A 4 minute mile equals 3:56.8 with superspikes

Your original reply was “Um, you are aware that way, way fewer high-level races occurred from 19-22 due to covid, right?” You then presented several athletes who raced more in 2018/2019 than in 2021 to support this claim.

Individual athletes racing less in a given year is not evidence that fewer high-level races existed during that year. Maybe we’re talking past each other at this point, but I simply disagree with the notion we saw a considerable dearth of quality races from 2019-22.

That said, I’m willing to cede the point anyway, because I don’t need it for my argument. Even if I grant that there were fewer high-level races the last 4 years (due to covid or anything else), there have still been more than enough to observe a supposed 3-second-per-mile super spike effect. The fact remains that no one has run as fast as they should have if these spikes are so effective for elites. There’s nothing disingenuous or invalid about comparing the last 4 years to any other modern period, unless you’re prepared to make the ridiculous claim that we actually haven’t seen enough high-level racing to make any conclusions.

That is what your initial response seemed to be implying, but you’ve said you don’t have a dog in the fight and I’ll accept that. My running days were over before the dragonflies released, and like you I’m fine with what I accomplished and happy to see kids running fast.

I appreciate the respectful disagreement and discussion.

There are other ways to study the impact of supershoes & spikes. Last year in June on this site, I posted averages of the top-10 high school performances nationally in every track & field event for 2022, 2012, and 2002 (unable to go earlier without incurring costs). Not the deepest data analysis, but it gives you an idea.

What I found was that there have been marginal improvements for boys and girls in the sprints, hurdles, relays, and field events, other than the pole vault for girls (new event). The big increases? Boys and girls distance, especially in the 1600/mile and 3200/2-mile averages. Huge increases for 2022, compared to 2012 and 2002.

Some cite "much better" coaching today. But there have always been coaching innovations from the days of Percy Cerutty, Arthur Lydiard, Jack Daniels, Bob Kersee, etc., etc., etc. Those have tended to get shared fairly quickly at coaching clinics and via other venues.

Another argument against supershoe & spike influence has been the "well, look at the world records/top level performances in the 800, 1500, 5000, etc. They've barely budged, if at all, compared to pre-supershoe levels". A counter-argument to that point is the fact that, when absolute performance levels are approached at elite levels, improvement is much harder to come by, and may be superseded by other factors, such as performance-enhancing drugs. (But even then, improvement can be hard to come by. Look at baseball; when perhaps half the Major Leagues were on 'roids' during the 1990s and 2000s, only 3 beefed-up players out of hundreds, I believe, manage to exceed the season homerun records of Babe Ruth and Roger Maris).

Widely adopted innovations like supershoes/spikes likely tend to benefit the lowest hanging fruit the most; those who tend to be younger, more developmental, with more room for improvement. From what I've seen from the data, supershoes/spikes tend to improve performance in the distance events by at least 2 seconds per mile for your typical high schooler.

There’s one way to clear all of this up, ban the shoes for a single year. I’d bet my next paycheck that times would immediately drop to pre super shoe times. No WRs. Might see a prep sub 4 but nothing like we’ve been seeing. Of course this won’t happen. Next best thing is for iaaf to conduct a study. Find 100 or so world elite and national elite runners. Have them run on a treadmill with workout to measure max or peak v02. Give them an hour rest and then do it again with super spikes. Measure results and compare. Maybe they’re doing this already but not likely.

I do think the shoes are worth 3-4 seconds for a 4:05ish runner. Maybe only a second or second and a half for someone like El G. This would explain why no one has come close to his 3:43. You’d have to have someone around sub 3:45 w/o super shoes which doesn’t exist. Why is it less for world elite runners? Not sure, but likely PEDs could (or could not) play a role. You can only get so fast. Or, you can only modify a car so much before nothing has an effect or very little effect as opposed to a car that doesn’t have any modifications and even the smallest improvements can substantially boost performance.

