Are you genuinely interested in the details? If so, perhaps you'll find this article interesting. It gives a broad overview of all the features and factors of the supershoes, and how all the new parts work together. As you asked specifically about optimal speeds, the article linked to a study on that, which I provided. If you can't read the study, just click on the pictures that show how the delta velocity changes from running economy improvements relative to velocity.
Two things. The first study referred to essentially took the research undertaken by others to parrot their claims. It is basically a recitation of Nike's sales pitch. Hence:
"The most comprehensive studies have been conducted based on the Vaporflys. Nike’s claim that the shoes allow for the 4% improvement in the running economy was confirmed (here and here). Translated to running performance, this means 2-3% better finish times."
Second point: if that claim is going to be accepted then that means El G, Lagat, Ngeny and Morceli among others would have experienced a 2-3% performance gain on their best times. That is several seconds faster than the times they achieved over the 1500/mile. That makes them way faster than the best today using those shoes. It is an unavoidable conclusion from what the "research" above claims.
The study makes no claim that the shoes favour less efficient runners more. It indicates they work best with trained elites. So 5 seconds gain over a mile for a college athlete will be correspondingly reflected in the performance of top athletes.
Two things. The first study referred to essentially took the research undertaken by others to parrot their claims. It is basically a recitation of Nike's sales pitch. Hence:
"The most comprehensive studies have been conducted based on the Vaporflys. Nike’s claim that the shoes allow for the 4% improvement in the running economy was confirmed (here and here). Translated to running performance, this means 2-3% better finish times."
Second point: if that claim is going to be accepted then that means El G, Lagat, Ngeny and Morceli among others would have experienced a 2-3% performance gain on their best times. That is several seconds faster than the times they achieved over the 1500/mile. That makes them way faster than the best today using those shoes. It is an unavoidable conclusion from what the "research" above claims.
The study makes no claim that the shoes favour less efficient runners more. It indicates they work best with trained elites. So 5 seconds gain over a mile for a college athlete will be correspondingly reflected in the performance of top athletes.
You clearly didn't read the runrepeat article.
I read it and responded to it. It is an article, not substantive research. It uses others' research. It is also chiefly marketing for the shoes.
Diminishing returns. Adding 10 miles barefoot at 30 MPW as opposed to adding 10 miles to 100 MPW will have greater benefits.
Mileage is not analogous to shoes. Mileage changes according to how many miles are run; the shoes remain the same, whatever an athlete does. The research does not support any claim of diminishing returns in the shoes.
I read it and responded to it. It is an article, not substantive research. It uses others' research. It is also chiefly marketing for the shoes.
The you didn't understand this: "It's worth noting that at higher speeds, the improvement in running economy is higher than the improvement in speed. At slower speeds, the improvement in speed is a bit greater than the running economy improvement."
I disagree that elites benefit as much but there are so many more 3:50 milers today. I have plenty of data to prove that the shoes are good for 4 to 5 seconds per mile for 4:50 milers. I will have to take your word for it that elite runners benefit the same.
Since you have become obsessed with arguing about details such as fractions of seconds perhaps a simple question might bring you back to the subject of the thread, which is the benefit of the shoes. The claim has been made that the new shoes enable a gain of 5 seconds over a mile. Would El G, Lagat, Ngeny, and Morceli have enjoyed that kind of gain if they had used superspikes? If not why not? Would they gain anything? What is specific to the construction of the shoe that it is only optimally effective at a particular speed?
Are you genuinely interested in the details? If so, perhaps you'll find this article interesting. It gives a broad overview of all the features and factors of the supershoes, and how all the new parts work together. As you asked specifically about optimal speeds, the article linked to a study on that, which I provided. If you can't read the study, just click on the pictures that show how the delta velocity changes from running economy improvements relative to velocity.
This thread is about running a mile in super spikes and not about the effects of the new road racing shoes. I don’t recall any posters disputing that the new road racing shoes don’t significantly improve performance. They may even be a little faster than running on the track in spikes.
Two things. The first study referred to essentially took the research undertaken by others to parrot their claims. It is basically a recitation of Nike's sales pitch. Hence:
"The most comprehensive studies have been conducted based on the Vaporflys. Nike’s claim that the shoes allow for the 4% improvement in the running economy was confirmed (here and here). Translated to running performance, this means 2-3% better finish times."
