Geoff Burns on super spikes "2021 on the track is going to look like 2018 on the roads"

S. Canaday wrote:

Thanks Geoff,

I agree with you that testosterone (as well as HGH etc) is probably a bigger PED benefit compared to EPO...and likely abused a lot more nowadays...especially in ultras.. But I do remember our discussions last year in Umhlanga, South Africa in regards to the potential benefits of EPO in distance running....

And yes, I ran my 10km PR back in college (2009) in Nike track spikes with no carbon plates. Back then the guys wearing "road flats" generally ran slower 10kms and only used them (instead of spikes) for fear of getting an injury.

I agree, that was totally the case.

If those same athletes could have had spikes added to their flats, they would have though. Would those athletes who previously wore spikes, instead wear flats with spikes.

Unfortunately track 10,000m running has been in the doldrums for so many years, I haven't seen many spikes properly cushioned for a 10,000m race...

Maybe at the highest level with perfect biomechanics then they're fine with less cushioning. But the dragonfly is one of the most cushioned spikes around.

how does that work? wrote:

S. Canaday wrote:

Thanks Geoff,

I agree with you that testosterone (as well as HGH etc) is probably a bigger PED benefit compared to EPO...and likely abused a lot more nowadays...especially in ultras.. But I do remember our discussions last year in Umhlanga, South Africa in regards to the potential benefits of EPO in distance running....

Sage, please tell us how EPO bypasses the Bioenergetic regulatory systems?

Come on Sage, don't be shy.

Brojos only care about the shoes because it's nike and they don't get any money or attention from that brand. If hoka shoes were in this position this thread wouldn't have existed.

That's certainly a big part of it. It also has to do with the clear implication that with shoes like these they would have both had faster times back when they were in Flag and they feel like runners today who would have been their equals or lesser in terms of performance rankings are now considered faster/better. Basically, jealousy and envy over equipment. And it's ironic coming from guys born on 3rd base.

Scientists. Lol. Snake oil salesmen.

@Salvitore Stitchmo: Simply put, yes, the lion's share of the benefit comes from the greater volume of better foam (more resilient, more compliant, and less dense - i.e. lighter by volume). However, the implementation of the plate in this spike is novel (to my knowledge), and its function is likely predominantly as a mechanical conduit to realize the benefits of the foam. I'd caution against the notion that because stiff plates have often been used in spikes, there isn't much of a benefit in that over other spikes, as that creates a a bit of a false equivalency. Many distance spikes had plates under the forefoot (obviously necessary for the spike construction), but one extending under the heel is distinct. More importantly, this plate is sandwiched between pieces of foam and cuts obliquely through the midsole. Top-loading and bottom-loading plates produce different sensations and effects for different types of runners, but the optimal configuration seems to be this sandwiching with curvature throughout, which was novel with the VaporFly (and here in spikes with the DragonFly). Also, from my understanding, the plate has cut-outs throughout it (think of a grid with varying sizes) to change its regional stiffness properties and reduce the weight. That's pretty clever. Again, though, this is likely just the best construction to provide stability to the extremely compliant foam.

As for the anticipated benefit, it is indeed difficult to quantify. But there are a couple things I'd take into account to ballpark it. When comparing them against the Matumbo, they seem to have about 2x the volume of foam under the heel, and at least 2.5x under the forefoot (maybe even more). Again, that foam is substantially more resilient (much more "energy return") and more compliant ("softer"). There were some cool studies at Colorado that showed how well the body responds to just a bit of cushioning in terms of runner economy, and some other cool studies from the 70s and 80s at Harvard that looked at how surface compliance underfoot can substantially improve efficiency. That the spikes provide runners with more perfect cushioning (closer to an "ideal spring") without incurring much of a weight penalty, even if just a small dose compared to the road models, should be enough to noticeably move the dial. In a study at Grand Valley State University, Kyle Barnes and his team compared the original VaporFly 4% to the Matumbo, and it was 2.6% more efficient than the Matumbo on a treadmill. The Dragonfly doesn't have as much foam as the original VF (~25 mm DF heel vs. ~34 mm in the VF 4%), but it is lighter (~60 grams). Moreover, that GVSU study had the runners on a Woodway treadmill, which is decently resilient in itself (rubber slats), so it could have slightly diluted the differences compared to a stiffer track. So given that the DF has less foam but is lighter than the original VF, I think it's reasonable to think it might have a similar economy difference, maybe slightly less, compared the Matumbo on a harder track. If it has a 2-3% economy improvement, that might be a 1.3-2% performance improvement. For a 27:00 10000 runner, that's 21-32 seconds.