Largely agreed, though I also believe that another big factor in distance has been that the sport is actually becoming marginally more popular, so we have more kids opting for distance running over ball sports whereas years ago distance running was the domain of freaks and weirdos and kids who weren't coordinated enough or athletic enough to play ball sports. To me the benefits of shoe technology are clearest when we look at the distribution of race times among accomplished, serious runners far enough down the world rankings that they aren't the truly unique generational talents. I like zzzz's analysis of the 1000th ranked times in the past vs. now. The New York Times's analysis of Strava data a few years ago among major marathon finishers was also quite thorough and well done.

In terms of amount of time rather than percentages: 2% of 4 minutes is fewer seconds than 2% of 5 minutes. In terms of percentages (smaller *percentage* improvements for faster runners than slower runners), the authors of the various relevant studies have suggested a few potential explanations (some clearly testable, others perhaps not). One is that, as you hint at with the car analogy, there's probably some theoretical ceiling to how economically one can possibly run, and the very best runners are probably a lot closer to that ceiling than slower runners. Another is that the mechanical benefits of the foam and plate may plateau at some particular amount of force / rate of application of force (the specifics of this will vary between shoes, not same for all supershoes) and perhaps some elites are on the wrong side of the plateau. Another is simply that measuring running economy accurately is comparatively harder to do when a runner is nearing their VO2max than when they are jogging.

How about a mile run on cinders compared to a mile run on the latest Mondo track? These comparisons are pointless. Technology evolves, athletes get faster. Best just to accept this.

I agree we may be talking past one another at this point. That said, just a few quick points:

1) I wasn't really arguing that there was a "considerable dearth of quality races" from 19-22. I was arguing that there were considerably fewer than from 15-18, which I think is fair. 2020 saw a big decline, and in 2021 lots of top athletes were still racing less. Over just a four-year span, that makes a big difference.

2) It makes a big difference to your results because you are tallying up the number of sensational performances: when top athletes race less, there will inevitably be fewer such performances.

3) You say "no one has run as fast as they should have if these spikes are so effective for elites." But what about the absolute deluge of national records, area records, world records, etc. we have seen since superspikes arrived? Elites have absolutely been putting up unusually strong performances these last few years. This recent spate of record-breaking is not business as usual for the sport.

4) And as others have said, the focus on the absolute tip-top of the athlete pool obscures the enormous improvement in times across the wider body of elite and sub-elite athletes. Like I said, I don't really have a dog in this fight, but the data posted by zzzz sure looks compelling.

Finally, even if I were to accept your logic, the data you're citing is, as far as I can tell, inaccurate (as I'll show in another post in a minute)...

Where are you getting these numbers from? You say that from 2019-2022 there was only one sub-12:50, but there were four sub-12:50s (from three different athletes) in 2022 alone (see the "top list" section of the World Athletics site).

Here's my rough, hasty count* for 2019-2022:

Sub-3:30 - 20 performances (versus your total of 12 from 2015-18)

Sub-12:50 - 9 performances (versus 3 from 2015-18)

Sub-13:00 - 55 performances (versus 25 from 15-18)

And keep in mind that these numbers include one year (2020) where the number of top times plummets. (In 2020, we see only 6 sub-13s. There were 49 sub-13s in the other three years!)

*I'm not sure what methodology you used in getting your numbers, but I've chosen to double-count results (i.e. if Jakob runs sub-3.30 twice in one season, I count it as two sub-3.30s).

I should acknowledge that those 2015-18 numbers are just the ones you supplied; those may be an undercount too. In any event, your numbers aren't correct.

This is always used as an arguing point for supporters of super shoes. All-weather tracks have been around a long time as have mondo. Do I think modern tracks are a better surface to run on. Yes, but only because they are easier to maintain and provide a more consistent surface. It was necessary that we develop something that could hold up better under adverse weather conditions and still provide a consistent surface to compete on. Do I think modern tracks are faster than well maintained cinder? Maybe, but not necessarily. And if they are, it’s not by much. Case in point:

Jim Ryun never ran a mile faster than he did on a cinder track - despite the fact that he raced on both.

