It is the shoes, all i said is that the shoes don´t create as much of a difference in shorter distances compared to longer ones. A 1600 is mid distance. And now once again you are denying improvements due to the shoes and call them out as doping.
Work on your reading comprehension, bud.
No, I'm not. I'm saying it is only speculation that the drugs offer more improvements to distance runners than shorter distances (not sprints).
So why do the best runners use them when they don't gain anything?
lol, it's because brands pay them to wear the shoes
So the manufacturers know the shoes don't do much for elite runners, the runners know this yet the shoes are still marketed as "superspikes", that don't differentiate between runners. Quite a con. Sure.
The spikes are also credited with the jump in improvements in top level athletes. So if it isn't the shoes, what is it?
This post was edited 4 minutes after it was posted.
The known performance improvement is about 2/3rds of the economy improvement.
Therefore, a 2.1% better economy results in an 1.4% speed improvement, on average. Thus, 5:30 per mile becomes 5:25.38 pace. So, a 4.62 seconds (per mile) change is the predicted outcome.
This is just bandying figures around. If the improvements are that great we nonetheless see contorted explanations here for why the shoes don't do much, if anything, for the best runners - who still use them.
lol, it's because brands pay them to wear the shoes
So the manufacturers know the shoes don't do much for elite runners, the runners know this yet the shoes are still marketed as "superspikes", that don't differentiate between runners. Quite a con. Sure.
The spikes are also credited with the jump in improvements in top level athletes. So if it isn't the shoes, what is it?
uhhh... shoes, bud. They won''t help the elites as much as us normal people but that doesn''t mean they won't help at all. Other big thing is new training methods, like double threshold and high mileage, and altitude training
I will say this one last time, almost all of the studies lead to similar conclusions, so you cannot say that the speculation based off of them isn't reasonable unless you can provide evidence that debunks it.
Doping has indeed decreased a lot but not because of the shoes. You do realize that it´s extremely hard to get away with doping nowadays, right? Athletes get tested for it regularly.
Not the East Africans, despite claims to the contrary.
Nice job pointing that out. However I do not believe that Sebastian Sawe was doping. It is likely the shoes that helped.
Predicting Armstrong's response: "The belief that it is the shoes that helped is not definitive. Once again, you have nothing to offer but speculation. Sawe is african, so the sub 2 marathon easily could have been thanks to PED's and not the shoes."
Hey buddy, Sawe got tested on a daily basis. He is clean.
This post was edited 1 minute after it was posted.
So the manufacturers know the shoes don't do much for elite runners, the runners know this yet the shoes are still marketed as "superspikes", that don't differentiate between runners. Quite a con. Sure.
The spikes are also credited with the jump in improvements in top level athletes. So if it isn't the shoes, what is it?
uhhh... shoes, bud. They won''t help the elites as much as us normal people but that doesn''t mean they won't help at all. Other big thing is new training methods, like double threshold and high mileage, and altitude training
Shoes are a tool like tennis racquets. Modern racquets don't offer mediocre players more improvements than the pros get. The reverse. The better the athlete the more they get from better technology.
Inferior mechanics arent "fixed" by improvements in technology. Shoes don't change bone structure, tendons and ligaments and muscles, cardio vascular capacity, and make a lesser coordinated athlete better coordinated - all of which are the difference between top runners and journeymen.
I will say this one last time, almost all of the studies lead to similar conclusions, so you cannot say that the speculation based off of them isn't reasonable unless you can provide evidence that debunks it.
The "similar conclusions" you refer to is that the shoes can improve "running economy", but the studies can't as yet quantify what that means in terms of improvements in times over given distances - so they don't make that claim - and they also admit (which is supported by what athletes say) that if there are gains not all athletes experience them or to the same extent. The claim of a gain of a second per lap has not been made by the research.
Not the East Africans, despite claims to the contrary.
Nice job pointing that out. However I do not believe that Sebastian Sawe was doping. It is likely the shoes that helped.
