Guy runs 5k in 34:35 in regular shoes. Buys Vaporfly Next % and a week later run sthe same course in 31:54.
That's a 7.7% improvement. Yes it's not scientific but that's crazy.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q26cDk8Ccio&feature=youtu.be
Guy runs 5k in 34:35 in regular shoes. Buys Vaporfly Next % and a week later run sthe same course in 31:54.
That's a 7.7% improvement. Yes it's not scientific but that's crazy.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q26cDk8Ccio&feature=youtu.be
It’s probably because he ran for an extra week and or just got psychologically pumped enough to push himself closer to his limit. Absolutely meaningless causality wise in terms of the shoes, unless you count placebo bonus.
When I ran 23-27 mins for 5k my time would easily vary a couple minutes between races.
This is such a bad experiment...
1.) He know how to pace better the 2nd time and was prepared to suffer more
2.)He would have also improved in any other racing flat
3.)They probably told him to not go all out first time so they can make clickbait video.
rojo wrote:
Guy runs 5k in 34:35 in regular shoes. Buys Vaporfly Next % and a week later run sthe same course in 31:54.
That's a 7.7% improvement. Yes it's not scientific but that's crazy.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q26cDk8Ccio&feature=youtu.be
It-s not crazy at all.
Robert, 0/10
These sorts of posts are exactly why I registered "Oh Please" over 10 years ago. Even a 32 minute 5k is unequivocally a time of a totally untrained runner. There is no reasonable way to quantify what the shoes would "improve" in someone totally untrained.
Is that you rojo?
I thought you mistyped 5k instead of 10k. Nope. The guy isn’t even trying, he has a conversation the whole way.
Jeez, this is embarrassing click-bait even for Rojo. On the other hand, though I'm not fully-versed on the revenues from clicks (I guess it drives ads and increases ad rates?), anything that drives more clicks is probably a good thing for the business, so well-played.
I skimmed and assumed this was a 10k time and was like wow, that's crazy, since someone running a 34:xx 10k is a probably a decently trained and experienced runner.
But no, some couch potato improving his 5k time from "slow AF" to "slow AF minus two minutes" is meaningless. Inexperienced runners have wildly varying performances, everyone knows that.
rojo wrote:
Guy runs 5k in 34:35 in regular shoes. Buys Vaporfly Next % and a week later run sthe same course in 31:54.
That's a 7.7% improvement. Yes it's not scientific but that's crazy.
I don't really get it. Do people who buy those shoes and run a little faster really feel that much better about themselves? I wouldn't. I mean I would feel better if I won a race and made a bunch of money but otherwise who cares. Why is this such a big deal to people?
This might be the dumbest thread ever
You remember the "blade runner" Oscar Pistorius, he had a high-tech prosthetic that worked better than a human leg. Better was due to the energy loss in the prosthetic was lower than a real human leg. So he could theoretically run faster than the best non-disabled human.
I have seen statements from Canova and from an "expert" selling all those new great shoes and they stress that the shoes are cushioned as other shoes, but have LESS energy loss than other shoes. In addition they often have a shape and a carbon cradle that is easier on the lower foot so over long distances one can be less tired than if you run with "flats".
So the shoes does not give a magic extra bounce so you run faster than you in theory can do like the blade runner, but among the cushioned shoes they give less energy loss and save the legs over longer distances. They also state that at shorter distances and given you have the leg strength, minimal (spike) shoes are the most efficient at running fast.
I think they want to sell the "magic" at a very stiff price tag, but still, the best could be to run with the minimal and most natural leg function.
rojo wrote:
Guy runs 5k in 34:35 in regular shoes. Buys Vaporfly Next % and a week later run sthe same course in 31:54.
That's a 7.7% improvement. Yes it's not scientific but that's crazy.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q26cDk8Ccio&feature=youtu.be
Go away you troll
1% improvement would be great. 2% would be amazing.
If you're over six minutes a click you're not running (in any reasonable sense of the word).
I averaged sub-34 for ten 5ks in a row.
Walking.
And I wasn't a "real" racewalker.
Whatever this guy was doing...wasn't running.
cjdjdj wrote:
Is that you rojo?
+1
Good math, Robbie!
Kipchoge fan wrote:
This is such a bad experiment...
1.) He know how to pace better the 2nd time and was prepared to suffer more
2.)He would have also improved in any other racing flat
3.)They probably told him to not go all out first time so they can make clickbait video.
he's also jabbering the whole time. Clearly not going all out, even by fat overpronating hobbyjogger standards.
Funny I could wear alphas and run a 1hr 5k and then go out and run barefoot and come out faster. Therefore barefoot = hyper performance.
It's as dumb as the local real estate agents posted "Sold for over asking". It's not hard. It's called positioning your argument to win.