I was hoping that shoe (Adidas Adizero Adios Pro Evo 1) was all hype. Well, it looks like the shoe is the real deal. The marathon records will be re-written again. Pro athletes without the she will be at a disadvantage. A legit 1:59 on the men's side is coming. USA men who need the 2:08 need to get a pair asap.
Uh-oh. Tigist Assefa just proved that the $500 Adidas shoe WORKS.
Pro News/Info/Results
Marathons
-
257
-
Vaporfly Round 2 wrote:
I was hoping that shoe (Adidas Adizero Adios Pro Evo 1) was all hype. Well, it looks like the shoe is the real deal. The marathon records will be re-written again. Pro athletes without the she will be at a disadvantage. A legit 1:59 on the men's side is coming. USA men who need the 2:08 need to get a pair asap.
Didn't work for men? 7 guys had it on.
461 -
wolten wrote:
Vaporfly Round 2 wrote:
I was hoping that shoe (Adidas Adizero Adios Pro Evo 1) was all hype. Well, it looks like the shoe is the real deal. The marathon records will be re-written again. Pro athletes without the she will be at a disadvantage. A legit 1:59 on the men's side is coming. USA men who need the 2:08 need to get a pair asap.
Didn't work for men? 7 guys had it on.
Who?
73 -
I don't think this is true. Because currently it's only 10 runners worldwide who have it. Amanal Petros was one of them and broke the national record.
160 -
Vaporfly Round 2 wrote:
I was hoping that shoe (Adidas Adizero Adios Pro Evo 1) was all hype. Well, it looks like the shoe is the real deal.
Well, something was working well. But I'm not so sure it was just the shoes.
161 -
Vaporfly Round 2 wrote:
I was hoping that shoe (Adidas Adizero Adios Pro Evo 1) was all hype. Well, it looks like the shoe is the real deal.
Everyone thinks it's the shoes.
Probably something else was going on too.
Only time will tell.
537 -
Kipruto, Chepkirui, Assefa, Amanal, Niiya
40 -
I was hoping that drug (EPO) was all hype. Well, it looks like the shoe is the real deal. The marathon records will be re-written again. Pro athletes without the drug will be at a disadvantage. A legit 1:59 on the men's side is coming. USA men who need the 2:08 need to get a pair asap.
29 -
Every shoe comes with a personal inhaler.
60 -
ny_city_vibes wrote:
I don't think this is true. Because currently it's only 10 runners worldwide who have it. Amanal Petros was one of them and broke the national record.
Petros 2:06:27 to 2:04:58
60 -
Vaporfly Round 2 wrote:
I was hoping that shoe (Adidas Adizero Adios Pro Evo 1) was all hype. Well, it looks like the shoe is the real deal. The marathon records will be re-written again. Pro athletes without the she will be at a disadvantage. A legit 1:59 on the men's side is coming. USA men who need the 2:08 need to get a pair asap.
It works FOR HER, It wont necessarily work for Everyone, There are very few World Record Holders, If This Shoe was giving to lets say Keira D'Amato, Emily Sisson Sure they would likely knock a few Minutes off their Personal Best's and run 2:15-2:16 but they would be unlikely to run 2:11-2:12 I am not bashing them I am just saying People will get different results wearing the same shoes, You could have Eliud Kipchoge with a Blindfold pick any racing shoe that he is not currently wearing and he would still finish at the top or very close to it.
23 -
Vaporfly Round 2 wrote:
I was hoping that shoe (Adidas Adizero Adios Pro Evo 1) was all hype. Well, it looks like the shoe is the real deal. The marathon records will be re-written again. Pro athletes without the she will be at a disadvantage. A legit 1:59 on the men's side is coming. USA men who need the 2:08 need to get a pair asap.
Okay, so a "legit 1.59" is only happening in those shoes if Kipchoge rolls back the clock a year and switches from Nike to Adidas.
Here is what we know about these shoes relative to performance.
There is nothing magical in these shoes except the lighter foam right? Do we all agree on this? The same meaningless plastic rods and the same upper as the Adios Pro - the shoe she wore in 2022 running 2.15.37
We also know, and this is scientifically proven, that 100g of weight is equal to a 1% performance benefit, and this is universal - men and women. The Adios pro (almost all versions 1-3) weigh in at about 215g. This shoe weighs in at about 140g. That is a 75g saving or a 0.75% performance benefit.
Today Tigst improved around 2.75%
Let's then remove the benefit of the product and we have an astronomical 2% further improvement in performance - and keep in mind this isn't from a 2hr30 level of running - she was already the 6th fastest ever and within 90 seconds of the current WR.
I'm sorry there is simply no way, repeat, no freaking way that performance is legit.
This post was edited 2 minutes after it was posted.165 -
Salvitore Stitchmo wrote:
Vaporfly Round 2 wrote:
I was hoping that shoe (Adidas Adizero Adios Pro Evo 1) was all hype. Well, it looks like the shoe is the real deal. The marathon records will be re-written again. Pro athletes without the she will be at a disadvantage. A legit 1:59 on the men's side is coming. USA men who need the 2:08 need to get a pair asap.
Okay, so a "legit 1.59" is only happening in those shoes if Kipchoge rolls back the clock a year and switches from Nike to Adidas.
Here is what we know about these shoes relative to performance.
