You children might not know this, but people used to run pretty fast without all this here fancy carbon fibers and pebaxes. Back in my day, quite a few people ran faster than 2:08 without those newfangled materials. We used to run over one hundred miles a week on roads with shoes that weren't even as cushy as your track spikes! People didn't get as many stress fractures back then either. Maybe because we drank milk and ate vegetables? I don't know.
Now go put your $275 super shoes on and do your triple thresholds or whatever y'all call running fast these days.
I agree with you here and know what you're getting at, but maybe the old-timers who "ran faster than 2:08" could have been running 2:05 - 06?
Many of the highest consumer countries of milk per capita are also the highest prevalence of osteoporosis...
October 1981 Salazar in modern-ish shoes on a flat course (say Rotterdam at the time) with pacers would have run 2:06. Deek was faster a few weeks later at Fukuoka, but then ran mostly championship and hilly races; the world was not full of flat Euro races yet.
I have a pair of the Hyperion 4s from the trials giveaway. The shoes are bad and not pebax. We know that supershoes make 2+ minutes of a difference for elite men. I’d feel pretty bummed if I’d missed the team in those shoes…I hope they’re at least paid well.
Maybe if they were better marathoners or more fit they would make it....ever think of that?
You children might not know this, but people used to run pretty fast without all this here fancy carbon fibers and pebaxes. Back in my day, quite a few people ran faster than 2:08 without those newfangled materials. We used to run over one hundred miles a week on roads with shoes that weren't even as cushy as your track spikes! People didn't get as many stress fractures back then either. Maybe because we drank milk and ate vegetables? I don't know.
Now go put your $275 super shoes on and do your triple thresholds or whatever y'all call running fast these days.
You must be so old you missed the point.
It isn't about whether he can or can't run fast without super shoes.
It's about whether he could have kept up with his COMPETITORS who he was at a clear disadvantage with due to his shoes.
Sure, your sub 2:08 guys would have run sub 2:06 with super shoes, but nobody here is trying to argue against that so take your microdick out of the straw man's ass.
The best from 1980. In HS a good number of us used to wear these on outdoor track races too as many of the tracks were super hard - not much different than pavement.
Shoes matter; however, I think our discussion around their performance effects in an actual race (not a lab) could be better- rather than repeating the same lines we have the last 6 years or so.
First, debating about shoes you’ve never worn seems silly. In the Trials, we wore prototypes (which should be obvious since the shoe is on the World Athletics list and Runners World and many other sites stated we wore them). While the Hyperion Elite 4 is good imo (new plate, updated foam, new outsole, new upper, it’s lighter, etc compared to the HE3), the prototype we raced in was significantly better. Its improvements make it one of the lightest super shoes I’ve seen and the energy return subjectively feels really, really good. Cushioning seems good as I had no soreness after the race (except for my right arch which was feeling tight before the race). Since I’m confident none of you have ran in these shoes, your discussion is pure speculation and seems kinda pointless tbh.
When it comes to analyzing race performance effects, you can’t simply say “this shoe is 30 seconds faster”. That assumes you’re running in a way that optimizes your power output over the whole marathon- such as being on a treadmill running the same pace the whole way. Races aren’t ran like that. In an actual race, you typically just run along with the pack (like at the Trials) so you go the same pace but use less energy with better shoes. (And no, you can’t just “run your own pace” the whole time because the effects of drafting can be worth 3-6s a mile so sticking with the pack might be more beneficial than your “optimal pace” by yourself, not to mention the mental energy.) Anyways. say you had shoes that gave you 2% better economy, so you used 66.64 ml/kg/min of O2 vs 68 for the first 18 miles of the race. The output savings obviously seems beneficial, but how much faster can you really go the last 8 miles?
A big question is what actually causes you to slow down, or prevents you from speeding up in the marathon? Because you’re running slower than threshold…so what’s happening?
I would assume you’re limited by your weakest factor. Ex. You may be able to maintain 4:50 pace in every other way, but if your motor units in your calf fatigue and you get a calf cramp, you have to slow down. Maybe your quads break down. Maybe you overheat. Maybe your central governor (brain) shuts you down for an unknown reason. Maybe you get low on glycogen (which should never happen to pro runners nowadays with fueling information. It’s very easy to consume 100g+ of carbs per hour). Anyways, the energy savings from the shoe early on in the race may not matter much if you’re going to have calf cramping and slow down to a jog anyways. But, if the shoes reduce the energy output enough that the stress on your quads is just below their breaking point, then maybe the shoes prevent you from jogging in at 6:00 pace and make a huge difference!