Here's a picture of old Matumbos against the DragonFly. Note the substantially greater foam volumes under the mid- and forefoot. Also, it's hard to capture it in a picture, but there is a pretty substantial construction of foam underneath the medial arch. Given its resilience, that could also be an interesting, and perhaps nuanced, beneficial piece of architecture.

Also, to clarify from your earlier post, the plate is pebax (as a rigid plastic - it's been used as a rigid material in sporting equipment for awhile) with the architecture described in the post above, with the pebax foam ("zoomX", as you mentioned) as the midsole.

https://twitter.com/geoffreyburns/status/1348374029498015744?s=20

Geoff, I appreciate how irritating is to be corrected on grammar, but just fyi to a super-educated guy for your future reference (and honestly you should know better): it's "jibe" not "jive," and "its" is possessive not "it's." I weep for American education when I see this type of stuff. Please carry on. :-)

[quote]Burnsy wrote:

@joeschmoe1600: The Dragonfly is a substantial improvement over traditional spikes, and the new Victory likely is for some (albeit that is likely more polarizing mechanically - pure forefoot strikers may benefit more, or at least jive with it more, as it feels like it does not allow you to heel strike).

...

Regarding the PED issues, that's for another discussion, as there's a lot of nuance. Let it suffice to say that my contention with EPO is that it's primary benefit in distance running for men has been as a shortcut (get young guys to their "ceilings" faster), band-aid for training errors (train sub-optimally but get to your "ceiling" anyways), or means to develop aerobically without the trauma of high-volume training ("liquid base phase" - i.e. for 1500m runners to preserve speed without logging big miles).

Yes, it’s irritating. Grammar police criticize, but write nothing of substance. Pretty standard LR...

runthecountry wrote:

DoublePlusUngoodShoes wrote:

These supershoe complainers apparently want socialist 1984-style handicaps for everyone in order to ensure a perfectly level playing field.

Don't be silly - track could draw the line somewhere like swimming did with the super buoyant full body suits.

In fact, track already drew a line with the Puma super spike around the 1968 Olympics. Why can't they do that now?

Because 2021 Nike is different from 1968 Puma?

Hi Geoff - what are the pros/cons of training in the 'super shoes'?

how does that work? wrote:

how does that work? wrote:

Sage, please tell us how EPO bypasses the Bioenergetic regulatory systems?

Come on Sage, don't be shy.

Come on Sage. Tell us how EPO circumvents thermoregulation?

It should be an easy question for you the exercise physiology expert?

And please tell us how testosterone and HGH etc improve performance? I'm sure endocrinologists around the world will be much obliged to you for enlightening them.

Burnsy wrote:

However, when thinking about stack height/midsole thickness in relation to performance, this is important: it is NOT a sufficient condition for an advantageous shoe, but it likely is a necessary condition. That is, a thick shoe is not necessarily going to be beneficial (the Hoka Bondi is probably not going to be your dagger of choice), but an advantageous shoe is likely going to be necessarily thick (you're probably not going to get 4+% economy improvements with a 25mm shoe).

.

And if they only get a 2% improvement will that be ok? To some extent the genie is out of the bag. In the 90s when someone ran an WR, you might want the shoes they were wearing but nobody was thinking they let you run faster. Now a days your first thought will be what new foam, shape, or tech they have shoved into them and how much that time that is worth.

