Sheesh dude. You say your "interest wanes" but the sheer number of your posts in this thread say otherwise.
Why is the success of Vaporflys/Zoom Elites such a threat to you? Nike built a better mousetrap - good for them.
Sheesh dude. You say your "interest wanes" but the sheer number of your posts in this thread say otherwise.
Why is the success of Vaporflys/Zoom Elites such a threat to you? Nike built a better mousetrap - good for them.
I wore Vaporflys in the race and agree they're an excellent mousetrap. I'm just bored and find bad science irritating.
I've not purchased any nike gear since they signed Gatlin and NOP guilt was virtually established.
but now they have a better mousetrap.
Stucks to be me. I won't buy their stuff so I guess I will be at a disadvantage, until the other shoe makers come up with something that works as well.
Texas Sharpshooter Fallacy?
Runner's World did this in a lab. The subject ran with a lower heart rate in the Vaporfly 4%. He also ran with less muscle activity in his quads, calves, and shins. Both indicating that the shoes require you expend less energy to maintain the same pace.https://www.runnersworld.com/running-shoes/a-closer-look-at-nikes-newest-super-shoe/slide/6
LetsRun.com wrote:
Why don't we have someone put on the shoes, hop on a treadmill and take their pulse?
Do same pace the next day in a separate pair of shoes.
Sorry. I stepped away from the boards yesterday evening and this morning. A few responses:
* To all the commenters who say this isn't science, that it doesn't prove anything, or that there could be alternate explanations, I agree! It's a blog post about the race, with an experiment included because I thought it was an interesting way to look at something runners I know were talking about. As I wrote in the piece, "These results couldn't remotely be published in a scientific paper. The sample size is too small, and the standard deviations are much too high. There also could be alternate explanations. It's possible that runners who pay exorbitant prices for awkwardly shaped shoes are the kind of people who plan their races well. The shoes might, for some reason, work particularly well on wet roads or in humid weather or on a course with punishing descents down a series of bridges. There could be a placebo effect..."
* Yes, we looked at both the 4%s and the ZFs, as I intended to be clear in the write-up. They have the same design, look, and cushioning. Maybe it would have been better to split them out in the spreadsheet so one could do the analysis in three parts: A) both versions of the shoes B) just the $250 4%s C) all else.
*And, yes, Abdoujaparov is right. We misidentified 646, who ran a slightly positive split. I wrote to him afterwards and he was wearing LunarGlides7. We've updated the spreadsheet and all the numbers and posted a correction. (I also told George Wu, who updated the analysis he sent us and that we posted at the end of the piece.)
* I think Moorest's comment is really interesting. (And in fact, Ultimately, the best way to test the efficacy of the shoes, would be for someone with good coding skills, and image-recognition software, to analyze all the photos of runners at the finish line, check their shoes and their splits, and then, also, check and see how they've performed in previous marathons. Given the amount of race photography we now have, and the amount of data on runners, we're probably not that far off from people being able to do this sort of thing.)
The shoes would have to improve a combination of stride rate and and stride length by 4 percent.
Take the human factor out and build a machine to test it.
NicholasThompson wrote:
Sorry. I stepped away from the boards yesterday evening and this morning. A few responses:
* To all the commenters who say this isn't science, that it doesn't prove anything, or that there could be alternate explanations, I agree! It's a blog post about the race, with an experiment included because I thought it was an interesting way to look at something runners I know were talking about. As I wrote in the piece, "These results couldn't remotely be published in a scientific paper. The sample size is too small, and the standard deviations are much too high. There also could be alternate explanations. It's possible that runners who pay exorbitant prices for awkwardly shaped shoes are the kind of people who plan their races well. The shoes might, for some reason, work particularly well on wet roads or in humid weather or on a course with punishing descents down a series of bridges. There could be a placebo effect..."
* Yes, we looked at both the 4%s and the ZFs, as I intended to be clear in the write-up. They have the same design, look, and cushioning. Maybe it would have been better to split them out in the spreadsheet so one could do the analysis in three parts: A) both versions of the shoes B) just the $250 4%s C) all else.
*And, yes, Abdoujaparov is right. We misidentified 646, who ran a slightly positive split. I wrote to him afterwards and he was wearing LunarGlides7. We've updated the spreadsheet and all the numbers and posted a correction. (I also told George Wu, who updated the analysis he sent us and that we posted at the end of the piece.)
With all that you stated in that post, why even write that blog post.
Why not compare different shoes. You may find that runners in Brooks Beasts ran the highest % of negative splits.
I know, I know. It's all about the clicks.
No, no , and no wrote:
With all that you stated in that post, why even write that blog post.
Why not compare different shoes. You may find that runners in Brooks Beasts ran the highest % of negative splits.
I know, I know. It's all about the clicks.
It's classic clickbait. Post an "experiment" that supposedly suggests that the shoes are better, but then weasel out of the whole supposed point of the article with qualifiers.
If they were honest the headline would be "We Don't Know if Nike's New Marathon Shoes Make You Run Faster." However, if the headline made it clear that the article is a waste of time, then they wouldn't get the clicks.
LetsRun.com wrote:
Why don't we have someone put on the shoes, hop on a treadmill and take their pulse?
Do same pace the next day in a separate pair of shoes.
Because HR is a terrible metric! Subject to lots of confounding variables.
