency" any more than a pro tennis racquet will do the same for an amateur.
This post was edited 10 minutes after it was posted.
I have just read your post again. OK, you really are that stupid.
You've just confirmed the unfortunate level of your intellect.
How does something as simple - as crude - as a carbon plate in a shoe enable a mediocre athlete to make dramatic improvements but not do the same for a professional athlete? (Does carbon inject stamina for those who don't have much of it?) Mondo DuPlantis would also like to know, as he seems to get more out of a fibreglass pole than any amateur.
If the shoe enables athletes to run faster we should be able to measure these features from their use: the rate of stride turnover should be faster for the same length, or longer for the same turnover, or a combination of both. Then, with that data, you need to remove the effects of physical maturing and training, and also possible doping, in order to be able to say it's "all the shoes". Without that data it is all fantasy.
This post was edited 1 minute after it was posted.
This is partly right -- 5 second efficiency gains for the inefficient schoolboy will not be the same 5 second gains for the more efficient El G.
We have already seen evidence above that shoe-related gains are a function of speed.
So how do shoes aid inefficiency but not efficiency?
I might offer a contrary example. A pro tennis player's racquet is typically heavier than an amateur's racquet and has finely customized strings. Amateurs couldn't play with them. Their game would suffer if they did, whereas the pro's racquet is what enhances elite performance. The same should apply to the shoes. They aren't being manufactured for recreational athletes but elites and pros. They aren't intended to reward or correct "inefficiency" but to enhance the performance of top athletes. And that is the claim, that that is what the shoes are doing. It is nonsense that a club runner will get 5 seconds from the shoes. The shoes don't correct "inefficiency" any more than a pro tennis racquet will do the same for an amateur.
Just to help make sense of your question, can you provide for us your understanding regarding the meaning of the term "efficiency"? It has a very precise meaning in physics and physiology.
In your contrary example, you say pro tennis rackets "aren't intended to reward or correct "inefficiency"". This admission completely renders your example irrelevant for any comparison with the efficiency gains of supershoes which are intended to correct "inefficiency", versus non-supershoes. Both pros and amateurs can run with non-supershoes, and with supershoes, and their individual response to the equipment change will vary in measurable ways. It's hard to see how your example where pros use pro-rackets, and amateurs use amateur rackets brings us any insight into the respective relative improvements.
Seems like a more relevant example would be to compare the relative improvement of the high school tennis player changing from a wooden racket to a carbon fiber racket, with the relative improvement of the professional tennis player playing with a wooden racket versus carbon fiber. Does the change of equipment bring about the same percentage of improvement?
If the shoe enables athletes to run faster we should be able to measure these features from their use: the rate of stride turnover should be faster for the same length, or longer for the same turnover, or a combination of both. Then, with that data, you need to remove the effects of physical maturing and training, and also possible doping, in order to be able to say it's "all the shoes". Without that data it is all fantasy.
If the shoe enables athletes to run faster we should be able to measure these features from their use: the rate of stride turnover should be faster for the same length, or longer for the same turnover, or a combination of both. Then, with that data, you need to remove the effects of physical maturing and training, and also possible doping, in order to be able to say it's "all the shoes". Without that data it is all fantasy.
We should and we can and we do and we have, in ways that eliminate confounders such as maturing and training and doping.
Increased stride length is a frequent observation. For a good starting point see this comprehensive literature review study from 2025. Some relevant quotes:
"Ground contact time decreased across the session, and stride length tended to increase with AFT."
"These improvements were attributed primarily to biomechanical changes, particularly ~2% longer stride length in super spikes versus traditional spikes."
Since the introduction of advanced footwear technology (AFT) in 2017, numerous world records from 5 km to the marathon have been broken. Among these innovations, carbon-plated shoes have received particular attention. Previou...
I have stated this several times here; I have been coaching high school runners for many years. A workout that correlated to 9:20 before super shoes now correlates to 9:10. The only difference on race day is the shoes. I coach 50-60 distance runners per year and I have data on all of them. It isn't the exception.
So how do shoes aid inefficiency but not efficiency?
I might offer a contrary example. A pro tennis player's racquet is typically heavier than an amateur's racquet and has finely customized strings. Amateurs couldn't play with them. Their game would suffer if they did, whereas the pro's racquet is what enhances elite performance. The same should apply to the shoes. They aren't being manufactured for recreational athletes but elites and pros. They aren't intended to reward or correct "inefficiency" but to enhance the performance of top athletes. And that is the claim, that that is what the shoes are doing. It is nonsense that a club runner will get 5 seconds from the shoes. The shoes don't correct "inefficiency" any more than a pro tennis racquet will do the same for an amateur.
Just to help make sense of your question, can you provide for us your understanding regarding the meaning of the term "efficiency"? It has a very precise meaning in physics and physiology.
In your contrary example, you say pro tennis rackets "aren't intended to reward or correct "inefficiency"". This admission completely renders your example irrelevant for any comparison with the efficiency gains of supershoes which are intended to correct "inefficiency", versus non-supershoes. Both pros and amateurs can run with non-supershoes, and with supershoes, and their individual response to the equipment change will vary in measurable ways. It's hard to see how your example where pros use pro-rackets, and amateurs use amateur rackets brings us any insight into the respective relative improvements.
Seems like a more relevant example would be to compare the relative improvement of the high school tennis player changing from a wooden racket to a carbon fiber racket, with the relative improvement of the professional tennis player playing with a wooden racket versus carbon fiber. Does the change of equipment bring about the same percentage of improvement?
The pro tennis racquet is the definition of "efficiency" for a pro. Efficiency means power and control. That's why they use them. But it doesn't enhance the performance of an amateur. The shoes are intended to improve the performance of top athletes. So they use them. There is absolutely nothing in a mere carbon plate that suggests this item will by itself more significantly improve the performance of an amateur than a pro. It's as absurd as claiming a Fender Stratocaster benefits a mediocre musician more than a pro. There is also no data that shows how this could happen with the shoes. There is only pr and speculation. Faster times since the introduction of the new shoes can more credibly be explained by continued innovations in doping that can't be detected yet.
This post was edited 8 minutes after it was posted.
I have stated this several times here; I have been coaching high school runners for many years. A workout that correlated to 9:20 before super shoes now correlates to 9:10. The only difference on race day is the shoes. I coach 50-60 distance runners per year and I have data on all of them. It isn't the exception.
So if you believe the shoes add 5 secs a mile for high school runners why wouldn't it reduce El G's records by the same amount? After all, it's just the shoes making the difference in your view.
