Breaking: Science of Sport calls for Nike Vaporfly Elite to be banned

Running, like any other sport, is not fair.

Some people have better genetics. Some grew up or live at altitude. Some have doctors, therapists, scientists, coaches, workout partners, etc. supporting them. Some only have to worry about training and recovering. Some have unlimited access to the very best shoes, shoes with the latest technology, special shoes custom tuned and made for them. Some use stimulants, DMSO, EPO, steroids, carbo loading, gels, drinks, high tech clothing (now with little nubs on them), high tech electronic gadgets, etc.

It is simply not fair. People are always going to try to exploit any little thing to gain an advantage.

Most will never have access to all of the above.

The only pure, fair and equal races would occur if you just woke people up one morning, placed them totally naked on a course, and said go. No training, no preparation, no clothing, no aid, no shoes.

If Nike really wanted to see a sub 2 hour marathon they wouldn't be designing shoes they'd be designing a long track.

Barefoot is THE most efficient way to run. No technology can match the hundreds of thousand nerve endings in the foot. Also the windlass effect which is the foots natural propulsion spring is not possible in shoes, look it up. Lastly, the problem with shoes is the cushioning is always the same stiffness. When barefoot those nerve endings signal the brain to change stiffness of the legs, this is THE most efficient way to run. Forget shaving ounces off of the shoes, just put them in the bin.

What Nike should do is create a mile long running track that is smooth enough to run 26 miles on but rough enough to give maximum feedback for the feet - brain feedback loop. Design the hardness of the track for 26 miles at speed. Then it will be tuned perfectly for ANYONE ready to run barefoot.

I've set ALL my PRs barefoot. I've never set a PR in shoes. Running in shoes blocks the feedback loop, it's like trying to play darts with a blind fold on.

Runners these days aren't running fast because of the shoes.

The main reason is because the top runners are extremely talented and they're fast no matter what they wear.

It's obvious athletes will come on top with those shoes if Nike/Adidas are paying them with huge contract.

If any company does the same with semi-decent shoe, they will get the same result.

Also I don't get why people are making big deal about this when nobody has broken any world record with it yet, and they are just trying to break it under well supervised/managed condition.

If these shoes are meant to give so much advantage, can we expect any other ethnicity to break their own record as well? (Like Ryan Hall's 2:06:16?)

GrandmaFilly wrote:

Lol honestly though this is why I will NEVER EVER get into Competitive triathlon, if you don't have the best most expensive bike you will get schooled into the ground.

Complete generalization that makes you incompletely wrong.

So I had the fastest 18mi in a Sprint distance triathlon. My Steed: Cannondale Slice with 7yr old carbon wheels all totaling 3000- The winner of the event, 8yr old Quintana Roo midrange in it day 5000 MSRP. Bought for 1200- The runner-up $9000+ big brand.

Your statement just discourages you to train true you can buy speed never though can you buy the training and form that makes the speed. Maybe your a full time runner and you assume these tri geeks are all $8000+ Cervelo/Felt studs.

The best triathlete on the planet did Not have the "Best"

I was thinking about that in a similar way and completely agree.

Maybe there is some angle or shape that returns some level of energy using a certain type of gait that is optimized for someone for like kipchoge.

There's no way it works as well for a 7min/mile pace joe jogger or even other elites who have a different gait.

I really want to see specifically what this "spoon" shape is in the new shoe and how it's angled and where it is placed.

I'm also kind of surprised that something like this doesn't have some effect on the runner's mechanics - especially a fine-tuned elite logging +100miles/wk - IF it actually does have some kind of remarkable energy return. The Wired article author says he can hardly stand in these shoes... you'd think a drastic shoe change would be a gamble that might have all kinds of slight side effects on kipchoge's mechanics that can add up to seconds here or there in a marathon, in a bad way.

Wise One wrote:

two tiered market wrote:

This is THE issue. Some pros will have fine tuned shoes for their weight, etc...

The rest of us will get something that is generic tuned for the "average" runner. Like 9:00 min/mile pace and 200 lbs. It won't work as well.

I'm not buying them.

Nonsense. Cyclists have had heat moldable carbon fibre shoes for years that they can remold themselves.

That's shape, not tuning the stiffness you Moran.

they are just trying to break it under well supervised/managed condition.

Exactally, The Tesla is the 4% advantage!!!!

nobody has broken any world record

Bares repeating

nobody has broken any world record

nobody has broken any world record

nobody has broken any world record

nobody has broken any world record with it yet

Short bike rider wrote:

Wise One wrote:

Nonsense. Cyclists have had heat moldable carbon fibre shoes for years that they can remold themselves.

That's shape, not tuning the stiffness you Moran.

Stiffness changes with the second moment of inertia you Moran, ie: shape.

Ho wrote:

It wasn't a world record, buddy.