Predicting Armstrong's response: "The belief that it is the shoes that helped is not definitive. Once again, you have nothing to offer but speculation. Sawe is african, so the sub 2 marathon easily could have been thanks to PED's and not the shoes."
Hey buddy, Sawe got tested on a daily basis. He is clean.
I won't say what you think I will. Testing results in only 1% of positives and yet it is known that the number of dopers far exceeds that. Howman says testing is "ineffective" and dopers are "getting away with it". That could easily include Sawe. Dopers have long known how to mask their doping.
You don't believe testing data when it comes to doping. You instead rely on the opinion of a few people. You don't rely on testing data when it comes to shoes even though millions agree with the results.
You don't believe testing data when it comes to doping. You instead rely on the opinion of a few people. You don't rely on testing data when it comes to shoes even though millions agree with the results.
I refer to testing data when discussing doping. It is known as a fact that the numbers doping far exceed the numbers caught (which is the data of positive tests).
The testing data in respect of the shoes suggests gains are possible but don't quantify them and they say that not all athletes will gain or make the same improvements. That is why studies say they have to revert to historical studies of performances pre-super shoes and after. The studies cannot make exact measurements of what the shoes might enable.
What people claim here based on their personal experience is not scientific data, but only anecdote.
Not the East Africans, despite claims to the contrary.
Nice job pointing that out. However I do not believe that Sebastian Sawe was doping. It is likely the shoes that helped.
Predicting Armstrong's response: "The belief that it is the shoes that helped is not definitive. Once again, you have nothing to offer but speculation. Sawe is african, so the sub 2 marathon easily could have been thanks to PED's and not the shoes."
Hey buddy, Sawe got tested on a daily basis. He is clean.
You’re conflating the SS with road racing shoes. I doubt if anyone denies that the new shoes make a significant difference and my estimate is two minutes for the marathon.
You don't believe testing data when it comes to doping. You instead rely on the opinion of a few people. You don't rely on testing data when it comes to shoes even though millions agree with the results.
I refer to testing data when discussing doping. It is known as a fact that the numbers doping far exceed the numbers caught (which is the data of positive tests).
The testing data in respect of the shoes suggests gains are possible but don't quantify them and they say that not all athletes will gain or make the same improvements. That is why studies say they have to revert to historical studies of performances pre-super shoes and after. The studies cannot make exact measurements of what the shoes might enable.
What people claim here based on their personal experience is not scientific data, but only anecdote.
Hilarious. Testing is fact. Testing data is fact. But your statement says it is factual that the number of dopers far exceed the numbers caught. That would be an opinion, not a fact. What you claim as doping numbers is even worse than anecdotal information, it is merely opinion. Your posts get worse and worse.
I refer to testing data when discussing doping. It is known as a fact that the numbers doping far exceed the numbers caught (which is the data of positive tests).
The testing data in respect of the shoes suggests gains are possible but don't quantify them and they say that not all athletes will gain or make the same improvements. That is why studies say they have to revert to historical studies of performances pre-super shoes and after. The studies cannot make exact measurements of what the shoes might enable.
What people claim here based on their personal experience is not scientific data, but only anecdote.
Hilarious. Testing is fact. Testing data is fact. But your statement says it is factual that the number of dopers far exceed the numbers caught. That would be an opinion, not a fact. What you claim as doping numbers is even worse than anecdotal information, it is merely opinion. Your posts get worse and worse.
You are obviously unaware of the confidential athlete surveys that showed championship athletes doped in far greater numbers than the athletes who tested positive - 1 in 3 athletes admitted doping, if not more than 1 in 2. Only 1% of tests return a positive. You are also unaware of the estimates of antidoping experts like Howman that many more athletes dope than are caught. You are oblivious to his comments that doping is always ahead of antidoping, which he described as "ineffectual" only this year.
