Still Waiting wrote:
The best answer would have been
I don't know. RoJo how much do you think growing up rich with connections help you get credentials as a journalist when you obviously aren't one.?
+1
Still Waiting wrote:
The best answer would have been
I don't know. RoJo how much do you think growing up rich with connections help you get credentials as a journalist when you obviously aren't one.?
+1
c7runner7 wrote:
fxhjb2 wrote:
They significantly reduce leg fatigue and the amount of oxygenated blood required to maintain a certain effort. The less fatigue your legs experience, the less oxygen required. This delays overall fatigue and allows a runner to maintain a pace for a longer period of time. It does the exact same thing as epo only in a different way.
This is all so simple. If you want to be taken seriously, stop wearing any type of super shoe. I’m sure nike still sells regular spikes. I ran my fastest 10k in a pair of $30 spikes I found on clearance. If Teare doesn’t think the have any affect on times than he should have no problem picking up a pair of regular spikes and providing everyone wrong. But you know what? He won’t - it’s as simple as that because he knows they work.
I know they work because I’ve instantly seen significantly improve from one race to the next by switching to dragonfly’s. This is going from indoor times (where they were in regular spikes) to an early spring outdoor 10k where they switched to dragonfly’s. They significantly improved from their indoor times. All of them. It was really eye opening and I couldn’t figure out why for sometime. I kept wondering what had changed. It never occurred to me that it could be the shoes.
-There's no 10k indoors.
-If you want to be taken seriously in regards to running, then win. Be good enough to get paid to run. Considering your PR is while buying your own shoes, I'm guessing you aren't sponsored by a major shoe company. People don't take you more seriously than a pro runner simply because you wear old models of spikes.
-People aren't saying they don't make any difference compared to some other random shoe.
-As a competitor, you compete to win. It's not about being most physiologically fit; it's about winning. Period. As long as its within the rules, you do everything you can to win. You train, you get the best recovery tools/therapists, you optimize sleep, you optimize your diet, you supplement, you take both race day and daily ergogenic aids, you fine-tune your form, you minimize your stress, you wear the lightest clothes, you wear the best shoes, you wear nasal strips and mouthpieces if you think they help you, you do weird warm up stuff like RPR, you develop a championship mindset, and then you go out and optimize the best race tactics- taking into account the conditions and competition. So yes, you should wear the best shoes, and believe that your shoes are equally as good as anybody else's. They don't decide the race; athletes do. If an athlete wears combat boots and loses by a tenth of a second, it's not the shoe's fault. It's the athlete who decided to wear dumb shoes. The athlete decides, not the shoes, not the caffeine, not the massage therapist, not the coach, not the iron supplements (or lack of), etc.
Why the heck are runners on this site so uncompetitive. No true competitor wastes their time complaining and advocating that we should compete in sub-par technology. If you're competitive, you'll make sure you're giving yourself the best chance to win. If you feel you're in sub-par shoes.. that's at least partly your fault. Even college athletes made the decision to go to a school knowing who they are sponsored by (sometimes schools change sponsors; but even then, we've obviously seen athletes wear a different sponsors shoes.)
The media can ask and speculate about the shoes if they want, but at some point, it gets old. As I said before, the real story should be why has this taken this long? Why did we only see very marginal improvement in shoes from basically the 80s to 2015 ish? Dive in to new shoe technology. Report on a new shoe design that isn't even out yet. Explore in depth the design and materials in shoes, along with the manufacturing processes and then compare that to other industries. Is running shoe technology advanced or actually behind? Can't we come up with some new, interesting content around the shoes instead of speculating on how many seconds they are worth and asking athletes dumb questions they really don't care about answering?
An outdoor 10k. From indoor to first outdoor race was the improvement.
sunflower wrote:
It's a fair question. Maybe not the best time to ask it, but when else do we have the opportunity to ask questions and get answers from top runners on these topics? I'm guessing they just hang up if letsrun requests an interview.
