Finally, somebody speaks the truth and not a walking Nike VaporFly ad campaign.
Finally, somebody speaks the truth and not a walking Nike VaporFly ad campaign.
web2dot0 wrote:
Kipchoge ran on a pair of DEFECTIVE Nikes when he won in Chicago in 2:04:00.
Did the Next% help Mo Farah to run his amazing 5th place sir? LOL
Stop it already.
Can you remind us who won Boston 2019 his year for the Women's and what shoes she was wearing? LOL.
Confirmation Bias is real.
Kipchoge would have ran the same times with or without the VaporFly. He just wears them because his sponsors hold them so.
I can bet all my life savings that he would have won London even if he ran on a pair of Adidas.
Care to start a GoFundMe campagin to get Kipchoge off his Nike Contract? LOL.
Gosh, sick of explaining things to people like you. Go and have a look at my previous posts. ;-)
Matey!!! wrote:
I own a pair of the first 4%’s and the Flyknit version. They definitely propel you forward from experience and make running feel much easier; hence the 5% improvement in RUNNING ECONOMY! Look up what running economy is please people.
The plate needs to be banned like other shoes have been prohibited with similar tech. The real benefit comes for the elite athletes. 4% improvement in running economy is huge at the elite level.
Generally the other athletes drop off the Vaporflys wearers very quickly. Look at this new runner out of know where that just eclipsed Bekeles Marathon PB!
Yawn. You’re the Zoom Zoom Zoom / Vaporfly Asterix guy. I think you’re a little kunt.
Out of hand! wrote:
This in now getting out of hand, after 2.01.39 was run in Berlin and now an extra two faster times than the old WR in London (a slower course then Berlin) after an upgraded model of the 4% (Next%) were launched shows that theses shoes are against IAAF regulations. Nike shouldn’t be allowed to pay their way out of this one; the evidence is against their favour. You’d have to be stupid not to recognise this.
They aren’t banning them you slow little kunt.
Kosgei runs the fastest ever second half of a marathon for a woman and wasn’t wearing VF’s.
?
shoes are important wrote:
runn wrote:
EPO/Performance enhancing drugs are dangerous and you risk health. Shoes are shoes.
Galen's achilles blew apart because of bad shoes and he ended up having reconstructive surgery to be able to continue running. Shoes can be a very high risk for your health if they are not biomechanically correct and you run a lot.
WRONG. Galen has a Haglunds deformity. They always knew he'd need surgery to correct it at some point.
TERMINATOR X GUN wrote:
Kosgei runs the fastest ever second half of a marathon for a woman and wasn’t wearing VF’s.
?
Kosgei is a heel striker. She pulls herself along (somewhat akin to John Treacy). VF would do her no good. Testimony has proven VF does not help heel strikers, only midfoot types.
TERMINATOR X GUN wrote:
Kosgei runs the fastest ever second half of a marathon for a woman and wasn’t wearing VF’s.
?
Ha ha! Quality lack of awareness by this uncouth triggered hobbyjogger - citing the most unbelievable Kenyan performance since Kiptum to attempt to provide legitimacy to the performance of Vaporflys! You couldn't make it up.
Mal Content wrote:
TERMINATOR X GUN wrote:
Kosgei runs the fastest ever second half of a marathon for a woman and wasn’t wearing VF’s.
?
Kosgei is a heel striker. She pulls herself along (somewhat akin to John Treacy). VF would do her no good. Testimony has proven VF does not help heel strikers, only midfoot types.
LUL.
"Although we did not set out to evaluate the foot strike pattern interaction on the energetic cost differences between shoes, our sample of runners did allow for such an analysis. Eight of our subjects landed on their heels and ten landed on their mid/forefoot. Overall, the energetic cost of running was not different between rearfoot strikers and mid/forefoot strikers (p = 0.9; Table 3). However, a shoe × foot strike pattern interaction effect (p = 0.0502) suggests that the savings in the NP shoes were likely somewhat greater for rearfoot strikers (NP vs. NS: 4.78%; NP vs. AB: 4.63%) than for mid/forefoot strikers (3.67 and 3.50%, respectively)."