If the number of positive tests were all who were doping then the sport wouldn't have a doping problem. But it does - and that is the view of antidoping experts. Athletes have long known how to beat the testers.
uhhh... shoes, bud. They won''t help the elites as much as us normal people but that doesn''t mean they won't help at all. Other big thing is new training methods, like double threshold and high mileage, and altitude training
Inferior mechanics arent "fixed" by improvements in technology. Shoes don't change bone structure, tendons and ligaments and muscles, cardio vascular capacity, and make a lesser coordinated athlete better coordinated - all of which are the difference between top runners and journeymen.
I never said they were. You should do some more research on the topic. Super spikes won't help runners with already perfect mechanics because they are primarily designed to correct biomechanical discrepancies. Their stiff carbon-fiber plates and high-tech, bouncy foams act as external tools to optimize a runner's stride, angle, and energy return if a runner's form is already flawless, these mechanical benefits don't offer the same performance increase. Instead, they can disrupt a highly tuned, natural stride and risk causing injuries. They can also potentially hinder near perfect mechanics by ruining a runner's natural gait. Now, this does not mean it makes the best athletes slower. And you have yet to show any evidence to back up your claims.
You don't believe testing data when it comes to doping. You instead rely on the opinion of a few people. You don't rely on testing data when it comes to shoes even though millions agree with the results.
I refer to testing data when discussing doping. It is known as a fact that the numbers doping far exceed the numbers caught (which is the data of positive tests).
The testing data in respect of the shoes suggests gains are possible but don't quantify them and they say that not all athletes will gain or make the same improvements. That is why studies say they have to revert to historical studies of performances pre-super shoes and after. The studies cannot make exact measurements of what the shoes might enable.
What people claim here based on their personal experience is not scientific data, but only anecdote.
Once again, all of the evidence heads in the same direction, so you cannot try to argue against it without your own evidence.
No one gave a specific measurement of what the shoes may enable. And no one needs to. The shoes benefit everyone in different ways, based on their height, weight, speed, form, and mechanics. There is no exact measurement.
By your logic, the big bang never happened unless scientists could prove exactly how quickly it was.
I will say this one last time, almost all of the studies lead to similar conclusions, so you cannot say that the speculation based off of them isn't reasonable unless you can provide evidence that debunks it.
The "similar conclusions" you refer to is that the shoes can improve "running economy", but the studies can't as yet quantify what that means in terms of improvements in times over given distances - so they don't make that claim - and they also admit (which is supported by what athletes say) that if there are gains not all athletes experience them or to the same extent. The claim of a gain of a second per lap has not been made by the research.
Like I said, the shoes help all athletes in different ways. And studies have shown that a 3-4% in running economy roughly translates to 1-2% in actual performance.
Inferior mechanics arent "fixed" by improvements in technology. Shoes don't change bone structure, tendons and ligaments and muscles, cardio vascular capacity, and make a lesser coordinated athlete better coordinated - all of which are the difference between top runners and journeymen.
I never said they were. You should do some more research on the topic. Super spikes won't help runners with already perfect mechanics because they are primarily designed to correct biomechanical discrepancies. Their stiff carbon-fiber plates and high-tech, bouncy foams act as external tools to optimize a runner's stride, angle, and energy return if a runner's form is already flawless, these mechanical benefits don't offer the same performance increase. Instead, they can disrupt a highly tuned, natural stride and risk causing injuries. They can also potentially hinder near perfect mechanics by ruining a runner's natural gait. Now, this does not mean it makes the best athletes slower. And you have yet to show any evidence to back up your claims.
You are simply wrong. The shoes aren't designed to correct technical inefficiencies. That is not what the manufacturers say. The shoes are not a remedial device for inferior athletes. There isn't anything that will do that. They are a high performance shoe for high performance athletes. If they weren't no top athletes would use them.
Help us build the best running shoe review site for a chance to win a LetsRun t-shirt.Help us build the best running shoe review site for a chance to win one of 10 LetsRun t-shirts.