Of course the spikes help. And of course we will continue to see faster and faster times. To deny that at this point is silly. Something is going on and if it isn't the spikes then what is it? Like maybe when MLB used to say the balls were wrapped tighter but then it became clear that in reality all of the HRs were due to widespread steroid use. There has to be some big change to produce all of these fast times. And it isn't that people just all of a sudden decided to train better or race harder. People have always pushed the envelope.
How is an athlete supposed to answer though? Like how can they say, “oh, it’s worth 8 seconds over a 5k.” There’s so many factors that go into a race performance. They just have to guess like anyone else.
Also, in a championship race, it’s about winning- not times. So asking someone about shoes and times in a race where place is all that matters is kind of an irrelevant question.
You can ask athletes in the off-season or in a time-trial “standards-chasing” type race, but asking about time speculating just isn’t that great of a question at this point because it’s unanswerable. Maybe try different questions such as:
1. Have you increased your mileage or workout volume/frequency at all with these super cushioned shoes? Has it changed training at all? How do you personally try to maximize this era of shoe technology to enhance your training and racing?
2. Do you feel more confident in a certain pair of shoes or spikes, or do you even think about it?
3. What do you like about the shoes compared to shoes of the past? Is there anything you dislike or ways you think shoe technology could actually be better?
4. If you’re wearing your favorite shoe of your choice, and your competitor is wearing a shoe you believe to be slightly inferior, does that give you any psychological edge in your own mind? Or do even notice what shoes others are wearing?
Daddy J wrote:
tinisaur wrote:
Teare sounds ridiculous when he says he does not want to credit the spikes at all. However I sort of understand because he is running hard to win just like runners from years before. Teare probably does not break McChesney’s record without the spikes but surely he showed guts to get the victory and he deserved it.
Sure, and without modern shoes and modern tracks the WR would be over 13:15. So basically everyone is extremely slow.
That is a false statement. Bekele could have run 12:55 on dirt in old school shoes.
fxhjb2 wrote:
c7runner7 wrote:
-There's no 10k indoors.
-If you want to be taken seriously in regards to running, then win. Be good enough to get paid to run. Considering your PR is while buying your own shoes, I'm guessing you aren't sponsored by a major shoe company. People don't take you more seriously than a pro runner simply because you wear old models of spikes.
-People aren't saying they don't make any difference compared to some other random shoe.
-As a competitor, you compete to win. It's not about being most physiologically fit; it's about winning. Period. As long as its within the rules, you do everything you can to win. You train, you get the best recovery tools/therapists, you optimize sleep, you optimize your diet, you supplement, you take both race day and daily ergogenic aids, you fine-tune your form, you minimize your stress, you wear the lightest clothes, you wear the best shoes, you wear nasal strips and mouthpieces if you think they help you, you do weird warm up stuff like RPR, you develop a championship mindset, and then you go out and optimize the best race tactics- taking into account the conditions and competition. So yes, you should wear the best shoes, and believe that your shoes are equally as good as anybody else's. They don't decide the race; athletes do. If an athlete wears combat boots and loses by a tenth of a second, it's not the shoe's fault. It's the athlete who decided to wear dumb shoes. The athlete decides, not the shoes, not the caffeine, not the massage therapist, not the coach, not the iron supplements (or lack of), etc.
Why the heck are runners on this site so uncompetitive. No true competitor wastes their time complaining and advocating that we should compete in sub-par technology. If you're competitive, you'll make sure you're giving yourself the best chance to win. If you feel you're in sub-par shoes.. that's at least partly your fault. Even college athletes made the decision to go to a school knowing who they are sponsored by (sometimes schools change sponsors; but even then, we've obviously seen athletes wear a different sponsors shoes.)
The media can ask and speculate about the shoes if they want, but at some point, it gets old. As I said before, the real story should be why has this taken this long? Why did we only see very marginal improvement in shoes from basically the 80s to 2015 ish? Dive in to new shoe technology. Report on a new shoe design that isn't even out yet. Explore in depth the design and materials in shoes, along with the manufacturing processes and then compare that to other industries. Is running shoe technology advanced or actually behind? Can't we come up with some new, interesting content around the shoes instead of speculating on how many seconds they are worth and asking athletes dumb questions they really don't care about answering?
