Let's say I'm a 4:20 miler and I'm racing my clone. If I'm wearing the old Milers that weigh 5 oz. (I think that's right) and doppleganger is wearing Zoom Victories will he beat me and by how much>?
Let's say I'm a 4:20 miler and I'm racing my clone. If I'm wearing the old Milers that weigh 5 oz. (I think that's right) and doppleganger is wearing Zoom Victories will he beat me and by how much>?
you both dnf because nike sucks
Depends, which one of you is the evil clone?
Seriously though, go with the shoe that fits the best and is most comfortable. If two shoes fit the same and feel the same, but one is lighter, go with the lighter model.
I always wore the Adidas Adistar 3 LD in the 1500/mile in college. It wasn't marketed as a "mile specific" spike, and it wasn't the lightest out there, but it fit my foot and my stride the best. It just worked.
If you wear the Victory's you are guaranteed at least a 3:43 mile.Now if your wearing those old fashioned obsolete milers and you had the same fitness level i'd say you would run a mediocre 4:24.
I'd say it won't be a huge difference, but if you were to basically race with everything being the same except for the shoes then I think you'd probably take off maybe .25-.5 seconds? It won't be a huge difference, BUT it might make a bigger difference if psychologically you feel better running in the lighter spike?
Well, with a difference of 1.8 ounces per step, and say you take 5 feet per step, that would add up to 118.8 pounds difference in lifting over the course of a race. I think that'd make the difference with your clone edging you out.
What are the relative percentages of overall weight (body, clothes, shoes) that 3.2 oz or 5 oz would represent? Lifting 5 oz XXX times is hardly much different from lifting 3.2 oz the same amount and won't lead to a noticeable difference in fatigue. It might make a difference in a 10,000 or a marathon, but in a mile it's negligible.
Dr. Stray-Gunderson wrote:
What are the relative percentages of overall weight (body, clothes, shoes) that 3.2 oz or 5 oz would represent? Lifting 5 oz XXX times is hardly much different from lifting 3.2 oz the same amount and won't lead to a noticeable difference in fatigue. It might make a difference in a 10,000 or a marathon, but in a mile it's negligible.
Leg weight is a lot different than body weight since your legs move much farther than your torso does when running. Try running with 2lbs around your waist and then with 2lbs around your ankles if you don't believe me.
I think someone (Tim Noakes or Jack Daniels, maybe) did a study on how shoe weight affected running economy. He found a certain % of decreased economy per ounce of shoe weight. However, I can't find it for the life of me!
At the end of the day, don't feel like you are short-changing yourself if you don't buy them. I'd be willing to bet that Lagat would have won the Olympic Trials even if he was wearing trainers. It will give you a TINY edge, but there are a million other factors to worry about.
True, though even at that ratio it's basically inconsequential.
The placebo effect is real and could lead to the win.
Your clone will win because you are not used to running in shoes so light, you didn't practice enough in them, and you gain an injury.
Among anyone who would have to ask on THIS board, it wouldn't matter.
Your math skills are "impressive", but that's a faily lame approach to determining the appropriate racing shoe. I have a pair of Zoom Victory, Size 10.5 and it weighs 3.5 oz. exactly. Having raced in them four times, I find the torsional stability to be questionable, thus resulting in a tender plantar fascia on my left foot the day after racing. Therefore, this lessened stability could actually hinder performance for some individuals. I'm 6' and 155 lbs., but if I were smaller, I might have less of a problem. Personally, I prefer Ventulus I's or Milers to the Victory, but as many have said, there are a number of factors in determining the "correct" racing shoe than just weight alone. As much as I respect Jack Daniels and Tim Noakes, shoe weight is only one consideration.
Physiological and ergonomics factors in running shoe design
E. C. Frederick
Director, Nike Sport Research Laboratory, Exeter, New Hampshire, USA
Abstract
Various features of the design of running shoes have been known to affect the performance and safety of athletes. The performance related effects of shoe design on traction and on the economy of locomotion are reviewed in this paper. Traction measurements in various types of running shoes and on various surfaces appear adequate for all but running on wet asphalt roads. Future designs should improve traction for those conditions. Effects on the economy of locomotion as small as 1% can be determined using conventional oxygen uptake measurements. The effect of carrying extra weight on the foot during running has been measured at 1% per 100 g per foot. The cost of carrying similar weights is much lower for walking or for running when the weight is carried nearer the body's centre of mass. Cushioning and other features of shoe design besides weight have been shown to have significant effects on the economy of locomotion. Optimum designs for maximising running performance should provide sufficient traction, minimal weight and maximum cushioning.
So it comes to roughly 0.28% per ounce, or for a 4:20 miler, you gain 1.5-2 seconds over a more conventional mid distance shoe weighing 5.2-5.5 ounces.
Given the identical tactic of running as fast as possible (even splits) and given identically ideal foot support. However, if two 4:20 milers have run through 1400m together in a race, it isn't a given that the one in the lighter shoe will prevail in a kick.
Compelling discussion, for sure, but I can assure you that the "maximum cushioning" component of this "optimum design for maximizing running performance" would prove to be a hindrance when wearing a competition spike on a mondo surface. Too much cushioning, particularly at the mile distance would be an inefficient absorption of energy, thus, in effect, slow the runner a bit. I respect much of the work that the NSRL lab has done, but their research is not always the last word in applied biomechanics. Having run many, many of high-quality competitive miles, I can attest to the fact that reality frequently differs from what the lab might indicate as "fact".
About the shoe having more of an effect than just the differences in weight - I think you have to look at what you are really having to do when you swing your leg, which is apply a torque. I'm sure this is really simplified, but since torque is proportional to force * radial distance from the pivot point, to get the rotation, the torque you apply has to overcome force * length of leg * sin(some angle) [I know this is really simplified, but I think the logic makes sense] and where you apply the force that supplies the torque is almost right at your knee for one of the rotations and right at the hip for the other, the radial distance is much less, so you have to apply a much larger force to overcome the additional torque from the additional weight.
Also, this explains why wearing lighter shoes is more effective than losing weight by just taking a piss closer to race time, or making sure you take a big shit really close to race time, as either of these probably is worth as much as the weight difference of the shoe, but it is centered close to your center of mass, and doesn't really have anything to do with a rotation.
I would like to know what size of this shoe is 3.2oz. There is no way that size 8 weighs the same as size 13. Anyone have any insight on this?
if i was about to run a race and all the sudden a clone of myself walked up to the line i would kick it in the jugular with my custom zoom forever's and then take its zoom victory's and race in those...