Incredible Read. Ross Tucker: The Vaporflys Need To Be Banned

Commentary above by "my 2c" is brilliant. That is the "must read."

I have worn VF for about 18 months now and a few comments. I wear the Next% for races, and the 4% FlyKnit for some long runs and longer tempo. I've also gotten 300 miles out my 4% Flyknits that I train in where I could typically only get less than 200 out my previous preferred Hoka. So the cost is a no brainer and with a history of knee injuries has made running much more fun. I think the variance in performance gains is somewhat attributable to the "sensation of propulsion" that Nike describes. Some runners are probably better at utilizing that sensation (due to fitness, form etc) and hence the variation in % efficiency gains. I was more of a heel striker until wearing the VF's but now feel I am in a much more forward and economic position. Note that the foam and carbon likely make that position more sustainable. The consequences at the elite level is a whole different story and the VF are definitely an advantage as I believe any elite runner will be able to capitalize on it. I've also been wearing the Hoka CarbonX and I do not get much of the same propulsion sensation. Although the shoes are pretty comfortable/stable they feel heavy. It seems Hoka simply choose not to make the shoe especially light or aggressively stacked.

Cool lets still be 100% clear that Nike invented absolutely nothing in terms of the concepts used in the Vaporfly range (curved stiffening plate, high resilience lightweight foam and (now) zoom air bag units.

They quite simply found the best combination of those that improves athlete performance. Quick question - isn't that the unique value proposition/ultimate goal of all sports brands? What else should they be doing? Shouldn't the issue be how every other brand out there isn't doing their jobs right when it comes to what the sporting goods industry is fundamentally based on?

Humankind is funny isn't it. We love to pretend we are open to change, the evolution of society wah wah wah - but the truth is we aren't. We freak about about things that scare us, what we can't explain, what think is too far from our personal norm or yardstick of acceptability

I usually like Ross Tuckers writing and insight but he's way off the mark here. Thanks for your opinion but that's all it is.

Nike has done their job and done it fantastically well. Kudos to them

Ross Tucker, by simply interpreting the variation shown in that figure as being driven by differences in response, has outed himself as a fake scientist (if he wasn't already) and should not be taken seriously. In fact I'm not sure if he could pass the science section on the ACT.

facts and reason wrote:

That's insane. Some people gain 0% while others gain a 6% benefit.

And it's totally misleading. The sample size was only 12. These are not statistically significant findings: "In this study, for instance, there are runners, five in total, who get more than 4% benefit, and there are 7 who got less than 2%."

Does anyone realize what pseudo science BS Tucker is trying to shove down our throats by drawing a conclusion from this?

If we want to see someone doing the sport a disservice, look at Ross Tucker.

edumacation rulez wrote:

Tucker gets $$ from other shoe companies. Of course he thinks nikes should get banned. The only joke here is Tucker

Bump

I agree - nobody can tell me what exactly have Nike produced that is 'new'. They have pulled together a number of existing 'innovations' and made a shoe that loses less 'energy' than it's rivals, isn't that the whole goal of running shoe design and what others have been claiming and striving to achieve for the last few decades? Lets ban the shoes because Nike designers have done their job too well??

The oversimplification people are bringing to this issue is amazing, as is the trend that every runner now thinks he/she has a PhD in physics.

A. It's clear that World Athletics set these guidelines with the full coordination and collaboration with Nike. What seriously did you expect? Sponsors own the sport of running, just like they do with other sports which have a limited fan base. And in these sports there are very few brands who will make significant investments when the payoff is so low. So yeah it's a little sleazy, but to remove the sleaze is to remove the funding than enables promotion and viewership of the sport. If you can't deal with that then you're going to have a very hard time being a fan.

B. The financial issue Ross raises is ridiculous. Financial disparities impact everything in sports, particularly for less prominent sports. Whether you're talking about the elite or amateur level, those with financial means either from their own wallet or from external sponsors will always have an advantage. That's called capitalism and it doesn't always result in full equality.

C. Aggressive regulation in any industry almost always benefits well funded players and hurts poorly funded players. A 20mm stack height limit seems reasonable on the surface, but the collateral damage will be the elimination of smaller brands from the elite running scene, as well as brands which have focused on the highly cushioned market. Goodbye Hoka. Smaller brands will not be able to afford the research costs and go-to-market timelines required to innovate in a highly regulated market. That doesn't make it a bad idea, but those promoting the heavy regulation need to take some ownership of those consequences and stop acting like this is a simple no-brainer. Nike's dominance will only grow with aggressive regulation.

Bottom line is there should be some level of equipment regulation as there is in all sports. But serious people with the ability and willingness to understand and consider all pros and cons need to be leading that effort. And it seems like that describes a very small percent of those with a voice on the topic, most of whom think they can solve the problem with a simplistic view of it.

