Super spikes are worth 5 secs per mile

Other Running Related Topic

Moderation Moderation Information Moderation Information & Rules

Page 14 of 28

1 13 14 15 28

3 months ago 03/02/2026 11:31pm EST

re: help on it

help on it wrote:
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.

You can't "guarantee" it. You're simply guessing. You've just plucked those figures out of the air. The estimate of studies is that it may be about a 2 second gain over the mile for top athletes and less for lower level less efficient athletes. But these figures aren't based so much on study examples - which vary considerably from some benefit to none - but on comparing times statistically before the advent of the shoes with those after. Yet there are factors other than shoes that will have influenced times. One of them is virtually uncontrolled doping in the sport in recent years, which the former head of WADA has effectively acknowledged when he says dopers are getting away with it.

However if it is conceded the shoes give about a 2 second advantage over a mile then it would mean that El G, Lagat and Ngeny would have run around 3:24-25 for the 1500 and 3:41-42 for the mile. In the late '90s. It also means that without the new shoes Ingebrigtsen and Hocker are only worth 3:28x and 3:29x respectively over the 1500 and 3:45x and 3:48 for the mile. So on the basis of the claims about shoes today's heroes are apparently much less talented than the best a quarter of a century ago.

3 months ago 03/02/2026 11:35pm EST

re: rekrunner

rekrunner wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
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.

We are discussing times on the track, which means the spikes. The road shoes are another question. The study you posted indicates that the spikes are likely to produce reduced returns for lower level athletes.

3 months ago 03/02/2026 11:39pm EST

re: rekrunner

rekrunner wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
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".
A 10-second runner for 100m runs 36 km/h.

You have claimed that the spikes don't aid sprinters, which is why sprint times haven't got any faster. So how do the spikes aid aerobic running of 14-18 kmh but not 36 kmh anaerobic effort? The faster you are the less return from the shoe? Really? So how does that work? Perhaps the shoe should contain a warning: only safe within the speed limit.

This post was edited 2 minutes after it was posted.

3 months ago 03/02/2026 11:47pm EST

re: rekrunner

rekrunner wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
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.

If the shoes enable "lower oxygen cost at the same speed" then doping enables the same effect by increasing oxygen capacity for the same speed. But however it is done the effect is the same, which is reduced fatigue for the same effort. Except that drugs will have a greater effect than the shoes. If the shoes were as effective as EPO then they would be banned. Antidoping would look both ridiculous and contradictory otherwise. "Doped" shoes are fine but blood doping isn't? Nope.

3 months ago 03/02/2026 11:53pm EST

re: rekrunner

rekrunner wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
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.

Howman doesn't talk about performance gains because they are a given. If they weren't doping wouldn't exist and WADA would not be concerned about unfair advantage.

El G wasn't such an outlier. The next best athletes were a fraction of a second behind his records and he was beaten by one of those athletes at the 2000 Olympics. He also won at Athens by the hairs on his chest. By contrast Elliott was an outlier, who never lost at his main event, whose records were far and away faster than anyone else in his era, and won an Olympic title by a massive margin. Without super spikes.

3 months ago 03/02/2026 11:59pm EST

re: rekrunner

rekrunner wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
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.

The features other than the plate are also part of shoes before super spikes, which includes cushioning and support. So although the plate works with the shoe as a whole it is the essential distinguishing feature that is supposed to be making all the difference to running times. So much from so little.

Furthermore, there is no exact and reliable measure of how the shoes increase efficiency and by how much (some studies say they are unsure how the shoes work) which is why the studies have chiefly based their findings on historical comparisons of times.

3 months ago 03/03/2026 12:06am EST

re: DataDoesntLie

DataDoesntLie wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
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.

I don't have to name a particular drug. There are countless possibilities available that can't be detected. This is acknowledged by antidoping and was reported in the Al Jazeera investigation. Howman is the former head of WADA. You don't seem to know that.

The figures have shown that only 1% of doping tests return a positive yet it is known that a far higher number of athletes dope. That means most are getting away with it. That is what Howman has acknowledged. It means that at every level the incentive to dope is present with little likelihood of being caught. Doping is known to exist in schools and testing at that level is virtually non-existent.

