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.
Does anyone have a response to this?
I completely agree with what Guardian is saying, there are some issues with using the average improvement for the top 100 1500m athletes to predict how it would improve the performance of a 3:28 runner. That is why I have stayed away from trying to definitively predict how the spikes will effect performance on an individual or small group (runners under 3:29 for example) level. I simply stated that we have seen about a 1.5 second improvement since the introduction of super spikes in the men's 1500 and that seems reasonable to me based on the research and as a fan of the sport.
The benefit of looking at large sample sizes (100+) of race performances year to year is that we can account for some of the individual variation in response to super spikes and shoes. We have seen in multiple studies (including the one this thread is based on) that the individual response to super spikes and shoes is incredibly variable. We found that everyone improved their running economy while wearing super spikes, but the range of improvement was 0.5 to 4%.
At this point, all I can say is that the race time trends after the introduction of super spikes indicate that as the race speed increases, performance improvements decrease. To put a specific number on this would be overreaching in my opinion. We will unfortunately never have a study where the top 20 1500 m runners complete multiple time trials wearing the old and new spikes to have a definitive answer for how much the super spikes improve performance. However, I think we can use observational studies of race time and lab based research to make decent predictions.
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.
There should not be debate because there are no studies that lead to the opposite conclusion, which is that super spikes have no effect on track times.
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.
Your right, it has not been confirmed. But anyone who understands science will know that it's reasonable to make conclusions or theses about these things with enough evidence that heads in the same direction, even if it is not outright definitive.
This post was edited 6 minutes after it was posted.
* actually he said 2 seconds over 1200 in his own experience, so 2.5 seconds over 1500.
So Nick Willis would be a 3:27.16 guy today? Mo Farah 3:26.31? Really?
Won’t really speculate about Mo Farah as he was with Salazar and there are always questions about the track/meet where he ran his 3:28.8, but Nick Willis was an Olympic bronze medalist over 1500, so he would know how much these shoes help. If we go back to three 3:27 1500 medalists from Paris, yes, it is conceivable that they are really 3:30.xx runners but with the best kicks in the “old” shoes.
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.
Everytime a study is done on the effects of super shoes, it results in a conclusion that the shoes help by a certain amount. The amount varies by study, but it is not hard to conclude that the shoes help to some degree as none of the studies conclude that the shoes either make no difference or slow people down. And the benefit from the shoes varies a lot depending on the runner and race distance.
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.
There should not be debate because there are no studies that lead to the opposite conclusion, which is that super spikes have no effect on track times.
I'm not saying that. I am saying the effects of the shoes is still being assessed. That is the debate. You should read the post above by Bneedles. Some runners may gain - and by different degrees - and some not at all.
This post was edited 43 seconds after it was posted.
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.
Your right, it has not been confirmed. But anyone who understands science will know that it's reasonable to make conclusions or theses about these things with enough evidence that heads in the same direction, even if it is not outright definitive.
Conclusions that haven't been confirmed remain unconfirmed. That is my point.
So Nick Willis would be a 3:27.16 guy today? Mo Farah 3:26.31? Really?
Won’t really speculate about Mo Farah as he was with Salazar and there are always questions about the track/meet where he ran his 3:28.8, but Nick Willis was an Olympic bronze medalist over 1500, so he would know how much these shoes help. If we go back to three 3:27 1500 medalists from Paris, yes, it is conceivable that they are really 3:30.xx runners but with the best kicks in the “old” shoes.
So Hocker, Kerr, Nuguse and Ingebrigtsen - who all use the new shoes - are only "3:30 guys" in the old shoes. Really?
That shows that we don't yet really know what the shoes are doing for runners. It might be something, a lot, or nothing.
Everytime a study is done on the effects of super shoes, it results in a conclusion that the shoes help by a certain amount. The amount varies by study, but it is not hard to conclude that the shoes help to some degree as none of the studies conclude that the shoes either make no difference or slow people down. And the benefit from the shoes varies a lot depending on the runner and race distance.
It apparently doesn't help some runners and the amount it may help other runners hasn't been accurately quantified - which is times. The general picture is that the shoes may make a difference but not necessarily for everyone and we aren't sure by how much, if they do.
Every runner benefits. Ridiculous to say otherwise. May as well say some people run faster in their clunky trainers than the new spikes.
The difference between the shoes El G wore and spikes today is nothing like that. It shows, because El G remains faster than anyone today in their new shoes. And, yes, runners today are also doping.
"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. "
If that is so why is no one today faster than the best in the EPO era?
Nearly every record at every level has been broken. Check the NCAA. Check every state. Check every high school. Check the women's world.rexords. you latch onto a handful of runners out of millions. The fastest person in history may have been born this year or 100 years ago.
