Could not disagree more. Vaporflys are shoes. Very well designed shoes. Not trampolines. Try some on. Super shoe? No. Help you run more efficiently? Yes. This is so silly. Please run in my shoes from my major races 1976-1986. Your non-Vaporfly shoes are already Vaporflys compared to what was then. Evolution of shoes. Yes, good research led to a jump in quality.
diii alum wrote:
Sorry Sam, this is a real strawman from you.
Please address what I say below:
Do roller blades provide external energy to the runner?
This is pretty easy to measure, and he answer is 'no, they do not.'
Yet the world record for an inline marathon is 56 minutes... Weird huh?
You may want to think your analogy through again.
The shoes do not have wheels like a roller blade. When you land it does not keep moving/sliding. When you are on a downhill slope it does not move without input from wearer.
You actually need wearer input to keep moving. You can't rest your legs like on a bicycle or roller blade.
You actually need to compare it against other shoes not a different mechanical device.
...and think about what a straw-man argument is while you are at it.
cheers
What does this prove? I ran 20 mpw in high-school and ran 4:21 in the mile? It was 1994 and i ran in normal shoes. There were plenty of kids that trained all year and never ran that fast.
we only hear the hype wrote:
rojo, what do you think of Rhonex Kipruto's 26.24 10k in old fashioned Adidas flats?
How do you explain that?
Still waiting rojo. When you come down from cloud Nike, can you address this question please?
I am Sam wrote:
edumacation rulez wrote:
Tucker gets $$ from other shoe companies. Of course he thinks nikes should get banned. The only joke here is Tucker
Tucker is a self proclaimed sports scientist expert due to using the internet better than many more respectable scientists out there.
He was a dime a dollar sports scientists who cut through to the masses with an inetrnet site that basically summarised research in an easy to understand way. It does not make him an expert.
The only thing he learnt from his now discredited mentor Noakes is that you can change your mind based on who sponsors you.
Ross Tucker does change his mind a lot. So does rojo. This is a good thing really. It's decades of dogma that really brings the sport down.
kiowavt wrote:
Could not disagree more. Vaporflys are shoes. Very well designed shoes. Not trampolines. Try some on. Super shoe? No. Help you run more efficiently? Yes. This is so silly. Please run in my shoes from my major races 1976-1986. Your non-Vaporfly shoes are already Vaporflys compared to what was then. Evolution of shoes. Yes, good research led to a jump in quality.
Exactly. All this shoe nonsense is just that.
Nike didn't create 'ZoomX' foam from ore mined in a remote village nobody else has access to.
It's Pebax foam, a well known polymer company. I promise you that Pebax will sell its products to every shoe company out there and more.
Carbon fibre plates have been in shoes for decades. Pretty much since carbon fibre became mainstream someone thought about putting it in shoes. Nike released several pairs of carbon fibre plate spikes years ago as did other companies and nobody cried foul play.
All media nonsense. Nearly all the people posting here have never even seen a pair of next% in real life, let alone worn one. People are allowing their minds to be made up by loud media outlets like Ross Tucker.
Shoes improve. Tracks improve. Roads have even improved. That's the way it is.
I am Sam wrote:
edumacation rulez wrote:
Tucker gets $$ from other shoe companies. Of course he thinks nikes should get banned. The only joke here is Tucker
Tucker is a self proclaimed sports scientist expert due to using the internet better than many more respectable scientists out there.
He was a dime a dollar sports scientists who cut through to the masses with an inetrnet site that basically summarised research in an easy to understand way. It does not make him an expert.
The only thing he learnt from his now discredited mentor Noakes is that you can change your mind based on who sponsors you.
Ya, Tucker is a self appointed "expert", and a PHd from quackademia is no certification of anything what so every. Somehow rojoblojo thinks this is some kind of enlightened source of info.. wojo brojo themselves with their up front and close personal knowledge is good, but they buy into guys like Tucker as if it was the gospel.
give me a break.
pretty sure there are numerous pebax formulations...nike might have an exclusivity deal on their specific pebax
moran112312 wrote:
pretty sure there are numerous pebax formulations...nike might have an exclusivity deal on their specific pebax
A cursory Google search suggests Pebax is made by several manufacturers, though - Arkema, Foster, Zeus - unless there are patents or trade secrets involved that only one manufacturer has, which may well be the case. Otherwise, seems like anyone could get the "good mix" of Pebax.
we only hear the hype wrote:
rojo, what do you think of Rhonex Kipruto's 26.24 10k in old fashioned Adidas flats?
How do you explain that?
I asked that of Weldon today. His reply, "An all time talent."
Yes, 2624 is fast as hell. 2nd fastest 10,000 ever, right? But I'm not saying other people can't run fast in other shoes. I'm just saying that the Nike shoes help a lot - certainly at the marathon distance.
Considering Kipruto ran 2650 in a windstorm in Stockholm last year (the win was 18mph gusting to 34 mph), I'm not shocked he can run sub 2630 in perfect 40 degree weather. The reality is he's far from the only person running faster in Valencia than on the track. Wanders also broke his track pb. The reality is he beat Wanders by 54 seconds in Stockholm and by 49 seconds in Valencia.
Get back to me when 2620 becomes the norm on the 10k on the roads for non Vaporfly winners.
And he's coached by Brother Colm O'Connell.
In previous years, the 10000m was 30 seconds quicker than the fastest 10k road race. Does the new foam help even this out? I don't know, I'm still struggling to get my head around 26.24 Was the course downhill? Your other points suggest not.
