So where do the manufacturers say the faster you are the less benefit from the shoes? By your argument a mediocre 10k runner benefits more than an elite 1500 or 800 runner. So the shoes are event-specific? Really?
They are. Carbon plates are proven to reduce fatigue during longer distances which gives the runner a lot more benefit, as opposed to just speed in a shorter distance
Yet the arguments on these threads have been that the sudden recent improvements in the 800 and 1500 have been due to the shoes. So if it isn't the shoes then that probably leaves drugs. But only md athletes dope, not long distance runners?
Drugs are much better at reducing fatigue than carbon plates. Athletes know that, which is why even those in supershoes will dope. Howman doesn't say the shoes have made doping obsolete.
They are. Carbon plates are proven to reduce fatigue during longer distances which gives the runner a lot more benefit, as opposed to just speed in a shorter distance
Yet the arguments on these threads have been that the sudden recent improvements in the 800 and 1500 have been due to the shoes. So if it isn't the shoes then that probably leaves drugs. But only md athletes dope, not long distance runners?
Drugs are much better at reducing fatigue than carbon plates. Athletes know that, which is why even those in supershoes will dope. Howman doesn't say the shoes have made doping obsolete.
It is the shoes, all i said is that the shoes don´t create as much of a difference in shorter distances compared to longer ones. A 1600 is mid distance. And now once again you are denying improvements due to the shoes and call them out as doping.
Doping has indeed decreased a lot but not because of the shoes. You do realize that it´s extremely hard to get away with doping nowadays, right? Athletes get tested for it regularly.
The study claims a 2.1% improvement in running economy is predicted to improve the race time of a 30 minute 10,000 m runner by 25 seconds or 1.4%.
That means Cheptegei's world record of 26:11 is worth 26:33 in the old shoes. Bekele's world record in the old shoes was 26:17. According to this study his record would convert to 25:45 or thereabouts in superspikes.
I'm not sure about that math for Bekele. I'm getting 25:55.
At what point do the super spikes stop working? People want to say 3:56 is the new 4:00, but is there anyone willing to say Jakob and Nuguse would only run 3:47 in old spikes? That would put El G at 3:39.
We tried to be very intentional with the interpretation of our results. 25 seconds or 1 second per lap for a 30 min 10k runner does not mean that we are trying to claim the spikes provide a flat 1 second per lap benefit across the board. It seems to be a gradient where the faster you go, the smaller the benefits. In another study, we saw that the average time from the top 100 performers in the men's 1500m from 2021 to 2023 improved by 0.65% or 1.5 seconds for a 3:45 miler. If you told me El G could run 3:41.6 in super spikes, I would believe that.
This is worth highlighting because a significant number of posters here use 1 second per lap as a universal super spike conversion factor.
“The average time from the top 100 performers from 2021-2023 improved by 0.65%, therefore the spikes provide a 0.65% benefit” is a non sequitur. You have to demonstrate that super spikes are the only source of the improvement before you can make that claim.
Beyond that, what can trends in the top 100 as a whole actually tell us about the top 5 in particular? If, as you say, the spike benefits are on a gradient with the effects diminishing as speed increases, it makes no sense to use the slew of times from 3:33 - 3:36 (which comprise the vast majority of the top 100) to generate a conversion factor that you intend to apply to 3:28 races.
Yet the arguments on these threads have been that the sudden recent improvements in the 800 and 1500 have been due to the shoes. So if it isn't the shoes then that probably leaves drugs. But only md athletes dope, not long distance runners?
Drugs are much better at reducing fatigue than carbon plates. Athletes know that, which is why even those in supershoes will dope. Howman doesn't say the shoes have made doping obsolete.
It is the shoes, all i said is that the shoes don´t create as much of a difference in shorter distances compared to longer ones. A 1600 is mid distance. And now once again you are denying improvements due to the shoes and call them out as doping.
Work on your reading comprehension, bud.
No, I'm not. I'm saying it is only speculation that the drugs offer more improvements to distance runners than shorter distances (not sprints).
Doping has indeed decreased a lot but not because of the shoes. You do realize that it´s extremely hard to get away with doping nowadays, right? Athletes get tested for it regularly.
It hasn't decreased. We have the former head of WADA saying otherwise, that doping control is "ineffective" and dopers are "getting away with it". At no point has he said doping has been reduced. If dopers aren't being caught it stands to reason it isn't reducing.
If the shoes offer greater performance advantage than the shoes then athletes using super shoes wouldn't dope. But they are. The practice has not abated.
This post was edited 28 seconds after it was posted.
The study claims a 2.1% improvement in running economy is predicted to improve the race time of a 30 minute 10,000 m runner by 25 seconds or 1.4%.
That means Cheptegei's world record of 26:11 is worth 26:33 in the old shoes. Bekele's world record in the old shoes was 26:17. According to this study his record would convert to 25:45 or thereabouts in superspikes.
I'm not sure about that math for Bekele. I'm getting 25:55.
It is the shoes, all i said is that the shoes don´t create as much of a difference in shorter distances compared to longer ones. A 1600 is mid distance. And now once again you are denying improvements due to the shoes and call them out as doping.
Work on your reading comprehension, bud.
No, I'm not. I'm saying it is only speculation that the drugs offer more improvements to distance runners than shorter distances (not sprints).
Except the speculation here is actually reasonable. There are loads of evidence to back it up, and even if it is not definitive, it is reasonable to make a thesis about something with a lot of suggestive evidence when there is no evidence that suggests against it. This is like saying that, despite the general consensus, Honda isn't a more reliable brand than Jeep just because there are no studies that "prove" it is. Just like it is reasonable speculation that world class athletes with near perfect mechanics don't benefit as much from the shoes as other runners
Doping has indeed decreased a lot but not because of the shoes. You do realize that it´s extremely hard to get away with doping nowadays, right? Athletes get tested for it regularly.
Not the East Africans, despite claims to the contrary.
The known performance improvement is about 2/3rds of the economy improvement.
Therefore, a 2.1% better economy results in an 1.4% speed improvement, on average. Thus, 5:30 per mile becomes 5:25.38 pace. So, a 4.62 seconds (per mile) change is the predicted outcome.
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.