Bro if you're making a goof-faith argument here, provide me with some actual rebuttal and don't just whine. The studies cited here plus the trends throughout all runners are the support. Give me some counterpoints if you're actually serious about your claims.
You have misrepresented or misunderstood what the studies show. They don't show that the shoes chiefly advantage inferior athletes. They give an across the board performance improvement of around 1-1.5%. That also applies to elites and pros, as well as amateurs.
"across the board" seems to be your personal addition to these studies.
The one study you cited used trials fixed at 16 km/h, which is not representative of athletes "across the board".
I have shown you studies that refute "across the board performance improvement of around 1-1.5%", showing performance improvements as little as 0.3% for the top-100 runners.
This post was edited 4 minutes after it was posted.
Irrelevant. I am pointing out that a particular workout performed at a particular pace today results in a faster race time. The old 8x400 predictors workout results in a 4 to 5 second faster race today.
I just see it with my eyes. I have been around the aport for 45 years as athlete and coach. Here is what i see at the collegiate level:
1.5 sec for 800m
3 sec for mile
6 sec for 3k
9 sec for 15
20-30 sec for 10k
yes training is better these days but when i see a 3:45 huy these says it lines up with what 3:48 used to be.
30:00 10k ia closer to 30:30 guy feom years ago.
you guys can argue science and studies all you want. I just see it in my eyes. It is great they are faster now but I dont believe the 75th miler these days is better than the #2 guy from 7-15 years ago.
I don't refer to the study as definitive any more than the ones you have referred to. It is merely to show that another study has made claims about the gains that runners might experience from using the shoes. If those gains are accepted then the best runners would also experience 1-1.5% performance gains. That puts the best md and distance runners of the '90s and 2000s on another plateau from the best today.
Although you say optimal gains are experienced at speeds less than what El G and Lagat were running the difference may well be very small. If it were otherwise the shoes would be regarded as having no significant value to professionals. If that were so they wouldn't be using them. They are.
I don't say anything about optimal gains, but point you to studies that have observed where they occur.
As these time trials were done at 16km/h (or 4.4 m/s), their results of 1-1.5% is in line with all the studies I have linked, but doesn't predict what improvements should be expected at 26 km/h.
One study that does shows a rapid decline (showing a curve fit dropping from 1.7% to 0.3%) in improvement at speeds above 5 m/s.
There is no question that elite milers and 800m achieve a benefit -- that is why elite runners use them.
What you aren't taking account of is that if the shoes enhance efficiency most within a given band of speed this can be offset if that band is at the aerobic limit of a runner - which it would be in the case of a lower level distance runner - whereas there is comparatively less effort required at that speed for the higher level runner. So the lower level runner may not enjoy the benefits of optimal efficiency from the shoes if they are nearing their aerobic limit. The research also doesn't say there will be a sharp fall of efficiency from the band that has been defined as optimal. The decline may be gradual and minimal and therefore not greatly differentiated in the performance gain.
The 4 minute miler may have same VO2 max as the 5 minute miler but the 5 minute guy is just very inefficient. Some runners look like they are swimming.
The 4 minute miler may have same VO2 max as the 5 minute miler but the 5 minute guy is just very inefficient. Some runners look like they are swimming.
That means the inferior runner is wasting energy and is likely to be nearing their aerobic limit sooner than the better runner, so the lower level runner may not enjoy the benefit of the shoes as an elite would.
You have misrepresented or misunderstood what the studies show. They don't show that the shoes chiefly advantage inferior athletes. They give an across the board performance improvement of around 1-1.5%. That also applies to elites and pros, as well as amateurs.
"across the board" seems to be your personal addition to these studies.
The one study you cited used trials fixed at 16 km/h, which is not representative of athletes "across the board".
I have shown you studies that refute "across the board performance improvement of around 1-1.5%", showing performance improvements as little as 0.3% for the top-100 runners.
The 0.3% level you refer to simply conforms to the observation that not all runners will gain from the shoes and if they do it isn't always at the same level. Some will gain more, some less. That doesn't change the general observation of an average gain of 1-1.5%.
I agree with you. That means the elite runners are also seeing a 5 second improvement as your logic says.
No, it doesn't. They are likely to gain 1-1.5% (according to the studies) or 2-3 secs over a mile.
To put that in perspective, El G would be better than 3:24 over the 1500 in superspikes, while Ingebrigtsen would be 3:28-high or 3:29 without them (and Hocker would be around 3:30). That is what the "shoes" argument requires.
This post was edited 46 seconds after it was posted.
What you aren't taking account of is that if the shoes enhance efficiency most within a given band of speed this can be offset if that band is at the aerobic limit of a runner - which it would be in the case of a lower level distance runner - whereas there is comparatively less effort required at that speed for the higher level runner. So the lower level runner may not enjoy the benefits of optimal efficiency from the shoes if they are nearing their aerobic limit. The research also doesn't say there will be a sharp fall of efficiency from the band that has been defined as optimal. The decline may be gradual and minimal and therefore not greatly differentiated in the performance gain.
This is too painful to read, and I'm not exactly sure what point you want to make, so I'm going to guess and hope for the best.
First mistake though is to confuse "economy" and "efficiency" -- all the research here discusses improved running economy.
But it looks like you are trying to say that 14-18 km/h sweet spot wouldn't apply to everyone, i.e. "the lower level runner", I guess because you brought this study on recreational marathon runners which concluded a smaller benefit. This might actually be true, if these studies tend to use college, or "well trained" athletes. 14 km/h equates a 3-hour marathon, so the conclusion of that study was that the slower 4-5 hour marathon runner still benefits, but not as much as faster marathoners.
The other study that says that the 14-18km/h provides the greatest economy improvements says that these speeds are "sub-maximal", so something far slower than 3-5K pace.
I'm struggling to see how any possible point is connected to the 1500m times of Jakob and El G.
The study that looked at track times showed a decline of rate of improvement starting at ~18 km/h (5 m/s) where the curve says a 1.7% gain (for women's 10000m) declines to ~28 km/h (8 m/s) to 0.3% -- nearly a factor of 6 difference. These were top-100 athletes in these events. The average for men was 0.63%, and the average for women was 1.15%, and combined was 0.89%.
The 0.3% level you refer to simply conforms to the observation that not all runners will gain from the shoes and if they do it isn't always at the same level. Some will gain more, some less. That doesn't change the general observation of an average gain of 1-1.5%.
Not at all. The 0.3% (actually 0.28%) was the average rate of improvement for the top-100 men in the 800m, at 7.62 m/s.
When you say "not all runners", this means not the top-100 elite 800m male runners.
Compare this to the top-100 elite women at 10000m, who gained 1.7% at a slower speed of 5.29 m/s.
There is no single percentage that applies "across the board".
I just see it with my eyes. I have been around the aport for 45 years as athlete and coach. Here is what i see at the collegiate level:
1.5 sec for 800m
3 sec for mile
6 sec for 3k
9 sec for 15
20-30 sec for 10k
yes training is better these days but when i see a 3:45 huy these says it lines up with what 3:48 used to be.
30:00 10k ia closer to 30:30 guy feom years ago.
you guys can argue science and studies all you want. I just see it in my eyes. It is great they are faster now but I dont believe the 75th miler these days is better than the #2 guy from 7-15 years ago.
I might be a bit confused but your "eyes" are telling you it's worth more for a 15 then it is for a 3K? 9 seconds in the 1500 and 3 seconds in the mile is kind of strange.
I might be a bit confused but your "eyes" are telling you it's worth more for a 15 then it is for a 3K? 9 seconds in the 1500 and 3 seconds in the mile is kind of strange.