So if the shoes are aiding performance it must show in increasing stride-length and/or turnover. Where is the data that confirms this, and if so, how does the few inches of a sole of a shoe do this in a way shoes haven't done before?
Seriously? If someone running a 2:04 marathon at 188spm increases their step length by one inch (from 5'11.264" to 6'0.264") at 188spm, then they'll improve their marathon time to 2:02.17. That's just an inch!! Are you willingly oblivious to the Nike patent for their "spring" carbon plates? It's not the stack height, it's the spring (found 278 times in their patent)!
Armstrong refuses to acknowledge that the shoes make a difference. He uses bro science to accuse everyone of doping. I don't understand why in his head it's only due to doping.
The truth is doping has remained constant for 50+ years, it didn't go away. The only difference is the shoes. The shoes do make a difference.
Doping records fall due to a combination of doping and shoes. It's both.
What you don't understand - despite your username - is that drugs are not a "constant" in the sense they don't change. They are changing all the time - and far more often than shoes and with more comprehensive effect since they change how the body functions. They are the basis of most athletic improvement in at least the last 40 or so years.
It is simply not credible to ascribe huge changes to levels of athletic performance based on what is put in the sole of a shoe. Whatever improvements they may offer these will be far outstripped by chemicals that build muscle mass and increase the capacity of the body to resist fatigue.
If the shoes were guaranteed to increase performance all athletes would be using the same shoe and they would all show comparable levels of improvement. They don't - some make no improvements. There is nothing credible in the argument that the shoes favour some biomechanics over others. Whereas if an athlete uses peds, like EPO, they will all gain, regardless of their level. That's why drugs are banned and the new shoes aren't.
Are all athletes not using some form of super shoe? It sure seems like they are?
Yup. My daughter is reading a book about historically important women "persisting" and Flo Jo has a page all to herself. It mentions how she was told she wasn't as fast as boys and how she went on to win gold medals and break world records. She's STILL being celebrated as an all-time great that young girls should look up to.
So yeah, the risk of doping doesn't even come close to the reward.
So if the shoes are aiding performance it must show in increasing stride-length and/or turnover. Where is the data that confirms this, and if so, how does the few inches of a sole of a shoe do this in a way shoes haven't done before?
You realize there is one more variable in that equation right? Specifically the thing that these super shoes help out with. I guess you've never read anything about these super shoes.
Here's a hint: between two people with the same stride length and turnover, the one who can keep it going longer will run a faster race.
Here's a study from back then about the vo2 drop when using them (sponsored by "Blue Ribbon Sports" which was Nike's first company store)
And here's a modern study about the vo2 drop in modern shoes from the conventional hyperspeed to the vaporfly to the alphafly v1. Now extend that graph drop and imagine the alphafly v3 and then whatever they come up with next for the 2028 Olympics
draw the line where every runner and record is broken at a ridiculous pace. some by people who were never in a conversation to run fast bit yet they do. The new tech took it too far
So if the shoes are aiding performance it must show in increasing stride-length and/or turnover. Where is the data that confirms this, and if so, how does the few inches of a sole of a shoe do this in a way shoes haven't done before?
There are quite a few published studies that have evaluated "super shoe" benefits. Its not incumbent upon me or other posters to spoon feed you something you could easily find yourself if you had any interest in actual evidence.
The problem is that the people on your side of the argument are attributing performance enhancement to shoes is to running... as if it were on the same level as the improvement in bicycle technology is to cycling performance.
So how would you compare running shoe technology benefits as compared to say swimsuit technology to swimming performance?
So if the shoes are aiding performance it must show in increasing stride-length and/or turnover. Where is the data that confirms this, and if so, how does the few inches of a sole of a shoe do this in a way shoes haven't done before?
There are quite a few published studies that have evaluated "super shoe" benefits. Its not incumbent upon me or other posters to spoon feed you something you could easily find yourself if you had any interest in actual evidence.
The estimates are speculative, not proven. Just like all the claims here.
So if the shoes are aiding performance it must show in increasing stride-length and/or turnover. Where is the data that confirms this, and if so, how does the few inches of a sole of a shoe do this in a way shoes haven't done before?
You realize there is one more variable in that equation right? Specifically the thing that these super shoes help out with. I guess you've never read anything about these super shoes.
Here's a hint: between two people with the same stride length and turnover, the one who can keep it going longer will run a faster race.
So you're likening the effect of a shoe to EPO. How does a shoe increase stamina?
What you don't understand - despite your username - is that drugs are not a "constant" in the sense they don't change. They are changing all the time - and far more often than shoes and with more comprehensive effect since they change how the body functions. They are the basis of most athletic improvement in at least the last 40 or so years.
