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.
In the world of science and data, El G is a wild outlier. In over 20 years after El G's WR and before super spikes, the closest anyone came to this record was Webb at almost 4 seconds slower. Since the shoes, 8 runners have beaten Webb. El G's WR was during the peak EPO years before there was an effective test, even though he never tested positive (like Lance).
Again, the data does not lie. Something changed that caused the performance increase at every level of the sport, 1000s of runners deep. We are absolutely certain when the super spikes were introduced and became widely used. This corresponds exactly with the performance increase. We also have studies showing their efficacy is on par with the performance increase.
It seems your argument hinges on El G being equal to all other runners and almost all middle schoolers being dopers. Again, which is more feasible, shoes caused the performance increase or most middle/high schoolers started doping using a new designer drug that is yet unidentified all within a 2yr span?
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.
Your observations are nothing but your own fanciful speculation. Where is it established that the carbon plate doesn't aid anaerobic effort?
This post was edited 2 minutes after it was posted.
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.
In the world of science and data, El G is a wild outlier. In over 20 years after El G's WR and before super spikes, the closest anyone came to this record was Webb at almost 4 seconds slower. Since the shoes, 8 runners have beaten Webb. El G's WR was during the peak EPO years before there was an effective test, even though he never tested positive (like Lance).
Again, the data does not lie. Something changed that caused the performance increase at every level of the sport, 1000s of runners deep. We are absolutely certain when the super spikes were introduced and became widely used. This corresponds exactly with the performance increase. We also have studies showing their efficacy is on par with the performance increase.
It seems your argument hinges on El G being equal to all other runners and almost all middle schoolers being dopers. Again, which is more feasible, shoes caused the performance increase or most middle/high schoolers started doping using a new designer drug that is yet unidentified all within a 2yr span?
El G wasn't a "wild outlier". In his era we saw Lagat and Ngeny running close to his 1500/mile times (and of course Morceli before him) and Komen running even better over the 3k and 5k. None of them had superspikes. If El G would have gained 5 secs a mile from the new shoes then so would all those other athletes. They, too, would have been running in the region of 3:21-22 for the 1500, 3:38-39 for the mile and Komen would have run 7:11-12 for the 3k. That is if the shoes enable those kinds of gains claimed here. It also means the best in this era wouldn't have been under 3:31 for the 1500 and would have been slower than Webb over the mile if they didn't have the new shoes. Really? And some of the best today will be doping - if not all. It isn't credible to say it's all about the shoes.
Faster times haven't just occurred with the advent of supershoes but the continuation and development of doping practices that antidoping has been unable to detect and so prevent. The shoes may have contributed to faster times but without a doubt so has doping. Howman virtually admitted it when he said this year that dopers were getting away with it. That will include school and college sports, where testing is virtually nonexistent. So some of the performances you are ascribing to the shoes are also the result of doping.
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.
Efficiency in a runner usually means improved results but at least the same results/speed with less effort. Interestingly, that's exactly what doping enables and why athletes continue to dope.
The carbon plate is the crucial distinction between the old shoes and the new shoes. The rest of the shoe is not significantly different. So an awful lot is being attributed to a singular and very small piece of equipment.
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.
Despite you going around the mulberry bush the study is suggesting that the shoes are likely to benefit better/faster runners more than inferior runners. So this is the opposite of what you claim when you argue that runners like El G would gain less than a college journeyman.
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.
The spikes work independently of doping. So if an athlete is doping to enhance cardio vascular and/or muscular efficiency the shoes may simply add to that. It may explain why so much improvement is being attributed to the shoes alone when there is likely to be a "double whammy" effect occurring with an increased use of drugs that aren't being detected by antidoping.
"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.
Running economy is exactly a benefit of doping when there is less fatigue for the same amount of effort.
If you take 90 steps per minute and that equates to 400m kn distance. Multiply each step by 9/1000 of a second and you get.81 of a second per lap. This equates to 3.24 seconds over a 4 lap race.
all with a miniscule .009 benefit on each stride. This benefit is microscopic but adds up
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.
The sub 4 runner isn't more "efficient" than a 5 minute runner - they are simply better in every conceivable way. The difference in talent is off the charts. There is nothing in the studies of the shoes that says less talented/efficient runners will benefit more than better or top level runners. In fact the research says the opposite - as I quoted above. If it were otherwise we would see most of the improvements occurring with nonentities and not amongst the fastest athletes. We don't.
