i guess ill entertain a parabolic decrease in super spikes as as the speed increases. But it is nowhere near as big as you think, it is still painfully noticable across all events. In this case, 2013 vs 2023, its about .8-1 seconds per 400M. But as the distance increases, so does the parabola
i guess ill entertain a parabolic decrease in super spikes as as the speed increases. But it is nowhere near as big as you think, it is still painfully noticable across all events. In this case, 2013 vs 2023, its about .8-1 seconds per 400M. But as the distance increases, so does the parabola
And trust me,
i can list more statistics from 2010 ALONE, im just way too tired to convince you SIMPLETONS
i guess ill entertain a parabolic decrease in super spikes as as the speed increases. But it is nowhere near as big as you think, it is still painfully noticable across all events. In this case, 2013 vs 2023, its about .8-1 seconds per 400M. But as the distance increases, so does the parabola
And trust me,
i can list more statistics from 2010 ALONE, im just way too tired to convince you SIMPLETONS
I peaked it again just BECAUSE
2010 1500m, including 4-5 future and current OLYMPIANS
1st: 3:37.8 10th: 3:41, 20th 3:42
2025 1500m, including 0 OLYMPIANS (maybe 1 or 2 will make it next cycle)
1st: 3:33, 10th: 3:35, 20th 3:37.1
im guessing all these dudes are just more talented, faster, and just BETTER than the likes of Andrew Wheating, Centrowitz, Blankenship, Andrews…HUH !?
I guess Centrowitz just never took the baking soda man. Jeez. That took 4 seconds off his time! Wheating too!! They didnt recover or train good enough at Oregon!!!
Max fly would definitely be the type of person to join the fan club in ancient greece arguing that the sun revolved around the earth . . . because, just look at it, it's obvious, you can see it with your own eyes.
I think most posters are all in agreement that there is a benefit to new foams and carbon plates in spikes. How to use science to understand that benefit is far more than looking at results and the eyeball test.
You would need to account for a multitude of factors that are all time related to the jump we see in results. How much benefit comes from: - the use of pace lights being adopted in 2019? - the rapid increase in popularity of "super meets" from 2018 until now? (i.e. BU Indoor Track meets, Camel City, NB Grand Prix, Bryan Clay, Stanford Invite, Payton Jordan, etc) - the increase popularity of Double Threshold workouts around 2019/2020? - the resurgence of Bicarb as a performance aid around 2021?
Then you would need to account for the environmental factors that are hard to quantify their impact: - does the increased popularity and participation numbers of Track and Field in the 2010's in high school lead to a raising of the bar for the average scholarship athlete in colleges from 2019 onward? - has the increased access to training methods and coaching practices enabled both high school and college coaches to improve the quality of their training programs? - is there a "4:20 is just not that fast" phenomena at play when the psychological barriers for 4:20 as a high schooler and 4:00 as a collegian is just not as intimidating?
Max fly would definitely be the type of person to join the fan club in ancient greece arguing that the sun revolved around the earth . . . because, just look at it, it's obvious, you can see it with your own eyes.
I think most posters are all in agreement that there is a benefit to new foams and carbon plates in spikes. How to use science to understand that benefit is far more than looking at results and the eyeball test.
You would need to account for a multitude of factors that are all time related to the jump we see in results. How much benefit comes from: - the use of pace lights being adopted in 2019? - the rapid increase in popularity of "super meets" from 2018 until now? (i.e. BU Indoor Track meets, Camel City, NB Grand Prix, Bryan Clay, Stanford Invite, Payton Jordan, etc) - the increase popularity of Double Threshold workouts around 2019/2020? - the resurgence of Bicarb as a performance aid around 2021?
Then you would need to account for the environmental factors that are hard to quantify their impact: - does the increased popularity and participation numbers of Track and Field in the 2010's in high school lead to a raising of the bar for the average scholarship athlete in colleges from 2019 onward? - has the increased access to training methods and coaching practices enabled both high school and college coaches to improve the quality of their training programs? - is there a "4:20 is just not that fast" phenomena at play when the psychological barriers for 4:20 as a high schooler and 4:00 as a collegian is just not as intimidating?
Blah, blah, blahhhhh. Pace lights!? Did they have pace lights at the 2021 ncaa 10000m when 11 guys went under the championship record (a record that had been on the books since 1979!)? Increased access to training methods!? What training methods? What increased access? Bruh, the internet has been around for 30+ years. Double threshold workouts? Lol! Bro, please. Ban bouncy-shoes and you will see immediate results. Of course you might get a bunch of grown men literally crying, but we’ll have an answer.
