This is a fallacy. The amount of fifth and sixth year seniors ballooned during the pandemic and were given an extra year (at least) of eligibility to compete. Do the shoes help? Sure, but not four seconds off a mile. No amount of analytics can prove this.
The superspikes provide AT LEAST 3 seconds per mile for every distance. The fact that EVERY sub 4, sub 14, etc. runner is wearing them is all the proof you need. People aren't spending 150 dollars on shoes that don't help at all (like some morons claim).
There's literally NOBODY at the top level who isn't using them. You'd think there'd be people that are old school and don't want the extra assistance. There's always runners that want to make things more challenging than they are (running barefoot, ultra marathons, blue jean mile, beer mile).
The elite athletes won't even pretend like the shoes don't make a massive difference.
So you are saying nobody in the world ran a sub 3:31 1500 equivalent in the past few years ? Come on, think about it before calling others morons.
I think half of that, so 1sec/km is already optimistic. The top performers every years in the 800/1500 are not faster than in the previous spikes era despite the fact that the level is competitive at the moment. The supershoes are on the roads. On the track, it's just a slight improvment.
Seeing how elite times in the short hurdles 100/110/400 has gone down since carbon plates arrived I'd say those that smack their legs into the ground the hardest (like hurdlers do when they pass one and force the front leg into the ground) are the ones getting the most bonus energy in return.
Seeing how elite times in the short hurdles 100/110/400 has gone down since carbon plates arrived I'd say those that smack their legs into the ground the hardest (like hurdlers do when they pass one and force the front leg into the ground) are the ones getting the most bonus energy in return.
carbon plates isn't a new thing. It was created and used in spikes decades ago.
And the 110h isn't getting any faster. Only 3 guys broke 13 in the last 4 years
Seeing how elite times in the short hurdles 100/110/400 has gone down since carbon plates arrived I'd say those that smack their legs into the ground the hardest (like hurdlers do when they pass one and force the front leg into the ground) are the ones getting the most bonus energy in return.
carbon plates isn't a new thing. It was created and used in spikes decades ago.
And the 110h isn't getting any faster. Only 3 guys broke 13 in the last 4 years
That's because NFL are scouting harder in the short hurdler mens area. It's a special case, but the number of sub 12:90 guys have gone up fast in the last years.
Women's times are going down, no way 12:65-12:70 will win a DL any more unless the wind is crazy against them. The men's 400 jumped down a whole second for several men at once. The womens 400, same thing.
carbon plates isn't a new thing. It was created and used in spikes decades ago.
And the 110h isn't getting any faster. Only 3 guys broke 13 in the last 4 years
That's because NFL are scouting harder in the short hurdler mens area. It's a special case, but the number of sub 12:90 guys have gone up fast in the last years.
Women's times are going down, no way 12:65-12:70 will win a DL any more unless the wind is crazy against them. The men's 400 jumped down a whole second for several men at once. The womens 400, same thing.
The quality of carbon plate shoes are waaaay up.
it's not all about the USA you know. Nobody cares about NFL in africa, europe, asia. Still nobody outside of the USA went sub 13 (except one 12.99 jamaican) since those so called superspikes came. "the number of sub 12:90 guys have gone up fast in the last years". That's just wrong. On the women side, 100h was an uncompetitive event in the 2000/2010's. 12.65 is rated below 1200 points so not enough to win DL is normal. Several girls ran 12.2 and 12.3 40 years ago. Now it's competitive again.
It's true that there is big improvments in the 400h but i guess it's just super talents with WRs that will stay for a long time after that.
If those spikes were making such a big difference, those who are now around 30 years old, so in their best years when the so called superspikes came, would all have set huge pb in the same year. That didn't happen. Better te compare same athletes one year apart than different athletes decades apart.
The number 2 and 3 time of all time came in 2021 and 2022. That said there might be a re-learning curve worth comparing to the normal learning curve (down the road, in ten years time) if those that never had to re-learn their technique because they went straight to carbon start make a general leap that is bigger than normal between two generations. We'll see.