An outdoor 10k. From indoor to first outdoor race was the improvement.
I know. I was pointing out you were comparing an indoor (5k or 3k; but there’s no 10k) to an outdoor 10k. So you’re comparing two different distances.
I actually agree with you though that a slightly more cushioned shoe (that doesn’t sacrifice speed) is going to help in the 10k. But who cares. Training also helps. Part of being an athlete is figuring out what makes you better. If I buy better shoes and you don’t, that means I’m a better all-around athlete than you because I did my homework and gave myself the best chance to win (while following the rules).
Yeah I'm not a journalist and I wouldn't be good at it. Your questions would certainly be a better way to start if your goal is to get them talking.
Journalists work in all different ways. Some are confrontational and try to get people to respond in anger. Some try to make friends and get the anonymous inside scoop.
The answer given was fine. You're probably never going to get the answer you want in a situation like that. Sometimes it's more about the question than the answer. Like do you think all of the questions to the President are asked because they want to hear the answer? No many times the questions are just political statements themselves in some way. This gets the dialog going in a public and formal way.
Personally I think the shoes are cool. I used to wonder if you could do something like that way back when I was in school and studying dynamic systems. But I also think it's silly to claim that they aren't effective just based on the simple fact that everyone is using them. Runners know what is fast and what isn't.
If you want to know the answer to the effect of the spikes, why would you ask a young athlete that's still improving. I get asking Willis who is probably in a good position to judge. Asking a young athlete that's still improving and going to run PBs anyway seems silly. That seems like the athlete that would know less about it than anyone. Asking an older athlete that's maybe run the same or similar time for a few years makes way more sense. Might as well ask Hobbs. "Hey you ran 4.20 before super spikes and now run 3.50 do you think super spikes make 30 seconds difference?"
sunflower wrote:
Yeah I'm not a journalist and I wouldn't be good at it. Your questions would certainly be a better way to start if your goal is to get them talking.
Journalists work in all different ways. Some are confrontational and try to get people to respond in anger. Some try to make friends and get the anonymous inside scoop.
The answer given was fine. You're probably never going to get the answer you want in a situation like that. Sometimes it's more about the question than the answer. Like do you think all of the questions to the President are asked because they want to hear the answer? No many times the questions are just political statements themselves in some way. This gets the dialog going in a public and formal way.
Personally I think the shoes are cool. I used to wonder if you could do something like that way back when I was in school and studying dynamic systems. But I also think it's silly to claim that they aren't effective just based on the simple fact that everyone is using them. Runners know what is fast and what isn't.
I agree; I think any improvement in any field is cool and fun to analyze. And I also agree it’s dumb to say they don’t matter at all. I don’t think runners are saying they don’t matter at all, they’re just saying the spikes don’t deserve ALL the credit- as Cooper and even Rojo said- at least in this thread.
The individual question isn’t bad, but it’s the fact that people have been attributing fast times to road shoes (and now spikes) for the past few years and it dominates the conversation. Talking about it over a beer, and even some public outlets every now and then is fine-and even fun. But when it dominates so much of the conversation for a lengthy period of time, it gets old fast. Because at the end of the day, like Cooper said, it’s about competing.
Fair enough but it would have been easy for Teare to say something about how the spikes appear to be helping athletes run a bit faster but it is difficult to quantify precisely and ultimately it is still a foot race, even if some want to make it a footwear race.
Kyome wrote:
Fair enough but it would have been easy for Teare to say something about how the spikes appear to be helping athletes run a bit faster but it is difficult to quantify precisely and ultimately it is still a foot race, even if some want to make it a footwear race.
Perhaps Teare doesn't believe they offer any significant advantage? Why is this so hard to comprehend? He's probably in a pretty good position to judge.
Kyome wrote:
Fair enough but it would have been easy for Teare to say something about how the spikes appear to be helping athletes run a bit faster but it is difficult to quantify precisely and ultimately it is still a foot race, even if some want to make it a footwear race.
