For elite runners competing in performance enhancing shoes (PESs) the following should be considered...

We don’t care what your opinion is. They are legal, and it’s a free market for other companies to innovate.

What shoes are claimed to give you a “4% advantage”?

Perhaps some research on your part PRIOR to posting would be helpful.

What's a traditional shoe?

In this case Jim Ryan has the mile record

you r full of gas wrote:

What shoes are claimed to give you a “4% advantage”?

Perhaps some research on your part PRIOR to posting would be helpful.

Whatever 4% more efficient converts to, per Nike regarding the Zoom Vaporfly 4%

Who's Jim Ryan? I've heard of a really great runner from back in the 60s named Jim Ryun but that's a different guy.

Grassrunner wrote:

The mindset of using PESs has similarities to rationalizing use of grey area or banned PEDs for the same reason, except for two major differences:

1. You, and your competition, are doing it in plain sight

2. The shoes are legal for competition

To keep parity, since times run in these shoes are not comparing apples to apples with traditional shoes:

1. when it comes to new "records", they should be kept on separate lists from those run in traditional shoes.

2. Time-based qualifying standards for national trials, teams, etc., should be adjusted for PES wearers.

3. Those wearing shoes claiming 4% advantage should have to start "place-based" qualifying races 4% further from the finish line.

+1

you must enter a username wrote:

What's a traditional shoe?

Playing the naive game, I see.

they are legal like caffeine wrote:

We don’t care what your opinion is. They are legal, and it’s a free market for other companies to innovate.

Who exactly is the "we" you are speaking for?

Starting with the spikes Bannister wore, and then working your way through the Nikes in the link below them, could you clarify exactly where the shoes started to "enhance performance"? I feel like it didn't start with the ones called "4%".

Flipside wrote:

Starting with the spikes Bannister wore, and then working your way through the Nikes in the link below them, could you clarify exactly where the shoes started to "enhance performance"? I feel like it didn't start with the ones called "4%".

I don't think there is much of the difference in the spikes from Bannister through that Nike list. Some of those old spikes were actually pretty lightweight. There's nothing that would test 4% more efficient than Bannister's.

The Vaporflies were the first shoes to show a "magic" jump in efficiency. People in the shoe industry who were experimenting with plate designs decades ago have posted here in this forum that they tried, but didn't find that edge. They didn't see that until the Vaporfly design, then suddenly 4% efficiency gain.

The new Nike spikes (not on that list in your link) are more of an unknown. There's no efficiency gain claim that I've seen yet, and Houlihan chose her older spikes to run that AR race.

Grassrunner wrote:

The mindset of using PESs has similarities to rationalizing use of grey area or banned PEDs for the same reason, except for two major differences:

1. You, and your competition, are doing it in plain sight

2. The shoes are legal for competition

To keep parity, since times run in these shoes are not comparing apples to apples with traditional shoes:

1. when it comes to new "records", they should be kept on separate lists from those run in traditional shoes.

2. Time-based qualifying standards for national trials, teams, etc., should be adjusted for PES wearers.

3. Those wearing shoes claiming 4% advantage should have to start "place-based" qualifying races 4% further from the finish line.

I hate the spring shoes as much as you, largely because they don't work for my feet, but what you are suggesting is ridiculous. There is no age grading, shoe grading, etc. in track - its all on absolute time. I don't even like the idea of masters competition because the field is so sparse outside of masters national meets.

Someone is either within the rules, or they are not (Drug cheats). Those outside the rules don't get special considerations, they get banned for rampant cheating or disqualified from a competition (ie for false starts, illegal equipment).

Flipside wrote:

https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/410/cpsprodpb/19AE/production/_85447560_6949a0cc-c864-44d5-9cdd-06461b02b4b6.jpghttps://news.nike.com/news/nike-track-spike-history

Starting with the spikes Bannister wore, and then working your way through the Nikes in the link below them, could you clarify exactly where the shoes started to "enhance performance"? I feel like it didn't start with the ones called "4%".