I've been able to measure my own stride on the flat oval running at fixed cadence (hallo metronome and/or hallo music) and it's 2-3 cm longer in carbons vs old time flats when cruising and 4-5 cm longer per stride when kicking. Free energy!
That's one way to do a quick and dirty ("reasonable") estimate (240*0.987 seconds). But I think it overestimates the benefit by about a second, and I'd say 3:58 is the new 4:00. My look at the World Athletics data a few days ago shows that the superspike benefits lessen at higher paces, which his estimate can't account for. It shows what has actually happened to track times.
I looked at 1000th yearly performer times at 800/1500/5000/10000 and compared seven pre-superspike years (2012-18) to 2022 (skipped covid-affected 2019 and 2020; 2021 and 2022 both superspiked years but picked the barely faster 2022 for comparison due more brands with superspikes. Would have had the same results combining 2021 and 2022 as superspike years). It's not a rigorous statistical look, but it was easy to notice that at the 1000th performer level, the data is relatively smooth year to year due to it resting on a ranked list of 999 beneath it. For example, the standard deviation of seven 1500 times from 2012-2018 was only 0.22 second, and the standard deviation of the 800 times from those years was only 0.06 second. (For comparison, if you look higher up the rankings at the100th performer level in the 1500, standard deviation for 2012-2018 is a lot higher at 0.56 second.) The 10000m times were an exception because people started using Vaporflys in 2016/2017 partway through the pre-superpike years.
I made the assumption that that from a physics standpoint, the shoe doesn't know a runner what distance a runner is running, it's just reacting to the forces applied to it. So, I graphed the (log) benefit at different paces and came up with a (highly correlated r2=.9867) regression line, and a table representing that line.
3:58 is the new 4:00. The 0.5 second benefit at 60 second pace was rounded from 0.52 second from the regression line, but I don't want to imply greater precision that I have. And don't forget it's not the same benefit for everyone.
For fun, I'll look up what the World Athletics data shows for the 4:00 mile and give an estimate utilizing other parts of that database than what I've already used.:
80th yearly mile performer looks close to 4:00: 2012 4:01.98 2013 4:00.72 2014 4:00.01 2015 4:00.83 2016 4:01.11 2017 4:00.60 2018 3:59.24 2022 3:57.76 pre-superspike 2012-2018 average: 4:00.64. But the standard deviation is crap at 0.86 second and not usable for the way I'm doing comparisons - so skip this.
3:43.69 1500m is 4:00 mile pace, and pace is what matters to the shoe, so trying the 401st 1500m performer: 2010 3:43.70 2011 3:43.57 2012 3:42.94 2013 3:43.47 2014 3:43.45 2015 3:43.36 2016 3:43.39 2017 3:43.58 2018 3:43.69 2022 3:41.28 pre-superspikes: mean 3:43.46, standard deviation 0.23 second. That's 2.18 second difference at 1500. At the mile, 2.18/1500*1609.344=2.4 second. This aligns close to my table above (0.1 second off). But considering what I'm comparing (mean of 7 numbers to 1 number), I still prefer to round to 2 seconds.
Another way to look at it. in 2019, 35 NCAA runners ran sub 4. In 2023, 35 NCAA runners ran 3:56.9 or faster.
In 2019 no one has an extra 'covid year' of eligibility, in lots of people are still in the system. Also, go look at how many runners ran sub 4 in, say, 2010. Only 22 did it in 2010, what's the cause of the jump from 22 in 2010 to 35 in 2019? How about there are more fast people as time goes on? And saying the spikes make you 3 seconds faster in the mile, then the top runners in the world are terrible now. They're running the same world leading times for the 1500 as ever, which must mean they're actually 3 seconds slower than in prior years, right? So we're in a slow age of running at the world level. Or maybe, just maybe, distance running in the US and NCAA is continuing to get better, and more athletes are utilizing red-shirts and covid years of eligibility.
Another way to look at it. in 2019, 35 NCAA runners ran sub 4. In 2023, 35 NCAA runners ran 3:56.9 or faster.