Yeah, he could’ve. He probably actually agrees with that tbh.. Idk. I’ve never won a National title, but I’ve ran some big races, and afterwards you’re pretty amped for awhile and are in your most competitive mindset. So the way you answer questions in that moment is likely going to reflect pure competitiveness and somewhat of a savage mindset. On a side note, this is way I always get annoyed when people judge athletes by their post-race/game interviews. Your competition attitude and normal-life attitude shouldn’t be the same. And you can’t just shut things off immediately after you cross the line.
Catching up on posts here after sleeping in as I was up to 3 am working.
Rainy Day wrote:
It’s like the super swimsuits from 12-15 years ago when every swimming record fell.
Except swimming then banned the swimsuits.
c7runner7 wrote:
Rojo, I think the more interesting question is “Why weren’t spikes like this sooner?”
The DragonFlys aren’t really anything special when you actually think about. They are basically made out of the same material spikes have always been made out of (Pebax plate.. and really the pebax doesn’t matter; you can use almost any rigid, lightweight material, like carbon fiber obviously).
Shoes are really just a balance of weight, rigidity while still allowing proper movement, and optimal cushion to reduce impact/fatigue. More cushion usually equals heavier weight and reduced rigidity resulting in less pure speed (obviously sprinters would never wear something like Vaporflys).
So you make a full length plate for rigidity, and then pair it with a small layer of lightweight foam. The foam doesn’t actually make you faster; it actually slows you down- all else equal. If you exert the exact same amount of force in a shoe with a lot of foam, you’ll go slower than a super stiff rigid shoe with no foam. BUT the foam reduces fatigue over time, and the softer feel seems to tell the brain it’s okay to produce a lot of force and not get hurt. For distance running (especially 5k and up) this ‘cushion’ becomes more important and seems to overrride any max speed loss. Also, it probably helps some runners more than others. People that grew up running barefoot may not need much cushion (if any) to reduce fatigue for a 1500-10k. I’d guess ‘Western’ runners, especially those on the heavier side, benefit more from the cushioned shoes, but I’ll admit that’s mostly speculative. So maybe that’s why you’re seeing an increased ‘depth’ in lots of events, but not necessarily the same degree of faster absolute best times for the 1500 and 5k. (For the 10k though, it seems the cushion is helping pretty much everyone.)
So all shoes are simply trying to find the optimal balance of rigidity vs cushion while being as light as possible (and of course they need the optimal shape, but that shouldn’t be that hard to figure out these days).
So the question is: Why did it take so long for shoes like this to come out? How did no one think “Hey, let’s add a sliver of lightweight foam to provide some cushioning for the distance runners; with a full length plate, the shoe will still be pretty stiff, so maybe it could work?” Part of it, is that the foam just wasn’t as good before. With heavier foam giving less energy return, the trade-off of using foam was likely too high. With these newer, lightweight foams with energy returns in the mid to high 80’s, there’s not as much of a drawback (loss in speed) with foam, so you can simply reap the benefits.
Still though, the whole spike thing has been weird to follow. It’s really a very basic concept when you think about it, yet the running world is so amazed. And this is in the middle of a crazy technological world where we’re literally going to Mars and are close to interfacing with computers with our brains (NueraLink). So adding some foam to a stiff plate seems like a 1st grade project comparatively. I’m not trying to discredit shoe designers and the innovation of it, but I think it’s a pretty fascinating story. Maybe you should talk to more shoe designers about how they missed this for so long and what gave them the epiphany.
GREAT post. I remember when I ran my last marathon. I thought, "next time i race, I don't want such a light shoe my legs are trahsed." I think the reason is people just thought lighter is better. I'ts no different than some coach obsessing over a girls weight.
Rodger Kram - one of the top guys in the world that studies this posted the following in another thraed earlier in the week.