For marathons, since you’re running slower than threshold, and shouldn’t get too low on glycogen, the whole-body O2 consumption probably doesn’t matter quite as much. It seems more beneficial to know how a specific shoe is impacting the output of specific muscles.
Has anyone measured how much force each muscle (or muscle group) is producing with different types of shoes at given paces and then compared that to the same athlete’s muscular or neuromuscular failure/inefficiencies during races (or simulated races)? Ex. Shoe A is resulting in the quad muscle using 50W at 4:55 pace vs Shoe B using 51.2W… and, on average, when this athlete’s quads produce 50.7W for 90 minutes they become, on average, 1.4% less efficient with each mile afterward. (I just made up numbers that probably aren’t realistic, but it’s just an example).
Specific to the Trials, why, specifically, did Zach slow from 4:50 all the way to 6:00 pace? Why did I have several miles over 5:00 pace but then finish with several miles under 5:00 pace, even with increasing temperatures? If we don’t actually know what is causing fatigue in a specific situation, how can we possibly determine the impact of shoes?
Anyways, my point is, we know shoes matter, that the foam is important, and even that people ran fast before super shoes… but let’s explore different methods of analysis for determining the effect of shoes in competitive race settings. I think the discussions would be more interesting and fun.
Shoes matter; however, I think our discussion around their performance effects in an actual race (not a lab) could be better- rather than repeating the same lines we have the last 6 years or so.
First, debating about shoes you’ve never worn seems silly. In the Trials, we wore prototypes (which should be obvious since the shoe is on the World Athletics list and Runners World and many other sites stated we wore them). While the Hyperion Elite 4 is good imo (new plate, updated foam, new outsole, new upper, it’s lighter, etc compared to the HE3), the prototype we raced in was significantly better. Its improvements make it one of the lightest super shoes I’ve seen and the energy return subjectively feels really, really good. Cushioning seems good as I had no soreness after the race (except for my right arch which was feeling tight before the race). Since I’m confident none of you have ran in these shoes, your discussion is pure speculation and seems kinda pointless tbh.
When it comes to analyzing race performance effects, you can’t simply say “this shoe is 30 seconds faster”. That assumes you’re running in a way that optimizes your power output over the whole marathon- such as being on a treadmill running the same pace the whole way. Races aren’t ran like that. In an actual race, you typically just run along with the pack (like at the Trials) so you go the same pace but use less energy with better shoes. (And no, you can’t just “run your own pace” the whole time because the effects of drafting can be worth 3-6s a mile so sticking with the pack might be more beneficial than your “optimal pace” by yourself, not to mention the mental energy.) Anyways. say you had shoes that gave you 2% better economy, so you used 66.64 ml/kg/min of O2 vs 68 for the first 18 miles of the race. The output savings obviously seems beneficial, but how much faster can you really go the last 8 miles?
A big question is what actually causes you to slow down, or prevents you from speeding up in the marathon? Because you’re running slower than threshold…so what’s happening?
I would assume you’re limited by your weakest factor. Ex. You may be able to maintain 4:50 pace in every other way, but if your motor units in your calf fatigue and you get a calf cramp, you have to slow down. Maybe your quads break down. Maybe you overheat. Maybe your central governor (brain) shuts you down for an unknown reason. Maybe you get low on glycogen (which should never happen to pro runners nowadays with fueling information. It’s very easy to consume 100g+ of carbs per hour). Anyways, the energy savings from the shoe early on in the race may not matter much if you’re going to have calf cramping and slow down to a jog anyways. But, if the shoes reduce the energy output enough that the stress on your quads is just below their breaking point, then maybe the shoes prevent you from jogging in at 6:00 pace and make a huge difference!
For marathons, since you’re running slower than threshold, and shouldn’t get too low on glycogen, the whole-body O2 consumption probably doesn’t matter quite as much. It seems more beneficial to know how a specific shoe is impacting the output of specific muscles.
Has anyone measured how much force each muscle (or muscle group) is producing with different types of shoes at given paces and then compared that to the same athlete’s muscular or neuromuscular failure/inefficiencies during races (or simulated races)? Ex. Shoe A is resulting in the quad muscle using 50W at 4:55 pace vs Shoe B using 51.2W… and, on average, when this athlete’s quads produce 50.7W for 90 minutes they become, on average, 1.4% less efficient with each mile afterward. (I just made up numbers that probably aren’t realistic, but it’s just an example).
