Bad news for Molly Huddle fans she's not a responder to supershoes, Good news for Jared Ward fans- he is and gets a 4.4% boost

Esterhazy1 wrote:

I must say that the controversy about these shoes is just about ruining this sport for me. The fact of the shoes themselves, and the fact that the community is split over them--both factors feel like a tragedy for the sport. Combine that with the inability of the sport to govern itself with regard to doping--I am losing hope that track has much of a future as a meritocracy, rather than a sort of technological arms race. Maybe I am alone in this feeling? Not sure.

Shoe Technology ruining the sport?

a little overly dramatic are we? What about the controversial days of Asics' Onitsuka Tigers? Bowerman's 'waffle shoe' technology? cinder tracks vs synthetic?

If equipment and techniques are not continuously evolving that will be what ruins the sport.

sloinnorcal wrote:

Shoe Technology ruining the sport?

a little overly dramatic are we? What about the controversial days of Asics' Onitsuka Tigers? Bowerman's 'waffle shoe' technology? cinder tracks vs synthetic?

If equipment and techniques are not continuously evolving that will be what ruins the sport.

Wrong. If all "technology" improvements cease, then the sport will be as enjoyable to watch, if not more. Technology improvements do not improve the sport, they just give some athletes advantages over their competitors and over athletes of the past.

runderun wrote:

Running economy is measured by your oxygen intake. So you basically use 4% less when running in the Vaporflies. This is compared to running in a standard racing flat - in one study I know they used the Adidas Adios as a baseline and in another it was the Saucony Endorphin Racer.

All of the papers I've read on this issue are well-designed studies, not your L'Oreal "87 of 102 women agree" kind of junk researvh.

As to how this translates to time: 4% improved economy is about 2-2.8% improvement in time. For an elite marathoner, around 1m30s-2m.

How fast are your elite marathoners? Even for someone who can run a two-hour marathon in the baseline shoe, a 2-2.8% reduction in time would be 144- 201.6 seconds, or 2m24s-3m21.6s. For a 2:10 marathoner, the time reduction would be 156-218.4 seconds, or 2m36s-3m38.4s; for a 2:20 marathoner, the reduction would be 168-235.2 seconds, or 2m48s-3m55.2s. Also, although I could see it in other contexts, It's not immediately obvious to me why, in the context of marathon running involving shoe models that may vary by perhaps a couple of ounces, a 4% increase in economy would typically produce only a 2-2.8% improvement (reduction) in time. With this particular type of shoe as compared with a more conventional racing flat, I would expect the percentage difference in time (not just the absolute time difference) to increase as the race distance gets longer, approaching and eventually surpassing the difference in economy. But obviously, that's ultimately a highly specific empirical matter; the human body is too complicated for purely armchair calculations and crude laboratory experiments,

The biggest effect of these Nike shoes on us non-elites, is that it's raising the base level of how much running shoes will cost.

It's not that long ago that a decent pair of training shoes cost about $50-$60, then within about ten years it leapt to $150. Now that people are prepared to pay $300 for a shoe that will last a fraction of the time has given license to all manufacturers to start retailing an other average shoe in the £200+ range.

It's a bit like golf clubs. You could get a decent enough driver for a mid-handicap golfer for $100, but nobody would buy it. Everyone wants what the pros are using and think that they have to spend $400-$500 to get one that's any good.

Nike have succeeded in pricing the majority of runners out of being competitive.

runderun wrote:

wejo wrote:

So that is what Ross Tucker pointed out and that some people may be responders to super shoes and some aren't. Unfortunately if Huddle isn't she might be at like a 2-3% time disadvantage in the race.

Article here

https://www.wsj.com/articles/as

-

That's not exactly what Tucker pointed out. With the Vaporfly's there are responders and super-responders. What makes them unique in the history of running shoes is that there aren't any non-responders - everyone responds positively to some degree.

The Endorpin Pro is more in line with previous shoes than the VFs if Huddle isn't responding at all. Could also be Ward is responding so well because he's been more involved in the design process, at least it sounds that way from listening to his interview on Clean Sport.

And what did Tucker do, test every running shoe in the history of running?