The bouncy-shoe support crowd is funny. Constantly bouncing around from “improved tech bro” to “the shoes do nothing bro” to “pace lights bro” to “double threshold workouts bro” when it’s obvious it’s shoes.
Max fly would definitely be the type of person to join the fan club in ancient greece arguing that the sun revolved around the earth . . . because, just look at it, it's obvious, you can see it with your own eyes.
I think most posters are all in agreement that there is a benefit to new foams and carbon plates in spikes. How to use science to understand that benefit is far more than looking at results and the eyeball test.
You would need to account for a multitude of factors that are all time related to the jump we see in results. How much benefit comes from: - the use of pace lights being adopted in 2019? - the rapid increase in popularity of "super meets" from 2018 until now? (i.e. BU Indoor Track meets, Camel City, NB Grand Prix, Bryan Clay, Stanford Invite, Payton Jordan, etc) - the increase popularity of Double Threshold workouts around 2019/2020? - the resurgence of Bicarb as a performance aid around 2021?
Then you would need to account for the environmental factors that are hard to quantify their impact: - does the increased popularity and participation numbers of Track and Field in the 2010's in high school lead to a raising of the bar for the average scholarship athlete in colleges from 2019 onward? - has the increased access to training methods and coaching practices enabled both high school and college coaches to improve the quality of their training programs? - is there a "4:20 is just not that fast" phenomena at play when the psychological barriers for 4:20 as a high schooler and 4:00 as a collegian is just not as intimidating?
Blah, blah, blahhhhh. Pace lights!? Did they have pace lights at the 2021 ncaa 10000m when 11 guys went under the championship record (a record that had been on the books since 1979!)? Increased access to training methods!? What training methods? What increased access? Bruh, the internet has been around for 30+ years. Double threshold workouts? Lol! Bro, please. Ban bouncy-shoes and you will see immediate results. Of course you might get a bunch of grown men literally crying, but we’ll have an answer.
The bouncy-shoe support crowd is funny. Constantly bouncing around from “improved tech bro” to “the shoes do nothing bro” to “pace lights bro” to “double threshold workouts bro” when it’s obvious it’s shoes.
I would love for you to explain to me how Bicarb, aka baking soda, has had such a profound impact on performances. Please explain the science behind it, and how it attributes to the 5 second increase per mile in performances across the board. Please, explain, how a product thats been arouns for decades, centuries, literally found in pancakes, all of a sudden attributes to making everyone a super human 5 seconds per mile faster. I wouldnt even give it 1 second, you know why? Because people have been ingesting it already for DECADES. Some even say its placebo, and thats because they already have been getting their doses from other means. Sure, have some people who have never ingested baking soda seen a benefit? Of course. But to say this is a primary reason (#2 on your list) for all performances ACROSS THE BOARD. Man you would have to really pull the stats on this one… how many athletes are even taking bicarb anyway? Youre acting like its some sophisticated magical product, its baking soda in a pill form…by the way, how can you even measure this “analysis” of yours? Did you draw blood from every athlete abd measure their bicarb intake? Did you see EVERY athlete over the past 4 years ingest this magical pill? Ill tell you this mych, i can measure whos wearing super spikes…. EASILY. Just look at what theyre wearing.
I kind of hate myself for wasting time responding to someone who won't even do a modicum of research, but here we go.
Baking soda has been a proven performance enhancing substance for middle distance performance since the 1980s. Its effect is one of the most replicated findings in performance research. It improves performance by 1-3%, which comes out to around 5 seconds for a 4-minute miler.
The reason it didn't have a huge effect on racing until recently is that an ergogenic dose is around 20 grams! Taking that much baking soda has serious gastrointestinal consequences. Most people who ran in college (prior to bicarb), have a teammate who decided to experiment with baking soda. The experiment usually ended with a soiled pair of half tights. The effects aren't like a "some people may get the runs" kind of thing. It's more of a "almost everyone who ingests this much baking soda will spend the next two hours on the toilet" kind of thing. As a former "800 dude," I have some personal experience.
Maurten's formulation allows people to get the bicarb into their bloodstream without the GI consequences. That's why it's been so revolutionary.
The fact that baking soda is used in foods is also irrelevant. Your hypothetical stack of pancakes has maybe 2 grams. But even those 2 grams don't have any ergogenic effect because the entire point of baking soda in food is to react with acid and release CO2 to cause baked goods to rise. That process neutralizes the pH of the base. So it does nothing for you from a performance perspective.
