The NCAA data is in - The super spike effect is real

For better or worse, I think that the 2021 track season is a very difficult year to point at one thing and say that it is responsible for faster times. So much has been different about this season and the lead up to this season that many factors are clearly at play, including footwear. I also don't like the sprint comparison though because I think distance runners had much better training alternatives when campuses shut down and barred athletes from their normal facilities. Distance runners can run without a track and in fact, even in normal times, do most of their work off of a track. Many distance runners made lemonade and actually went somewhere to train for months that was a better environment than their campus. Sprinters spend a much higher percentage of their time on the track and in the weight room and for many, did not have access to those facilities. So a lot of college distance runners improved their training environment where sprinters could not.

Do I think shoes make a difference? Yes. Do I think that it's easy to prove this year? No. Do I think it's even harder to prove based on collegiate performances? Yes.

Not really.

Distance runners improve significantly with higher mileage. Perhaps with COVID restrictions, some distance runners have been able to run more often etc etc.

Sprinters do not have the same mileage dependence.

I mean, most sprinters wouldn’t even wear the spikes that have been designed for distance racing? So how can you compare it when they’re not even wearing the shoes? You can’t draw any conclusions.

I mean you haven’t even proven anything statistically and you’ve only compared one year.. though I’m not going to pay for the article to read your analysis.

What captainwildcat said.

A percentage compare is a very weak study.

Love all the amateur stats guys coming on here chanting "correlation isn't causation". It's almost like religion at this point with some guys just *wanting* to believe that these crazy times are down to training and not the investment in shoe tech. Believe what you want, here's what I believe: put Teare and Hocker in a pair of standard flats and they don't break 3:39 or 3:55. We aren't witnessing generational talents here, just good runners in amazing shoes

runderun wrote:

Love all the amateur stats guys coming on here chanting "correlation isn't causation". It's almost like religion at this point with some guys just *wanting* to believe that these crazy times are down to training and not the investment in shoe tech. Believe what you want, here's what I believe: put Teare and Hocker in a pair of standard flats and they don't break 3:39 or 3:55. We aren't witnessing generational talents here, just good runners in amazing shoes

That isn't even close to what the data suggests. The data suggests that the shoes are responsible for maybe around 0.7% faster times (that's if the current circumstances change nothing in regards to performances, which is unlikely). This means that Hocker and Teare's miles would translate to 3:52 and their 1500s to 3:37.

Though, the circumstances likely affect the times a great deal more than the shoes do. A better gauge would be comparing average times for something like runners 40-59 from 2017-2019 and then comparing that data set to runners 40-59 from 2022-2024. If the average from 2017-2019 is indeed significantly slower than the average from 2022-2024, then it's fair to say that it's the spikes and not the circumstances of this season.

rojo wrote:

To all of the haters who have been basically saying the same thing which is like the quote below - please answer the following:

duck sauce wrote:

i'd probably guess something along these lines if you asked me how much faster the #50 mark would be after ~9 months of no racing and with 5 full classes of guys with eligibility rather than 4

Why haven't the sprinters also improved in similar fashion?

Game. Set. Match. Rojo.

PS. I never tried to claim this was some scentifically valid study. I just literally thought, "Let's look at the 50th time. WOw, they are faster this year versus 2019 in the distance races but not the sprints (yes the 10k is messed up)."

Dear Mr Rojo,

The spikes are probably helping. They definitely feel better when you wear them.

But come on... Game. Set. Match. for asking why sprinters didnt improve with uninterrupted training?

Maybe, we were in a pandemic and the majority of tracks and gyms were shut down. How are sprinters going to maximize training. Meanwhile, the ben crawford boys get to move to altitude and train like professionals for a year. These dont really seem like equal scenarios.

Sincerely,

A humble poster

So instead of everyone criticizing the work, maybe people should try and contribute something to further the discussion. I pulled off the TFRRS data for the top 50 qualifiers from 2016-2021. For consistency, I just used the Div. I outdoors list. Going back 5 years should provide more of a context if there is anything going on that is unique in 2021 due to the cancelled previous season that might account for differences from 2019.

I choose the men's 1500 because it had the largest gap in the data rojo presented. When I plotted the times I was actually not expecting 2021 to be such an outlier (note - rank from 1-50 is on the x and time on the y). Clearly, times are faster this year than in any of the last four. Is this due only to the shoes? I don't know, and there may be other explanations. But this does appear to provide some corroboration for rojo's hypothesis.

I will plot some other events tomorrow. If anyone has suggestions about which other events to plot next let me know.

https://imgur.com/o6BEi0d

Where do you pull that 0.7% from? Even takin Rojo's data at face value, the difference is 1.26% for men in the 1500.