Notably, no other possible explanations exist
No other explanations??? How about how the average age of NCAA finalists now is a 1-2 years older than pervious years due to the covid year, increased use of red-shirting on top of the red-shirt year, and large numbers of international runners who didn't immediately come to the NCAA when they were 18. The average age of NCAA runners today is not what it was a decade ago, or even in 2019.
No other explanations??? How about how the average age of NCAA finalists now is a 1-2 years older than pervious years due to the covid year, increased use of red-shirting on top of the red-shirt year, and large numbers of international runners who didn't immediately come to the NCAA when they were 18. The average age of NCAA runners today is not what it was a decade ago, or even in 2019.
Can you post the data that shows the average age of an NCAA Finalist for several years prior to super spikes and for 2020-23? Some others have posted data for last NCAA qualifier, 100th time, 1000th time over 10+ year periods that show an inflection point at the introduction of super spikes. Some of these were IAAF data, not just NCAA data. Please do the same to show a different conclusion for the irrefutable change in race times.
Shoes matter more in training, allowing more workouts, quicker recovery times and lower injury risk. Athletes running 3:28 are already pushing the limits of the human body and live ideal training lifestyles, they get a bit of benefit from the shoes but not as much as a 4:00 college guy who consistently makes bad decisions on Saturday nights.
The impact of shoes will be greatest for athletes who were training at a moderately high level (vs. professionals).
Besides this, the impact of shoes is obvious when looking at the roads. You cannot deny this.
The benefits of super spikes in a single race is likely not the 4 seconds or so described in the study. Maybe 2 seconds. But not 4. The real benefit is the cumulative benefit of training in super spikes and vaporflys for several months. Again, athletes who are already running 3:28 are already approaching the limits of human capabilities, the shoes will make a less significant change on a percentage basis vs. the 4:02 college guy.
It's not 6th year seniors either. Such a stupid argument.
There’s one way to clear all of this up, ban the shoes for a single year. I’d bet my next paycheck that times would immediately drop to pre super shoe times. No WRs. Might see a prep sub 4 but nothing like we’ve been seeing. Of course this won’t happen. Next best thing is for iaaf to conduct a study. Find 100 or so world elite and national elite runners. Have them run on a treadmill with workout to measure max or peak v02. Give them an hour rest and then do it again with super spikes. Measure results and compare. Maybe they’re doing this already but not likely.
I do think the shoes are worth 3-4 seconds for a 4:05ish runner. Maybe only a second or second and a half for someone like El G. This would explain why no one has come close to his 3:43. You’d have to have someone around sub 3:45 w/o super shoes which doesn’t exist. Why is it less for world elite runners? Not sure, but likely PEDs could (or could not) play a role. You can only get so fast. Or, you can only modify a car so much before nothing has an effect or very little effect as opposed to a car that doesn’t have any modifications and even the smallest improvements can substantially boost performance.
The experiment has already been done in the opposit way when those spikes appeared. The result is no significant change in PBs. The reverse has to be true also.
One other thing is, despite the fact that your theory about limits of human body on elites is interesting, it has been proven wrong by supershoes on the road that DO make a big difference, even more on elite that on the average runner.
The conclusion is that spikes don't make a big difference.
The superspikes provide AT LEAST 3 seconds per mile for every distance. The fact that EVERY sub 4, sub 14, etc. runner is wearing them is all the proof you need. People aren't spending 150 dollars on shoes that don't help at all (like some morons claim).
There's literally NOBODY at the top level who isn't using them. You'd think there'd be people that are old school and don't want the extra assistance. There's always runners that want to make things more challenging than they are (running barefoot, ultra marathons, blue jean mile, beer mile).
The elite athletes won't even pretend like the shoes don't make a massive difference.
So you are saying nobody in the world ran a sub 3:31 1500 equivalent in the past few years ? Come on, think about it before calling others morons.
I think half of that, so 1sec/km is already optimistic. The top performers every years in the 800/1500 are not faster than in the previous spikes era despite the fact that the level is competitive at the moment. The supershoes are on the roads. On the track, it's just a slight improvment.
