Another factor is that the shoes help keep your legs fresh during the race. By the end of a 10k in normal spikes, your calves are on fire. These shoes protect your gastroc and soleus and thus your force production will not decrease from fatigue at the end of the race.
So you get a trampoline effect AND it prevents micro-tears and fatigue in your muscles during the race.
The Insider wrote:
For all of you (coughRojocough) who are screaming that the new "super shoes" are the reason for all of the fast times, have any of you considered the possibility that evolution combined with unique circumstances are the real drivers. 1st, it's an Olympic year, which means everyone is more dedicated and disciplined in the lead up to the Olympics/Trials. 2nd, it's the second Olympic year. People were already into their Olympic preparations when they were postponed last year, so they get to build off of that. 3rd, the COVID year allowed everyone to stay home and train without having to worry about travelling for races and preparing for championships. 4th, time trials. We're at a unique time when time trials are perfectly set up all over the U.S. This is why scores of Americans are running so much faster than previously, vs the rest of the world only having a few outliers running faster.
Take all of that and combine it with the new shoes, which help slightly.
For those who think I'm wrong and it's all the shoes and not a combination of evolution combined with unique circumstances, take a look at the below list of events that have taken place recently, none of which have anything to do with shoes:
Dililah Muhammed and Sydney McLaughin 400m Hurdles world records
Athing Mu 400m and 800m collegiate records
Armando Duplantis rewriting the pole vault record books
Grant Holloway 60m Hurdles WR
Ryan Crouser indoor Shot Put WR
Ryan Crouser, Joe Kovacs, Tom Walsh have all thrown over 75ft in the Shot Put. Only admitted steroid user Randy Barnes has thrown further.
Shelby Hulihan 14:23 and 3:54 in old shoes
Hugues Fabrice Zango men's indoor Triple Jump WR
Yulimar Rojas women's indoor Triple Jump WR
Tori Franklin women's indoor Triple Jump AR
10.12 100m doesn't make NCAA
Shelly Ann Frasier Price 10.63
Karsten Warholm, Abderrahman Samba, Rai Benjamin have all run sub 47 for 400m Hurdles
Michael Norman, a 400m runner, running 9.86 in the 100m
I agree with a lot of this, but please stop saying "evolution". It comes off like you don't know what that word means. You are clearly not using it to mean "evolution" from biology.
Evolution is the change in the heritable characteristics of biological populations over successive generations due to natural selection. There is no selection here, faster runners today do not have more babies, and slower runners do not die, at least not in the modern era.
The Insider wrote:
^ wrote:
J. Ryun ran 3:51.1 @ 20yo in 1967 on dirt; give him the new shoes and the new tracks he’d have run 3:43.8 ...not including the wave light and PEDS. There are human limits ... Do you think Lewis Hamilton is a better driver than Phil Hill ? Do you think Froome is a better cyclist than Merckx ..? Imagine Hank Aaron using drugs and a metal bat ... You are not watching a better human..you are witnessing technology ruining a sport. There are human limitations.
Lol, this might be the worst take in the history of letsrun, and that's saying a lot. Why was Run faster than Bannister? Why was Bannister faster than Paavo Nurmi? Every sports athletes today are bigger/stronger/faster. It's called evolution, combined with a better understanding of training, nutrition, preparation, etc. Do you really believe that technology is the only reason someone can run faster than their predecessors?
It's not actually evolution. Any meaningful change resulting from evolution would take thousands of years or more to show up. The improvements across generations are due to superior training, superior diets, and superior technology. There's actually a very interesting TED talk on this exact topic.
These shoes work in two ways.
Firstly the stiffer forefoot increases running efficiency by preventing flexion of the toes. Many spikes in the past had this feature but it is only recently we have known the benefit of this. It is a fallacy to think you need a carbon fibre plate to achieve this. The plates do not act as springs but rather block flexion to reduce lost energy and increase power.
Secondly, the thicker midsoles increase limb length while also increasing efficiency due to their superior rebound properties. This anecdotally aids recovery by "saving your legs" even at the ends of races.
The problem is not that the shoes have an impact, it is that they have a variable impact for different runners. There is now overwhelming evidence that they will improve the performance of runners at all levels of ability. The amount of improvement has been shown to be between 0 and 8%. While they may reduce injury risk for many runners they could be the cause of injuries in others. Heel strikers seem to gain more benefit than Forefoot strikers. They may offer less advantage to runners who are already highly efficient.
Too many people here are too focused on the evidence in the US. Look at any distance race in the world now and how many of the top 5% are wearing these shoes. It would be close to 100%. The best example of the impact these have is the Japanese Marathon that had 42 sub 2:10 runners. Nearly all were wearing Vaporfly in a country that is loyal to Asics and Mizuno. You do not get this kind of depth and percentage of PB's in one race unless the course is short or there is an external factor at play like supershoes.
