What makes Kelvin kiptum so good?

Before you call something pseudo-science, you must first be qualified to understand the real science.

Efficiency is relative. It is easy to see how inefficient running is compared to other forms of self-propelled locomotion, like roller blading and cycling. How much do roller blades weigh? Typically 2-5 pounds, compared to the 5 oz. Adizero Pro shoe. Adding these heavy weights on the feet of a marathoner allowed one to cover the distance in 56:45, last year in Berlin. If several millions of years of evolution produced optimal efficiency, cars would be built with mechanical legs.

If shoes don't make you go faster, why wouldn't more elite runners opt to run barefoot, like Zola Budd and Abebe Bikila, instead of opting for shoes that cost $200-$500? After all, runners will do everything it takes to go faster, and wearing no shoes is completely legal and available to everyone at no cost.

Energy is lost in everything that bends or compresses, from the hips to the knees to the ankles to the toes, and all the muscles and tendons in between, as well as the soles and cushioning of the shoes, if that energy is in a direction other than causing forward motion. Each foot landing acts as a brake as kinetic energy is directed downwards rather than forward. Most of the energy used in running is to compensate for the lost energy, rather than propel the runner forward. Older shoes designed to reduce impact uses a foam which absorbs the energy which then dissipates in all directions, making them less efficient than shoes which absorb that energy, and then dissipate the energy back up to the foot on the rebound.

The running shoe was invented a long time ago. Running shoe technology has advanced over the last 60 years, as new lightweight and rigid materials were developed, compared to the golden oldie days when shoemakers cobbled together leather and rubber. The latest technology puts a thick layer of lightweight foam on a rigid carbon fiber plate, capturing more of that energy and rebounding it at lift-off in a forward direction.

When you speak of horse racing, you just introduce yet another topic where you are clearly clueless. A quick search shows that horse racing today has the very same doping issues as athletics. It is arguable worse, as the welfare of the horse is not given much consideration, and anti-doping isn't as organized and uniform worldwide. Declaring no significant progress in the last half-century despite all the alleged advances in doping, is consistent with what we have seen in distance running since the mid-1980s, among the matured non-Africans -- until the era of new shoes. The requirements and constraints of putting shoes on horses are different, as their hooves are not like a human foot with toes and tendons and fascia, but it is no less scientific, as horseshoes are also made of different materials and specialized to perform different functions, from racing, to increased traction, to correcting its gait, and for injury rehabilitation.

Why do you keep falling back to the examples of sprinters and cyclists? How is that relevant to Kiptum and the marathon?

Note proof by example is so weak, it is considered a fallacy rather than logic. Proof by examples of other athletes in other disciplines is even weaker, compounding another fallacy of projection.

His home country is still natural and has not become over urbanized concrete jungle like USA

So is Kiptum doping?

You would have thought much the same about "natural talent" if you had seen Ben Johnson or Lance Armstrong in action.

All sports dope - sprinters, cyclists and marathon runners - and all for the same reasons. Marathon running is not some lonely exception, impervious to the effects of peds - as busted marathon champions have shown.

So only the mechanical or technological is efficient in your books. Obviously then, motor racing is a more "efficient" sport (notwithstanding the enormous consumption of fuel) than marathon running - by your stupidly selective argument.

Doping in horse racing is nowhere near as prevalent as in athletics, as the lack of improvement in horse-racing times over the last half century has shown. But of course to a doping-denier such as yourself that is merely evidence that doping doesn't work. So now horse-trainers are also morons in believing horses will gain an advantage from doping.

Your blather about what the shoes do is only that - blather. It is no more credibly based that if I were to say "the unique properties in the latest running shoes impart unprecedented upward thrust in the athlete's drive from the ground with each stride" - which I just made up - just like you did. There is nothing that proves shoes enhance performance to the degree you and others claim they do. The biggest improvements come from doping - as they have done for decades.

There aren't scientific studies that show the benefits of the supershoes. There is anecdotal speculation - and marketing hype.

If you have examples of "busted marathon champions", why do you so freequently appeal to Ben Johnson (1988), Marion Jones (until 2002), and Flo Jo (1988 -- assuming she took any drugs) and cycling (1990s-2000s) when answering whether drugs actually make a person faster?

Your examples are not only of athletes from the wrong sports/events, they are all quite dated, and come from an era before marathon times started dropping.

The only example I recall, of a "busted marathon champion" was for whereabouts failures -- a violation that doesn't involve drugs, nor performance.