Hey idiot, actual skills said has an anyone run faster than 2:04.26 in Nike's and I said Bekele Berlin 2:03 (also Kipchoge in London last year).

test2 wrote:

PROPULSION wrote:

"Biomechanical and metabolic effects of a leaf spring structured midsole in heel–toe running"

Results: The leaf spring structured midsole shoe significantly increased the anterior shift of the foot by 8 ± 4 mm (p = 0.001) during stance leading to an increased stride length (1%; p = 0.044), while oxygen cost (2%; p = 0.031) and stride rate (1%; p = 0.039) were significantly reduced compared to the reference shoe.

Make your own judgement, but make it based on facts.

I wouldn't consider Nike's claims facts. The study is interesting but aside from the anterior shift thing, the p-values are marginal and oddly similar to each other.

I think this was a actually an adidas study on their spring shoe monstrosity, that was laughed off at the time but now seemed to have legitimate performance benefits.

Wise One wrote:

Short bike rider wrote:

That's shape, not tuning the stiffness you Moran.

Stiffness changes with the second moment of inertia you Moran, ie: shape.

forming cycling shoes is a fit thing not a performance enhancement thing. Different mechanics (stiff non deformable vs active spring) so it is not really relevant to the discussion.

vancouver runner wrote:

[quote]

they are just trying to break it under well supervised/managed condition.

Exactally, The Tesla is the 4% advantage!!!!

I was wondering if anyone else would notice that. Drafting with pacemakers and aerotapes vs stick a massive funking car with a billboard on top in front of them.

ElonMusk wrote:

vancouver runner wrote:

[quote]

they are just trying to break it under well supervised/managed condition.

Exactally, The Tesla is the 4% advantage!!!!

I was wondering if anyone else would notice that. Drafting with pacemakers and aerotapes vs stick a massive funking car with a billboard on top in front of them.

That would classic, these elite runners surrounded by an escort of large vehicles so spectators wouldn't have a clue who is running past.

How about this blogger do some independent research to see if there is actually a significant advantage from these shoes before saying they need to be banned.

That's what you do in 'science.'

Skiing. Top world cup athletes get the best skis with regard to camber and pressure distribution. Lesser athletes and rec skiers get the leftovers. The Mikaela Shiffrins and Marit Bjorgens of the sport have an advantage over most other athletes in that they get THE best skis from their manufacturer first.

Also with regard to skiing. Do you think skis years ago had the camber and pop that skis today have? No. But it was an evolution of the sport.

I think people are pissed that running as a sport has found a way to really improve on the gear we use. Running has always been that sport that was the equalizer. Gear didn't make a huge difference. Flats are flats, singlets are singlets. But now that shoe companies have found a way to potentially make you substantially better over a marathon, you people like butthurt Kara Goucher.

This technology is not new: Going way, way back in-the-day, Etonic had a shoe we sold called the Alpha 1 - the big thing was a sculpted carbon fiber plate stretching from heel to forefoot, the first of its kind; also, later in their Quasar model. The purpose? To provide stable propulsion and energy return. It was a radical upper design, too. Incredible fit; however, it never caught on. So what about Mizuno's Wave Plates, and the shapes and sizes they come in? Most midsole additions claim energy return along w/ stability. What's different in this Nike plate? I guess I'm too old, I don't get it.

dirtpoor wrote:

This technology is not new: Going way, way back in-the-day, Etonic had a shoe we sold called the Alpha 1 - the big thing was a sculpted carbon fiber plate stretching from heel to forefoot, the first of its kind; also, later in their Quasar model. The purpose? To provide stable propulsion and energy return. It was a radical upper design, too. Incredible fit; however, it never caught on. So what about Mizuno's Wave Plates, and the shapes and sizes they come in? Most midsole additions claim energy return along w/ stability. What's different in this Nike plate? I guess I'm too old, I don't get it.

The spoon shaped carbon fibre plate acting like a directional spring that is tuned to return energy in a specific direction based on athlete specific requirements in order to propel them forward.

The funny thing is that the athlete tuning for the elite version is exactly why nobody should buy the non-customized joe public shoe. For some it may improve, and for some it may hinder performance.

“We’re giving our athletes a benefit within the rules as they’re written,” said Bret Schoolmeester, Nike’s senior director of global running footwear. “We’re not using any sort of illegal springs or anything like that.”

Read more:

http://www.digitaltrends.com/outdoors/nike-zoom-vaporfly-elite/#ixzz4c3paV0iN

Follow us: @digitaltrends on Twitter | DigitalTrends on Facebook

GrandmaFilly wrote:

Lol honestly though this is why I will NEVER EVER get into Competitive triathlon, if you don't have the best most expensive bike you will get schooled into the ground.

I compete from time to time in local triathlons for fun in the off season and got to the podium a few times. My bike is a 12 years-old 1500$ Giant TCR Aero1. Once, I got second place overall riding the 300$ road bike that I use to commute. Granted, perhaps I could have shaved a few seconds off my time with a better bike, but definitely you do not need to spend top $$$ to be competitive. If you get schooled to the ground, it is not the bike.