@grammar police: I apologize for my imbecility. I would ask, however, that you consider my correct usage of the possessive form throughout the other responses. I ask that not as a pardon or excuse for myself, but rather as a demonstration that I was educated properly and that the American education system and my formative teachers (for whom I have tremendous gratitude) bear no burden for my transgressions. Instead, lay all the blame on me, my carelessness in letting my fingers play will-nilly with punctuation unthinkingly, and my laziness for not proof-reading my response. I'm saddened that my sloth polluted these boards with such indecipherable text (if you could call it that), but I hope you at least could make out some of the other ideas in the surrounding paragraphs and perhaps infer some meaning despite the stylistic afflictions.

However, I will defend my use of "jive" as a verb with respect to runners and the spikes. My hope was to communicate the notion that some runners are able to interact with the Zoom Victory in a fashion similar to the movements of a popular mid-century rock 'n roll dance. I had considered using "foxtrot" or "boogie" (obviously), but each seemed either too structured or chaotic, respectively. Perhaps to clarify that it was a partnered dance, I should have said that some runners "jibely jive" or even "jively jibe" with the Victory more than others. That is to say they "the runner and the new Zoom Victory move in a fashion similar to a popular dance specific to a style of mid-century rock ' roll in a cooperative manner" or "the runner and the new Zoom Victory cooperate in a manner similar to a popular dance specific to a style of mid-century rock ' roll." I think the former gets at it better. I apologize for the attempt at textual economy. I recognize that it may have obfuscated the meaning for many.

I cannot promise that I won't make these mistakes in future posts, but I can promise that I will be more self-aware of the risk and that the probability of their occurrence has been reduced. Thank you for taking the time to serve and protect the stylistic integrity of these boards.

@soups: Another great question. There could be a couple distinct benefits to training in them: first, there does seem to be a reduction in the muscular trauma you'd normally get in a typical EVA running shoe (especially a racing flat). We talked about this on the podcast a bit, and this is largely anecdotal with some small pieces of data. However, this seems to be a pretty unified piece of feedback from people who have run long, hard sessions or marathons in them. I can personally attest this as well - when I do a long session on the roads, my legs have a similar sensation to simply finishing a normal run. That's potentially due to the more compliant and more resilient foam reducing the amount of eccentric work your muscles would otherwise be doing to cushion your body each step. I'd hypothesize the shoes could actually change training paradigms a bit (which may have further trickle down effects in racing performances), as they may allow for more longer specific sessions. That is, they could allow for a higher volume of aerobic stresses without incurring as much structural stress for the body to also recover from. Second, some people may actually find benefit from the plate. Note - we don't have any health/injury studies on this, so this is just feedback I've heard from runners and my own conjecture. That being said, the way each person interacts with that is going to be very unique - things like foot shape, ankle and MTP mobility, foot strike, intrinsic foot muscle strengths and weaknesses, etc. all affect how that architecture will interact with what you bring to it. For some, the plate may serve as a beneficial piece for relieving stresses or supporting certain foot motions in doses. However, if that's true, the opposite is also likely true (next paragraph). Third, I wonder about the ability for our bodies to change or adapt our mechanics over the long-term (even only subtly) to better "use" the technology in the shoe (the high volume of more resilient/compliant foam and that architecture). We know from mechanical studies that runners adapt to new surfaces grossly almost instantly, but I'm curious if long-term training (or development from a young age) in these distinct shoes wouldn't also invoke some sort of gradual shift - maybe slightly longer ground contacts and a bit more vertical oscillation to store more energy in that foam (that's just a napkin example, it could be a number of possible nuanced changes). I would further hypothesize that this might be a bigger deal at faster speeds where runners are used to the responsiveness of the ground "feel". Could a runner train at faster speeds in the VF to better use it to run faster than in a pair of spikes at an elite level? I'd lean towards yes. But again, that's all personal conjecture and musings. I think it's interesting against the example of the "clapskate" in speed skating, where for many, it wasn't initially beneficial, but with sufficient training (there were studies using an 8-week adaptation block), it became faster (4%!).

