Not trying to be shady at all (props to Emily Sisson) but was wondering about this during my jog today. When controlling for shoe type, how would Sisson’s American record compare to Kastor’s former record? I was wondering if Kastor’s record would have been worth a sub 2:18 had she run with super shoes. Does 1.5 minutes for a marathon seem like an accurate guess?
I'm going to say Emily's shoes were considerably worse than the Adidas/Asics/Nike super shoes. I'm assuming nutrition is much better now than it was then. Not sure how much weather played into it but it's probably close all things considered.
Personally I think being able to train in the new shoes is the biggest component of this argument everyone is ignoring.
That's true, but I think that is the point the OP was trying to make. It's not a knock on Sisson - she ran great. She did what she had to do to get the record, and I don't blame her one bit.
The sad part is that the shoe thing is even an issue. Ideally, shoes would be performance-neutral. It's not that hard to imagine. On race-day, if you a typical competitor, you put on your go-to shorts/briefs and singlet - something that is form-fitting and doesn't flap in the wind, etc. - but you don't have to be concerned about it giving you an unfair advantage (or disadvantage) over your competitors. There is no controversy in that area. You just try to render wind-drag and comfort non-factors, which is fairly easily done. We don't worry that singlets of the 2020s provide a benefit that wasn't available to runners in the 1980s, or 1950s. Any advances that have been made in materials, wicking ability, etc, provide only a negligible benefit, which is why you might hear someone speculate on how fast, for example, Jim Ryun might have run on modern tracks and in modern shoes, but you never hear them add on "and in modern singlets". Well, shoes could be the same - they could be lightweight, they could be comfortable, etc.; they just shouldn't be engineered to actually improve your time.
The point is, most people want to see the actual intrinsic performances of the athletes improve - not their gear. And it wouldn't be that difficult to make that happen.
No. It's not even remotely the same thing. You're comparing a car to running shoes? Silliest thing I've ever read. Equipment is always improving. Training methods and how to measure them are getting better. If we see records getting broken, it's a great sign that training methods are improving. These new shoes are fantastic for faster recovery and fewer injuries. But discounting the athlete's performance as being the result of only one factor is sloppy reasoning.
The shoe used actually matters. Shoe/athlete interaction also matters. Everyone has a different benefit. 2 minutes has been the benefit for ~2:20 runners/1000th fastest man in a calendar year on average pre/post super shoe, but we know that that represents the most popular supershoe - the Vaporfly.
After some back and forth in the other thread, it looks like she was wearing the NB FuelCell SuperComp Pacer (in a unique, white colorway). It has a lower stack compared to most super shoes, and only costs $150 retail. I haven't seen any lab test results that would determine if it is a super shoe or not.
I constatly hear this "nutrition is so much better than a few decades ago" nonsense. I have a book about sports nutrition in my bookshelf written in 1970. 95% of the content could have been written today.
They have a carbon fiber plate and bouncy foam, just not as much of it as some other shoes, including NB’s SC Elite V3. I’m not sure why this makes them $100 less than the other shoes but given that and that they come in wide widths I bought a pair.