People arguing for the ambivalent impact on the sport of this new technology are in willful ignorance of the scientific evidence to meet their own cherished narratives.
https://www.podiumrunner.com/culture/42-runners-under-210-at-one-japanese-marathon/
^ wrote:
J. Ryun ran 3:51.1 @ 20yo in 1967 on dirt; give him the new shoes and the new tracks he’d have run 3:43.8 ...not including the wave light and PEDS. There are human limits ... Do you think Lewis Hamilton is a better driver than Phil Hill ? Do you think Froome is a better cyclist than Merckx ..? Imagine Hank Aaron using drugs and a metal bat ... You are not watching a better human..you are witnessing technology ruining a sport. There are human limitations.
Technology ruining the sport? So do you want it to just be how it is and old school for the rest of history? Things change. And you definitely won't say if this were 1970. The only thing I feel isn't authentic are the pace lights. Call it a bad take or criticize my opinion here but Chep would not have gotten those WR on the track without the pace lights.
newbury park uses peds wrote:
^ wrote:
J. Ryun ran 3:51.1 @ 20yo in 1967 on dirt; give him the new shoes and the new tracks he’d have run 3:43.8 ...not including the wave light and PEDS. There are human limits ... Do you think Lewis Hamilton is a better driver than Phil Hill ? Do you think Froome is a better cyclist than Merckx ..? Imagine Hank Aaron using drugs and a metal bat ... You are not watching a better human..you are witnessing technology ruining a sport. There are human limitations.
Technology ruining the sport? So do you want it to just be how it is and old school for the rest of history? Things change. And you definitely won't say if this were 1970. The only thing I feel isn't authentic are the pace lights. Call it a bad take or criticize my opinion here but Chep would not have gotten those WR on the track without the pace lights.
+1
I’ve said for three years that the value of the so-called “super shoes” has everything to do with recovery and belief that you’ll run faster. That’s 98% of the variance right there until proven otherwise with real data from thousands of real athletes.
DC Wonk wrote:
I’ve said for three years that the value of the so-called “super shoes” has everything to do with recovery and belief that you’ll run faster. That’s 98% of the variance right there until proven otherwise with real data from thousands of real athletes.
Another +1 for you too
DC Wonk wrote:
I’ve said for three years that the value of the so-called “super shoes” has everything to do with recovery and belief that you’ll run faster. That’s 98% of the variance right there until proven otherwise with real data from thousands of real athletes.
-1 to balance it out.
If you recover quicker from running in them, it also MUST mean your legs get less stressed and fatigued DURING the race. That 100% means they help you during the race. You'd have to be a fool to think the only benefits from wearing them occur after the race.
you sir are an idiot wrote:
DC Wonk wrote:
I’ve said for three years that the value of the so-called “super shoes” has everything to do with recovery and belief that you’ll run faster. That’s 98% of the variance right there until proven otherwise with real data from thousands of real athletes.
-1 to balance it out.
If you recover quicker from running in them, it also MUST mean your legs get less stressed and fatigued DURING the race. That 100% means they help you during the race. You'd have to be a fool to think the only benefits from wearing them occur after the race.
Yes, because we all know that running on grass is wayyyy faster than a mondo track. Guess which one beats up your legs more?
-2 for being a moron.
` wrote:
you sir are an idiot wrote:
-1 to balance it out.
If you recover quicker from running in them, it also MUST mean your legs get less stressed and fatigued DURING the race. That 100% means they help you during the race. You'd have to be a fool to think the only benefits from wearing them occur after the race.
Yes, because we all know that running on grass is wayyyy faster than a mondo track. Guess which one beats up your legs more?
-2 for being a moron.
That's exactly the point you IMBECILE.
The shoes provide you the benefit of less stress and fatigue on your legs like you are running on a softer surface, WITHOUT slowing you down at all (and also likely propelling you forward). That would be performance enhancing and mean the shoes provide a massive benefit.
Now if you would please remove your head from your rear-end, we would all appreciate it.
you sir are an idiot wrote:
` wrote:
Yes, because we all know that running on grass is wayyyy faster than a mondo track. Guess which one beats up your legs more?
-2 for being a moron.
That's exactly the point you IMBECILE.
The shoes provide you the benefit of less stress and fatigue on your legs like you are running on a softer surface, WITHOUT slowing you down at all (and also likely propelling you forward). That would be performance enhancing and mean the shoes provide a massive benefit.
Now if you would please remove your head from your rear-end, we would all appreciate it.
How do you know they're not slowing you down, at all? How do you know they are "propelling you forward" more than existing shoes? You must have done some sort of study I assume, or perhaps some statistical analysis to show that average times have increased significantly this year. I assume you have the data to back up your claim?
Please provide the data to back up your claim. As we have both determined, more cushioning does not necessarily make you run faster, and quite frequently has the opposite effect. Thus, there must be some other mechanism inherent in these shoes that makes you go faster. What is this mechanism?
I like to be challenged. The argument of The pros aren't running faster - just the college kids are is an interesting one. I do think the increase is the # of the time trials is a real thing for college depth from now to even 10 years ago. I mean I had a 3:41 guy at Cornell that easily would have been a 3:3* guy if he got more opportunities iwth good rabbits. Same thing with a 14:0 - he could have likely broken 13:50 in a time trial.
but my response to the pro argument is this - 1 )Many pros had the spikes in 2019 2) There is a global pandemic right now that is ravaging much of Africa and Europe. There really haven't been any pro meets for the Kenyans/Ethiopians to get to. There haven't been any DLs of consequence yet. And the season is going to be all thrown off as the DLs are mainly after the Olympics. 3) It's June 8th. Why in the hell would a pro want to be rocking a time in May during a global pandemic?