[bKram wrote:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/221864031_Metabolic_Cost_of_Running_Barefoot_versus_Shod_Is_Lighter_Betterone of my best predictions in the 2014 Tung paper:
Many competition track surfaces are extremely hard, presumably to enhance sprint performance. Despite the prevalent track hardness, spiked shoes designed for middle- and long-distance track running events have almost no cushioning under the midfoot and forefoot. Our results suggest that distance running spikes with midfoot/ forefoot cushioning (or the use of racing flats) could enhance performance. ...Our data suggest that the design of competition shoes for road racing on paved surfaces should not overemphasize weight minimization at the expense of cushioning.
Let it Rupp wrote:
Rojo, if your theory is that the spikes give one anything more than a 1-second advantage at 5k over all the other spikes, then you're saying that Grijalva (who was wearing adidas) would have won if he was wearing Dragonflies and that Teare didn't deserve to win. If you think they give you anything less than a second advantage over 5k, why the f*ck would you even care as that's such a miniscule difference.
1 second? I coud easily see it being 10+ seconds. Certainly at least 5.
I have no idea waht spikes the NAU guys were wearing. I have a hard time believing that since Nico was wearing super spikes earlier this year that Grijalva wouldn't be waering them as well and know adidas is coming out with some soon. Other brands besides Nike do have super spikes.
But given how close the race was, if he didn't have super spikes on, do I think he would have won if he had them on? ABSOLUTELY,.
The Unkle wrote:
Roho never gave "all the credit to the spikes".
He does say he thinks the spikes are helping to produce all these fast times and I don't see how anyone could possibly deny that based on the data
Correct. I didn't give any credit. I just asked him how much he thought the spikes were worth. He didn't answer the question.
c7runner7 wrote:
[
The media can ask and speculate about the shoes if they want, but at some point, it gets old
I don't think it gets old at all. It's like a number one 1 song. For insiders, you are tired of the song when it hits number one but the masses are just learning about this story.
Yes, we knew there were new spikes out but we didn't realize how much of a factor they were until this year. What ahppened with the road shoes is now happening with the spikes. People thought, "There's no way a shoe can make that much of a difference" and yet the times started dropping like crazy.
Either that or I'm suposed to believe that suddently the whole world got super fast while training in a pandemic. Cheptegei is an all time great, yet he can't even win a DL, Same thing with Gidey. Now collegiate records are dropping like flies.
Still Waiting wrote:
The best answer would have been
I don't know. RoJo how much do you think growing up rich with connections help you get credentials as a journalist when you obviously aren't one.?
The fact that Iv'e generated this much discussion proves I'm a jouranlist. A fanboy - is not a journalist. A fanboy is called a social media manager.
On this site, I have many roles, fan, journalist, etc. When I'm in the mixed zone asking questions, I'm acting as a journalist. The question was obviously totally legit.
Let it Rupp wrote:
The Unkle wrote:
So you agree the spikes are a factor? You seem to be saying that, but then denying it at the same time.
I think they do act as springs? No?
Of course they are a factor. They are one factor in a sea of factors that go into how someone performs in a race. The "super spikes" will definitely help you run faster than Crocs or tissue boxes, but are they significantly better than the rest of the spikes on the market? I would say not. I think Dragonflies would give you less than a second advantage over 5k vs. all the other spikes, even Vic 3's. I think what makes them slightly better than past spikes is their stiffness and comfortability compared to past distance spikes, not some mechanical advantage like the Spike hoaxers claim. This is what spikes are designed to do, and are no different than the advantage the Vic 2's gave over past spikes.
This is just garbage. The Dragonfly is built on the same tech as the Vaporfly which is proven to improve running economy. The Dragonfly has a slab of Zoomx foam with a plate embedded in it. This is nothing like any spike in history. The Zoomx combined with the plate operate almost like a spring just as they do in the Vaporfly. Kudos to Nike for their R&D, they've changed the game in a way coaching couldn't hope to match
c7runner7 wrote:
fxhjb2 wrote:
An outdoor 10k. From indoor to first outdoor race was the improvement.
I know. I was pointing out you were comparing an indoor (5k or 3k; but there’s no 10k) to an outdoor 10k. So you’re comparing two different distances.