Second point: if that claim is going to be accepted then that means El G, Lagat, Ngeny and Morceli among others would have experienced a 2-3% performance gain on their best times. That is several seconds faster than the times they achieved over the 1500/mile. That makes them way faster than the best today using those shoes. It is an unavoidable conclusion from what the "research" above claims.
The study makes no claim that the shoes favour less efficient runners more. It indicates they work best with trained elites. So 5 seconds gain over a mile for a college athlete will be correspondingly reflected in the performance of top athletes.
On the issue of running economy (RE), the subject of the second paper, the question is not whether RE contributes to performance but the extent that it does so and then the contribution of the factors referred to in the study, and in particular the shoes. The conclusion about how much the shoes might improve performance is still only an estimate. It isn't definitive. It can't be, because there are so many variables that must be taken account of in calculating the effect on performance of one kind of shoe over another. That is why the subject is still being debated, including on this site. Most claims being made are anecdotal and not research based.
Your question was about "optimally effective at a particular speed". The main takeaway from the second paper (the answer to your question) is to show that the same running economy will translate to different improvements in speed (and time), depending on the initial speed, getting proportionally smaller as speeds get faster.
Your first point about Nike's sales pitch was confirmed by two studies, greatly strengthening the merit of their pitch. The first one compared the running economy of Nike's prototype shoe to the Nike Zoom Streak 6, and to the Adidas Adizero Adios BOOST 2. "The NS and AB or their predecessors were used to run the 10 fastest marathons prior to the start of this study."
Your second point should not accept the 2-3% for supershoes (at marathon speeds), for events using superspikes at the faster speeds of El G, et. al. See my other papers where the estimated improvements for superspikes are about half of that from 1%-1.5%, and will be less at faster speeds.
Neither of my links talked about "efficiency". It's all concerned with "economy" and the resulting "velocity".
Again the takeaway from the second paper is that the percentage of improvement reduces at as speeds get faster. This is derived from a curvi-linear model they generated from measuring the economy of 10 sub-30 minute 10K runners at various speeds ranging from 1.78–5.14 m/s.
Nothing in any of these papers, or any others, suggest we should ever accept static or linear relations like "5 seconds per mile" or "2-3% faster times from 4% running economy" as hard and fast rules for everybody.
You seemed interested in the details, but the devils are in the details. You should stop trying to smooth out all the details and reduce it to one number, and project that result onto El G.
From the first "guide" at "runrepeat" gives a lot more answers for hobby joggers. It says that the shoes might not work if you are too heavy, or too light, or run too slow, or are a heel-striker, etc.
The second paper adds a new element not yet discussed -- providing a corrective faster for air-resistance (a cubic function of speed). The wind-drag is much higher and not negligible at 3:30 1500m speed, compared to a 5:00 1500m, or a 3:30 marathon.
This thread is about running a mile in super spikes and not about the effects of the new road racing shoes. I don’t recall any posters disputing that the new road racing shoes don’t significantly improve performance. They may even be a little faster than running on the track in spikes.
Armstrongliv was specifically asking why the shoes are "optimally effective at a particular speed". The second paper shows how the same running economy improvement translates to different improved speeds as a function of the initial speed.
I read it and responded to it. It is an article, not substantive research. It uses others' research. It is also chiefly marketing for the shoes.
The you didn't understand this: "It's worth noting that at higher speeds, the improvement in running economy is higher than the improvement in speed. At slower speeds, the improvement in speed is a bit greater than the running economy improvement."
The differences referred to there could well be marginal. The research does not show that slower athletes make greater gains than better athletes. That is absolutely contrary to the marketing of the shoes, that they are really best suited to journeymen and not elites. The shoes don't "correct" inferior technique or ability while offering comparatively little to the best.
What is claimed by the manufacturers is that the shoes offer an estimated 2-3% performance gain. This is not confined to any particular level of athlete. It means effectively that the best md athletes in the '90s and 2000s would be several seconds faster in the shoes than the best athletes are today. So how in a sport that constantly seeks improvements can the best athletes today be so inferior to the best over 2 decades ago who didn't have the advantage of the shoes?
A 2-3% performance gain is in the same region as some banned peds. If that kind of gain were confirmed we would have seen a response from WA. But it isn't convinced.