Ron Clarke never ran a 5000m or 10000m faster than he did on a cinder track - despite the fact he raced on both.

There was no significant improvement in distance times after the immediate switch from cinder to all-weather. There was no significant improvement in distance times after mondo came about. Clarke set the 10000m WR in ‘65. All weather tracks began showing up in 68. It wasn’t for another 4 years that Clarke’s WR was broken by 1 second. Same sort of circumstances for the 5000m and same for the mile. Now compare that to what we’ve witnessed recently with both the men’s and women’s 10000m and 5000m. Are 2000s runners faster than runners from the 60s? Yes, but not because of tracks. It took decades for times to improve and there were a lot more, ahem, developments that came along other than tracks.

Super shoes are the tech no one saw coming and no one asked for. It was only after they came out that everyone started shelling out the cash. Everyone is wearing them now. Companies could start charging $500 a pair and you’d see 100% of runners wearing them. Why? Because they work! Why run 29:15 10000m when you can tell everyone that you’re a sub 29 runner. Simply by changing your shoes from a pair that were considered top-of-the-line only a few short years ago.

Super shoes supporters like to point out improvements in recent running shoe tech but then get mad when it gets pointed out that tech is making runners faster. Which is it?

I find it funny that whenever someone posts here about the superspikes and their benefits, there is always some kind of response about being mad or jealous that kids are running faster then the guys did back in the day. I don't think that's it at all, I think it's just people talking about their benefit, which clearly there is a benefit. Just like when we went from cinder tracks to all weather tracks.

IF there wasn't a benefit, then lets not pay the $150 for a pair of spikes, but the "non-superspikes" and be done with it, but I bet the guys currently wearing them won't line up without them, just in case it really does give us a benefit.... hmm...

Largely agreed, but I think there's another layer to it that's more important to a lot of people - nobody wants to get beaten by a lesser athlete simply because the lesser athlete's equipment more than offset the difference. If you're a 29:15 guy without supershoes, you don't want to lose to a 29:24 guy who beats you just because he's wearing better shoes. People who aren't realistically going to win NCAA's or their conference meet, or even score for that matter, still want to compete as well as they can. Losing to somebody you know you should beat sucks.

I'm a fat old guy. I recently ran a half marathon in 1:28, without supershoes. I don't really care about times - my last PR was over 20 years ago. I'm not realistically going to place either (though I have some illusions/delusions of someday being competitive in my age group in little local parkrun-type races). But even in my noncompetitive fat old hobbyjogger scenario, seeing fatter slower supershoe-wearing guys pulling away from me in the final miles makes me think to myself "Hey! How on earth are Fat Bob and Old Joe pulling away from me?!" And it makes me want to get me some supershoes, even of for no other reason to restore the proper order in the universe and beat Fat Bob and Old Joe. Needless to say, for somebody with more on the line than a fat old guy running a 1:28 half marathon, the stakes are all the higher.

The bottom line is whether these spikes grant a 3 second advantage to elite athletes. That is the original claim I responded to, and one that I still believe is completely indefensible.

You stated earlier that your only concern was with my comparing 15-18 with 19-22 because the latter period had fewer high-level races, but you wouldn’t still be arguing if you didn’t believe the spikes are making a significant impact, and your 3rd point above proves it.

Before super spikes, the best athletes in the world ran 3:28/3:29 and sub 12:50. Now, four years after super spikes, the best athletes run 3:28/3:29 and sub 12:50. If the spikes are worth 3 seconds per mile, there is no possible explanation for this beyond a significant worldwide regression.