Since super shoes we have seen the record books rewritten on every level. I wouldn't be wrong in suggesting that Bekele's 5 & 10000m records were pretty much unbeatable by the current generation of talent. Those records have been on the books for a long time. Same with the women's records. Is it possible that a generation of average talent (on the world-class level of course) came a long and beat them out because of shoes? Yes. Put Chepetgei in the same race as Bekele's 12:37, with the same shoes, on the same day and Cheptegei barely breaks 12:50. Before super spikes, he had barley broken 13:00 despite the fact that he had been on the world-class scene since, at least, 2016. Then goes from 12:57 - 12:35. Same with the 10000m. I think there are other factors here, but the shoes work.
US 10000m runners are almost 30 seconds faster (comparing top 100 times from previous 10 years) than they have ever been - and it happened overnight. World distance times are the fastest we've ever seen. And they're holding there. When comparing top 100 times over the previous 10 years (pre super shoes) there would be a fast year followed by a slow or average year. Always up and down. Since the release of super shoes, the past three years have been the fastest we've ever seen. Is it possible that super shoes have turned years that would normally be average or slow into super fast years?
That said, the shoes seem to have more of a profound impact on the elite/sub-elite runners and not as much on the world-class level. The ~29:00, ~14:00, and ~4:00 group. Why? Who knows. Possiblity is that PED use is much more prevelant for a group that is running faster (obviously). Seems less likely that a runner running at redline (due to PED) would benefit as much from any tech. You can only get so fast. It would be great if someone did a study.
If everyone wants the shoes, fine. But at least admit that times weren't what they used to be. A sub 4 isn't the same anymore... and everyone knows it.
No other explanations??? How about how the average age of NCAA finalists now is a 1-2 years older than pervious years due to the covid year, increased use of red-shirting on top of the red-shirt year, and large numbers of international runners who didn't immediately come to the NCAA when they were 18. The average age of NCAA runners today is not what it was a decade ago, or even in 2019.
Can you post the data that shows the average age of an NCAA Finalist for several years prior to super spikes and for 2020-23? Some others have posted data for last NCAA qualifier, 100th time, 1000th time over 10+ year periods that show an inflection point at the introduction of super spikes. Some of these were IAAF data, not just NCAA data. Please do the same to show a different conclusion for the irrefutable change in race times.
I did a couple years ago in 2021 when we had that insane 10,000m race where the top 8 runners were all sub 28 at NCAAs. The average age was over 23 years of age. Too much effort to go back and look everyone up again, go right ahead and you'll see the average age is older now than it used to be several years ago. Back before 2010 or even before 2000 the oldest guys were 22, occasionally you'd find a 23 year old. Everyone listed as a senior right now is minimum 23 years old, some are 24 and even 25. Everyone listed as a junior is actually 22, some 23 or 24. So when you've got over half the field is listed as a junior or senior, that means over half the field is about 23 or older. Most people used to run out of eligibility at age 22, or even 21 if they were young for their grade with a summer birthday. That extra year or two not only makes those people faster, but has increased the number of athletes who are currently in the system making all the races deeper than they normally would be. After two more years it'll be back to normal. Times will still be faster than they used to be, but there will be a stagnation for a couple years as the decreased depth has to be overtaken by improvement in performances.
Your age premise is not out of line, but statistics for the race times have been posted. You need to show a similar change in age that occurred at the same time to prove it is a factor. Show the data of the average age of either NCAA qualifiers or the top 100 vs. pre super shoes or link the thread you already posted the data.
The race you reference may be an anomaly, but you have not shown that it is. And times have been consistently faster as those 6th year runners have left the NCAA. US and world times are also faster to a depth of 100 or 1000 runners. What is the explanation for that?
This year 2023 the first 10K male over 29:00 is 90th on the NCAA List. In 2018 it was 19th, 90th was 29:39. In 2017 it was 26th, 90th was 29:38. 2016 it was 13th, 90th was 29:39. 2015 it was 23rd, 90th was 29:40. Can we start to see a pattern here? The average age must be shown for all of this data to prove/disprove your hypothesis. Since you assert it, the burden of proof is on you.