I think a normal blood count will be faster than a high hematocrit. I'm staggered by the ignorance of people who have the nerve to call themselves exercise physiologists, but don't have even a basic grasp of what I was taught aged 13-14 (1976-77) about calorimetry, thermoregulation and energy efficiency. I'm sure John Kellogg would understand my point of view here, even if such a viewpoint is considered unutterable in the coaching world for fear of serious reprisals? But sport can't progress with this Dark Ages quckery and ignorance we have been force fed for so long.
I said here back in 2003-4 that I thought Nike would develop a shoe that was 60-90 seconds quicker over a marathon. I based this on the 30 second difference between road and track over 10k. I willingly accept I could have been wrong, it may be more? I don't know. I have noticed that some shoes make my stride longer with a lower stride rate, 10 spm less for the same pace and with a lighter shoe, a shorter stride length/quicker turnover. I don't know if either is better or worse for a 10k or marathon?
But Rhonex Kipruto was wearing Adidas racing flats, so maybe they have the same or similar new foam?
Yes I agree, I don't expect to see many runners as fast as him either on road or track, regardless of the shoe. But I didn't see this coming anyway. I'm not knocking you rojo, we are all in some sort of daze over recent developments are we not? It's a fascinating debate. I think I have a healthy dose of cynicism and realism. There is hope for a better future for the sport as I see it, if Brother Colm O'Connell has anything to do with it.
I don't think the shoes make a huge difference in the 5k/10k. The idea that Rhonex would break 26 comfortably in Vaporflys is absurd, so let's not even go there. That is basically what you're saying if you think the 2-3% (above TakumiSen/Adios/Zoom Streak et al) shown in the marathon applies in the 10.
Not sure anyone has noted this point: the biggest issue I had with anything Tucker said on his most recent podcast was his idea that the Adidas Boost advantage didn't count because it was only responsible for a 1-1.5% improvement in economy. Even if running economy can vary along those lines day-to-day, that doesn't mean it doesn't count/exist. It just means that over a period of days you would see the effect, but maybe not necessarily in every given race. Just because it could go somewhat unnoticed due to off days, does not mean it was not an advantage at the time. It was just a subtle one. The Nike one is more vast, which is why he's lost his mind. But had we gotten to where we are now incrementally over 30 years as opposed to 3-4 years, I really doubt we'd be hearing much at all from him.
Thanks for pointing out the deficits in so many self-proclaimed experts' understanding of exercise physiology. I'm not an exercise physiologist, so I should not know more about the original Hoogkamer (2017) et al study's protocols than people like Ross Tucker. And yet I'm always disappointed that these people never actually talk about the science. The actual study. they are just talking about times and performances, and always saying 'How can we know what's real anymore? the world is upside down!' Well, the first step would be to try.
Try reading the science. You are a scientist. Whenever I try and bring it up with Tucker on Twitter, it's always put aside. Hoogkamer et al did use calorimetry to measure metabolic energy savings in that 2017 study -- they took the protocol from another study authored by Fletcher, which they cited -- and yet Tucker (and others, including rojo -- but you guys are not scientists, so that's a little more un understandable) always plays around with percentages as if they're related to some total performance measure, or, worse, an actual time improvement. No one talks about the translational problem between metabolic energy savings and marathon performance, for instance.
Yes, the shoes are great. But what about all the other improvements in the last 5 years. Maurten? Strava? NN Running Team management? Improved camp conditions and team morale? Training improvement and better data metrics? There are so many other '1%' improvements that are never discussed. I have no doubt we would have seen many of these records go even if the record breakers were running in, say, epic reacts.
The other issue with Tucker is his proposed 20mm stack height solution. How will that make a difference? It's arbitrary and just nitpicking. PEBAX is PEBAX at any height. You might see less advantage than 40mm of PEBAX, but you'll still see 20mm of PEBAX advantage. Foamised PEBAX took a long time to get into running shoes, but it's here now. And it works. EVA is not found in nature, nor it polyurethane or thermoplastic polyurethane. People need to see this for what it is. Improvements in chemistry! If you want to say that running as an activity should only occur when a runner has a specific man-made fibre underfoot then you are surely restricting and tying the activity to technologies of a particular time. I thought running was defined by the action (just as race walking). Putting this or that underfoot should not essentially render a runner not a runner. Chemistry happens.
When we discover a new pharmaceutical drug that's vastly different or superior to the last, one that transforms our understanding of a mental disease like depression, because it effectly cures it or makes it much improved, no one says 'But they've transformed depression! What about all the wonderful poetry and philosophy dealing with melancholy? Shouldn't we play fair and let everyone feel the depression as they always have?'
No, that doesn't happen. What happens is this. We say, 'Okay, well the normative epistemic definition of depression has changed -- and that is a good thing, because depression is bad.'
In running, the critics want to say that the current definition of running in TPU or EVA is good (even though foams like boost are not those), and they want to freeze it in time, and to effectively say 'This is what running is.' They want to preserve it on the basis that it is good, and that it's the only thing that counts as running. This is a categorical problem.
But that's a ridiculously time-bound definition of running. Running with PEBAX underfoot is still running. It's just a faster and better way of running.
Complete agree with each of your very well made points. Thanks for systematically contradicting each of Tucker's implausible claims. I think his point are much less scientific than they are nostalgic. Just because Ross cannot gratify his love of trivia by comparing times and stats as easily as he could in the past -- because now he has to think about shoes, OMG! (Um, hello, many have been thinking about shoes all this time) -- that's no reason for WA to come down hard with some command and control regulatory response that is out of keeping with any contemporary model of good governance.