Somebody earlier asked me what's so special about 5,000 meters altitude. It's because that's where substantial red blood cell production really happens and is also the human limit of year-round living.
An average 15% increase in hemoglobin mass without any heat acclimatization:
If I were a coach I'd find a cabin in the highlands of Bolivia and provide a hot tub and supplemental oxygen for HIT workouts. The weather there is decent for running.
We have posters claiming a 10 second improvement over a mile from wearing the shoes
He didn't claim that. You know he didn't claim that. He came back to clarify he didn't claim that. I quoted that part replying to you to show you he didn't claim that.
Why are you lying knowingly?
Just to remind you of what he posted that I responded to.
"I went 4:25, 4:23, 4:13, 4:14, 4:10, 4:08 my junior year. No other improvement was as wild as strapping on a pair of good ol super spikes. Air zoom victory over zoom rival any day mate. That 10 second difference was without a doubt the shoes."
He attributed nothing else but the shoes to that 10 second improvement. To "clarify" that - as you said he did - merely means he later backed down from that claim.
That isn't proving anything you claim about the shoes.
This doesn't show that you know what the studies do show.
The studies clearly measure significant improvements in economy -- i.e. they measured less oxygen consumption at a fixed speed, or a faster speed for the same oxygen consumption.
This confirms the hypothesis that the foam in the shoes absorb energy on impact, and, thanks to the stiff carbon fiber, returns more of the energy in the direction of the desired propulsion on toe-off, rather than dissipating the absorbed energy in all directions, reducing the energy cost to maintain a given speed, or enabling faster speed.
We can absolutely rule out drugs in the studies where the same participants wear different spikes during different trials -- some superspikes and some control spikes -- and the same economical benefit is measured for the superspikes.
Why doesn't everyone improve the same way, or at all? In the study "Detective P" keeps posting, showing variations, one stated possibility is that the subjects change how they run on the treadmill, versus real racing -- the study itself is the cause of the lack of economy. Another factor is that the fastest runners are fast because they are already highly economical, and any incremental improvements will be proportionally less.
These improvements cannot be translated universally to seconds per mile, as the economy savings is not constant or linear, and the conversion from economy to speed is not constant or linear.
But all of the studies, whether they are comparisons between superspikes and supershoes, or observational studies on time improvements before and after superspikes, confirm the same economy improvements and the corresponding predicted time improvements.
This post was edited 3 minutes after it was posted.
That isn't proving anything you claim about the shoes.
This doesn't show that you know what the studies do show.
The studies clearly measure significant improvements in economy -- i.e. they measured less oxygen consumption at a fixed speed, or a faster speed for the same oxygen consumption.
This confirms the hypothesis that the foam in the shoes absorb energy on impact, and, thanks to the stiff carbon fiber, returns more of the energy in the direction of the desired propulsion on toe-off, rather than dissipating the absorbed energy in all directions, reducing the energy cost to maintain a given speed, or enabling faster speed.
We can absolutely rule out drugs in the studies where the same participants wear different spikes during different trials -- some superspikes and some control spikes -- and the same economical benefit is measured.
Why doesn't everyone improve the same way, or at all? In the study "Detective P" keeps posting, showing variations, one stated possibility is that the subjects change how they run on the treadmill, versus real racing -- the study itself is the cause of the lack of economy. Another factor is that the fastest runners are fast because they are already highly economical, and any incremental improvements will be proportionally less.
These improvements cannot be translated universally to seconds per mile, as the economy savings is not constant or linear, and the conversion from economy to speed is not constant or linear.
But all of the studies, whether they are comparisons between superspikes and supershoes, or observational studies on time improvements before and after superspikes, confirm the same economy improvements and the corresponding predicted time improvements.
They don't. They say the effects won't necessarily be the same for all runners. Some may gain more than others and some not at all. So no one can say how much faster a runner night be over a mile or any other distance. They are still guessing.
This doesn't show that you know what the studies do show.
The studies clearly measure significant improvements in economy -- i.e. they measured less oxygen consumption at a fixed speed, or a faster speed for the same oxygen consumption.
This confirms the hypothesis that the foam in the shoes absorb energy on impact, and, thanks to the stiff carbon fiber, returns more of the energy in the direction of the desired propulsion on toe-off, rather than dissipating the absorbed energy in all directions, reducing the energy cost to maintain a given speed, or enabling faster speed.
We can absolutely rule out drugs in the studies where the same participants wear different spikes during different trials -- some superspikes and some control spikes -- and the same economical benefit is measured.
Why doesn't everyone improve the same way, or at all? In the study "Detective P" keeps posting, showing variations, one stated possibility is that the subjects change how they run on the treadmill, versus real racing -- the study itself is the cause of the lack of economy. Another factor is that the fastest runners are fast because they are already highly economical, and any incremental improvements will be proportionally less.
These improvements cannot be translated universally to seconds per mile, as the economy savings is not constant or linear, and the conversion from economy to speed is not constant or linear.
But all of the studies, whether they are comparisons between superspikes and supershoes, or observational studies on time improvements before and after superspikes, confirm the same economy improvements and the corresponding predicted time improvements.
They don't. They say the effects won't necessarily be the same for all runners. Some may gain more than others and some not at all. So no one can say how much faster a runner night be over a mile or any other distance. They are still guessing.
Mate, with all due respect, you show a lack of understanding of scientific research.
Why doesn't the same chemo on the same cancer work the same in everybody? That does not mean that 'they don't know the effect of the treatment'. It is because human physiology differs.
When it comes to the shoes and what it is supposed to help with, to get a baseline you need to have all subjects have the same physiology, same biomechanics etc. If you were to do this on a robot you would get exact differences per shoe type.
As rerunner alluded to, you will expect more response, and more variability imo , from those less efficient
PEDs have the same variability of response, for different reasons.
Bottom line is that we are living beings, not engines where changes to a parameter affects every engine on the assembly line the same way.
They don't. They say the effects won't necessarily be the same for all runners. Some may gain more than others and some not at all. So no one can say how much faster a runner night be over a mile or any other distance. They are still guessing.
Mate, with all due respect, you show a lack of understanding of scientific research.
Why doesn't the same chemo on the same cancer work the same in everybody? That does not mean that 'they don't know the effect of the treatment'. It is because human physiology differs.
When it comes to the shoes and what it is supposed to help with, to get a baseline you need to have all subjects have the same physiology, same biomechanics etc. If you were to do this on a robot you would get exact differences per shoe type.
As rerunner alluded to, you will expect more response, and more variability imo , from those less efficient
PEDs have the same variability of response, for different reasons.
Bottom line is that we are living beings, not engines where changes to a parameter affects every engine on the assembly line the same way.
You can't compare a treatment for cancer with the effect of a running product and say one proves the other. They are completely unrelated and the former doesn't demonstrate anything about the latter.
The findings about the shoes are of an estimated but as yet unquantifiable improvement in performance but not the same for everyone and not necessarily for all. That is a pretty speculative bunch of conclusions. That is why some studies say the best we can do so far is go back to making some historical comparisons for times pre-supershoes and after and come to some estimated conclusions on that basis.
To use your cancer drug analogy, maybe the shoes are like a new treatment that so far as we know might be helping some but not others, so patients give it a shot and hope.
Help us build the best running shoe review site for a chance to win a LetsRun t-shirt.Help us build the best running shoe review site for a chance to win one of 10 LetsRun t-shirts.