I actually agree with you though that a slightly more cushioned shoe (that doesn’t sacrifice speed) is going to help in the 10k. But who cares. Training also helps. Part of being an athlete is figuring out what makes you better. If I buy better shoes and you don’t, that means I’m a better all-around athlete than you because I did my homework and gave myself the best chance to win (while following the rules).
From indoor times an athlete and coach can get a good indication of what is possible especially from a late indoor to early outdoor race. For example, if you’re a consistent 15:00 5k runner (you’re pb maybe at 14:55 or something) on paper you’re probably a 30:30-40 10k a few weeks after the indoor season. Of course you can improve and also improve during the season. Workouts leading up to the race are also an indicator. It doesn’t really matter much if the race was indoor. If I had a consistent 15:00 5k runner I might have them go out in around 15:20 and run off that. If they’re feeling good at 5k then, great. But I would be pretty surprised if they ran a30:10 or under having only ran 15:00 indoor 5k a few weeks before. But it happens sometimes. What is very noticeable though is now everyone is doing it. Everyone is having monster breakthrough races all of the time. Why? What has changed? And please don’t say “base training.”
Lol RoJoke you sound insecure. “Guys I’m a real journalist!”.
You are such a child.
The 50th in 2021 in 10000 has for the moment 27'47, the 100 th has 28'03 and the 200th 28'33.
In 2016 (last Olympic year) the 50th had 27'43,the 100th 28'06, the 200th 28'35.
Surely there are some races in 10000 m left in the world, (starting from Olympic final), but I don't think the difference will go over 10 seconds, consider also the introduction in some races of wavelight.
Bad Wigins wrote:
So, if the spikes "work," precisely how? Make you bounce higher? Please show us what you know about running mechanics.
Don't think there is a study on the spikes yet though I imagine one is in the works. Same foam as used in the vaporfly and though 5k-10k is certainly very different from the marathon, if you can reduce the O2 cost of running a given pace you're going to see a benefit.
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s40279-017-0811-2?MvBriefArticleId=32183&error=cookies_not_supported&error=cookies_not_supported&code=04597c20-4432-445f-8c00-268c69420fab&code=e09ac8ca-a1fc-40b6-b8cc-3ee6f5ce252aThis post was removed.
runderun wrote:
Let it Rupp wrote:
Of course they are a factor. They are one factor in a sea of factors that go into how someone performs in a race. The "super spikes" will definitely help you run faster than Crocs or tissue boxes, but are they significantly better than the rest of the spikes on the market? I would say not. I think Dragonflies would give you less than a second advantage over 5k vs. all the other spikes, even Vic 3's. I think what makes them slightly better than past spikes is their stiffness and comfortability compared to past distance spikes, not some mechanical advantage like the Spike hoaxers claim. This is what spikes are designed to do, and are no different than the advantage the Vic 2's gave over past spikes.
This is just garbage. The Dragonfly is built on the same tech as the Vaporfly which is proven to improve running economy. The Dragonfly has a slab of Zoomx foam with a plate embedded in it. This is nothing like any spike in history. The Zoomx combined with the plate operate almost like a spring just as they do in the Vaporfly. Kudos to Nike for their R&D, they've changed the game in a way coaching couldn't hope to match
Apples and oranges. The reason the Vaporfly is so popular is because it is better than any other racing flat available, that much is obvious. I have tried them myself, and if I were a road racer I would not wear anything else. But we're not comparing racing flats, we're comparing spikes, and I would want to see evidence that the Dragonfly offers the same boost in running economy compared to other spikes.
can you set up a gofund me and get him to prove his point by really running it barefoot?
Jakob Ingebrigtsen has a 1989 Ferrari 348 GTB and he's just put in paperwork to upgrade it
Strava thinks the London Marathon times improved 12 minutes last year thanks to supershoes
Is there a rule against attaching a helium balloon to yourself while running a road race?
NAU women have no excuse - they should win it all at 2024 NCAA XC
Clayton Murphy is giving some great insight into his training.
Mark Coogan says that if you could only do 3 workouts as a 1500m runner you should do these
2024 College Track & Field Open Coaching Positions Discussion