Need to measure oxygen uptake and measure economy (not efficiency--there is a difference).
Wojo and Rojo, my understanding of the Nike ZV 4% was that the overbuilt foam sole and the internal carbon insert were made to primarily mitigate the pounding that renders marathoners' muscles less effective in the latter stages of the race.
This is opposed to the "put them on and your efficiency improves right away" dynamic you refer to. If you were to do a treadmill test as you suggest, it would have to involve long treadmill runs (30kms + -- maybe more on a treadmill, where impact is reduced) where effiencies are measured after significant muscle damage occurs.
This is a dumb post. Extremely useful to call something crap, but not tell anyone what the mistakes or errors are.
these guys ... wrote:
This is pure crap.
moorest wrote:
Hey Nick,
Good to see you are still checking the boards. Putting on my epidemiologist hat, my first thought is to check the magnitude of effect and statistical significance. The odds ratio (i.e. the relative likelihood) of a negative split for those wearing Vaporfly shoes vs. those not wearing them was 2.72--a fairly high odds ratio--and the p-value was 0.051. Not half bad.
Next are the potential confounders, ie. factors that could be associated with both negative splits and wearing the Vaporfly shoes but that have no bearing on your actual hypothesis of interest. It seems that your biggest potential confounder here is general running savvy. Runners who are savvy might decide to give these new Vapor Fly shoes a try. They also might know how to pace themselves better. In your particular case, the effect of "savvy" can be tested. Look up the names of these runners in a database like athlinks and compare those who wore the Vaporfly in NY vs. those who did not. If Vaporfly wearers were not more likely to negative split in past marathons (those pre-dating sale of the Vaporfly), you can (mostly) rule out the "savvy" theory.
Finally, if you rule out "savvy", you or someone else would be justified in proceeding to a small controlled study, as suggested by others on the board. Given the magnitude of effect observed, it could be a small affordable study.
To wrap up, in my estimation, the results are definitely suggestive and will likely be followed up further by someone (if not necessarily you) given the magnitude of effect and the fact that it could be tested in a small(ish) study.
Best,
Steve
A sample of 138 averaging sub-3 wearing $150 shoes is an experienced group of runners who I would expect to know pacing and to achieve and/or exceed their goals. Just like breath-right-strips and compression soaks, etc., perhaps their is some minimal benefit, especially if you believe it, but there are way too many runners who achieve and/or exceed their goals without any special shoes, breath-right-strips and compression soaks, etc.
Your understanding is flawed. Read up on the shoe first. The shoe was built to reduce the amount of energy you waste with every step, regardless of the distance.
GlobalView1 wrote:
Wojo and Rojo, my understanding of the Nike ZV 4% was that the overbuilt foam sole and the internal carbon insert were made to primarily mitigate the pounding that renders marathoners' muscles less effective in the latter stages of the race.
This is opposed to the "put them on and your efficiency improves right away" dynamic you refer to. If you were to do a treadmill test as you suggest, it would have to involve long treadmill runs (30kms + -- maybe more on a treadmill, where impact is reduced) where effiencies are measured after significant muscle damage occurs.
didn't read the article so tak this post with a grain of salt, but faster runners are more likely to buy the vaporfly than the more casual runners. if you take 10 2:30-2:45 runners and 10 4:00+ runners, you'd expect more of the fast ones to have it because they're trying their balls off to run fast times while the 4:00+ runners might just be happy to be there
LetsRun.com wrote:
Why don't we have someone put on the shoes, hop on a treadmill and take their pulse?
Do same pace the next day in a separate pair of shoes.
The whole point of this article is to prove it helps keep your legs fresher longer. You want someone to hop on a treadmill for how long? A marathon distance? Then do the same thing the next day in a different pair of shoes? If we want to talk about bad science this idea is a perfect example of that.
True, Nike is marketing the shoe as viable from 5k to the Marathon. But the POV of the article was the marathon (pics from NYC) and I suppose you can look at it either way:
1) Energy saved in every step allows for a faster finish, regardless of the distance.
2) In longer events, the energy saved + the superior shock absorption combines to give you a better back half.
For the marathon (again, the focus of the article) you would need to do protracted treadmill testing, as LR suggests.
I've been running for about 4 years....im 44. that should tell u i am in NO WAY an experienced runner. anyway, i run about a 1:34 half marathon and finally ran a marathon and ran it at 3:20. i wore random non exciting shoes until i ran the marathon and ran with nike 4%. i honestly believe they PROBABLY shave somewhere around 4 percent of your time. that being said i can't say they shave 4% off your time vs. another really good shoe (insert your favorite really good running shoe here) but i can def say they are a top top top running shoe for a marathon. had i run the ONE marathon i have ever run in say my saucony freedom iso maybe it would be close or whatever addidias best shoe is....but they were def different that all the other shoes i have worn and i usually wear pretty good shoes to wear...take this with a grain of salt.but i have spent my career using common sense to decide what studies to believe or not and i feel these shoes have a lot of benefit
Not true. Knox Robinson (bib 473) has a pair on the Vaporfly 4% elites (or whatever they are called) and I've heard rumblings that very limited numbers are being made with a $650+ price tag. He ran a PR in them in his 40's in Berlin in September and ran a 2:36 on Sunday. Not bad.
I love you guys, but this is out there...