As this discussion indicates, the shoes may have contributed to performance gains. But so have drugs. We can't credibly separate them now.

3 months ago 03/03/2026 12:09am EST

re: Each step

Each step wrote:
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.

The problem is that the shoes can't be separated as a causal factor from other possibilities, which obviously includes the likelihood that more athletes are doping now because they can get away with it.

3 months ago 03/03/2026 12:09am EST

re: Armstronglivs

Armstronglivs wrote:
DataDoesntLie wrote:
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.
I don't have to name a particular drug. There are countless possibilities available that can't be detected. This is acknowledged by antidoping and was reported in the Al Jazeera investigation. Howman is the former head of WADA. You don't seem to know that.
The figures have shown that only 1% of doping tests return a positive yet it is known that a far higher number of athletes dope. That means most are getting away with it. That is what Howman has acknowledged. It means that at every level the incentive to dope is present with little likelihood of being caught. Doping is known to exist in schools and testing at that level is virtually non-existent.
As this discussion indicates, the shoes may have contributed to performance gains. But so have drugs. We can't credibly separate them now.

So are you saying ncaa athletes all of them are on drugs? Because thats what youre implying, that drugs have had an effect on performance increases in recent years no?

3 months ago 03/03/2026 12:11am EST

re: Armstronglivs

I dont even know why were trying to convince you anymore, its like trying to explain algebra to a potato. Are you aware of the massive increases in times across the board, from high school to collegiate to professional, since 2021-2022?

3 months ago 03/03/2026 12:13am EST

re: Armstronglivs

Armstronglivs wrote:
Each step wrote:
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.
The problem is that the shoes can't be separated as a causal factor from other possibilities, which obviously includes the likelihood that more athletes are doping now because they can get away with it.

So under your logic it is

A: Obviously ridiculous looking super spikes that everyone is wearing does not have a marginal effect on performances

B: Everyone is doping

3 months ago 03/03/2026 12:19am EST

re: Max fly

Max fly wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
I don't have to name a particular drug. There are countless possibilities available that can't be detected. This is acknowledged by antidoping and was reported in the Al Jazeera investigation. Howman is the former head of WADA. You don't seem to know that.
The figures have shown that only 1% of doping tests return a positive yet it is known that a far higher number of athletes dope. That means most are getting away with it. That is what Howman has acknowledged. It means that at every level the incentive to dope is present with little likelihood of being caught. Doping is known to exist in schools and testing at that level is virtually non-existent.
As this discussion indicates, the shoes may have contributed to performance gains. But so have drugs. We can't credibly separate them now.
So are you saying ncaa athletes all of them are on drugs? Because thats what youre implying, that drugs have had an effect on performance increases in recent years no?

No, I'm not saying all of them are on drugs. But some will be and that will skew any assessment made about the effects of the shoes.

This post was edited 17 seconds after it was posted.

3 months ago 03/03/2026 12:21am EST

re: Max fly

Max fly wrote:
I dont even know why were trying to convince you anymore, its like trying to explain algebra to a potato. Are you aware of the massive increases in times across the board, from high school to collegiate to professional, since 2021-2022?

You miss the point again and again. Simple correlation does not prove causation. There are many factors that could be involved other than just the shoes.

3 months ago 03/03/2026 12:23am EST

re: Max fly

Max fly wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
The problem is that the shoes can't be separated as a causal factor from other possibilities, which obviously includes the likelihood that more athletes are doping now because they can get away with it.
So under your logic it is
A: Obviously ridiculous looking super spikes that everyone is wearing does not have a marginal effect on performances
B: Everyone is doping

No, that isn't my "logic". The shoes may have contributed to performance increases but so could other factors, chiefly of which is doping that isn't being detected. It is nonetheless present, as Howman has said.