I disagree that elites benefit as much but there are so many more 3:50 milers today. I have plenty of data to prove that the shoes are good for 4 to 5 seconds per mile for 4:50 milers. I will have to take your word for it that elite runners benefit the same.
Why wouldn't they? The function of the shoes doesn't change.
- A study of 10 runners hardly enables definitive findings when there are thousands of athletes in the sport. That is too small a sample.
- The research points to gains but again they have to be approximate when the findings are based on very small research samples. To use historical comparisons of times in the sport is further unreliable because there are a number of factors which could have produced a surge in performances across the board of which doping must be included as the practice continues unabated and mostly undetected (Howman).
- Posters, including the OP, have suggested a gain of several seconds over the 1500/mile, based on samples of athletes they have coached. These athletes aren't necessarily all highly talented - some won't be - but some will be talented and none will be hobby joggers. Whatever their level they all apparently gained by the same amount, of about 5 secs in a mile. If that is what the shoes enable a sizeable pool of trained athletes then they must enable a similar gain to the very best, as the gain as solely attributed to the shoes and not training or anything else. The difference in efficiency provided by a shoe to a 3:45 miler and a 4:10 miler will be very small. The difference in their levels will largely be based on physical and cardiovascular differences. The shoes don't change those.
A University of Michigan study that also concludes a 1-1.5% increase in performance from the spikes. That would put El G, Lagat, and Ngeny in the 3:24 ball park for the 1500 and around 3:41 for the mile. Yet no runners in superspikes today are anywhere near that.
----------------
'They tested a small group of men in both types of spikes. Compared to traditional spikes, runners in super spikes enjoyed about a 2% increase in running economy, which could translate into a 1%-1.5% improvement in times, said co-author Geoff Burns, U-M adjunct assistant professor of kinesiology and sport physiologist with the U.S. Olympic and Paralympic Committee.'
'For a runner who completes 10,000 meters in 30 minutes, a 2% increase in running economy would result in a time improvement of about 25 seconds, the study shows. The 10,000-meter race is the longest track run at around 6 miles. The female world record for the outdoor 10,000-meter is 28:54 and the male record is 26:11.
"A 1.5%-2.0% increase in economy in an elite runner could be the difference between contending for a medal and not even qualifying for the (Olympic) Games," Burns said. "For non-elite runners, like high school and NCAA runners, this is still a profound difference that could open doors for competitions and opportunities they might not otherwise have."
The you didn't understand this: "It's worth noting that at higher speeds, the improvement in running economy is higher than the improvement in speed. At slower speeds, the improvement in speed is a bit greater than the running economy improvement."
The differences referred to there could well be marginal. The research does not show that slower athletes make greater gains than better athletes. That is absolutely contrary to the marketing of the shoes, that they are really best suited to journeymen and not elites. The shoes don't "correct" inferior technique or ability while offering comparatively little to the best.
What is claimed by the manufacturers is that the shoes offer an estimated 2-3% performance gain. This is not confined to any particular level of athlete. It means effectively that the best md athletes in the '90s and 2000s would be several seconds faster in the shoes than the best athletes are today. So how in a sport that constantly seeks improvements can the best athletes today be so inferior to the best over 2 decades ago who didn't have the advantage of the shoes?
A 2-3% performance gain is in the same region as some banned peds. If that kind of gain were confirmed we would have seen a response from WA. But it isn't convinced.
I see that WA has chosen to regulate the shoes rather than ban them.
- A study of 10 runners hardly enables definitive findings when there are thousands of athletes in the sport. That is too small a sample.
- The research points to gains but again they have to be approximate when the findings are based on very small research samples. To use historical comparisons of times in the sport is further unreliable because there are a number of factors which could have produced a surge in performances across the board of which doping must be included as the practice continues unabated and mostly undetected (Howman).
- Posters, including the OP, have suggested a gain of several seconds over the 1500/mile, based on samples of athletes they have coached. These athletes aren't necessarily all highly talented - some won't be - but some will be talented and none will be hobby joggers. Whatever their level they all apparently gained by the same amount, of about 5 secs in a mile. If that is what the shoes enable a sizeable pool of trained athletes then they must enable a similar gain to the very best, as the gain as solely attributed to the shoes and not training or anything else. The difference in efficiency provided by a shoe to a 3:45 miler and a 4:10 miler will be very small. The difference in their levels will largely be based on physical and cardiovascular differences. The shoes don't change those.