It is simply not credible to ascribe huge changes to levels of athletic performance based on what is put in the sole of a shoe. Whatever improvements they may offer these will be far outstripped by chemicals that build muscle mass and increase the capacity of the body to resist fatigue.
If the shoes were guaranteed to increase performance all athletes would be using the same shoe and they would all show comparable levels of improvement. They don't - some make no improvements. There is nothing credible in the argument that the shoes favour some biomechanics over others. Whereas if an athlete uses peds, like EPO, they will all gain, regardless of their level. That's why drugs are banned and the new shoes aren't.
Are all athletes not using some form of super shoe? It sure seems like they are?
You realize there is one more variable in that equation right? Specifically the thing that these super shoes help out with. I guess you've never read anything about these super shoes.
Here's a hint: between two people with the same stride length and turnover, the one who can keep it going longer will run a faster race.
So you're likening the effect of a shoe to EPO. How does a shoe increase stamina?
So if the shoes are aiding performance it must show in increasing stride-length and/or turnover. Where is the data that confirms this, and if so, how does the few inches of a sole of a shoe do this in a way shoes haven't done before?
Seriously? If someone running a 2:04 marathon at 188spm increases their step length by one inch (from 5'11.264" to 6'0.264") at 188spm, then they'll improve their marathon time to 2:02.17. That's just an inch!! Are you willingly oblivious to the Nike patent for their "spring" carbon plates? It's not the stack height, it's the spring (found 278 times in their patent)!
"If" this and "if" that. Your figures are merely speculation on your part. "If" you are correct then all the top runners would be using the same shoe. They aren't. And getting the same improvement. They aren't.
Where is the proof beyond marketing hype that the Nike plate delivers greater stride length over other brands?
Seriously? If someone running a 2:04 marathon at 188spm increases their step length by one inch (from 5'11.264" to 6'0.264") at 188spm, then they'll improve their marathon time to 2:02.17. That's just an inch!! Are you willingly oblivious to the Nike patent for their "spring" carbon plates? It's not the stack height, it's the spring (found 278 times in their patent)!
"If" this and "if" that. Your figures are merely speculation on your part. "If" you are correct then all the top runners would be using the same shoe. They aren't. And getting the same improvement. They aren't.
Where is the proof beyond marketing hype that the Nike plate delivers greater stride length over other brands?
Hey dumbo, he didn't say that Nike was better. He just mentioned their patent, which was the first one. Not that you would know that.
So you're likening the effect of a shoe to EPO. How does a shoe increase stamina?
Your ignorance is astounding.
So you can't answer that question. The same stride length for longer is what doping can achieve. So a shoe that purportedly enables that is equivalent to doping. You are simply too thick to understand that simple point. But you show that again and again.
"If" this and "if" that. Your figures are merely speculation on your part. "If" you are correct then all the top runners would be using the same shoe. They aren't. And getting the same improvement. They aren't.
Where is the proof beyond marketing hype that the Nike plate delivers greater stride length over other brands?
Hey dumbo, he didn't say that Nike was better. He just mentioned their patent, which was the first one. Not that you would know that.
He claimed their invention was what enabled faster times. If their patent doesn't do that then it isn't superior to other shoes. But we know that. So do runners who don't use the Nike shoe. But you aren't bright enough to know it.
Hey dumbo, he didn't say that Nike was better. He just mentioned their patent, which was the first one. Not that you would know that.
He claimed their invention was what enabled faster times. If their patent doesn't do that then it isn't superior to other shoes. But we know that. So do runners who don't use the Nike shoe. But you aren't bright enough to know it.
😂😂😂😂
And it WAS their invention! And other brands followed!
But you aren't bright enough to know it.
This post was edited 2 minutes after it was posted.
So you can't answer that question. The same stride length for longer is what doping can achieve. So a shoe that purportedly enables that is equivalent to doping. You are simply too thick to understand that simple point. But you show that again and again.
So you don't know how supershoes benefit runners? You don't understand how feeling less fatigue in the legs they can run faster?
You are too thick to understand anything. You show that every single day.
So you can't answer that question. The same stride length for longer is what doping can achieve. So a shoe that purportedly enables that is equivalent to doping. You are simply too thick to understand that simple point. But you show that again and again.
So you don't know how supershoes benefit runners? You don't understand how feeling less fatigue in the legs they can run faster?
You are too thick to understand anything. You show that every single day.
It's actually entertaining. 😂
Next you will tell me the shoes effectively act like Pegasus's wings. You are a little baby here.