Hoogkamer, W., Kipp, S., Frank, J.H. et al. Sports Med (2018) 48: 1009.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s40279-017-0811-2new rules for shoes wrote:
Free_the_thigh wrote:
A bike only uses an Athletes energy expense, therefore using a bike is perfectly legal
But a bike allows you to sit down which saves energy. I would say that inline skates should be allowed however, they are powered purely by the athlete's own energy and they should be seen as just another type of shoe for a road race.
Saving energy doesn’t mean adding external energy
4% also just “save energy”
Bump
Moozmoozmooz wrote:
Out of hand! wrote:
This in now getting out of hand, after 2.01.39 was run in Berlin and now an extra two faster times than the old WR in London (a slower course then Berlin) after an upgraded model of the 4% (Next%) were launched shows that theses shoes are against IAAF regulations. Nike shouldn’t be allowed to pay their way out of this one; the evidence is against their favour. You’d have to be stupid not to recognise this.
No, you'd be stupid to not get a pair.
And that is exactly what Nike wants, that fools like you (non elite athletes) go and get them in masses because that will increase their chances at winning their age group and a .99c medal at their local weekend 5k/10k after investing $250.00 plus tax in them.
Moo Goo wrote:
This is the new world. We will be roller skating the marathon soon. The young millennial idiots like to call it innovations!
Well, they had people rolling wheels in this marathon. And it seemed like that was all they were showing while the elite men and a woman about to break a world record goes unnoticed. Also Galen Rupp dropped out and the announcers were too busy with feel good story to worry about what the competitors were doing.
This is a serious question:
Where does technology become unfair?
When I started running in 1971 the New Balance Tracksters were the best shoe available.
We were running in Nike Cortez- and getting injured all the time.
Motion Control shoes and custom orthotics have kept me running for 48 years.
At what point is "cheating"
Seriously? Take a vitamin pill, or iron supplement, etc you're not cheating. Take supplements too far and they're cheating.
He he. Well that didn't age well did it?
runn wrote:
This is a serious question:
Where does technology become unfair?
When I started running in 1971 the New Balance Tracksters were the best shoe available.
We were running in Nike Cortez- and getting injured all the time.
Motion Control shoes and custom orthotics have kept me running for 48 years.
At what point is "cheating"
Seriously? Take a vitamin pill, or iron supplement, etc you're not cheating. Take supplements too far and they're cheating.
its all about perception. illegal to use a calculator on a high school math test, but in real life you'd use it 9 times out of 10 and its not cheating. because you went from the Cortez to a better Motion Control shoe, was this cheating? No.
people just can't be happy that fast times and new accomplishments are being achieved. we have a problem with this in society these days.
Mal Content wrote:
TERMINATOR X GUN wrote:
Kosgei runs the fastest ever second half of a marathon for a woman and wasn’t wearing VF’s.
?
Kosgei is a heel striker. She pulls herself along (somewhat akin to John Treacy). VF would do her no good. Testimony has proven VF does not help heel strikers, only midfoot types.
Seriously, like come on. Stop being such a sore loser. What do we race in then? Bare feet. Jeez, know we are really getting somewhere. Oh, wait I have an idea, let’s run bare feet, with no clothes. Like come one clothes are making an unfair advantage on others. Maybe while we’re at it, let’s start all of the world records again! like seriously guys, look at other sports like car racing. They have new technology on their cars all the time. There is no reason to ban Nike Vaporfly Next%!??♂️
doctorj wrote:
Moozmoozmooz wrote:
No, you'd be stupid to not get a pair.
And that is exactly what Nike wants, that fools like you (non elite athletes) go and get them in masses because that will increase their chances at winning their age group and a .99c medal at their local weekend 5k/10k after investing $250.00 plus tax in them.
I bought a pair for $250. Then I won $200 in a local race. That makes them the cheapest racing shoes I've ever bought. I might even make a profit off them at some point.
This video shows the difference between Vaporfly next%, barefoot and adidas adios.