Amazing: The Vaporfly Controversy Has Come To Cross Country - Vaporfly Wearing Teams Stun Fields at Northeast Regional

And here’s where people pretend they understand how placebos work...

There’s been plenty of carefully conducted studies on the placebo effect in high level and lower level athletes. I’ll give you this: for the lower level athlete the placebo effect has been shown to make a noticeable difference, but for higher level athletes this does not seem to be the case. The placebo effect has very rarely shown itself in endurance sports to have a significant impact on the athletes. Ultimately, it also ranges from individual to individual, so it can’t even be thrown around as a blanket statement. For reference: Foster et al and Porcari et al (2004 and 2006 respectively). Performance also isn’t medicine, you can’t just draw the same conclusions about placebos for running performance. (I won’t say I can say for certain what conclusions you can draw though) It’s more this: if you look at the teams that wore the shoes, they consistently beat the teams that did not when you compare to the expected performance. Seriously consider where UConn, UMass, Cornell, Brown, and Dartmouth were before this race. You’re telling me they all miraculously benefitted from the placebo effect to beat Conference rivals who didn’t have the shoes that had been routinely handing it to all of them the whole year just because of the placebo effect? Weird that all of the teams that underperformed weren’t in the shoes then. I guess they just couldn’t keep up with the power of the placebo.

Not every person in the field is gonna benefit from the placebo effect, but you definitely will benefit from better technology. You can’t just use the placebo as a primary factor in this situation because it doesn’t explain anything. You could get a placebo from a cup of coffee and convince yourself it’s the difference maker. It’s not going to make a bunch of teams overperform though. The placebo effect isn’t an explain-all for everything even though people like to say it is.

Well, a conclusion has clearly been made:

It's easy when you're affluent

Ok, of course the shoes help you to run faster. That is why they made them with carbon fiber plates etc..

There is clearly an advantage, they even promote that.

I can appreciate what you have to say, and I think there's a lot of value here. I have a question, though, and one I can't readily answer.

That is, I suspect the people up front in the NE Regional were largely the people who were expected to be there. My question concerns the individuals who moved the most from where we might have expected them to finish. These people are good runners, across the board, but they are not elites. Is it conceivable that--at least for a meaningful majority of these athletes--having the VFs gave them something to hope for as they approached the race that their peers did not have? It's not difficult to see how those conditions could be defeating without some reason to override the prevailing mood. Those who changed into VFs had the overriding factor. Certainly every single coach who made the change also preached about what a game changer the shoes would be--why would you not do that if you've gone to the expense of making the change? The mind is a funny thing. I can agree with you that elite athletes should be less subject to changing conditions taking them off their game, but it's not at all clear to me that most of the athletes who would be competing in this regional fall under that umbrella.

That said, if I had to pick a team from that region to have a good race in spite of the conditions (and apart from whatever factor shoes played), Cornell wouldn't be a bad choice. You're going to deal with more adverse conditions there than at most other locations in the region. All the more so if Cornell has a coach who is good at redirecting anxiety.

cestpourcela wrote:

Not every person in the field is gonna benefit from the placebo effect, but you definitely will benefit from better technology. You can’t just use the placebo as a primary factor in this situation because it doesn’t explain anything. You could get a placebo from a cup of coffee and convince yourself it’s the difference maker. It’s not going to make a bunch of teams overperform though. The placebo effect isn’t an explain-all for everything even though people like to say it is.

What makes this a little more complicated than a traditional placebo (say a sugar pill given for fatigue) is that the psychological confidence that comes from a feeling that you are going to get a boost from technology could not just make you feel differently, but also make you run differently in a way that improves your performance. So for example, you would go out harder than usual, when that would be what you should have done before, but didn't because you were uncertain; or you could surge farther from the end, when normally you'd just try to kick it in etc. That's why a double blind test would be the only one that would answer the question definitively.

As far as the circumstances that this thread covers, unlike the Kipchoge, all conditions controlled record, this "shoes explain it all" is lot less convincing . In terms of the overall season, there's such a thing as teams peaking at the regionals, for example. And what about the switch to the road, (which sounds to me like it was key in not only changing shoes, but also in affecting performance.) Or the weather conditions? A lot of runners I know run better on the road than on grass, and vice versa, or really do well in cold weather running. Doesn't that confound the results and make it highly possible that there were a LOT of other factors that might explain the results besides the shoes? It sure does for me.