Golf should also ban all new technology, everyone should use the same sticks and balls. Bobsledding? F*ck off wind tunnels...we don't need any innovation. Bikers? Let's just standardize on penny-farthings. Runners, not only should we stifle show development, lets just go back to those Chariots of Fire style uniforms. Keep the field level!

heyyo wrote:

Ross Tucker, by simply interpreting the variation shown in that figure as being driven by differences in response, has outed himself as a fake scientist (if he wasn't already) and should not be taken seriously. In fact I'm not sure if he could pass the science section on the ACT.

+1

Praying for Alberto to be released and for this Nike witch hunt to end.

M.A.G.A.

ab28394 wrote:

C. Aggressive regulation in any industry almost always benefits well funded players and hurts poorly funded players. A 20mm stack height limit seems reasonable on the surface, but the collateral damage will be the elimination of smaller brands from the elite running scene, as well as brands which have focused on the highly cushioned market. Goodbye Hoka. Smaller brands will not be able to afford the research costs and go-to-market timelines required to innovate in a highly regulated market. That doesn't make it a bad idea, but those promoting the heavy regulation need to take some ownership of those consequences and stop acting like this is a simple no-brainer. Nike's dominance will only grow with aggressive regulation.

I don't think this is what would happen. Hoka made it big by making training shoes. Once they started sponsoring elite mid distance runners they started to make racing shoes and spikes but at first their sponsored runners were racing marathons in the Clifton. So, yes maybe a 20mm limit would eliminate innovation in racing shoes, but these companies are making more money on training shoes because that is what gets used the most.

my god will you guy get off the shoe thing already you have beaten this to death already

Real world evidence with two juniors that I coach. Athlete 1 trains for a month on 30 miles a week average after 4 week break and Athlete 2 who has never run a track race before but a steady average of 40 miles a week both run in vaporflys and run 15:37 and 15:45 on the track for 5k. These shoes make a difference and I suspect it will take a very special athlete to make the USA Olympic marathon team without wearing these shoes.

rojo wrote:

I am Sam wrote:

Some shoes offer better cushioning and other shoes return more energy. What we haven't proven that they do, other than mechanically powered ones, is that they provide you with external energy.

To everyone on here who spouts arguments like the one above or the one of "Just don't sign a contract with an inferior company", let me address you.

This is real simple.

Imagine if someone not named Nike had invented this shoe and Kipchoge was regularly getting crushed in marathons as a result. Imagine what the sport would have lost. A LOT.

Sorry rojo, this is real strawman from you.

If Kipchoge was getting crushed in the 'non Nikes' then it would be up to him to wear the 'non-Nikes' unless he is more comfortable with having sponsorship than wins.

Please address what I say above:

Does the shoe, or does it not, provide external energy to the runner?

This is pretty easy to measure and the answer is 'no it does not'.

edumacation rulez wrote:

Tucker gets $$ from other shoe companies. Of course he thinks nikes should get banned. The only joke here is Tucker

Tucker is a self proclaimed sports scientist expert due to using the internet better than many more respectable scientists out there.

He was a dime a dollar sports scientists who cut through to the masses with an inetrnet site that basically summarised research in an easy to understand way. It does not make him an expert.

The only thing he learnt from his now discredited mentor Noakes is that you can change your mind based on who sponsors you.

the title of this thread is very accurate:

Incredible Read. Ross Tucker

Most have forgotten that the dictionary definition is this:

in·cred·i·ble

/inˈkredəb(ə)l/

1. impossible to believe.

I am Sam wrote:

rojo wrote:

To everyone on here who spouts arguments like the one above or the one of "Just don't sign a contract with an inferior company", let me address you.

This is real simple.

Imagine if someone not named Nike had invented this shoe and Kipchoge was regularly getting crushed in marathons as a result. Imagine what the sport would have lost. A LOT.

Sorry rojo, this is real strawman from you.

If Kipchoge was getting crushed in the 'non Nikes' then it would be up to him to wear the 'non-Nikes' unless he is more comfortable with having sponsorship than wins.

Please address what I say above:

Does the shoe, or does it not, provide external energy to the runner?

This is pretty easy to measure and the answer is 'no it does not'.

Sorry Sam, this is a real strawman from you.

Please address what I say below:

Do roller blades provide external energy to the runner?

This is pretty easy to measure, and he answer is 'no, they do not.'

Yet the world record for an inline marathon is 56 minutes... Weird huh?

Runners who are sponsored and don't work full time should be banned.

They have an unfair advantage and a lifestyle that not everyone has access to.

Ban the pampered prince and princess. (sponsored runners who do not work full time)

Bring back real running. (Those of us who have to train at 4 in the morning while the "elites" are getting their beauty sleep.