10 runners is enough to build an economy curve over various speeds to show it is not linear. It wasn't used to estimate race time improvements of any athlete, but to answer your narrow question by helping show that the speed improvement from economy improvement diminishes at faster speeds, as oxygen costs increase at a faster rate.
You didn't seem convinced by the other study (linked to by "zzzz") which looked at the top-100 athletes per event (800m, 1500m, 5000m, 10000m for men and women). How big does the sample have to be?
A sample size of 10 runner is 10 more runners than your proposed model of "they must enable a similar gain to the very best". There is nothing (and by "nothing" I really mean nothing), that supports such a presumption.
Other posters did suggest other models, like a fixed "5 seconds per mile" model, but the point of pointing to these studies is to show that there are superior models based on more controlled observations of many hundreds if not thousands of athletes that the biggest economy gains are observed at sub-maximal speeds of 14-18 km/h, and the rate of time improvements declines at faster speeds. It is not a fixed rate per mile, nor a fixed percentage.
A University of Michigan study that also concludes a 1-1.5% increase in performance from the spikes. That would put El G, Lagat, and Ngeny in the 3:24 ball park for the 1500 and around 3:41 for the mile. Yet no runners in superspikes today are anywhere near that.
----------------
'They tested a small group of men in both types of spikes. Compared to traditional spikes, runners in super spikes enjoyed about a 2% increase in running economy, which could translate into a 1%-1.5% improvement in times, said co-author Geoff Burns, U-M adjunct assistant professor of kinesiology and sport physiologist with the U.S. Olympic and Paralympic Committee.'
'For a runner who completes 10,000 meters in 30 minutes, a 2% increase in running economy would result in a time improvement of about 25 seconds, the study shows. The 10,000-meter race is the longest track run at around 6 miles. The female world record for the outdoor 10,000-meter is 28:54 and the male record is 26:11.
"A 1.5%-2.0% increase in economy in an elite runner could be the difference between contending for a medal and not even qualifying for the (Olympic) Games," Burns said. "For non-elite runners, like high school and NCAA runners, this is still a profound difference that could open doors for competitions and opportunities they might not otherwise have."
A University of Michigan study that also concludes a 1-1.5% increase in performance from the spikes. That would put El G, Lagat, and Ngeny in the 3:24 ball park for the 1500 and around 3:41 for the mile. Yet no runners in superspikes today are anywhere near that.
----------------
'They tested a small group of men in both types of spikes. Compared to traditional spikes, runners in super spikes enjoyed about a 2% increase in running economy, which could translate into a 1%-1.5% improvement in times, said co-author Geoff Burns, U-M adjunct assistant professor of kinesiology and sport physiologist with the U.S. Olympic and Paralympic Committee.'
'For a runner who completes 10,000 meters in 30 minutes, a 2% increase in running economy would result in a time improvement of about 25 seconds, the study shows. The 10,000-meter race is the longest track run at around 6 miles. The female world record for the outdoor 10,000-meter is 28:54 and the male record is 26:11.
"A 1.5%-2.0% increase in economy in an elite runner could be the difference between contending for a medal and not even qualifying for the (Olympic) Games," Burns said. "For non-elite runners, like high school and NCAA runners, this is still a profound difference that could open doors for competitions and opportunities they might not otherwise have."
LOL -- Sample size of 9 male runners, running 16 km/h -- smack dab in the middle of that sweet spot of 14-18 km/h.
El G, Lagat, and Ngeny run 26 km/h.
Here’s you from a few pages ago: “DIdn't we acknowledge Nick Willis at the beginning of the thread, about 2 1/2 weeks ago? He himself said superspikes would give him 2-3s in the 1500m/mile, which would make him a 3:27-3:28 guy.”
Let’s ignore your terrible arithmetic for the time being (2-3 seconds faster than 3:29 would be 3:26-3:27). You’re scoffing at the notion of El G going from 3:26 to 3:24, but are perfectly fine with Willis going from 3:29 to 3:27, even though both are running far faster than your magical 16 kph.
You and Armstronglivs are both awful, but at least he’s correct about super spikes.