As far as Vaporflys, if there could be a definitive double blind test of the shoes, it would personally be a real relief to me as a fan of running. I don't really care either way--I'm fine if Vaporflys are regulated out of existence--but I do think the way Rojo and others have used this issue in this case is a real shame. Their main point is to devalue these collegiate runners performance, and argue that they don't deserve something that they worked hard for. So what would instead be a feel good story about an underdog Cornell team coming together to make the nationals instead becomes a story about how they, at best, bought their way into the championship because they could afford better shoes, and at worst, are just flat out cheaters. And the runners on the other schools should feel bitter and cheated as well. This is the typical Lets Run take: overall, everyone who is a fan should feel really bad about the NCAA regional qualifiers, because they were a sham dominated by cheaters. The young people who ran in them were either corrupt or were suckers. Best we should just cancel the finals.

I'm a Californian, and wasn't even paying attention to the northeastern regionals. I give Let's Run credit for covering running events like collegiate cross country that get no mention whatsoever in local papers, and they do it for free. So I've got to say, thanks for that to the Brojos and staff, and thanks to those who contribute informed posts, and that's why I'll keep visiting the site. But it is a curious phenomenon to me that whenever I'm interested in a running event, or, heaven forbid, actually excited about the outcome of a race, all I have to do is turn to Let's Run, and I'll be brought down pretty quick. It is, without a doubt, the most depressing Internet site in all of sports.

I want to be clear

"I want to be clear..." that this post isn't directed at those who are in general debating the shoe issue, but rather those who are highlighting this event and in particular teams using these shoes. sorry my post got cut off. Its a sign that I was going on to long!

Yeah, that’s fair. I guess for clarification I should say that these teams aren’t at fault. It’s completely within their right to wear the shoes. You still have to run at the end of the day. At the same time though, if the shoes have any sort of significant advantage, even say 1%, then we’re looking at an inherently unfair field: a 1% difference in a 10k is right around 30s. My concern is that the issue will be dismissed, meanwhile important events like this can really change the direction of someone’s athletic career under certain circumstances. (This does qualify you for the biggest collegiate meet in XC!) I’m more interested in the teams as data points rather than making any judgements about the runners or coaches. Races like this is where we get to see what the difference is - because we probably aren’t going to be able to produce a double blind race test with a field like this.

Thanks for your reply--I completely agree with you.

cestpourcela wrote:

This is what I was hoping someone would do. The men’s list is far more extensive, and I might be missing a few but this’ll be a good start.

Harvard, Dartmouth, Cornell, Syracuse, UConn, UMass Lowell’s top 3, Misai from Hofstra, Fordham, Brown, and Marist.

There could very well be more but that’s about the end of the list of where it actually matters.

I know only UConn’s top 3 men had them. Their team’s finishing positions?...

15-17-18...102-127-135-136

Same with the women...

4-36-45... 78-114-119-120

Men were ranked 9th and finished 8th

Women were ranked 12th and finished 9th

Now, that’s not enough to say the team results were because of shoes but it’s a bit weird that both teams had big gaps after their 3rd when the shoes changed over.

+1

I like how the argument has shifted from, "oh it's the zoom x foam gotta ban the shoe" then people discovered that the foam was used in other nike products with far less commercial hype, so then it became "oh it's the carbon plate gotta ban the shoe" until other companies put out their own carbon plates, at which point the goalposts were moved again so that, "oh it's the carbon plate in combination with the foam gotta ban the shoe" which made no sense as though no one else had foam and plates, until finally we've arrived at the height of idiocy, "oh it's the specific magical curve of the carbon fiber plate gotta ban the shoe."

I can't wait to see what the next problem is. "Oh it's the air bubbles they put in the shoe gotta ban nike shoes with air bubbles and take away Michael Jordan's championships because he had air bubbles in his shoes too." Only a matter of time until these people discover velcro and the wonders of not having to re-tie shoe laces

Why is the $250 price tag always brought into the argument? If every runner needed to buy these shoes, running would still be one of the cheaper sports in terms of gear required. Compare to the price of football helmets, baseball bats, basketball shoes, etc.

Studies/analyses have come out about technical aspects of the shoes, thus some shifting discussions on what makes them fast. That's part of the process of discovery for us members of the public, and is separate from questions of fairness.