Now, I don't think Maurten Bicarb suddenly made all elite 1500 meter runners 5 seconds faster, for at least two reasons: (1) Some athletes were using baking soda already. They had trained themselves to tolerate it, or they were using slightly lower doses, or they were one of the lucky few with an iron stomach. So it's not like the elite fields went from zero bicarb to lots of bicarb overnight. Maurten probably increased the average amount of ingested bicarb in the elite fields. (2) Elite athletes are probably already highly dosed on beta alanine, which also buffers acid. The two supplements aren't completely redundant, but they also aren't completely additive. If you're on beta alanine already, you're probably not getting another 3% boost from bicarb.
This post was edited 1 minute after it was posted.
They should ban all weather tracks and shoes at all. Barefoot on dirt was the original way so that's the only acceptable method.
“BaN AlL WeAtHer TrAcKs” “We ShOuLd RuN BaReFoOt”
Shoes have existed for thousands and thousands of years. Spikes are as old as the sport itself dating back to the mid 1800s bro. There are no records on any books, anywhere that were run when shoes weren’t available.
All weather tracks have been around since the 60s. There was zero… ZERO, improvement in times immediately following alll-weather tracks (contrast that with bouncy shoe nonsense) If anything, they kept times more consistent because we now had a consistent surface to run on during most types of weather. Hence the term “All Weather” You really think we should still be running on dirt!? Of course you don’t, but it’s how you explain your bouncy-shoe PRs. We were already racing on asphalt on the roads, doesn’t it make sense to make a track out of it?
My point is, advancements happen. You might not like it because you are some old head but you need to get over it. You aren't changing anything with your stupidity. It's time for you to move on with your life instead of shaking your fist in the air every time someone breaks a record that you couldn't wearing shoes you didn't have.
My point is, advancements happen. You might not like it because you are some old head but you need to get over it. You aren't changing anything with your stupidity. It's time for you to move on with your life instead of shaking your fist in the air every time someone breaks a record that you couldn't wearing shoes you didn't have.
Well, at least you’re admitting they’re worth 5 seconds a mile so I give you that. The only reason behind bouncy-shoe tech is to inflate times. I’m not shaking my fist at anything. But, if you’re on some list because of tech, you’re on some lust because of tech - just pointing out facts that people don’t want to hear. Bro, this is your sport. The past deserves at least a small shred of respect. Ironic that a company primarily in business for Steve Prefontaine is the same company that developed bouncy-shoes and the same company that has practically rendered him obsolete.
The real answer is that the super spikes are worth a different amount at different paces. I did a quick analysis using the World Athletics data a while back in an old post that apparently didn't get that much traction because no one ever seems to remember the take-away message from it (less benefit the faster you go) or ever refer to it. The person behind a later published study even referenced my theory (link also includes link to my original thread in the first post):
Did you, or could you, do this for the marathon, and non-spiked supershoes, which came earlier? I can find the 1000th runner easy enough, but not quite sure how to curve fit the paces.
I posted these summaries of a sample of recent studies I came across in another thread:
One study, "Super shoes: How super are they?", uses a mathematical model and a best fit curve to estimate the impact of new shoes. "This model shows that this new shoe technology is responsible for an additional roughly 24 additional sub-2 : 08 times per year. Estimated from this, we find a shoe-related time reduction of 1 minute and 31 seconds, or a 1.174% decrease in time."
Could it be placebo? Another study, "Are super shoes a super placebo?" looked at the question, telling a group of women the study was comparing a cheap knockoff shoe against a control supershoe, but really just painted one set black and tested everyone with the same shoes. "While no significant physiological or biomechanical differences were observed, a significant placebo effect was apparent for both perceived comfort and perceived performance based on shoe description alone."
Another study, "Recreational Runners Gain Physiological and Biomechanical Benefits From Super Shoes at Marathon Paces" concluded "There was a physiological benefit to running in the super shoes even at the slower speed. There were also spatiotemporal and global stiffness improvements indicating that recreational runners benefit from wearing super shoes."
I found an older article, "Carbon Fibre Running Trainers: Science behind the super shoes", giving an overview of the different features of the supershoe: carbon fiber plate, shape of the plate giving a "rocker effect", surrounded by thick, lightweight foam. It suggested "the performance enhancing effects of the trainers, may be more likely explained by the energy returning properties of the shoe, rather than a specific change in biomechanics." And suggesting to look at a combination of factors: "Not just the inclusion of a (carbon fiber) plate, but the shape of the plate, the weight of the shoe and the features of the midsole; the compliance, resilience and thickness."
Another study from researchers in Waikato New Zealand, "Advancements in running shoe technology and their effects on running economy and performance – a current concepts overview", wrote something similar: "The improvements in super shoes are around 4% for running economy and 2% for performance, and speculatively around 1% to 1.5% for super spikes. These enhancements are believed multifactorial in nature and difficult to parse, although involve longitudinal bending stiffness, the ‘teeter-totter effect’, the high-energy return properties of the midsole material, enhanced stack height and lightweight characteristic of shoes."
