It's a throw away line. The shoe deniers will blame some new doping regimen that landed in 2016. Or, even more comical, there's some wholesale training improvement happened across the board, beginning in 2016.
They'll make those claims and will never be able to provide one scintilla of evidence to back them up.
Meanwhile, they deny the very obvious change that happened in 2016 - the shoes.
It's weird.
Most everyone knows that the shoes make a difference. Most everyone knows that PED use is rampant. The internet is going to internet however.
Why do some people deny the impact of cheater shoes?
Because cheater shoes don't work for everyone (they likely work on average, which is not remotely the same thing), yet all those saying Cheater Shoes Did X or Cheater Shoes Did Y automatically assume that they do. It ends up denigrating the performances of athletes who may not have benefited from the technology.
Several lab studies and observational studies of race times have demonstrated huge improvements in people who wear the shoes versus those who stick to traditional flats.
Even more lab studies and observational studies have proven people in the shoes did worse.
See how easy it is to lie? You have provided no proof at all, just claimed it exists.
In the absence of any real evidence, understanding basic mechanics is enough to disregard claims that bouncy = faster. And if you know your running shoe history, the exact same "energy return" gimmick was used almost 40 years ago with the Nike "air" midsole. Countergimmicked by Asics "gel." Neither did anything.
You can get a placebo effect from anything you believe in, of course. But it's still better to believe true things. The relevant true thing here is that a) your bouncing heel and midsole doesn't assist you in getting to "toe-off," that's the natural movement of your joints; and b) even if they did, you would have to counteract the force they provided with an equal and opposing force, which would not save you effort or energy.
Several lab studies and observational studies of race times have demonstrated huge improvements in people who wear the shoes versus those who stick to traditional flats.
Even more lab studies and observational studies have proven people in the shoes did worse.
See how easy it is to lie? You have provided no proof at all, just claimed it exists.
In the absence of any real evidence, understanding basic mechanics is enough to disregard claims that bouncy = faster. And if you know your running shoe history, the exact same "energy return" gimmick was used almost 40 years ago with the Nike "air" midsole. Countergimmicked by Asics "gel." Neither did anything.
You can get a placebo effect from anything you believe in, of course. But it's still better to believe true things. The relevant true thing here is that a) your bouncing heel and midsole doesn't assist you in getting to "toe-off," that's the natural movement of your joints; and b) even if they did, you would have to counteract the force they provided with an equal and opposing force, which would not save you effort or energy.
Several articles were posted on the last page showing that super shoes provide a performance boost. Do you have thoughts on their findings specifically?
Have the improvements in WRs or average performances between 2016-2023 been statistically greater than the improvements across any of the last several 7-year periods? I don't think they have, but I will change my opinion is proof is offered
I don't think the WRs have. But it appears that the tier II runners have been getting faster. Maybe the shoes work less at the very top (because they can already do high mileage without breaking down)? Or the very top is doping less now than 10 - 20 years ago?
World records pre and post carbon shoes (road: 2016; track: 2019) Men Marathon 2:02:57 (’14) – 2:00:35 (’23) – 3.4 s/km in 9 years Half marathon 58:23 (’10) – 57:31 (’21) – 2.5 s/km in 11 years 10000 m 26:17.53 (’05) – 26:11.00 (‘20) – 0.7 s/km in 15 years 5000 m 12:37.35 (’04) – 12:35.36 (’20) – 0.4 s/km in 16 years 3000 m 7:20.67 (’96) – unchanged 1500 m 3:26.00 (’98) – unchanged 800 m 1:40.91 (’12) – unchanged 400 m 43.03 (’16) – unchanged 200 m 19.19 (’09) – unchanged 100 m 9.58 (’09) – unchanged
Women
Marathon 2:17:42 (’05) – 2:17:01 (’17) – 1.0 s/km in 12 years
Marathon 2:15:25 (’03) – 2:11:53 (’23) – 6.4 s/km in 20 years Half marathon 1:06:25 (’07)-- 1:05:16 (’20) – 3.3 s/km in 13 years 10000 m 29:17.45 (’16) – 29:01.03 (’21) – 1.6 s/km in 5 years 5000 m 14:11.15 (’08) – 14:00.21 (’23) – 2.2 s/km in 5 years 3000 m 8:06.11 (’93) – unchanged 1500 m 3:50.07 (’15) – unchanged 800 m 1:53.28 (’83) – unchanged 400 m 47.60 (’85) - unchanged 200 m 21.34 (’88) - unchanged 100 m 10.61 (’88) – 10.54 (’21) – 0.7 s/km in 33 years (ignoring the likely wind-aided 10.49 from ’88)
Several lab studies and observational studies of race times have demonstrated huge improvements in people who wear the shoes versus those who stick to traditional flats.
Even more lab studies and observational studies have proven people in the shoes did worse.
See how easy it is to lie? You have provided no proof at all, just claimed it exists.
In the absence of any real evidence, understanding basic mechanics is enough to disregard claims that bouncy = faster. And if you know your running shoe history, the exact same "energy return" gimmick was used almost 40 years ago with the Nike "air" midsole. Countergimmicked by Asics "gel." Neither did anything.
You can get a placebo effect from anything you believe in, of course. But it's still better to believe true things. The relevant true thing here is that a) your bouncing heel and midsole doesn't assist you in getting to "toe-off," that's the natural movement of your joints; and b) even if they did, you would have to counteract the force they provided with an equal and opposing force, which would not save you effort or energy.