And the pros are running faster. Ben True. Tuntivate, etc. But remember, many of the pros - the adidas pros - aren't allowed to wear the shoes.
Hicham III wrote:
Honestly I find it so mad that people keep banging on about these spikes because some college kids are running faster. Let's look at the IAAF top lists for the 1500:
Potato Farmer Tim - 3:30 - 2 seconds slower than he ran in 2018 AND 2019 in normal Victorys
Josh Kerr - 3:31 - 0.97s. faster than he ran in Brooks spikes 2 years ago
Stewie McSweyn - 3:31 - 0.24s. faster than he ran in regular Victorys 2 years ago
El Bakkali - suddenly decides he's a 1500 runner with nothing to compare it to
Ali Musab - seems to have come out of nowhere but ran 3:36 5 years ago, so maybe just had a breakthrough?
Tefera - 3:32 - ran 3:31 in both 2019 and 2018 in normal spikes
Hoare, Knight & Katir - all made huge improvements and only went pro over the past couple of years so had to pinpoint improvement specifically to a pair of spikes
Birgen - 3:32 - has literally ran faster every single season since 2011
Engels - 3:33 - a 0.4s. improvement in since his PR two years ago
Grice - 3:33 - 3 seconds slower than he ran in Monaco wearing normal Victories in 2019
So apart from Ali Musab (who?), and the three young guys who've just emerged on the scene literally ALL these other guys have basically stayed the same except for some marginal improvements. If the shoes equate to even ONE second over 1500, then why are the top guys not running ANY faster than they did in 2019 and before.
Bearing in mind a lot of them had very quiet years last year, you would think with these magic new spikes and a huge return to racing, there would be a massive spike in top performances - there isn't. Depth is improving because all the college guys have essentially just become full time athletes for 16 months, but overall top level performances literally haven't changed.
I thought Grice, McSweyn and Engels have been wearing these spikes for a few years now?
There's little point commenting on all the mechanical fallacies in these wishful-thinking shoes but one mentioned on this page is particularly silly, the idea that you "lose energy" if your toes dorsiflex. On the contrary, dorsiflexed toes stabilize the arch at the start and end of footstrike via the windlass mechanism, which shortens the plantar fascia and raises and stiffens the arch. This keeps you from getting wobbly when the forefoot is your only point of contact, which would lose you energy.
The arch bones are inside your foot, part of your body structure. What happens if you disable this mechanism by freezing the TMJ's in the unstable plantar-flexed position with a rigid plate? This plate DOES NOT bear your weight, any more than siding on the edge of a house contributes to holding up the roof. The weight still is born by the now-softer arch. Energy is not saved, but lost if anything, and injury is baited.
Should read MTP joints, not TMJ's. Metatarsal-phalangeal
It's the shoes. Specifically the Nike Victory and Victory Next%. I've been following a couple of track runners chasing the trials qualifier for about a year and meet after meet they fall short. Then they switched to the Victory and Next% and they get the trials qualifier. Not a coincidence especially since they were coming off injuries right before they switched.
Shoes, hard training and cocktails of drugs is whats doing it.Not evolution.If anything human beings should be getting less athletic,not more,because of lifestyle and technology changes.
100% OP.
For whatever reason the Brojos have decided slamming every good performance by harping on shoe tech is best for business.
I think they're wrong & could be getting more clicks/views if they spent more time hyping up the sport and these good performances.
Obviously shoe tech is great on the roads. It has improved on the track but not in the same way. Simply saying it's only the shoes leading to fast times ignores any other factor that could be at play. The pandemic. Time trials. Perfectly controlled situations for running fast. Pacing. Better training. Better weight training. Better eating. There's just too much that goes into fast running.
One example is the Marathon Project. American men usually run Boston/Chicago/New York and race for place on days that are usually less than ideal for fast times. The one time Chicago saw decent weather, in 2019, the American men in the field ran fast. So now even more guys who were knocking on the door of 2:10 go to a pancake flat course with perfect weather in a giant field with pacers to collectively attack that barrier. They had been training hard during the pandemic. They needed to run fast for their sponsors. When does all of that ever happen?
4L wrote:
I have the dragonflys. There are good spikes but nothing amazing really, sometimes I think they’re too squishy for 800-1500. I think the main benefit for athletes will be in 5k-10k. Sure the spikes make a “difference”...
The thing is, that’s their job. The spike is supposed to make you faster. We don’t know how much faster, and I’m not saying the spike has 0 help, but it’s really not much.
I think a lot of people quarreling about the spikes have never worn them before...
Agree. I have dragonflys and honestly don't think they are much better than regular spikes. The bigger difference is in the road shoes, ie, Vaporfly, etc, and I think some (mainly those who have not worn the dragonflys) are wrongly assuming they give a similar advantage.