new analysis shows super-shoes have not impacted elite men's times

moultonk wrote:

Based on the last 20 years of race data, the average time of the worldwide top-100 runners was calculated for men and women in each of the following events: the 10K, 10000M, Half Marathon, and Marathon. The average yearly decrease in finish times was then determined by subtracting the 2016 average from the slowest year in the range. Then, a 2021 time was projected using that trend, along with a 2% boost from super-shoes, and compared against the actual 2021 time in that event. A "best fit" linear regression trend line was also created for comparison against the actual average times over the period.

Contrary to popular belief, these graphical analyses seem to indicate the super-shoes have not improved performances for the elite men beyond prevailing trends. The women's data is a bit more ambiguous, in part because their times have been improving at a much faster rate.

This is a big result and it might be a good time to reel back in some of the aspersions cast on the record-breaking performances over the last 5 years or so. Personally, I'm not willing to give up my Vaporflys, but for an elite runner with energy and form to burn, now might be a great time to seek out a sponsorship from a non-super-shoe brand.

Link:keithmoulton.com/analysis-super-shoes-...

Primo Numero Uno wrote:

moultonk wrote:

Based on the last 20 years of race data, the average time of the worldwide top-100 runners was calculated for men and women in each of the following events: the 10K, 10000M, Half Marathon, and Marathon. The average yearly decrease in finish times was then determined by subtracting the 2016 average from the slowest year in the range. Then, a 2021 time was projected using that trend, along with a 2% boost from super-shoes, and compared against the actual 2021 time in that event. A "best fit" linear regression trend line was also created for comparison against the actual average times over the period.

Contrary to popular belief, these graphical analyses seem to indicate the super-shoes have not improved performances for the elite men beyond prevailing trends. The women's data is a bit more ambiguous, in part because their times have been improving at a much faster rate.

This is a big result and it might be a good time to reel back in some of the aspersions cast on the record-breaking performances over the last 5 years or so. Personally, I'm not willing to give up my Vaporflys, but for an elite runner with energy and form to burn, now might be a great time to seek out a sponsorship from a non-super-shoe brand.

Link:keithmoulton.com/analysis-super-shoes-...

I found a totally obvious and predictable flaw in their methodology. As someone who has been alive for more than 2 years I recall that we had a global pandemic and there were almost no races in 2020, and very few in 2021. So if your whole methodology is based on the top 100 times annually and you only have 5 years of super shoe data 2 pandemic years with no races kind of throw your study off.

Not to mention there was a pretty noticable drop in marathon times between 2016 and 2019. And for anyone who has raced in super shoes, it's pretty obvious it is not a placebo.

moultonk wrote:

Based on the last 20 years of race data, the average time of the worldwide top-100 runners was calculated for men and women in each of the following events: the 10K, 10000M, Half Marathon, and Marathon. The average yearly decrease in finish times was then determined by subtracting the 2016 average from the slowest year in the range. Then, a 2021 time was projected using that trend, along with a 2% boost from super-shoes, and compared against the actual 2021 time in that event. A "best fit" linear regression trend line was also created for comparison against the actual average times over the period.

Contrary to popular belief, these graphical analyses seem to indicate the super-shoes have not improved performances for the elite men beyond prevailing trends. The women's data is a bit more ambiguous, in part because their times have been improving at a much faster rate.

This is a big result and it might be a good time to reel back in some of the aspersions cast on the record-breaking performances over the last 5 years or so. Personally, I'm not willing to give up my Vaporflys, but for an elite runner with energy and form to burn, now might be a great time to seek out a sponsorship from a non-super-shoe brand.

Link:keithmoulton.com/analysis-super-shoes-...

Gcghj wrote:

Now do US men’s indoor and outdoor times the last two years. 2022 is - get this - the fastest ever for top 100 times for US mens 5,000 and 10,000. For the 5,000 it is 10 seconds faster averaging the last 10 previous years (not counting ‘21 - which was just as fast - and ‘20). The 10,000 is 20 seconds (and for some years almost 40) faster. There’s a reason every elite to toe the line has on cheat shoes. You can make believe all you want that you’re instant 20 second pr is a result of hard work and good ol’ fashion gumption but it’s not.

If you think this is hilarious US mens top 50 indoor 5,000 times for ‘22 (not counting ’21) are average 20 seconds faster than they’ve been EVER.

If the shoes have no effect than you’re all wasting your money and you can trash them. But bet the OP shows up to their next event in them.

moultonk wrote:

Based on the last 20 years of race data, the average time of the worldwide top-100 runners was calculated for men and women in each of the following events: the 10K, 10000M, Half Marathon, and Marathon. The average yearly decrease in finish times was then determined by subtracting the 2016 average from the slowest year in the range. Then, a 2021 time was projected using that trend, along with a 2% boost from super-shoes, and compared against the actual 2021 time in that event. A "best fit" linear regression trend line was also created for comparison against the actual average times over the period.

Contrary to popular belief, these graphical analyses seem to indicate the super-shoes have not improved performances for the elite men beyond prevailing trends. The women's data is a bit more ambiguous, in part because their times have been improving at a much faster rate.

This is a big result and it might be a good time to reel back in some of the aspersions cast on the record-breaking performances over the last 5 years or so. Personally, I'm not willing to give up my Vaporflys, but for an elite runner with energy and form to burn, now might be a great time to seek out a sponsorship from a non-super-shoe brand.

Link:keithmoulton.com/analysis-super-shoes-...

moultonk wrote:

Primo Numero Uno wrote:

I found a totally obvious and predictable flaw in their methodology. As someone who has been alive for more than 2 years I recall that we had a global pandemic and there were almost no races in 2020, and very few in 2021. So if your whole methodology is based on the top 100 times annually and you only have 5 years of super shoe data 2 pandemic years with no races kind of throw your study off.

Not to mention there was a pretty noticable drop in marathon times between 2016 and 2019. And for anyone who has raced in super shoes, it's pretty obvious it is not a placebo.

As the graphs show, there was indeed an overall spike up in times during 2020 (though not as slow as the slowest years during the period) but 2021 was back to the trend. One might reasonably guess there were fewer races in 2021, but I am skeptical there were fewer great performances by the top 100 (and mostly professional) runners worldwide who took off the previous year to train.

In any case, I don't think you can have it both ways: by saying super-shoes have produced unworldly times while at the same time saying the times over the last two years have not been impressive.