Further, according to the studies, the generalized increase in performance of about 1% isnt uniform amongst runners of any level but especially not amongst inferior athletes because the shoes apparently require a "critical threshold" to be effective. So any claim that average athletes will gain 5 secs in a mile from the shoes requires that this will be even greater with the best athletes.
If you take 90 steps per minute and that equates to 400m kn distance. Multiply each step by 9/1000 of a second and you get.81 of a second per lap. This equates to 3.24 seconds over a 4 lap race.
all with a miniscule .009 benefit on each stride. This benefit is microscopic but adds up
You figures are estimates if not speculation. The studies don't come to conclusions of that kind of exactitude, that there is a ".009 benefit of each stride". In fact they indicate they are unsure how the shoes work and that they don't necessarily benefit all athletes.
I guarantee that if we had the top 10 guys in the NCAA run a mile in old spikes and new spikes and then had ten 5 minute mile high school runners do the same, the NCAA guys would lose about the same percentage as the 5 minute milers which means if the top guys lost 4 seconds, the high schoolers would lose 5 seconds.
Armstronglivs may be somewhat delusional at times but he is 100% correct here. Super spikes are not worth 5 seconds per mile.
There was Ngeny and Lagat who were both close to El Guerrouj's world record at the time, it is not that big of an outlier. There Kiprop last decade who got close to it, Jakob this decade.
The only major world record we have seen since the introduction of super spikes have been the 5000 and 10000 where Cheptegei improved the world record by normal amounts.
In no other event (from the 100 to the 1500) has the record been broken since supershoes. That alone should dispel 5 seconds per mile. Do we think Jakob regressed since his fitness in 2019 when he ran 3:30, since apparently with the new shoes he should have been running 3:25, but guess what? That's not the case, instead he steadily improved to 3:26.
It's more likely the shoes make no difference whatsoever than the 5 seconds per mile increase. I'd guess a second per mile if I had to put a number, but even that is generous.
Despite you going around the mulberry bush the study is suggesting that the shoes are likely to benefit better/faster runners more than inferior runners. So this is the opposite of what you claim when you argue that runners like El G would gain less than a college journeyman.
Despite my quoting exactly why you were wrong, according to the paper, somehow you still get it wrong.
At the bullseye in the smack dab center of the mulberry bush we find: "The greatest RE improvements (~4%) have been reported at submaximal intensities of 14–18 km/h".
This means recreational marathon runners slower than 14km/h (e.g. slower than a 3-hour marathon) will benefit less, and elite runners faster than 18 km/h (e.g. faster than a 5-minute 1500m) will also benefit less. El G ran 26 km/h.
A further complication is that supershoes, for marathon road runners, with larger stack heights and slower speeds, show larger gains than superspikes, for milers on the track.
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.
Your observations are nothing but your own fanciful speculation. Where is it established that the carbon plate doesn't aid anaerobic effort?
Nothing in my post is my observation. And nothing in my posts are about "the carbon fiber plate".
At the bullseye in the smack dab center of the mulberry bush we find: "The greatest RE improvements (~4%) have been reported at submaximal intensities of 14–18 km/h".
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.
Running economy is exactly a benefit of doping when there is less fatigue for the same amount of effort.
It helps to use a consistent definition of "economy".
In these supershoe studies, running economy is the oxygen cost of running at a specific speed. They find that the shoes enable a lower oxygen cost for the same speed, or alternatively a higher speed for the same oxygen cost. This is independent of whether the subjects are doped, or not.
To my knowledge, there is no known drug that improves running economy. An endurance drug like EPO, speculated to improve performance by increasing oxygen delivery to the muscles, hypothetically increases both oxygen cost, and hopefully speed.
El G wasn't a "wild outlier". In his era we saw Lagat and Ngeny running close to his 1500/mile times (and of course Morceli before him) and Komen running even better over the 3k and 5k. None of them had superspikes. If El G would have gained 5 secs a mile from the new shoes then so would all those other athletes. They, too, would have been running in the region of 3:21-22 for the 1500, 3:38-39 for the mile and Komen would have run 7:11-12 for the 3k. That is if the shoes enable those kinds of gains claimed here. It also means the best in this era wouldn't have been under 3:31 for the 1500 and would have been slower than Webb over the mile if they didn't have the new shoes. Really? And some of the best today will be doping - if not all. It isn't credible to say it's all about the shoes.