Nearly every record at every level has been broken. Check the NCAA. Check every state. Check every high school. Check the women's world.rexords. you latch onto a handful of runners out of millions. The fastest person in history may have been born this year or 100 years ago.
The fastest times in every distance up to the 1500/mile, for men and women (with the exception of the women's 1500/mile), were not run in the superspikes. Including today's runners, these have all included the most talented and best trained athletes. For races longer than md I could just as easily hypothesize that it has been endurance drugs (which are still being used) that have enabled faster times, not shoes.
This post was edited 55 seconds after it was posted.
Your right, it has not been confirmed. But anyone who understands science will know that it's reasonable to make conclusions or theses about these things with enough evidence that heads in the same direction, even if it is not outright definitive.
Conclusions that haven't been confirmed remain unconfirmed. That is my point.
It is still reasonable to believe these things with enough evidence, even if it is not outright definitive. You are a lot older than I am so i'm sure things were different when you went to school, but any science teacher will tell you that a hypothesis is reasonable with enough studies and evidence that all head in a similar direction even if it doesn't directly confirm anything.
This post was edited 3 minutes after it was posted.
Nearly every record at every level has been broken. Check the NCAA. Check every state. Check every high school. Check the women's world.rexords. you latch onto a handful of runners out of millions. The fastest person in history may have been born this year or 100 years ago.
The fastest times in every distance up to the 1500/mile, for men and women (with the exception of the women's 1500/mile), were not run in the superspikes. Including today's runners, these have all included the most talented and best trained athletes. For races longer than md I could just as easily hypothesize that it has been endurance drugs (which are still being used) that have enabled faster times, not shoes.
So you believe that all recent records were doped? Are you sticking with your claims about tuohy?
Nearly every record at every level has been broken. Check the NCAA. Check every state. Check every high school. Check the women's world.rexords. you latch onto a handful of runners out of millions. The fastest person in history may have been born this year or 100 years ago.
The fastest times in every distance up to the 1500/mile, for men and women (with the exception of the women's 1500/mile), were not run in the superspikes. Including today's runners, these have all included the most talented and best trained athletes. For races longer than md I could just as easily hypothesize that it has been endurance drugs (which are still being used) that have enabled faster times, not shoes.
Research has shown that superspikes offer greater improvements for longer distances rather than for shorter ones. Of course that hasn't been confirmed, by your definition, but there is reasonable evidence to believe it.
"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. "
If that is so why is no one today faster than the best in the EPO era?
Shoes won't do as much for elite athletes compared to doping. Super spikes might improve times by a few or a fraction of a second, but drugs are capable of turning 3:52 guys into 3:45 guys.
Wait a minute, you said "EPO era" which indicates that EPO's were used in a certain period of time and are no longer widely used today, buy you also try to argue that most recent world records are doped. Huge contradictions. If you're gonna make an argument at least don't use evidence in different ways each time.
This post was edited 2 minutes after it was posted.
Every runner benefits. Ridiculous to say otherwise. May as well say some people run faster in their clunky trainers than the new spikes.
The difference between the shoes El G wore and spikes today is nothing like that. It shows, because El G remains faster than anyone today in their new shoes. And, yes, runners today are also doping.
I already pointed out that most evidence and studies showing that super spikes improve performance also show that elite athletes won't benefit as much as normal runners do.
And you continue to call out modern day athletes for doping without any evidence whatsoever. Ridiculous.
I completely agree with what Guardian is saying, there are some issues with using the average improvement for the top 100 1500m athletes to predict how it would improve the performance of a 3:28 runner. That is why I have stayed away from trying to definitively predict how the spikes will effect performance on an individual or small group (runners under 3:29 for example) level. I simply stated that we have seen about a 1.5 second improvement since the introduction of super spikes in the men's 1500 and that seems reasonable to me based on the research and as a fan of the sport.
The benefit of looking at large sample sizes (100+) of race performances year to year is that we can account for some of the individual variation in response to super spikes and shoes. We have seen in multiple studies (including the one this thread is based on) that the individual response to super spikes and shoes is incredibly variable. We found that everyone improved their running economy while wearing super spikes, but the range of improvement was 0.5 to 4%.
At this point, all I can say is that the race time trends after the introduction of super spikes indicate that as the race speed increases, performance improvements decrease. To put a specific number on this would be overreaching in my opinion. We will unfortunately never have a study where the top 20 1500 m runners complete multiple time trials wearing the old and new spikes to have a definitive answer for how much the super spikes improve performance. However, I think we can use observational studies of race time and lab based research to make decent predictions.
The common explanation on LR for the 1500m WR not being broken, is that shoes don’t help a 3:28 runner. If that’s true, the benefit will increase as the distance is extended, but yet, the 5/10 WRs have only marginally been improved. You can’t have it both ways.
Can provide examples of runners that responded to the SS and others that haven’t?
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.