While scientists discuss the reasons for the observed improvements, there is universal agreement in the measurably improved running economy provided by the shoes, and the observed increase in the quantity of runners running faster times, ranging from high school track to the elite marathon.
The real answer is that the super spikes are worth a different amount at different paces. I did a quick analysis using the World Athletics data a while back in an old post that apparently didn't get that much traction because no one ever seems to remember the take-away message from it (less benefit the faster you go) or ever refer to it. The person behind a later published study even referenced my theory (link also includes link to my original thread in the first post):
Runners running mid-4:30s pace in super spikes are getting about 5 seconds a mile benefit on average over the old spikes. I'm sure on the slower end of the speed spectrum (hobby joggers), the benefits also probably decrease, but you wouldn't that information in World Athletics database.
The real answer is that the super spikes are worth a different amount at different paces. I did a quick analysis using the World Athletics data a while back in an old post that apparently didn't get that much traction because no one ever seems to remember the take-away message from it (less benefit the faster you go) or ever refer to it. The person behind a later published study even referenced my theory (link also includes link to my original thread in the first post):
Did you, or could you, do this for the marathon, and non-spiked supershoes, which came earlier? I can find the 1000th runner easy enough, but not quite sure how to curve fit the paces.
I posted these summaries of a sample of recent studies I came across in another thread:
One study, "Super shoes: How super are they?", uses a mathematical model and a best fit curve to estimate the impact of new shoes. "This model shows that this new shoe technology is responsible for an additional roughly 24 additional sub-2 : 08 times per year. Estimated from this, we find a shoe-related time reduction of 1 minute and 31 seconds, or a 1.174% decrease in time."
Could it be placebo? Another study, "Are super shoes a super placebo?" looked at the question, telling a group of women the study was comparing a cheap knockoff shoe against a control supershoe, but really just painted one set black and tested everyone with the same shoes. "While no significant physiological or biomechanical differences were observed, a significant placebo effect was apparent for both perceived comfort and perceived performance based on shoe description alone."
Another study, "Recreational Runners Gain Physiological and Biomechanical Benefits From Super Shoes at Marathon Paces" concluded "There was a physiological benefit to running in the super shoes even at the slower speed. There were also spatiotemporal and global stiffness improvements indicating that recreational runners benefit from wearing super shoes."
I found an older article, "Carbon Fibre Running Trainers: Science behind the super shoes", giving an overview of the different features of the supershoe: carbon fiber plate, shape of the plate giving a "rocker effect", surrounded by thick, lightweight foam. It suggested "the performance enhancing effects of the trainers, may be more likely explained by the energy returning properties of the shoe, rather than a specific change in biomechanics." And suggesting to look at a combination of factors: "Not just the inclusion of a (carbon fiber) plate, but the shape of the plate, the weight of the shoe and the features of the midsole; the compliance, resilience and thickness."
Another study from researchers in Waikato New Zealand, "Advancements in running shoe technology and their effects on running economy and performance – a current concepts overview", wrote something similar: "The improvements in super shoes are around 4% for running economy and 2% for performance, and speculatively around 1% to 1.5% for super spikes. These enhancements are believed multifactorial in nature and difficult to parse, although involve longitudinal bending stiffness, the ‘teeter-totter effect’, the high-energy return properties of the midsole material, enhanced stack height and lightweight characteristic of shoes."
While scientists discuss the reasons for the observed improvements, there is universal agreement in the measurably improved running economy provided by the shoes, and the observed increase in the quantity of runners running faster times, ranging from high school track to the elite marathon.
The effect of road racing shoes is undeniable but this thread is about “spikes”.
I would love for you to explain to me how Bicarb, aka baking soda, has had such a profound impact on performances. Please explain the science behind it, and how it attributes to the 5 second increase per mile in performances across the board. Please, explain, how a product thats been arouns for decades, centuries, literally found in pancakes, all of a sudden attributes to making everyone a super human 5 seconds per mile faster. I wouldnt even give it 1 second, you know why? Because people have been ingesting it already for DECADES. Some even say its placebo, and thats because they already have been getting their doses from other means. Sure, have some people who have never ingested baking soda seen a benefit? Of course. But to say this is a primary reason (#2 on your list) for all performances ACROSS THE BOARD. Man you would have to really pull the stats on this one… how many athletes are even taking bicarb anyway? Youre acting like its some sophisticated magical product, its baking soda in a pill form…by the way, how can you even measure this “analysis” of yours? Did you draw blood from every athlete abd measure their bicarb intake? Did you see EVERY athlete over the past 4 years ingest this magical pill? Ill tell you this mych, i can measure whos wearing super spikes…. EASILY. Just look at what theyre wearing.