There is nothing magical in these shoes except the lighter foam right? Do we all agree on this? The same meaningless plastic rods and the same upper as the Adios Pro - the shoe she wore in 2022 running 2.15.37
We also know, and this is scientifically proven, that 100g of weight is equal to a 1% performance benefit, and this is universal - men and women. The Adios pro (almost all versions 1-3) weigh in at about 215g. This shoe weighs in at about 140g. That is a 75g saving or a 0.75% performance benefit.
Today Tigst improved around 2.75%
Let's then remove the benefit of the product and we have an astronomical 2% further improvement in performance - and keep in mind this isn't from a 2hr30 level of running - she was already the 6th fastest ever and within 90 seconds of the current WR.
I'm sorry there is simply no way, repeat, no freaking way that performance is legit.
Correction: 100g of weight is equal to a 1% improvement in running economy. That is not the same as a 1% improvement in time. The time benefit that an athlete gets from improved economy is highly variable. That's why Nike never made any claims about how much the Vaporfly could improve your times, they only advertised the 4% improvement in running economy, which is far easier to measure
62 -
High hopes wrote:
Salvitore Stitchmo wrote:
Okay, so a "legit 1.59" is only happening in those shoes if Kipchoge rolls back the clock a year and switches from Nike to Adidas.
Here is what we know about these shoes relative to performance.
There is nothing magical in these shoes except the lighter foam right? Do we all agree on this? The same meaningless plastic rods and the same upper as the Adios Pro - the shoe she wore in 2022 running 2.15.37
We also know, and this is scientifically proven, that 100g of weight is equal to a 1% performance benefit, and this is universal - men and women. The Adios pro (almost all versions 1-3) weigh in at about 215g. This shoe weighs in at about 140g. That is a 75g saving or a 0.75% performance benefit.
Today Tigst improved around 2.75%
Let's then remove the benefit of the product and we have an astronomical 2% further improvement in performance - and keep in mind this isn't from a 2hr30 level of running - she was already the 6th fastest ever and within 90 seconds of the current WR.
I'm sorry there is simply no way, repeat, no freaking way that performance is legit.
Correction: 100g of weight is equal to a 1% improvement in running economy. That is not the same as a 1% improvement in time. The time benefit that an athlete gets from improved economy is highly variable. That's why Nike never made any claims about how much the Vaporfly could improve your times, they only advertised the 4% improvement in running economy, which is far easier to measure
Sorry that is what I meant - I also did not mean to correlate it purely to time though obviously this is the only performance metric we have to indicate improved performances.
The point would still remain - does a 0.75% running economy benefit then translate to a 2.75% drop in a pinnacle marathon performance? I would even argue that when you look at it this way it makes it seem even more absurd.
10 -
High hopes wrote:
Salvitore Stitchmo wrote:
Okay, so a "legit 1.59" is only happening in those shoes if Kipchoge rolls back the clock a year and switches from Nike to Adidas.
Here is what we know about these shoes relative to performance.
There is nothing magical in these shoes except the lighter foam right? Do we all agree on this? The same meaningless plastic rods and the same upper as the Adios Pro - the shoe she wore in 2022 running 2.15.37
We also know, and this is scientifically proven, that 100g of weight is equal to a 1% performance benefit, and this is universal - men and women. The Adios pro (almost all versions 1-3) weigh in at about 215g. This shoe weighs in at about 140g. That is a 75g saving or a 0.75% performance benefit.
Today Tigst improved around 2.75%
Let's then remove the benefit of the product and we have an astronomical 2% further improvement in performance - and keep in mind this isn't from a 2hr30 level of running - she was already the 6th fastest ever and within 90 seconds of the current WR.
I'm sorry there is simply no way, repeat, no freaking way that performance is legit.
Correction: 100g of weight is equal to a 1% improvement in running economy. That is not the same as a 1% improvement in time. The time benefit that an athlete gets from improved economy is highly variable. That's why Nike never made any claims about how much the Vaporfly could improve your times, they only advertised the 4% improvement in running economy, which is far easier to measure
But the NYTimes/Strava analysis showed almost a 4% benefit in performance, based on actual race results, over the Adizero Adios, which I believe was baseline used in Nike's study.
The Vaporfly obviously didn't increase performance by 4% at the elite level, but performance gains from the Vaporfly's energy return seem to diminish for faster athletes. However I think the gains from reducing weight on the shoe could translate more directly into performance gains.
21 -
Hardloper wrote:
High hopes wrote:
Correction: 100g of weight is equal to a 1% improvement in running economy. That is not the same as a 1% improvement in time. The time benefit that an athlete gets from improved economy is highly variable. That's why Nike never made any claims about how much the Vaporfly could improve your times, they only advertised the 4% improvement in running economy, which is far easier to measure
But the NYTimes/Strava analysis showed almost a 4% benefit in performance, based on actual race results, over the Adizero Adios, which I believe was baseline used in Nike's study.
The Vaporfly obviously didn't increase performance by 4% at the elite level, but performance gains from the Vaporfly's energy return seem to diminish for faster athletes. However I think the gains from reducing weight on the shoe could translate more directly into performance gains.
Without wanting to be rude, anyone who has done any sort of applied statistics will tell you that this analysis is so flawed it's almost worthless. It's interesting, and a fun story but it's ultimately a crock of sh1t. There's no way to assess performance benefits of shoes with this kind of observational study using a convenience sample. Just to be clear, the supershoes have a performance benefit, we just can't put a reliable time value on what that may be
10
What People Are Talking About On LetsRun