When you point to records falling as evidence the shoes make a big difference, but then complain that focusing on the top athletes obscures broader improvement trends, you are trying to have your cake and eat it, too. Soft indoor records going down is not proof, nor is one man running 12:35, or one woman running 3:50, etc. Whatever effect these spikes might be having on lower level athletes, it is not observable in elite performers. The benefits are marginal at best, and certainly nowhere near 3 seconds per mile. I don’t see how anybody can dispute that.

The nested quote was an addendum to my previous post that said this: “The 3 seconds per mile figure is nonsense. That makes 3:27.20 the new 3:30 and 12:50.7 the new 13:00. So in your view, we’ve had zero sub-3:30s and only one sub-12:50 in the last 4 seasons…”

If super spikes are worth 3 seconds per mile, a 3:28.28 (fastest time post-dragonfly) is actually worth 3:31.08. So no one has broken 3:31, let alone 3:30, in the last 4 years. That is the source of the numbers. You can do the same thing with the 5k. The results should be close as I added them up the same way you did (all marks, not fastest by athlete).

Times get better. Athletes don’t get faster.

Thanks for the clarification on your numbers, and sorry for missing that context.

I didn't respond to your original post in order to debate the 3-second claim (like many, I have views on it, just not strong or especially informed ones). I was purely addressing the logic behind your 15-18 vs. 19-22 comparison.

But since you keep bringing up the 3-second debate, here's my take: other people have already argued that super-spike benefits fall off at faster speeds, with some compelling data to back that up. Those people are agreeing with you that Jakob Ing isn't getting shaving off three seconds a mile by wearing the shoes. You, though, seem to be implying that if the very top athletes aren't benefiting by three seconds, then there's no meaningful benefit from wearing superspikes at all ("marginal at best," as you say). That seems misguided. The three-second claim may be overstated, but so is yours. The truth probably lies somewhere in between.

And it's not having my cake and eating it too to point out the flood of records. Those records complement all the other indicators we have of a sea change in the sport. We're seeing, all at once:

* Loads of world records, area records, national records, etc. falling. (And no, it's not just "soft indoor records," it's some of the biggest records in the sport: e.g. men's and women's 5/10, women's 15, etc. It's also -- and this you fail to acknowledge -- all sorts of national and area records: think Grant Fisher and Moh Ahmed and Karissa Schiewzer and Gabriella Stafford in North America, or Jess Hull recently. All these records in just a few years is absolutely not normal.)

AND

* An explosion in sub-3:30s, sub-12:50s, sub-13s. As we have each seen, the data demonstrates this unequivocally. Way more people have gone under these times recently.

AND

* Dramatic improvements at the lower elite/sub-elite levels (the data of zzzz shows this).

You're fixated on one narrow body of data to the point that you're missing the bigger picture. I suspect the arguments you're making will wind up looking like the arguments people were making back in 2019 or so about vaporflies having no effect on road running times. There's a massive amount of evidence that something has changed, but we don't yet have the scientific evidence. Probably it'll arrive in due course.

That's just my largely uninformed two cents, though. Like I said, I don't really have any deep personal investments in these debates, and I'm wary of getting drawn into a lengthy discussion about it. Rebut all this if you'd like, of course, but I probably won't give an incredibly detailed response. There are other more informed/engaged posters here to debate this stuff with. I'm basically just saying that zzzz's highly reasonable take both endorses your claim about the three-second benefit and undermines your claim that superspikes have no meaningful benefits.

[Sorry, shifted my username, as I didn't want to type that all out on my cell.]

Dude, don't know where you got your numbers, but per Track and Field News:

2015-2018: 12 sub 3:30 1500m; 3 sub 12:50 5000m; 5 sub 13:00 5000m

2019-2022 (no stats for 2022): 13 sub 3:30 1500m; 6 sub 12:50 5000m; 38 sub 13:00 5000m. So dramatically more faster times in only 3 years v. 4.

no stats for 2020

In terms of performance improvement, it doesn’t really matter if the main benefit comes from training or racing, or both. The bottom line is super shoes are the primary driver of the fast times we are seeing today at all levels.