Cghnn wrote:
Cheater Shoes wrote:
I agree. Amy is too old to get a 5 minute plus PR. Cheater Shoes are changing the game. Nike wants to win at ANY cost.
I often wonder Why is it necessary to quote the whole post
Good question!
Cghnn wrote:
Cheater Shoes wrote:
I agree. Amy is too old to get a 5 minute plus PR. Cheater Shoes are changing the game. Nike wants to win at ANY cost.
I often wonder Why is it necessary to quote the whole post
Good question!
Runsmith wrote:
I agree 100% with the OP. If Spira shoes are banned, then the Vaporflys should be too, or at least the runners wearing them should be disqualified. The Vaporfly is like a spring disguised as a shoe. The winners of races should be about who is the best runner, not who has the best shoes.
Sure, you can argue about that one guy who DIDN’T run faster in the Vaporfly, but that’s a sample of one. There are many more runners who did run faster in it for each who did not.
In my opinion, there should be a maximum stack height on a shoe, and nothing should be allowed to be embedded in the midsole (like a carbon fiber plate). If the stack height exceeds, say, 25mm, then the runner is automatically DQ’d.
Oh, so let's ban everyone that wears Hokas. That makes sense.
Scorpion_runner wrote:
Case in point, Amy Cragg. I'm a huge Cragg fan, because she is one hell of a runner. However, she is 34 years old, and before running the Tokyo Marathon, her pr was 2:27. So she was a 2:27 gal. But now she is a 2:21 gal, because she ran 2:21 in the Tokyo marathon. That is a 6 min improvement for a runner who is on the tail end of her prime. That is not normal or usual, and one would suspect that the runner was doped to the gills while running the race. But Amy is not a drug doper, and has never been suspected of drug doping, so where did the artificial help come from? The shoes, it came from the shoes. She wore the Nike 4%, and produced a time that no one expected her to produce. Basically, she did dope. She shoe doped.
If you wear those shoes during a race, you are shoe doping, too. Energy return is one thing, but to cheat the field and time is another.
Except that Amy ran slower in the Olympic Trials and the Olympics:
https://www.runnersworld.com/sweat-science/nikes-magic-shoes-what-if-they-really-workAlso, who cares! If you can't beat 'em, join 'em and buy your own vaporflys!
Say whatever you guys want. Zoom Fly and Vaporfly are the most comfortable shoes I've ever trained or raced in!!! Hands down. I just ordered my 4th pair of Zoom Flys for $85 and 2nd pair of Vaporfly 4% for $265. I've run strictly in these shoes since October 3rd 2017 and my legs feel super strong and recovered everyday. Suck it up buttercups!!! Nike is on top of the shoe world.
Anyone remember the full body swimsuits?
The record books are still a mess a decade later.
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/full-body-swimsuit-now-banned-professional-swimmers/story?id=9437780
The problem with shoes is where to draw the line.
The science on shoes improving performance, and if it does whether it's the springy foam, or the plate, or just cushioning vs total weight of shoe ratio is very muddled and murky.
Disclaimer: I own a pair. I don't really like running in them and am likely to sell them on eBay. Men's 10. Ran under a mile and they're not for me. Anyone interested?
it's super weird people are saying it's the foam, it's not the foam
it's been documented the shoes won't help you much if you run slower than 6:50 pace, if it was the foam the pace wouldn't matter
it's obvious the full length plate is simply shifting the energy from one part of the foot to another
in the zoomfly the plate is nylon so the effect is not as dramatic but it still has the some of the effect as the carbonfiber plate in the vapors
at 6:50 pace or faster the plate also prevents/limits compression on toeoff, so a significant amount of energy is saved and given back there
and note 4% is not the limit, it's the AVERAGE - some runners get up to 6% depending on their foot strike style
heartrate goes down dramatically using these shoes, it's in studies and even obvious on strava, people are just not working as hard at the same pace and therefore have more HR reserve to go faster/further
IAAF doesn't have to invent rules to ban these shoes from competition, the rules already exist and should stop this shoe before the next generation which may be even faster, and then other manufacturer responding with their own lines
if they do not, the 2024 olympic trials could very well have standards a couple minutes tighter to compensate for the large increase in number of OTQ - other countries would have to follow sooner or later
New Kid on the Block wrote:
IAAF rules stated that any shoe with a spring in it was banned
...so they banned Spira shoes. Spira shoes have springs in them.
vivalarepublica wrote:
Runsmith wrote:
I agree 100% with the OP. If Spira shoes are banned, then the Vaporflys should be too, or at least the runners wearing them should be disqualified. The Vaporfly is like a spring disguised as a shoe. The winners of races should be about who is the best runner, not who has the best shoes.
Sure, you can argue about that one guy who DIDN’T run faster in the Vaporfly, but that’s a sample of one. There are many more runners who did run faster in it for each who did not.
In my opinion, there should be a maximum stack height on a shoe, and nothing should be allowed to be embedded in the midsole (like a carbon fiber plate). If the stack height exceeds, say, 25mm, then the runner is automatically DQ’d.
Oh, so let's ban everyone that wears Hokas. That makes sense.
Sarcasm is not a valid explanation.
Nobody really needs that much cushion anyway.
Runsmith wrote:
New Kid on the Block wrote:
IAAF rules stated that any shoe with a spring in it was banned
...so they banned Spira shoes. Spira shoes have springs in them.
