Are adidas adios actually decent shoes, or does everyone just think they are because the Kenyans are paid to wear them?
They are expensive as sh!t.
Are adidas adios actually decent shoes, or does everyone just think they are because the Kenyans are paid to wear them?
They are expensive as sh!t.
I found it interesting that Bernard Koech, who was with Mizuno, is now with Adidas. He almost beat Gebrselassie's 10-mile WR last month, wearing the very fast RED BOOOOOOOOST! (He had even slowed down in the race due to misjudging wear the finish line was.)
http://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?board=1&id=6009162&thread=6009132#6009162
Shoes that make you faster are against IAAF rules.
It can also be argued shoes can make people faster because they reduce fatigue of the musculoskeletal system, too, particularly in the feet. When Bikila ran his second Oly Marathon in shoes, faster than his first when barefoot, he was primarily seeking performance improvement, rather than for the reasons of satisfying a sponsor.
Bad Wigins wrote:
Shoes that make you faster are against IAAF rules.
spikes make me faster and aren't banned
The purpose of shoes for competition is to give protection and stability to the feet and a firm grip on the ground. Such shoes, however, must not be constructed so as to give an athlete any unfair additional assistance, including by the incorporation of any technology which will give the wearer any unfair advantage.
Spikes are about gripping the ground. Techno-bouncy midsoles go beyond protection, stability and grip and are illegal.
If they actually work, Kimetto's WR will have to be nullified.
the above quote is from IAAF competition rule 143.2
Bad Wigins wrote:
the above quote is from IAAF competition rule 143.2
So, what will happen when track surfaces continue to evolve, perhaps incorporating their own Boost-like material? Anything that returns energy and reduces shock better than old-time dirt or cinder makes today's performances "unfair" when compared with what was available decades ago. Of course, it's an endless debate about just how much better Jim Ryun and others would have run in today's shoes and on today's track surfaces. Same thing with all those fast performances the U.S. Swim Team was having in 2008 with those "slick" swimming suits. If you start outlawing shoes because they have "bouncier" midsoles than regular EVA (which is much bouncier than anything before EVA), where would it stop? You'd have to have EVERYONE use the exact same shoes, which would in itself be an unfair advantage for some, since all feet and biomechanics are not the same. There will always be slight advantages and disadvantages in sports, and it's up to the athletes themselves to take advantage of new innovations and improvements. Adidas Boost, in my opinion, is truly innovative and a big improvement over regular EVA, so Nike, New Balance, Brooks, etc. will simply have to keep up. Otherwise, you're going to see runners jumping ship and seeking sponsorship from the most innovative company offering any slight competitive advantage.
Do you guys really think the shoes are giving them some kind of advantage? Get real. Maybe a couple secs/mile, or a minute in a marathon, but probably not even a quarter of that. You have to also factor in that the Adios Boost is a very heavy racing flat, at over 8 ounces. Its the training these guys do, their genes, and the amazing running locales they have. But buy a pair of boosts and hop in a 5k this coming weekend, see if they take you to a pr.
Edward Teach wrote:
Do you guys really think the shoes are giving them some kind of advantage? Get real. Maybe a couple secs/mile, or a minute in a marathon, but probably not even a quarter of that. You have to also factor in that the Adios Boost is a very heavy racing flat, at over 8 ounces. Its the training these guys do, their genes, and the amazing running locales they have. But buy a pair of boosts and hop in a 5k this coming weekend, see if they take you to a pr.
You say get real and then allow that they might help a bit.
A couple of seconds per mile is the difference between setting the record and not setting it.
I think the IAAF rule is getting at "shoes that return more energy than was put into them".
Picking arbitrary numbers here, if the foot pushes against and compresses the shoe with 50N, and the shoe returns 55N. That is the unfair advantage.
Nike and Adidas with Lunar and Boost are trying to return the same amount of energy as the initial push.
Doesn't that defy the equal and opposite reaction law?
Shoes would have to work on a dieseling effect to return more energy.
Why isn't the adidas Boost selling well at Run Specialty? My store just got an RA on a few dozen pair, as it's not turning as well as they'd like.
And isn't Boost foam the same Brooks uses in MoGo?
Le Chapeau wrote:
You say get real and then allow that they might help a bit.
A couple of seconds per mile is the difference between setting the record and not setting it.
Right, but not the difference from being up there with the Africans finishing a couple minutes back from the world record setters and their competitors and where Western athletes are finishing. A top American wearings boosts is still going to be in no man's land, several minutes behind the Africans.
*They're a light weight and comfortable running shoe.
What's your problem with that?
*Adidas Boston boost.
To be honest I think they're quite decent but not as good as Nike.
If you worked in run specialty, the you should know that MoGo and Boost are completely different. And it's not illegal technology because it returns negative energy, not adds energy to the stride.
Eocl wrote:
Why isn't the adidas Boost selling well at Run Specialty? My store just got an RA on a few dozen pair, as it's not turning as well as they'd like.
And isn't Boost foam the same Brooks uses in MoGo?
edward teach wrote:
Le Chapeau wrote:You say get real and then allow that they might help a bit.
A couple of seconds per mile is the difference between setting the record and not setting it.
Right, but not the difference from being up there with the Africans finishing a couple minutes back from the world record setters and their competitors and where Western athletes are finishing. A top American wearings boosts is still going to be in no man's land, several minutes behind the Africans.
That's totally irrelevant to whether the shoes help or not.
Shoes that helped.
Remember the ban on records set wearing "Brush Spikes"
for sprinting ?
I used to race a pair of Saucony Kinvara 2 with a P.B for 5K of 18:58 I switched to Adidas Adios 2 without the boost, and In my first race a 6K race, I did the first 5K in 18:27 30 seconds improvement, I finished in 22:30 3'40" m/Km pace.
I don't know if there is any marketing behind adidas...but the one's I've got feel really comfy!
P.S: I use Adidas Revenergy that have some boost for my training runs, and they are ok...nothing special, also they are not the ones with more boost %