The only exception here is your ability to provide relevant examples. You cannot even meet the low requirements of rejecting your argument as "proofs by example".

A couple of months ago you were full of praise for Sage Canaday when he disagreed with rekrunner. You said Sage's opinion was more valid because it came from a knowledgeable, professional runner.

Well, a few hours ago, on the Des Linden thread, Sage wrote:

"I would say it is fair to say if we had "super shoes" back in 2011-2012 we probably all would have been 1-3 minutes faster for a marathon. Maybe not 100% as some respond differently, but some super shoes are for sure making people (Even elites!) a few minutes faster. The science is clear on that."

Nick Willis also talks abour the benefits of superspikes.

Are you saying they are not credible now?

Should we think that you are right and professionals are wrong?

There are scientific studies that show the benefits of supershoes. Why would you lie about this?

What made Salazar so good?

sgurd

I didn't say "only mechanical or technological is efficient in your books" -- you also just made that up. I clearly said "self-propelled locomotion".

The shoes have a measurable, and measured, improvement on efficiency. I didn't make that up, but several scientists have studied them in recent years, and athletes themselves are saying the same thing, and even the silent ones are breaking new personal performance boundaries. So -- the whole world is wrong - except for you? Not likely.

You say doping in horse racing is not as prevalent, but lack both prevalence figures for humans and horses. Without data -- you are also just making it up. How often are the horses tested? Are there OOC testing for horses? I've heard that horse dopers are always a few strides ahead of anti-doping testers. A recent headline from June 2023 reads "Up to 60% of racehorses are doped, trainer warns during troubling death spree: 'Lots of illegal drugs'". The latest concern is the alarming increasing rate of race horse deaths.

How can you say race horsing has stagnated? Do you have historical performance data? Guinness Book says the fastest horse ever is from 2008, called "Winning Brew". Right -- that's a name you can trust is clean. The 2021 Kentucky Derby winner, "Medina Spirit", was ... wait for it ... disqualified for doping. I guess too much Funky Comedina Spirit. Lots of North American records were set in 2022 and 2023, and a bunch more in the 2000's.

It's not surprising that you seem to lack complete awareness of the sport of horse racing, with respect to both doping and performance.

But assuming you were right about horse performance, with a different hypothesis, "the lack of improvement in horse-racing times over the last half century" shows that doping has not really evolved in half a century. This appears to be an obvious conclusion for non-Africans in the last 3-4 decades in (human) distance running events.

Your blather about what doping does is only that - blather. It is no more credibly based than if you were to say "the unique properties in the latest running shoes impart unprecedented upward thrust in the athlete's drive from the ground with each stride" - which you just made up - just like you do about doping. There is nothing that proves doping enhances elite distance running performance to the degree you and others claim they do.

He didn't so much disagree with me, as call me "one of the most uninformed" and "so ignorant". He didn't elaborate, so I can't tell what he disagreed with, if anything, or what information I lack or what knowledge I am ignorant of. It was an unsubstantiated post with no real value.

I'm not insecure intellectually. I don't really mind being called "uninformed" and "ignorant", if it is constructively coupled with some of the missing information and knowledge -- as he just did with the shoes in another thread -- or at least some direction where to find the lacking information and knowledge. According to Dilbert creator Scott Adams, everyone is ignorant about something, and the solution is information and knowledge. After all, isn't general education one of the goals of a public forum discussion? Or is it just supposed to be an echo chamber for the faithful looking for confirmation and like-minded believers?

Is there even 5

I don't say there will be no improvement possible from the new shoes but that the nature of that improvement is inconclusive, since not all runners using them are getting faster, and I believe it will be nowhere near as much as is regularly claimed on this site. One of the reasons for that is doping has to be factored in these improvements because its presence cannot be discounted.

Also, while I agree with Canaday's on-point assessment of rekrunner that doesn't require that I hold the same views as him on any other subject, such as the shoes. I also note that his assessment is 1-3 minutes improvement in the marathon, which is an estimation and not an actual measure and it's nowhere near as much as some are claiming. I would incline to the conservative side of his assessment.

Nick Willis also has a view worth heeding on the super-spikes but again it is only an anecdotal estimation and hasn't been confirmed through research and study. His fastest time certainly wasn't accomplished through supershoes.

Only you could be confused about the meaning of "uninformed" or "ignorant", which he applied to your views on doping.

You are wrong. Most of the time.