3 months ago 03/03/2026 12:30am EST

re: Armstronglivs

Armstronglivs wrote:
Max fly wrote:
So under your logic it is
A: Obviously ridiculous looking super spikes that everyone is wearing does not have a marginal effect on performances
B: Everyone is doping
No, that isn't my "logic". The shoes may have contributed to performance increases but so could other factors, chiefly of which is doping that isn't being detected. It is nonetheless present, as Howman has said.

No, that is exactly what you're saying.

Did you look at the statistical data I provided about division 3 times since 2003? How on earth can you possibly correlate ALL of those stats, male and female, sprints to distance… with doping? You are suggesting that super spikes are not the cause, but rather other factors, like doping? You are suggesting that all those performances are caused by dopers?

What kind of planet are you even on?

3 months ago 03/03/2026 12:31am EST

re: Armstronglivs

Armstronglivs wrote:
Max fly wrote:
I dont even know why were trying to convince you anymore, its like trying to explain algebra to a potato. Are you aware of the massive increases in times across the board, from high school to collegiate to professional, since 2021-2022?
You miss the point again and again. Simple correlation does not prove causation. There are many factors that could be involved other than just the shoes.

Ok whats your point? Please, explain. Blah blah blah, super spikes are not the reason… ok then what is?

3 months ago 03/03/2026 12:32am EST

re: Max fly

Some people just cant accept the facts … even when its right in front of them… or on their feet

3 months ago 03/03/2026 12:33am EST

re: Armstronglivs

One of the arguments I would make is that the recent surge in performances being attributed to the shoes has been more observable in some countries than in others. Antidoping has reduced the dominance of Kenya in the sport. Many of their athletes are being busted. Their athletes have access to the same shoes as Americans (or Italians) do and yet we see the greatest comparative improvements are being made in American running. The US is starting to mirror what the Kenyans used to show and are now catching up and surpassing them in track at least. They are looking very much like the "Kenyans" of today. Yet Kenyans and Americans all have access to the same shoes, tracks and training knowledge. I would add, drugs. When Howman says dopers are getting away with it he doesn't need to single out the US.

3 months ago 03/03/2026 12:34am EST

re: Armstronglivs

Armstronglivs wrote:
Max fly wrote:
So under your logic it is
A: Obviously ridiculous looking super spikes that everyone is wearing does not have a marginal effect on performances
B: Everyone is doping
No, that isn't my "logic". The shoes may have contributed to performance increases but so could other factors, chiefly of which is doping that isn't being detected. It is nonetheless present, as Howman has said.

Ok, so everyone is doping now. Got it. That is your “chief” reason. Nobody before 2021 was doping. Only now they are, right?

3 months ago 03/03/2026 12:34am EST

re: Max fly

Max fly wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
You miss the point again and again. Simple correlation does not prove causation. There are many factors that could be involved other than just the shoes.
Ok whats your point? Please, explain. Blah blah blah, super spikes are not the reason… ok then what is?

Try reading the thread.

Page 14 of 28

1 13 14 15 28

Next Last

What People Are Talking About On LetsRun

No top threads at the moment. Check back soon.

Reply Replying to

Username

Password

Leave the password field blank to post anonymously.

Post Preview

By posting you acknowledge that you have read and abide by our Terms and Conditions.

Remember me on this device.

Super spikes are worth 5 secs per mile

This thread has already been deleted.

You have been subscribed.

Super spikes are worth 5 secs per mile

Jump To A Page

Follow Armstronglivs

Block Armstronglivs

Follow Armstronglivs

Block Armstronglivs

Follow Armstronglivs

Block Armstronglivs

Follow Armstronglivs

Block Armstronglivs

Follow Armstronglivs

Block Armstronglivs

Follow Armstronglivs

Block Armstronglivs

Follow Armstronglivs

Block Armstronglivs

Follow Armstronglivs

Block Armstronglivs

Follow Armstronglivs

Block Armstronglivs

Follow Armstronglivs

Block Armstronglivs

Follow Armstronglivs

Block Armstronglivs

Follow Armstronglivs

Block Armstronglivs

Follow Armstronglivs

Block Armstronglivs

Jump To A Page

This thread has already been deleted.

Reply Replying to

You have been subscribed.