As for the downsides, the first would be to the point of individualized responses to the plate. That's a very constrained movement path to which it subjects the foot. There may be a lot of people who would struggle to run it because it might overly stress some structures. When I was recovering from Achilles issues, I couldn't wear it, as my limited ankle mobility at the time interacted with it to put stress on that insertion. I've also noticed occasional odd, semi-sharp tendon-type pains after some long runs in them in different joints (foot, ankle, knee at different times). It was never anything that developed into an injury, but rather a reminder that there were different structures in my legs that were getting stressed in slightly novel fashions as compared to my normal trainers. So, that's something to consider against the backdrop of developing with the shoe. I suspect, as is true with many things in the body, that if a novel stress (the plates in these shoes) is introduced gradually with sufficient time for recovery and adaptation before being stressed again, you can mitigate those issues to use them safely. However, I do have to stress that it is a very distinct architecture that each person's body will interact with differently, and should be approached with a bit of caution at first when bringing them into training. Second, and this relates to the injury risk, it seems like the foam packs out relatively quickly. I'd been told by someone at Nike that the compression set is similar to EVA (but he said it should last 200 miles, which is lower than the "typical" recommendation for EVA shoes, ha). I've put over 200 miles on pairs, and they feel like they're still softer and more resilient than EVA, but not as much so as their initial 100-150 miles (but that's also generally consistent with EVA anyways - gradual, albeit nonlinear, performance loss). That's just personal experience and un-quantified (mechanically, speaking) sensation though. My concern with how they wear would be how any wear patterns within the foam (breakdowns) would affect plate position. That's something we may be hoping to unpack (pun intended) in our lab in the coming year. Finally, they're expensive!

So are you going to tell us how EPO doping circumvents thermoregulation?

I'm sure you owe it to the kids to back up your beliefs with an explanation?

Or an apology?

Geoff, Good stuff, just don't do it again. :-)

DoublePlusUngoodShoes wrote:

briswiss wrote:

If Geoff doesn’t think that EPO helps distance runners, he has zero credibility

End of thread.

Please tell us how EPO dpoing circumvents thermoregulation?

Burnsy obviously isn't a Newtonian physicist, so there's no point asking him.

Maybe you two can tell us?

hr measurement wrote:

S. Canaday wrote:

But ah, semantics ...we'll say "coil springs"...okay now?

It is not just semantics. What gets lost on a lot of folks in this discussion is the fact that the definition and physical action of a 'spring' is not just limited to a helical-coil-spring. Indeed, a cantilever flat plate can even act as a spring: witness a diving board.

How is a plate in your midsole a cantilever? It's not fixed at one end.

800 dude wrote:

hr measurement wrote:

It is not just semantics. What gets lost on a lot of folks in this discussion is the fact that the definition and physical action of a 'spring' is not just limited to a helical-coil-spring. Indeed, a cantilever flat plate can even act as a spring: witness a diving board.

How is a plate in your midsole a cantilever? It's not fixed at one end.

Nobody said the plate in the sole is cantilevered. In response to Canaday, and many others that say there is no 'spring' in the shoes (because the plate shape does not look like the shape of what they typically think of as a 'spring', i.e., a helical coil), I provided an example of how even a flat plate can act as a spring, to counter the argument that just because the shoe's 'spring-plate' does not look like a conventional spring to them does not mean that the curved shoe 'spring-plate', in conjunction with the foam, is not acting like a spring-system.

In the shoe, the curved plate is 'flattened' (i.e., taken out of its neutral position) during ground strike (putting the foam both in shear along the length of the plate as it flattens/lengthens and compressive stress from body-loading) and then it springs back to its neutral position, popping at least some of the foam back to its neutral position. Ideally, that spring-back is synched in time with the foot leaving the ground in order that at least some of that sprung energy is returned to aid in popping the foot off the ground. But many factors come into play (particularly a runner's weight and gait mechanics) as to how much of that returned sprung-energy actually aids a particular runner's 'running economy'.