Ben Barrows on 4%

Ben-

I say all of this respectfully. You’re a better runner than me, but just wear the fast shoes and run on the fast course. The guys you will be competing against will do the same. Give yourself every chance you can.

Basically, No one knew who you were before this thread. Get in those trials.

The guys who run fast 1500 m at Monaco don’t care. Kipchoge only runs fast courses and is now using the Nike shoes. Don’t insult these guys by saying you are somehow purer. It’s all legal.

Run fast, get into the trials. Other guys will be using vaporfly’s and will have gotten their OT time. It’s all legal by the governing agencies that operate the sport you’ve decided to pursue. If you don’t like it, quit or try another sport.

Good luck thinking all this though. All the best

Snowflake Elite wrote:

Mike Deren wrote:

Thanks for insulting every one of us that hit the OTQ mark, in vaporflys or at CIM. Instead of taking potshots at us, why don’t you make recommendations on where the line should be in terms of aided efforts instead of excuses on why you didn’t hit the mark?

In my opinion, the line between champions and mortals is excuses. Mortals have an uncanny ability to create excuses and champions create results.

I consider myself a real level headed guy, but this video really pissed me off. Thanks for belittling what I’ve worked for because of the shoes I chose to wear.

#MeToo!

I lol'd at this.

I agree with those in this thread saying to use the shoes. Other shoe companies have prototypes for their elites with similar features (Brooks for sure at least), so it's not an unequal playing field. If you're trying to get into the Olympic Trials, might as well qualify the same way as the frontrunners, who essentially all use these types of shoes.

Ben...Barrows...lol

Otq dreamer wrote:

I've run 2:26 with and without the 4%. This is silly.

I love the shoe but I didn't go 4% faster, I actually have run slower in the 4% and did some pretty amazing training runs in normal shoes.

Nike may not be the first to open up the lab and arrive at a quantifiable number for a subset of runners. Nike is however the first to mass market through controlled variable test(Monza Italy) and label the difference(4%) in all of their campaign. Finally they cap this with a limited supply but release when Elites have been running well.

I believe Rhonex Kipruto not too long ago just destroyed the World Best for 15k...in a pair of 8+ oz Adios'! Rhonex's Adios' have a percentage advantage for him so does Ben Barrows' Adios what that is depends on the individual. The highly varied mechanics, anatomy, etc of an individual does not earn an automatic "4%"

Coach Hudson made a good point the VaporFly for some are more than 4%. I believe for others they could be a

ThatAverageRunner wrote:

And how does this article counter the other study that was done that says a majority of the advantage in the 4%s is in the foam and not the tiny plate?

You might as well not wear a shoe with boost or everrun in it either, or else you’re cheating because of the enhanced energy return

What? I thought that moranic excuse argument had been laughed out of town by this video:-

Seriously, go try that with your boosts or sauconys and let us know how their "energy return" works out...

Cheating handed on a plate wrote:

ThatAverageRunner wrote:

And how does this article counter the other study that was done that says a majority of the advantage in the 4%s is in the foam and not the tiny plate?

You might as well not wear a shoe with boost or everrun in it either, or else you’re cheating because of the enhanced energy return

What? I thought that moranic excuse argument had been laughed out of town by this video:-

https://video.twimg.com/ext_tw_video/1007958930595565568/pu/vid/360x640/6Ohbn53rmY-O0p0Y.mp4

Seriously, go try that with your boosts or sauconys and let us know how their "energy return" works out...

I just replicated that video with a stick. Would I run faster with the stick taped to my foot?

You’re the biggest idiot on these forums and if there was a prize for posting a link to that clip a million times you’d win it. Go away and learn how to run fast instead of obsessing of me PB-ing in my beautiful 4%ers. You Moran.

You are THE Moran wrote:

Cheating handed on a plate wrote:

What? I thought that moranic excuse argument had been laughed out of town by this video:-

https://video.twimg.com/ext_tw_video/1007958930595565568/pu/vid/360x640/6Ohbn53rmY-O0p0Y.mp4

Seriously, go try that with your boosts or sauconys and let us know how their "energy return" works out...

I just replicated that video with a stick. Would I run faster with the stick taped to my foot?

You’re the biggest idiot on these forums and if there was a prize for posting a link to that clip a million times you’d win it. Go away and learn how to run fast instead of obsessing of me PB-ing in my beautiful 4%ers. You Moran.

? Ha ha, you replicated it with a stick and then called me an idiot?!!

As previously directed, go replicate it with some boosts or sauconys then get back to us chump...

It is interesting though to see just how upset / triggered that particular video makes a Vaporfly PRer though. Probably because it's undisputable. Thanks!

Ben Barrows said: It's really important to me to know that I am improving through training, and not wearing the 4% shoes helps with that regardless of whether they would help me or not.

this I understand.

Cheating handed on a plate said: As previously directed, go replicate it with some boosts or sauconys then get back to us chump...