I'd say the change occurred when the shoes began providing significant energy return to the extent that it created a measurable aid to what the athlete would be capable of without that energy return feature added to the shoe.

No, Kvothe, it's different with these shoes. They are artificially enhancing one's time beyond what they can do on their own. The rule makers determine what's legal or not, and I am of the opinion they shouldn't be for this very reason. Drug cheating wouldn't be cheating either if the rule makers said it was legal. Would you cave on that?

Grassrunner wrote:

you must enter a username wrote:

What's a traditional shoe?

Playing the naive game, I see.

But what is actually the difference?

you must enter a username wrote:

Grassrunner wrote:

Playing the naive game, I see.

But what is actually the difference?

A shoe that does not provide extrinsic enhancement to performance beyond what the human body by itself is capable of would be a traditional shoe for the definition I'm using.

Grassrunner wrote:

No, Kvothe, it's different with these shoes. They are artificially enhancing one's time beyond what they can do on their own. The rule makers determine what's legal or not, and I am of the opinion they shouldn't be for this very reason. Drug cheating wouldn't be cheating either if the rule makers said it was legal. Would you cave on that?

So everyone should run barefoot then? All shoes "enhance one's time beyond what they can do on their own."

Not everyone responds equally to them anyways. And for all the morans that call them "spring shoes", "pogo shoes", or any other of these idiotic names, the PEBAX foam has slightly better energy return than the typical EVA that came before it..EVA was something like 65-70% energy return and the PEBAX is somewhere in the 80%s. That's not more than 100%. So you're not getting anything extra that you didn't put down on the road yourself. Remember Newton's Third Law?

As for you blithely throwing around the 4% statistic, the studies have shown around a 4% increase in running economy, not overall times. And again, not everyone responds equally to them. Molly Huddle is a prime example.

I really don't understand why people hate the progress of shoe technology. You sound like a librarian from the 1990s who wants to ban the internet because it's bad for your business.

You do realize that a 4% boost in running economy does not correlate at all with 4% faster.

4% boost in running economy refers to the difference compared to shoes like the Adios 3 and streak 6 in absolute perfect conditions on the treadmill.

No hills, no swerving to avoid other runners, no wind, no humidity, perfect temperatures. There’s no way of telling if the 4% is the same outside on the roads.

Shoes like the Adios 3 which the 4% number comes from do not have a carbon plate, do not use pebax foam, do not have high stack.

Any of those components introduced individually would have made some impact on running economy so let’s look at them one by one.

First the carbon plate. Carbon fibre has been used in sporting equipment outside of running for a long time. Even in sports cars they’re used to reduce weight compared to sheet metals. In running, they’ve been used in spikes since at least 2012. These spikes have not received any complaints, so it’s silly to blame it on carbon fibre plates as the reason for the vaporfly hate. Carbon plates also cannot release more energy that is stored. So it’s not really a 4% “boost” but a 4% reduction in energy loss. Not gaining anything, just losing less.

Next the pebax foam. Foam has changed since running shoes have started using them. Most notably TPU, EVA, and now pebax. Pebax is less dense than EVA and TPU, so you can have more of it at the same weight. Pebax’s advantage is that the variability of soft to rigid can be more easily controlled than EVA, which is much more random when created. Pebax has less energy loss than TPU or EVA. So they’re more efficient. There shouldn’t be anything controversial about this foam. It’s just a better foam for all shoes regardless of performance.

High stack ties into Pebax. Because it’s a lighter foam they can put more of it in the shoe which reduces impact. There shouldn’t be anything wrong with that. HOKA has been using super cushioned high stack shoes forever.

The only thing someone should have any problem with is Nike’s Zoom air pods. But just like every single spring mechanisms. THEY CANT OUTPUT MORE ENERGY THAN THE INPUT. Nike has been replacing the zoom with the air pods which is more energy efficient but only about 90% compared to other foams which might be only 70%.

So you will find that these shoes do not make the runner any better than they are. The simply maximize performance through mitigating energy loss.

PEBAX is just one component of the sole. The carbon fiber plate is part of the equation as well.