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."
Doping hasn't been eliminated because it hasn't been taken account of.
Secondly, if the spikes aided stride length this must also be a feature for sprinters. A longer stride with the same turnover equates to faster times. Yet the fastest times still remain with the old shoes.
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.
You don't understand how supershoes work. Stupid.
So they don't enable a faster or longer stride? So how can runners be faster?
I gave you data but you used the word belief. I probably have 1000 data points which clearly show about 1 second per lap for those running from 4:10 mile pace to 5:00 pace. I assume that the benefit would be about the same percentage for faster runners but I hsve no data to support that assumption. Our school records are 4:11 and 9:03. Our top 10 lists hsve been rewritten over the past 5 years.
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."
"However, a “critical velocity” may be required to fully activate AFT mechanisms. Runners unable to reach this threshold may experience limited benefits and potentially increased injury risk due to altered biomechanics."
Simply translated that means mediocre athletes will benefit less from the shoes than superior athletes (who are able to use them to a "critical velocity"). So if the shoes enable a high school athlete to make a 5 second improvement in a mile - as is claimed here - it will be even more so for a pro. So El G gains more than a club runner does from the shoes. For him it will be more than 5 seconds a mile. Nuts.
This post was edited 9 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.
Your data isn't supported by the paper referred to here. It suggests a 1% gain in running performance. It also found that the gains will be less for athletes who aren't elite.
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.
Your data isn't supported by the paper referred to here. It suggests a 1% gain in running performance. It also found that the gains will be less for athletes who aren't elite.
The issue on the thread isn't whether the shoes make no difference but whether the difference is as great as is being claimed. Until the effects of doping as well as developments in training and maturation can be removed from any assessment no definitive claim can be made about the exact or even likely gains derived from the shoes. If there are gains I would bet they would be nothing like the 5 seconds per mile suggested here, which would translate to the existing world records being 5 seconds faster if achieved in superspikes, as the quoted research suggests the shoes are of greater benefit to higher level athletes.
Your data isn't supported by the paper referred to here. It suggests a 1% gain in running performance. It also found that the gains will be less for athletes who aren't elite.
How many people were tested? What was the range of their mile times. The gains I have seen are roughly 2%.
From AI
"Performance Boost: Studies, including those from the University of Michigan and UMass Amherst, show that super spikes offer a roughly 2% improvement in running economy in elite runners, often translating to a 1–1.5% reduction in race times."
If that data is accepted it suggests about 2-3 secs improvement in a mile time - about half what is claimed in the thread.
However these studies have not looked at the possibility that research subjects were also doping.
Further research that indicates the difficulties in coming to any definitive conclusions about what the superspikes might enable.
" ...this raises the question to what extent these improvements are related to the athletes’ footwear, and by how much these super spikes improve performance [2, 5]. The short answer to these questions is that we do not know, and it might be difficult to ever find out; ..."
The recent and rapid developments in track spike innovation have been followed by a wave of record-breaking times and top performances. This has led many to question what role “super spikes” play in improving running performa...
That is likely the slight difference. Maybe if a kid dopes, he sees dramatic improvement which leaves less room to improve as much by wearing better spikes.
I gave you data but you used the word belief. I probably have 1000 data points which clearly show about 1 second per lap for those running from 4:10 mile pace to 5:00 pace. I assume that the benefit would be about the same percentage for faster runners but I hsve no data to support that assumption. Our school records are 4:11 and 9:03. Our top 10 lists hsve been rewritten over the past 5 years.
The level of talent varies by year and is not a constant. How can you know if the improvement comes from the new shoes? How can you have with, and without, data points? There have been great runners in recent years but none have taken 8 seconds off of LV’s record. That would be about 4:10 pace and fits within your range.
The same workout results in faster times. That has nothing to do with talent. Put 50 guys through 6x800 10 years ago and today and then see what they race a 3200 in. The guy who does a particular workout time 10 years ago runs about 10 seconds faster today in the new shoes.
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.
I guess that explains why your question makes little sense. You don't really know what efficiency means.
No one is suggesting that the carbon plate is by itself.
This post was edited 41 seconds after it was posted.
Doping hasn't been eliminated because it hasn't been taken account of.
Secondly, if the spikes aided stride length this must also be a feature for sprinters. A longer stride with the same turnover equates to faster times. Yet the fastest times still remain with the old shoes.
The crossover design means the same participants wore both normal spikes and superspikes during the experiments. There is no reason to think doped participants were only doped when wearing superspikes.
It doesn't necesarily follow that the 2% stride length "must also be a feature for sprinters", as sprinters use different energy systems and achieve higher speeds than distance runners.
The same workout results in faster times. That has nothing to do with talent. Put 50 guys through 6x800 10 years ago and today and then see what they race a 3200 in. The guy who does a particular workout time 10 years ago runs about 10 seconds faster today in the new shoes.
They train using the old shoes and race with the new ones? Why would you maintain a sizable data base for information that doesn’t aid in your coaching?
Again, why hasn’t someone taken a chunk out of LV’s record or run sub-3:50?
"However, a “critical velocity” may be required to fully activate AFT mechanisms. Runners unable to reach this threshold may experience limited benefits and potentially increased injury risk due to altered biomechanics."
Simply translated that means mediocre athletes will benefit less from the shoes than superior athletes (who are able to use them to a "critical velocity"). So if the shoes enable a high school athlete to make a 5 second improvement in a mile - as is claimed here - it will be even more so for a pro. So El G gains more than a club runner does from the shoes. For him it will be more than 5 seconds a mile. Nuts.
This refers to an "Isherwood" study which involved recreational paces, which was speculated to be below some significant critical velocity to unlock all the gains.
How fast is "critical velocity"? They don't say but just speculates it exists.
Elsewhere, the paper says that "The greatest RE improvements (~4%) have been reported at submaximal intensities of 14–18 km/h" and "In this case, percentage improvements were consistent across all velocities tested, with the largest benefits at 18 km/h. It is important to note, however, that even 18 km/h is ~13% slower than the average marathon world record pace (21 km/h), limiting direct extrapolation of these findings to world-class performance." Note El G would run at 26 km/h.
So we can conclude recreational runners below 14 km/h would still benefit, and runners above 18 km/h would still benefit, but both would benefit less when the greatest benefits are between 14-18 km/h.
This post was edited 15 minutes after it was posted.
"Performance Boost: Studies, including those from the University of Michigan and UMass Amherst, show that super spikes offer a roughly 2% improvement in running economy in elite runners, often translating to a 1–1.5% reduction in race times."
If that data is accepted it suggests about 2-3 secs improvement in a mile time - about half what is claimed in the thread.
However these studies have not looked at the possibility that research subjects were also doping.
I already told you as much back on page 5: "The improvements in super shoes are around 4% for running economy and 2% for performance, and speculatively around 1% to 1.5% for super spikes."
Note that experiments using control groups, or using a crossover design, should effectively cancel any effect of subjects doping. Furthermore, running economy is not a known benefit of doping.
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.
I covered this before and you refuse to acknowledge it. Even if the percentage of performance increase is the same, a faster runner gets less time benefit. For clarity, here is the math: 4min = 240s x 1% = 2.4s. 5min = 300s x1% = 3.0s.
But the sub 4 runner is already more efficient than the 5min miler so the possible percentage gain is smaller as the runner approaches the fastest times in the world.
