Ben True is 100% correct: the main value of the "super shoes" and "super spikes" is less leg fatigue

DC Wonk wrote:

It ain't about the plate -- that's necessary to have any efficiency in the shoe with loads of soft cushion. It's about very lightweight foam that takes a lot of pounding off the legs, a feature that prior racing shoes lacked.

So is he saying the main benefit is to recover faster, or that your legs are lest tired in the difficult portions of the race so you can run faster? Or both?

I think it's both

After wearing spikes your feet might be a little beat, and in the race they'll also feel a little tired from wearing spikes. But if you can have enough cushioning then you'll recover faster giving you better fitness, and you'll use that fitness more on race day when you're not as tired mid race.

That's short-term thinking. True strengthened his feet, ankles and calves for 20+ years with intense running in flats. He can afford to train primarily in the carbon-shoes now, because he literally maxed out his feet/ankles and calves.

If a "normal" runner or young, talented runner starts training exclusively in the VF (which a lot of kids actually do these days, for the same reason - faster recovery, easier to hold paces), he might never get the conditioning on the feet, ankles and calves that's needed to perform well on shorter track races.

Put these "VF only" trainers in a 1500 where they have to wear spikes again and their lower legs get crushed. They got the aerobic fitness, but their legs weren't conditioned to the pounding that happens at that pace.

Long-term the effects of doing workouts exclusively in the VF for a decade has to be evaluated, on how much lower leg strength deteriorates from training in flats and how big the effect on race times is. In theory - you want to train a good amount of sessions in very light flats, to maximize stimulus on the lower leg muscles and tendons. Personally, I think training exclusively in the VF when money isn't an issue is probably still the best idea, but the issues I stated above should always be considered.

Hmmm, I think we need more data. I was going to suggest Jakob, but he's trained for 7 years without them before he started wearing them in 2018.

I think you are way overthinking it. This was the same argument people made 10 years ago about running in vibrams/bear feet vs "traditional running shoes".

barefoot*

I get what you mean by that and generally our runners should strive for strong muscle in the feet and legs

But guys like true also run in their regular spikes too, he did a 600 workout down from 1:31-1:29 in regular spikes so clearly it’s not lost on him

There’s plenty anyone can do to strengthen those muscles too, jog post workout on the turf barefoot, do drills and strides barefoot, smart athletes will overcome whatever there is

It ain't about anything but marketing hype that snares hobby joggers and elites alike, most being equally unskilled in the basics of physics.

There is no shoe that can reduce the amount of muscular force required to stop the body from collapsing on top of it when it strikes the ground.

Runners are as ignorant of the mechanics of their activity as cyclists are well-versed at the mechanics of theirs.

At least people are catching on... Less fatigue in sessions = more quality work = faster race times.

The Zoom X invincible might be a good option for many (if they can handle the instability).

tuccone wrote:

DC Wonk wrote:

It ain't about the plate -- that's necessary to have any efficiency in the shoe with loads of soft cushion. It's about very lightweight foam that takes a lot of pounding off the legs, a feature that prior racing shoes lacked.

So is he saying the main benefit is to recover faster, or that your legs are lest tired in the difficult portions of the race so you can run faster? Or both?

When it comes to marathon, the benefit is to finish the race strong without bonking. At least I always had problems after 32k when I ran in flats. However, it's not the only issue, thicker midsoles with superfoams have better energy return than traditional racing flats. It's not so much about the plate but the foam itself. The plate is there to give stability and help with vibrations but without that ZoomX foam for example Nike shoes wouldn't be as fast as they are.

Regular&Standard wrote:

[This was the same argument people made 10 years ago about running in vibrams/bear feet vs "traditional running shoes".

Hehe. I was going to ask what they were!

DC Wonk wrote:

It ain't about the plate -- that's necessary to have any efficiency in the shoe with loads of soft cushion. It's about very lightweight foam that takes a lot of pounding off the legs, a feature that prior racing shoes lacked.

Well we know it can't be about the plate because track spikes literally were just plates in the past and the served the exact same function - rigidity to reduce joint work and geometries to promote a forwards C.O.M/C.O.G

The lightweight foam is the game changer. Here is why.

Running fast is all about energy (force) input to the track. Why? Because the only thing that returns that energy (force) is the track itself. That is not debatable because it's Newtons third law. Quite simply, the more of your generated force you impart to the track the more you get back and the faster you run. In simple terms - footwear gets in the way, it reduces the the efficiency of that situation. The biggest culprit? Cushioning foam.

The primary function of a cushion(ing) foam is to dissipate/dampen force - that's what makes it a "cushion". Cushioning is also a process - as the force is applied a foam compresses and the cushioning effect continues until that foam is completely compressed as which point it is so "packed" together it doesn't serve as a cushion anymore. This is why footwear has a self life - you know, when shoes go "dead". What has happened is all the little micro-pockets/chambers of air in the foam have broken down and the foam has flattened to the point it doesn't dissipate the force anymore. It's called the "compression set" of the material.

In a perfect cushion > performance scenario a foam would fully compress over the time of impact (the footstrike) dissipating a certain amount of force as it compresses. At toe-off though, the goal is to impart as much force as possible to the ground so ideally the foam is packed out so no more of your available force is "lost". The force/energy cumulatively dissipated by the foam is relative to the distance you are running and what your body can handle. That's why a 100m spike has no cushioning foam. The goal is absolute maximum force transfer to the track and over the course of 10 seconds of running and the impact force is tolerable. Obviously as you go up distances this changes - in theory a 100m spike is the most performance efficient spike for any distance in terms of the above concept but the trade-off is the cumulative impact fatigue that would affect you in and post performance.