No one ever complained about the Pebax/zoomx foam like you said. I did mention at some point in an old thread that the Peg Turbo had the foam, and no one calls that fast, but that shouldn't have been news. Nike was promoting the Turbo as having the the same foam to justify its $180 price tag. The carbon plate wasn't the next target, it was the initial target.

Not even sure what you are arguing. Are you a Vaperfly performance denier? Or are you saying, sure it has an advantage, but you DGAF? Do you have no concern about fairness due to access or lack of access in this particular race? I think it was a legal race, but results were skewed, and the runners without access, due either to not being able to get the shoe or having a different school shoe sponsor were screwed.

I mentioned the pending patent on the curve of the Vaporfly plate as a potential and likely access/fairness issue for pro runners with other shoe sponsors because it does seem to be the secret sauce. After all, shoe companies have experimented with plates for decades without the same results, and other companies trying to copy the Vaporfly, but not using the curve (due to patent pending) are not getting the same result. Plus Nike's own study on curved vs flat plates showing why that is so. It all adds up. You call that the height of idiocy because what? You think the curve can't be what is making the difference? You think there is no advantage for the VF? Or you think Nike is the winner (they definitely are in this), and too bad for the other shoe companies because - capitalism? Do you think running should be a runner vs runner sport, or a running plus equipment/tech sport, like bobsled, skiing, cycling (a time trial specialist quit the Tour de France this year, likely because his sponsor couldn't provide a competitive time trial bike) where not having the best tech makes you non-competitive?

Your whole post is just incoherent.

A few thoughts:

Changing the NE Regional XC race to a road race was probably the right call to make in this case, but this was an absolute disaster. They're XC teams, not road racing teams and some legit XC teams got shafted. Buffalo should never be the sight for this race again, and they should come up with better back up options.

We have always worn shoes to improve performance. It would be strange to design shoes without that goal in mind

There are minimal and maximal shoes out there and you can train yourself to run your fastest times in either but you have to pick a style and be consistent in your training.

The placebo effect is probably a bigger factor than we realize. If you think your shoes are faster and people are telling you that, you might just end up running faster

The shoe technology is at the point where we need to decide what regulations are relevant to our enjoyment of the sport. I can see running regulations following car racing rules. Maybe a Nascar route where companies have specific regulations they have to meet with little room for modification to create a very level playing field, or a 24 hours of le mans route where companies have maximum freedom to come up with the fastest car possible.

My anecdotal experience: The Vaporfly is probably the best shoe on the market for road running races half marathon and over. For 10K and down I think you want shoes that are more light weight and minimal. Again, the main factor is picking a shoe and being consistent with your training.

Saw the course conditions. If people are going too fast for safety, they could simply slow down. Similar to how driving a car in bad weather works, ya know? Everybody races the same course.

Perhaps the NCAA could equip the field in large human sized hamster balls to keep them completely safe and bubbled-off from any possible dangers that could arise.

Just return the shoes to Nordstrom, no matter where you bought them, after the race for a full and cheerful refund!

$problem solved

Maybe this wrote:

And If it was your video, it’s doesnt even matter whether fair use or not. Its just not copyright infringement

This is right. There have been attempts by people who own the broadcast rights for sporting events (that's a contract right) to claim that they own copyright in any video of the event, but the courts have rejected that. It doesn’t stop the broadcasters from harassing people and falsely claiming the law is in their side. Heck, USATF did it to some club that produced their own video of club nats a few years back.

zzzz wrote:

I mentioned the pending patent on the curve of the Vaporfly plate as a potential and likely access/fairness issue for pro runners with other shoe sponsors because it does seem to be the secret sauce. After all, shoe companies have experimented with plates for decades without the same results, and other companies trying to copy the Vaporfly, but not using the curve (due to patent pending) are not getting the same result. Plus Nike's own study on curved vs flat plates showing why that is so. It all adds up.

I just looked up the patent on the Nike (curved) plate with foam again, and it is no longer pending. The patent was granted last month on October 22, 2019. It doesn't expire until August 26, 2036 (20 years after the application was filed). So that is potentially how long it will take for the other shoe companies to catch up. That's a long time to have an uneven playing field.

I hope Risha Dupre, Emily Farina, Lysandre Follet, Stefan E. Guest, Helene Hutchingson, Geng Luo, Rachel M. Suffield, and Krissy Yetman are getting a nice bonus from Nike for their work. Nike is raking in the dough on the Vaporflies.