I kind of hate myself for wasting time responding to someone who won't even do a modicum of research, but here we go.
Baking soda has been a proven performance enhancing substance for middle distance performance since the 1980s. Its effect is one of the most replicated findings in performance research. It improves performance by 1-3%, which comes out to around 5 seconds for a 4-minute miler.
The reason it didn't have a huge effect on racing until recently is that an ergogenic dose is around 20 grams! Taking that much baking soda has serious gastrointestinal consequences. Most people who ran in college (prior to bicarb), have a teammate who decided to experiment with baking soda. The experiment usually ended with a soiled pair of half tights. The effects aren't like a "some people may get the runs" kind of thing. It's more of a "almost everyone who ingests this much baking soda will spend the next two hours on the toilet" kind of thing. As a former "800 dude," I have some personal experience.
Maurten's formulation allows people to get the bicarb into their bloodstream without the GI consequences. That's why it's been so revolutionary.
The fact that baking soda is used in foods is also irrelevant. Your hypothetical stack of pancakes has maybe 2 grams. But even those 2 grams don't have any ergogenic effect because the entire point of baking soda in food is to react with acid and release CO2 to cause baked goods to rise. That process neutralizes the pH of the base. So it does nothing for you from a performance perspective.
Now, I don't think Maurten Bicarb suddenly made all elite 1500 meter runners 5 seconds faster, for at least two reasons: (1) Some athletes were using baking soda already. They had trained themselves to tolerate it, or they were using slightly lower doses, or they were one of the lucky few with an iron stomach. So it's not like the elite fields went from zero bicarb to lots of bicarb overnight. Maurten probably increased the average amount of ingested bicarb in the elite fields. (2) Elite athletes are probably already highly dosed on beta alanine, which also buffers acid. The two supplements aren't completely redundant, but they also aren't completely additive. If you're on beta alanine already, you're probably not getting another 3% boost from bicarb.
How dare you bring chemistry and physiology into this! Haha. Good take. Most people on LetsRun don't know what an acid-base reaction is, or does, or creates- especially when you put a base into the pretty concentrated HCl in your duodenum!
But to the shoe thing. I have a friend who owns a running store in St. Petersburg, FL. Look him up sometime. St. Pete Running Co. His name is Cody Angell. Tell him "Poole" recommended him as a resource. He's a shoe fit specialist. He's been selling, fitting, analyzing feet and biomechanical gaits (treadmill analysis version) for 15+ years to make sure people are in running shoes that work for their foot structure, foot plant, etc...in the hopes of reducing injuries and increasing performance, from hobby joggers to local high school/college 'studs'. He knows materials for all shoes used in running/racing. Guy has probably fitted over 10,000 runners of all ages and abilities into training/racing shoes. I'll take his opinion based on experience over Dunning-Kruger basement warriors chanting 'statistics'.
I tried a pair of the newer trainers about 2.5 years ago, just to walk in. Huge difference in forward motion and energy return. I walked a 400m lap 5-6sec faster in them with same effort I normally walk in. (Granted walking doesn't generate thrust like running, but the shoes made me faster.) I have carbon fiber shoe inserts in my work boots. They've made a huge difference in leg fatigue at the end of a 9-10hr day of being on my feet, and in helping me hike/walk faster without beating up my knees/hips from old accidents I've had. I won't say the shoes are the only thing contributing to performance. I do say they are the primary thing contributing to the overall increase in performances across the board. A lot of modern training methods haven't really changed the last 30-40 years or more. A few tweaks here or there, a popular fad here or there, another type of diet here or there, but principles are pretty much standard. Threshold is threshold, lactate is lactate, aerobic is aerobic, etc.. The only real thing that has changed significantly in the last ten years or so is the material in the training/racing shoes and how it's fitted/made for more energy return.
This post was edited 2 minutes after it was posted.
A lot of what's changed over the past 10 years, as Magness said, there used to be a few good coaches. athletes lucky enough to get them could run near their ability level. Call it maybe 5 or 10%. In 2026, most coaches know how to use the internet. There is more coaching info out than ever. There are probably 10x as many capable coaches as there were even 10-15 years ago, so 10x as many kids getting opportunities to train properly.
And I also think more kids are going to bigger and more competitve invites than ever. 15 years ago, everything was local. Now EVERYBODY is travelling 5 to 10 hours to face approprite competition. pushing expectations and results higher than ever.