Specific to the Trials, why, specifically, did Zach slow from 4:50 all the way to 6:00 pace? Why did I have several miles over 5:00 pace but then finish with several miles under 5:00 pace, even with increasing temperatures? If we don’t actually know what is causing fatigue in a specific situation, how can we possibly determine the impact of shoes?
Anyways, my point is, we know shoes matter, that the foam is important, and even that people ran fast before super shoes… but let’s explore different methods of analysis for determining the effect of shoes in competitive race settings. I think the discussions would be more interesting and fun.
-CJ
You’re the best CJ. Congrats and best wishes on next.
Shoes matter; however, I think our discussion around their performance effects in an actual race (not a lab) could be better- rather than repeating the same lines we have the last 6 years or so.
First, debating about shoes you’ve never worn seems silly. In the Trials, we wore prototypes (which should be obvious since the shoe is on the World Athletics list and Runners World and many other sites stated we wore them). While the Hyperion Elite 4 is good imo (new plate, updated foam, new outsole, new upper, it’s lighter, etc compared to the HE3), the prototype we raced in was significantly better. Its improvements make it one of the lightest super shoes I’ve seen and the energy return subjectively feels really, really good. Cushioning seems good as I had no soreness after the race (except for my right arch which was feeling tight before the race). Since I’m confident none of you have ran in these shoes, your discussion is pure speculation and seems kinda pointless tbh.
When it comes to analyzing race performance effects, you can’t simply say “this shoe is 30 seconds faster”. That assumes you’re running in a way that optimizes your power output over the whole marathon- such as being on a treadmill running the same pace the whole way. Races aren’t ran like that. In an actual race, you typically just run along with the pack (like at the Trials) so you go the same pace but use less energy with better shoes. (And no, you can’t just “run your own pace” the whole time because the effects of drafting can be worth 3-6s a mile so sticking with the pack might be more beneficial than your “optimal pace” by yourself, not to mention the mental energy.) Anyways. say you had shoes that gave you 2% better economy, so you used 66.64 ml/kg/min of O2 vs 68 for the first 18 miles of the race. The output savings obviously seems beneficial, but how much faster can you really go the last 8 miles?
A big question is what actually causes you to slow down, or prevents you from speeding up in the marathon? Because you’re running slower than threshold…so what’s happening?
I would assume you’re limited by your weakest factor. Ex. You may be able to maintain 4:50 pace in every other way, but if your motor units in your calf fatigue and you get a calf cramp, you have to slow down. Maybe your quads break down. Maybe you overheat. Maybe your central governor (brain) shuts you down for an unknown reason. Maybe you get low on glycogen (which should never happen to pro runners nowadays with fueling information. It’s very easy to consume 100g+ of carbs per hour). Anyways, the energy savings from the shoe early on in the race may not matter much if you’re going to have calf cramping and slow down to a jog anyways. But, if the shoes reduce the energy output enough that the stress on your quads is just below their breaking point, then maybe the shoes prevent you from jogging in at 6:00 pace and make a huge difference!
For marathons, since you’re running slower than threshold, and shouldn’t get too low on glycogen, the whole-body O2 consumption probably doesn’t matter quite as much. It seems more beneficial to know how a specific shoe is impacting the output of specific muscles.
Has anyone measured how much force each muscle (or muscle group) is producing with different types of shoes at given paces and then compared that to the same athlete’s muscular or neuromuscular failure/inefficiencies during races (or simulated races)? Ex. Shoe A is resulting in the quad muscle using 50W at 4:55 pace vs Shoe B using 51.2W… and, on average, when this athlete’s quads produce 50.7W for 90 minutes they become, on average, 1.4% less efficient with each mile afterward. (I just made up numbers that probably aren’t realistic, but it’s just an example).
Specific to the Trials, why, specifically, did Zach slow from 4:50 all the way to 6:00 pace? Why did I have several miles over 5:00 pace but then finish with several miles under 5:00 pace, even with increasing temperatures? If we don’t actually know what is causing fatigue in a specific situation, how can we possibly determine the impact of shoes?
Anyways, my point is, we know shoes matter, that the foam is important, and even that people ran fast before super shoes… but let’s explore different methods of analysis for determining the effect of shoes in competitive race settings. I think the discussions would be more interesting and fun.
-CJ
Great post CJ! Gets right at the oversimplification of these discussions. There are a million factors with how the shoes interacts with the athlete to how the athlete’s body is functioning on the day. It was a truly great race out there and places 3-6 all ran commendable races and for a few things going differently could’ve finished in any order.
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.