The reason these new foams, in particular zoom X, are game changers is the ability of them to compress extremely quickly under force and return to their original state just as fast (resiliency). Now you can put 12-15mm of these foams under foot - the provide a ton of cushioning and they don't compromise force transfer or, equally as important, weight.

Check out an older Victory spike. The cushioning element was a nominal 4-5mm of EVA. It had to be that thin because of weight and because anymore of it made the shoe inefficient (it would not compress under load). The reason for that is when EVA parts are made there is a skin on the part that is maybe 1mm thick on the surface area that is much harder than the EVA itself. That created a ton of surface tension and resisted compression.

To the point made by True - well it's true. The benefit of product that cushions you during performance (especially at 3000m and above) in terms of reducing fatigue is huge and something nobody really could qualify because we never had product like this before to benchmark against. Now take those benefits into the type of running that really fatigues muscles - workouts on the track, and the benefits of being able to train just as hard without destroying your legs is even bigger than in race because this benefit supports even the MD guys that probably don't race for long enough to see as much in-race benefit as the distance guys.

It's about finding the perfect balance between duration of event and applied force. The variables in the cushioning equation are the foam itself and the thickness. Thickness has always been easy to determine - the properties of the foam not so much. But now we have these foams that are getting closer and closer to the perfect ratio of efficiency and it's hard to argue with the results.

If every stride makes you less tired b/c of the shoes. You run faster for a given level of fatigue accumulation.

The shoes help you run faster.

Unless the point is that the main benefit comes from training in the shoes? I don't believe that. There's a reason everyone races in them.

Also quick on energy return of foams. Foams do return to their original states (at least when they are very new with few compressions in them) but that return or "springing back" isn't really a factor in "energy" return. Think about it practically - let's take a runner of mass 140lbs (63kg) that humans basic stationary force they apply to the ground is around 620 Newtons. A foam does not rebound with anywhere close to that amount of force that alters/moves that amount of weight.

When you talk energy return of the foam, it's really the energy return of the ground and the foams role in that is maximizing the energy it allows through it. When you get a perfect cushioned situation the shoe does feel like a "trampoline" because the ground is returning maximum force to you in an optimally cushioned environment (no impact shock/jarring) etc. It's the perfect mix of weight, surface tension, and compressibility you are looking for.

Harambe wrote:

If every stride makes you less tired b/c of the shoes. You run faster for a given level of fatigue accumulation.

The shoes help you run faster.

Unless the point is that the main benefit comes from training in the shoes? I don't believe that. There's a reason everyone races in them.

You are right and it depends on the shoe and the duration of run.

With road product the gains are so much more because of the introduction key features like high rigidity and geometries of plate curvature that never existed before. Beginning with the 4%, Nike found the way to bring benefits usually associated with track spikes to the roads and make them suitable for high duration running (2hrs +)

The new track product benefits from something that we have always seen in road product - high cushioning. You could never really get a lot of cushioning into track and field shoes because of the pure density of the foams never allowed enough to be in the product that would give the necessary cushioning.

Like you said it's not just training effect, because especially over longer distances when the body is right at it's limit of performance, cumulative muscle fatigue is a big deal. I think in race benefits are pretty substantial 3000m and above purely due to the number of strides/impacts in those distances vs say an 800m.

For the distance guys they are getting a two fold benefit of training and racing. The 800m/1500m guys are getting the training benefit but might not spend enough time on the track during a race to see the cushioning benefits really add up to anything substantial. That's why we have seen a huge jump in 3000-10000m times since the introduction of these spikes and no real jump over 800/1500m as yet.

12 stages of letsrun super-shoes

1. they don't do anything, it's all the magical new training and new nutrition

2. okay they do something but it's not much and shoes have always done something

3. okay they do a lot but they aren't doping because iaaf says they are "legal"

4. $200 isn't accessible to all

5. $200 is accessible to "me" so all that matter, too bad so sad everyone else

6. if 4% is okay, 5% is better, oh 6%? sign me up (you got any of that 7% ?)

7. every PR/CR/WR is somehow comparable to previous times before 2016 and we should be amazed

and we are now here so far:

8. they aren't like doping because they let you train more miles (sure not like like doping at all)

Y'all realize that EPO lets people train more miles right and recover faster/better. So if people could remove EPO from their system before races it would be all good even though they get to keep the benefits?

So I'm not actually against super-shoes for training to prevent injuries, just playing devil's advocate for a moment to show the (lack of) logic and where we are headed.

PEDs aren’t necessarily banned exclusively because they are performance enhancing. Mismanaged use of drugs like EPO can kill you, and we’ve seen it before in athletes dying from heart attacks in their 20s. Too much epo and your blood becomes to viscous for your heart to pump.

Supershoes have no negative affect whatsoever, the two aren’t comparable in this sense

Dairyland wrote:

PEDs aren’t necessarily banned exclusively because they are performance enhancing. Mismanaged use of drugs like EPO can kill you, and we’ve seen it before in athletes dying from heart attacks in their 20s. Too much epo and your blood becomes to viscous for your heart to pump.

Supershoes have no negative affect whatsoever, the two aren’t comparable in this sense

why in the world is THC banned?

You’re asking the wrong guy