Read the whole thread. Spira was not banned; they used the old rule as a marketing gimmick. I don't guess it worked... are they even still in existence?
The exact rule regarding shoes is posted above. There's nothing specific about springs in the current rule.
darkwave wrote:
Runsmith wrote:
In my opinion, there should be a maximum stack height on a shoe, and nothing should be allowed to be embedded in the midsole (like a carbon fiber plate). If the stack height exceeds, say, 25mm, then the runner is automatically DQ’d.
So are you going to ban Mizuno shoes as well? Wave plate technology and all that? What about the medial posting in stability and motion control shoes? There are many many running shoes that have something embedded in the midsole.
Yes. They should be banned.
Think about how much purer running would be if people forgot about the stupid gimmicks in modern running shoes.
It’s about being strong. Strong feet and ankles eliminate the need for stability and motion control crap.
another example wrote:
Runsmith wrote:
...so they banned Spira shoes. Spira shoes have springs in them.
Read the whole thread. Spira was not banned; they used the old rule as a marketing gimmick. I don't guess it worked... are they even still in existence?
The exact rule regarding shoes is posted above. There's nothing specific about springs in the current rule.
Unfair assistance or advantage = springs
Springs = Spira shoes
What’s your point?
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.highsnobiety.com/2017/05/11/nike-vaporfly-elite-breaking2-inspiration/%3fformat=ampanother example wrote:
Anyone remember the full body swimsuits?
The record books are still a mess a decade later.
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/full-body-swimsuit-now-banned-professional-swimmers/story?id=9437780The problem with shoes is where to draw the line.
The science on shoes improving performance, and if it does whether it's the springy foam, or the plate, or just cushioning vs total weight of shoe ratio is very muddled and murky.
Disclaimer: I own a pair. I don't really like running in them and am likely to sell them on eBay. Men's 10. Ran under a mile and they're not for me. Anyone interested?
There's simply less energy lost than other shoes. Why would you draw the line there? Like I pointed out the relative improvement of the technology is very similar to the Boost versus the standard at that time. The only reason people have their panties in a knot is because they are expensive. Boo hoo. It's called capitalism.
zoomzoomzoom wrote:
at 6:50 pace or faster the plate also prevents/limits compression on toeoff, so a significant amount of energy is saved and given back there
Is this a known fact (can you provide any links to this info)? My marathon is 13 weeks out and the Vaporfly 4% is in the back of my mind (if I can even get a pair) - but I run an 8:00 pace...
Even beyond that, I run in Asics GT2000's which aren't any kind of racing shoe (and I wear orthotics also). So, I'm also wondering if not the Vaporfly, maybe I should consider something else for some of my training and then the race?
BLtheKid wrote:
zoomzoomzoom wrote:
at 6:50 pace or faster the plate also prevents/limits compression on toeoff, so a significant amount of energy is saved and given back there
Is this a known fact (can you provide any links to this info)? My marathon is 13 weeks out and the Vaporfly 4% is in the back of my mind (if I can even get a pair) - but I run an 8:00 pace...
Even beyond that, I run in Asics GT2000's which aren't any kind of racing shoe (and I wear orthotics also). So, I'm also wondering if not the Vaporfly, maybe I should consider something else for some of my training and then the race?
8:00 min/mile race pace? I wouldn't bother. They work best under 6:30 pace.
another example wrote:
Read the whole thread. Spira was not banned; they used the old rule as a marketing gimmick. I don't guess it worked... are they even still in existence?
The exact rule regarding shoes is posted above. There's nothing specific about springs in the current rule.
Spira's marketing was genius. It even got a huge editorial from letsrun.com. I don't hear LRC calling for a VaporFly ban.
http://www.letsrun.com/2007/spiraban4167.phpHMArunner wrote:
Say whatever you guys want. Zoom Fly and Vaporfly are the most comfortable shoes I've ever trained or raced in!!! Hands down. I just ordered my 4th pair of Zoom Flys for $85 and 2nd pair of Vaporfly 4% for $265. I've run strictly in these shoes since October 3rd 2017 and my legs feel super strong and recovered everyday. Suck it up buttercups!!! Nike is on top of the shoe world.
where you finding $85 dollar zoom flys? also be on the lookout for a dude with a neon green singlet in Boston we have the same goal time.
(wearing light blue vaporflys obv)
zoomzoomzoom wrote:
it's been documented the shoes won't help you much if you run slower than 6:50 pace, if it was the foam the pace wouldn't matter
Where is this ‘documented’? Not in the original study! More anecdotal bullshit from the pseudoscience brigade?
vivalarepublica wrote:
Runsmith wrote:
I agree 100% with the OP. If Spira shoes are banned, then the Vaporflys should be too, or at least the runners wearing them should be disqualified. The Vaporfly is like a spring disguised as a shoe. The winners of races should be about who is the best runner, not who has the best shoes.
Sure, you can argue about that one guy who DIDN’T run faster in the Vaporfly, but that’s a sample of one. There are many more runners who did run faster in it for each who did not.
In my opinion, there should be a maximum stack height on a shoe, and nothing should be allowed to be embedded in the midsole (like a carbon fiber plate). If the stack height exceeds, say, 25mm, then the runner is automatically DQ’d.
Oh, so let's ban everyone that wears Hokas. That makes sense.
Runners actually wear Hokas??? hahaha
I had a look at the Flys and they didn't have much flex which in the long run with place pressure on your achilles. Just race in them sporadically.