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.
That isn't my logic. The origins of the universe is in no way analogous to what a running shoe does.
There is no specific measurement of what the shoes enable because it hasn't yet been established what they do. They may make some runners faster - or not - and if they do it isn't proven by how much.
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.
The estimated improvements in running economy are only estimates and they don't apply to all athletes. Hence it hasn't been established how much faster an athlete may be in these shoes. If it had, this thread would have been resolved after the first post on the topic. That it is still being debated after so many pages shows the data is still inconclusive. Some of you are unable to recognize that.
This post was edited 44 seconds after it was posted.
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.
That isn't my logic. The origins of the universe is in no way analogous to what a running shoe does.
There is no specific measurement of what the shoes enable because it hasn't yet been established what they do. They may make some runners faster - or not - and if they do it isn't proven by how much.
I never said there was. The shoes likely do help, but the EXACT measurement depends on the runner. There really is no exact measurement for the general population of runners.
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.
The estimated improvements in running economy are only estimates and they don't apply to all athletes. Hence it hasn't been established how much faster an athlete may be in these shoes. If it had, this thread would have been resolved after the first post on the topic. That it is still being debated after so many pages shows the data is still inconclusive. Some of you are unable to recognize that.
The data might be inconclusive but that doesn't mean it can't be used as evidence.
Let me you an example: A company puts out a new drink. 95 of the 1st 100 costumers become nauseous and start vomiting soon after drinking it. There has yet to be definitive evidence that the drink actually leads to these symptoms, but it's a very reasonable conclusion because so many people got those symptoms from it right after eating the drink, even if the evidence leading to the conclusion is not 100% definitive. Then some random guy would start blabbering about how the drink has yet to be tested, so the drink likely does not cause any of those symptoms until it is, despite the current evidence. That one person is you.
Predicting your response: "This dumb drink story you gave has nothing to do with the effects of super shoes. You continue to make up random things and make yourself look legit"
Hey buddy, it's just a near equivalent example. Doesn't have to be about the shoes.
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.
I never said they did. You obviously just continue to ignore my posts and say the same things over and over again. I suggest you actually read the studies and do some research yourself. They still help elite athletes shave off the 1-2 seconds (or however many it is) needed to qualify for the olympics in the 1500, but they help more for slower people. The reason why elite athletes still wear them is because a tiny difference in performance can mean quite a lot.
And you have yet to show any evidence to back up your claims.
The estimated improvements in running economy are only estimates and they don't apply to all athletes. Hence it hasn't been established how much faster an athlete may be in these shoes. If it had, this thread would have been resolved after the first post on the topic. That it is still being debated after so many pages shows the data is still inconclusive. Some of you are unable to recognize that.
The data might be inconclusive but that doesn't mean it can't be used as evidence.
Let me you an example: A company puts out a new drink. 95 of the 1st 100 costumers become nauseous and start vomiting soon after drinking it. There has yet to be definitive evidence that the drink actually leads to these symptoms, but it's a very reasonable conclusion because so many people got those symptoms from it right after eating the drink, even if the evidence leading to the conclusion is not 100% definitive. Then some random guy would start blabbering about how the drink has yet to be tested, so the drink likely does not cause any of those symptoms until it is, despite the current evidence. That one person is you.
Predicting your response: "This dumb drink story you gave has nothing to do with the effects of super shoes. You continue to make up random things and make yourself look legit"
Hey buddy, it's just a near equivalent example. Doesn't have to be about the shoes.
Your example has nothing to do with nothing. If a drink makes someone nauseous, he should eat some other drink.
The estimated improvements in running economy are only estimates and they don't apply to all athletes. Hence it hasn't been established how much faster an athlete may be in these shoes. If it had, this thread would have been resolved after the first post on the topic. That it is still being debated after so many pages shows the data is still inconclusive. Some of you are unable to recognize that.
The data might be inconclusive but that doesn't mean it can't be used as evidence.