I don't have either Boosts or Saucony's but, as directed, replicated it with a pair of Brooks GTS. and, to the surprise of exactly no one at all, the Brooks did not leap so high off the floor as the shoe in that video.

however, neither do I see any connection between what the shoe does in that video, and marathon running. in short, there is no evidence whatsoever that the shoe that leaps the highest when treated in that way will, necessarily, or for any good reason, be the best shoe for running in. it's just a really bouncy shoe. so what?

in fact, according to a recent article in Outside magazine (link below), not even those nice Nike people really know why folk are able to run faster in their shoe.

you obviously think you are an expert on this, so why not just explain it in a way we can all understand?

cheers.

I would't claim to be an expert in anything really, however I would claim not to be a complete idiot.

Now I only posted that video in response to the usual lazy suggestion that these shoes are no different from any other shoe cushioned with a foam improving on EVA. I think it'd be pretty disingenuous to watch that video and then still claim that holds true.

Great. 2 youtube know it alls who know nothing posting in one thread.

Mike Deren wrote:

Thanks for insulting every one of us that hit the OTQ mark, in vaporflys or at CIM. Instead of taking potshots at us, why don’t you make recommendations on where the line should be in terms of aided efforts instead of excuses on why you didn’t hit the mark?

In my opinion, the line between champions and mortals is excuses. Mortals have an uncanny ability to create excuses and champions create results.

I consider myself a real level headed guy, but this video really pissed me off. Thanks for belittling what I’ve worked for because of the shoes I chose to wear.

Sorry bro, you cheated.

If we ever draw a line, it's gonna be an arbitrary one.

IAAF says "spring-like" devices are forbidden, but what is a foam that provides ANY energy returns if not a spring? You put energy into a spring and it gives you that energy right back (eh, roughly speaking), exactly like the foam does.

EVERY running shoe we use nowadays has spring-like qualities.

^ Clearly did not bother to watch that video posted above!

Vaporfly Asterisk wrote:

^ Clearly did not bother to watch that video posted above!

Interesting video. Do you have any video/photo evidence of someone running in Vaporflys who can manage to contort their foot like that while running in order to take advantage of the spring plate?

Being facetious doesn't alter the fact that video shows (as if it wasn't obvious) that a carbon spring plate will hold far greater potential energy than any foam. The fact that it can be demonstrated in such a startling manner is what makes it a powerful video.

Well, I watched it now and I have two remarks about it:

1- The degree to which the plate returns energy is irrelevant to the fact that any line drawn will be arbitrary since other elements in the shoe already have spring-like qualities. If the line is drawn at the plate It just means that the arbitrary line will be at the amount of energy return that plate provides.

2- You bent that plate to a degree nobody would while running and it made a 100g shoe jump a bit. Big woop. Add 140lbs to the shoe and see how much it’ll jump.

Last one: be careful bending your shoe like that. A friend of mine snapped the carbon plate in half by playing with the shoe like that.

Cheating handed on a plate said: Now I only posted that video in response to the usual lazy suggestion that these shoes are no different from any other shoe cushioned with a foam improving on EVA.

that isn't true, and you know it isn't true, and anyone who reads this thread can tell that it isn't true.

That Average Runner said: You might as well not wear a shoe with boost or everrun in it either, or else you’re cheating because of the enhanced energy return.

to which you replied:

"I thought that moranic excuse argument had been laughed out of town by this video" and you posted the video.

in other words, you posted the video specifically because you thought it answered the question of whether the shoe offered "enhanced energy return." you actually said that the video "answered that moronic argument."

now, that is quite definitely a claim to know that because the shoe leaps off the floor in the manner demonstrated in that video, that it therefore definitely does offer runners, "enhanced energy return."

all I'm asking you to do is explain how you make that connection. I am asking you to explain how that video, "answered that moronic argument," to use your own phrase.

the reason I'm confused about this is that the article in Outside magazine said that the guy who designed the shoe doesn't know how it works. the guy who patented the foot plate doesn't know how it works, two independent studies not paid for by Nike were unable to conclude how it works, but some anonymous message board poster thinks a video of a shoe bouncing up in the air answers any questions anyone might have.

furthermore, the article also explained, if you had bothered to read it, that since no one knows how or why it works it is not possible to ban it, because the writers of any rules would not know exactly what it is they are banning. the foam, the plate, the combination of foam and plate, or something else. they just don't know.

you are therefore in the unique position of being the only person on planet Earth who claims to know anything at all about how the shoe works and I await with baited breath your scholarly, reasoned, rational explanation. (not).

what I expect I'll get is more obfuscation, back tracking and denial. either that or silence.

cheers.

This thread is why governing bodies exist. Right now you can OTQ at CIM & race in the 4%'s. Other shoe companies are making similar models. A lot of elites are already racing in those models. I don't think any of this conversation has to do with honesty and integrity unless we are told otherwise. There is no moral high ground to stand on when the course and shoes can get you to an OTQ. Running is such a tough sport because we get in shape to run our best and then get a hot day/a cold day/a hilly course, etc. Sometimes it's nice to time trial not on the track. Also every runner is different. There was perfect weather at Houston last year. If everyone who did CIM goes there and gets that weather, I would expect almost everyone to OTQ again.