The "circumstances" are a nice cover for people as it's a totally disprovable argument - impossible to quantify but, y'know, it *sounds* like it could be right. So let's use that to maintain a fantasy that we just so happened to have a bunch of historically fast runners come through at the precise moment that Nike and New Balance drop revolutionary mid and long distance spikes. It's like believing in Santa Claus.

I keep saying, enjoy the racing, it will always be great watching top athletes compete for the win. But times are junk right now. Just wait for the DL season and the Olympics when the world stars bring their A games, we're going to see 3:30 and below thrown around like confetti

Why contribute something further to someone (Rojo) who doesn’t think there’s anything to contribute?

Malmo,

You can't prove Rojo is wrong, you can only ascertain, beyond a specified level, that there IS a correlation.

If Wade Boggs believes chicken dinners make you a better baseball player, you can't prove him wrong.

Rojo's statistical analysis is SO weak, there's really not much to do. Hopefully someone does simple statistical analysis described above, and can say 1. are the times statistically different and 2. at what level of confidence (that whole pesky p value thing), the data supports #1.

He just looks like a bozo, and makes it worse with "game, set, match," comments.

This has much less to do with shoes and much more to do with all of the 5th and 6th years coming back.

You can say that it isn’t the same in the sprints, but if you look at the field events the extra year of eligibility effect is clear. Sprints I believe are having a more flat year because they actually benefit from sporting competitions with the NCAA calendar, where distance benefited more from training. You have a whole group of super-seniors with an extra, uninterrupted development year, plus a group of regular seniors who had an uninterrupted development year... it’s going to add up to faster top times.

If we wanted to be more statistically rigorous, we would wait until 2024, and then perform regression analysis on all of the top 50 over the past 10 years, and then use the chow test to test if there is a structural break in 2021.

What a loser! Trolling your own forum and admitting you’re lazy. What smell test are you talking about? There are fast sprint and big jumps at all levels. Both of these events are also dependent of a certain physical maturity and are not events you can just build base and reap benefits. Distance and mid distance do benefit from the huge base that has been built without the interruption of overracing. Listen to Grant Fisher describe the shoe. He points out its comfort and its geometry as contributing factors for feeling good and running fast in the Nike spikes. The mods should delete trolling like yours. Either dismiss the performances due to the “super spikes” or wet yourself touting the times week after week in your aggregating summaries watching races from your couch but doing both is lazy and opportunistic.

the super spikes may give an advantage, but come on this little "study" is a joke. correlation is not causation!

rojo wrote:

My data certainly isn't perfect. I'm not saying it is... And I'm not saying it's scientifically rigorous

Then why publish it?

Dude this is the most unscientific drivel clickbait nonsense. The LRC conflicted crusade against supershoes is already overwrought, but now we get this. This is laughable...

1. you compare two years, not sure why. what is the year to year variance on times for each event? you need MANY more datapoints in both groups for the data to say anything of worth...

2. Chance alone could easily explain the differences seen in times...usually a statistical test is done to show whether or not chance alone is likely to account for observed differences. You don't even have a

3. Your analysis takes outliers and compares them to outliers (the fastest times). Why not take medians? Why not read a stats primer?

Super shoes have been around for almost 4 years now, this is getting old man. They are faster for some, prob not for others. Just like mondo tracks, and eva foam, and speedsuits, and better nutrition, and scientific training/recovery tools....embrace the future brojos!

Though, I haven't commented on a letsrun post since like 2009, so I guess the clickbait worked lol :) so keep up the good work i guess

I come from an active area for running in general. On average about 100 runners would break 17 minutes in local and smaller 5k races around me most years, however the last three years the numbers have gone up drastically, closer to 200. I think the super shoes (including spikes) do help maintain easy forward momentum and push for fast middle distance times.

Kind of curious: what in my post were you objecting to? I said that the limitations were obvious as anyone would admit and that a proper analysis would take a more factors/time into consideration. Maybe Rojo should not have called it a "study" but this is where most studies start from. This is an interesting small scale analysis that would/will/already had (I am sure) prompt more in-depth/actual studies.

rojo wrote:

113 wrote:

Or at the very least, maybe note that the women's 10k is 1.46% slower and the men's 10k is only .54% faster. Those events should show the greatest improvement. Instead, it looks an awful lot like noise.

I did note it. I can't help it that you didn't actually read the article.

So far we have a bunch of criticisms from people who haven't even read the article.

You are completely clueless about statistics.

But that should come as little surprise to anyone here