Let me you an example: A company puts out a new drink. 95 of the 1st 100 costumers become nauseous and start vomiting soon after drinking it. There has yet to be definitive evidence that the drink actually leads to these symptoms, but it's a very reasonable conclusion because so many people got those symptoms from it right after eating the drink, even if the evidence leading to the conclusion is not 100% definitive. Then some random guy would start blabbering about how the drink has yet to be tested, so the drink likely does not cause any of those symptoms until it is, despite the current evidence. That one person is you.
Predicting your response: "This dumb drink story you gave has nothing to do with the effects of super shoes. You continue to make up random things and make yourself look legit"
Hey buddy, it's just a near equivalent example. Doesn't have to be about the shoes.
Your fictional example doesn't prove anything. It shows nothing about running or the studies on the shoes. If the claims about the shoes were proven you wouldn't be trying to use fanciful (and invalid) comparisons with an imaginary new drink. You could simply refer to the facts proven by the studies. You can't because they are still being debated.
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.
I never said they did. You obviously just continue to ignore my posts and say the same things over and over again. I suggest you actually read the studies and do some research yourself. They still help elite athletes shave off the 1-2 seconds (or however many it is) needed to qualify for the olympics in the 1500, but they help more for slower people. The reason why elite athletes still wear them is because a tiny difference in performance can mean quite a lot.
And you have yet to show any evidence to back up your claims.
Your claim about what top athletes may experience is only a claim. It hasn't been confirmed.
I am not making any "claims"; I am saying the claims about the shoes have yet to be proven and substantiated and therefore accepted as fact.
That isn't my logic. The origins of the universe is in no way analogous to what a running shoe does.
There is no specific measurement of what the shoes enable because it hasn't yet been established what they do. They may make some runners faster - or not - and if they do it isn't proven by how much.
I never said there was. The shoes likely do help, but the EXACT measurement depends on the runner. There really is no exact measurement for the general population of runners.
That shows that we don't yet really know what the shoes are doing for runners. It might be something, a lot, or nothing.
We tried to be very intentional with the interpretation of our results. 25 seconds or 1 second per lap for a 30 min 10k runner does not mean that we are trying to claim the spikes provide a flat 1 second per lap benefit across the board. It seems to be a gradient where the faster you go, the smaller the benefits. In another study, we saw that the average time from the top 100 performers in the men's 1500m from 2021 to 2023 improved by 0.65% or 1.5 seconds for a 3:45 miler. If you told me El G could run 3:41.6 in super spikes, I would believe that.
This is worth highlighting because a significant number of posters here use 1 second per lap as a universal super spike conversion factor.
“The average time from the top 100 performers from 2021-2023 improved by 0.65%, therefore the spikes provide a 0.65% benefit” is a non sequitur. You have to demonstrate that super spikes are the only source of the improvement before you can make that claim.
Beyond that, what can trends in the top 100 as a whole actually tell us about the top 5 in particular? If, as you say, the spike benefits are on a gradient with the effects diminishing as speed increases, it makes no sense to use the slew of times from 3:33 - 3:36 (which comprise the vast majority of the top 100) to generate a conversion factor that you intend to apply to 3:28 races.
I never said there was. The shoes likely do help, but the EXACT measurement depends on the runner. There really is no exact measurement for the general population of runners.
That shows that we don't yet really know what the shoes are doing for runners. It might be something, a lot, or nothing.
That’s why I rely on input from former Olympic medalists like Kiwi Nick Willis telling us the super spikes are worth 1.5 sec over 1200, so 2 sec per mile, and that’s in the very old super spikes now. Straight from the horse’s mouth.
It may be impossible to quantify how much they are worth for any given runner, but only a disingenuous dolt would say they aren’t really helping “that much.” Even the leaps in training are allowed by the shoes.
And NOBODY is going back to the old shoes. Wonder why? But, the genie is out of the bottle, and there’s no going back. There was the pre-Covid era and now the post. Comparisons are silly. But, it is akin to the EPO use of the 1990s & early 2000s.
This post was edited 2 minutes after it was posted.
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.