Faster times haven't just occurred with the advent of supershoes but the continuation and development of doping practices that antidoping has been unable to detect and so prevent. The shoes may have contributed to faster times but without a doubt so has doping. Howman virtually admitted it when he said this year that dopers were getting away with it. That will include school and college sports, where testing is virtually nonexistent. So some of the performances you are ascribing to the shoes are also the result of doping.
El G was a prolific outlier. Before superspikes, around January 2018, I counted El G had 33 out of the top-100 performances, and his 34th was 101st. The next prolific runner had 8 performances in the top-100 (sub-3:30).
No one (besides the OP) is arguing El G would gain 5 seconds with superspikes. As we have seen, the sweet spot for economy gains occurs at speeds significantly slower than El G's.
Your continued support of doping continuing to contribute to ever faster times is just pure gospel. Howman doesn't help you because he never talks about performance gains. While the best may also be doping, the question is whether they were faster for it.
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.
Efficiency in a runner usually means improved results but at least the same results/speed with less effort. Interestingly, that's exactly what doping enables and why athletes continue to dope.
The carbon plate is the crucial distinction between the old shoes and the new shoes. The rest of the shoe is not significantly different. So an awful lot is being attributed to a singular and very small piece of equipment.
Again -- you simply don't know what efficiency means.
Hint: efficiency is a percentage of the total energy expended used (in this case) for running forward.
As I pointed out to you earlier, it is not only the carbon plate, but also the shape of the plate, surrounded by thick, yet lightweight, foam, which provides a stiff, yet cushioned, rocker effect, using the rebound forces of the landing impact to help propel the runner forward.
Every joule of energy returned is a joule that the body doesn't need to provide.
In the world of science and data, El G is a wild outlier. In over 20 years after El G's WR and before super spikes, the closest anyone came to this record was Webb at almost 4 seconds slower. Since the shoes, 8 runners have beaten Webb. El G's WR was during the peak EPO years before there was an effective test, even though he never tested positive (like Lance).
Again, the data does not lie. Something changed that caused the performance increase at every level of the sport, 1000s of runners deep. We are absolutely certain when the super spikes were introduced and became widely used. This corresponds exactly with the performance increase. We also have studies showing their efficacy is on par with the performance increase.
It seems your argument hinges on El G being equal to all other runners and almost all middle schoolers being dopers. Again, which is more feasible, shoes caused the performance increase or most middle/high schoolers started doping using a new designer drug that is yet unidentified all within a 2yr span?
El G wasn't a "wild outlier". In his era we saw Lagat and Ngeny running close to his 1500/mile times (and of course Morceli before him) and Komen running even better over the 3k and 5k. None of them had superspikes. If El G would have gained 5 secs a mile from the new shoes then so would all those other athletes. They, too, would have been running in the region of 3:21-22 for the 1500, 3:38-39 for the mile and Komen would have run 7:11-12 for the 3k. That is if the shoes enable those kinds of gains claimed here. It also means the best in this era wouldn't have been under 3:31 for the 1500 and would have been slower than Webb over the mile if they didn't have the new shoes. Really? And some of the best today will be doping - if not all. It isn't credible to say it's all about the shoes.
Faster times haven't just occurred with the advent of supershoes but the continuation and development of doping practices that antidoping has been unable to detect and so prevent. The shoes may have contributed to faster times but without a doubt so has doping. Howman virtually admitted it when he said this year that dopers were getting away with it. That will include school and college sports, where testing is virtually nonexistent. So some of the performances you are ascribing to the shoes are also the result of doping.
Again, your argument is "it absolutely has to be drugs". You can't name a drug. You can't explain the sudden doping prevalence all the way down to middle school runners.
Others have shown the performance and super spike timeline correlations, efficacy studies, number of super spikes sold, absence the old style, and clear reasons why slower runners see more gains than top pros.
Like you, this Howman person can't name the drug that you claim is available to every middle school runner and apparently their parents are buying for them. Not a single do-gooder has come forward to expose this secret that EVERYONE knows. Your hypotheses holds water about as well as a collander.
The point usnt “how it happens” rather does it happen. Meaning “if”the shoes produce a benefit then that benefit needs to be only be miniscule and nearly undetectable (thousanths of a second) but when added up can make substantial difference in any race.
Also, someone stated correlation does not mean causation. Understood. However the enormous increase in fast times coincides with super shoes more than anything else. There are other possible explanations but nothing as directly matches to super shoes.