NYTimes Jere Longman article questions legality of Nike Vaporfly shoe

Where's the world record? Without drafting off a Tesla and a pace team?

The Nike folks must be ecstatic about the NY Times piece: a shoe so awesome they might have to ban it! It's the perfect marketing message to sell $250 racing flats to affluent weekend warriors and wanna-bes.

Just one question though: where is the actual evidence that these shoes provide any advantage whatsoever? Shouldn't the starting point (null hypothesis if you want to get fancy) be no effect on performance, until shown otherwise?

MarathonMind wrote:

Reading this article posted on the Times just now, I gotta go with banning any shoe with a carbon-fiber plate midsole. There are indicting comments in the article from George Hirsch and Ross Tucker amongst others, but I find Tucker's the most damning:

[quote]Embedded in the length of the midsole is a thin, stiff carbon-fiber plate that is scooped like a spoon. Imagined another way, it is somewhat curved like a blade. The plate is designed to reduce the amount of oxygen needed to run at a fast pace. It stores and releases energy with each stride and is meant to act as a kind of slingshot, or catapult, to propel runners forward.

Are we banning track spikes too? Because the Vaporfly is essentially a track spike with cushioning and a thin rubber outsole.

Apparently the midsole is made of flubber.

Where do you draw the line on allowable equipment? Do we ban wearing sunglasses because the energy spent squinting in the sun could provide a 1% energy boost? Do we ban wearing shoes altogether because shoes provides a large increase in economy for most runners? Do we prevent athletes from meditating before the race because the energy saved from stress and nerves could provide a 0.5% boost?

Come on. It's not like the shoes are doing the work for you. What nobody's mentioned yet is that the runner still has to do work to initially FLEX the insole for it to provide the purported return. I know they're quoting this 4% number (they must have a lot of confidence in the data since they made the result part of the actual product name), but I'd like to see the data. 4% is a lot. For something to return energy as much as they are claiming, you'd expect there to be a fairly high initial deformation force. Something you might expect to see in an insole for power athletes, not endurance athletes, who need to keep making those deformations over a long time. Again, they seem confident in their product and tests results, but they should provide the data from the tests.

+1

Just imagine how much time and money the Nike marketing people and lots of very well paid ad execs have spent preparing this. The drip-feed of info and 'debate' about the legality of the shoe is of course exactly what they want.

Marketing and branding is pervasive and subtle. Despite everything I rationally think about Nike - their associations with dopers, past and present amongst many other things - I still feel positive associations towards the logo and their shoes, that they represent 'speed' in some way. All this project reinforces the brand brilliantly, and the debate feeds into this and keeps them in the headlines.

And the money isn't in the shoes for the elites, or even the hobby joggers. Look around you at people's shoes. The money is in every regular guy and girl walking around in Nikes around the shops, at work etc

Next stage - the 4% increase in running economy study is released and a whole load of 'debate' ensues around that, including on here. It's so patently bullshit that the study will be picked apart, but the thought will be put in people's minds that it 'could' be true. (And yes, Nike will pay people to post on these boards and in other places, to influence the influencers. It's logical. I would if I were them).

Journalists should investigate the links between Nike and the author of the 'independent' study, Rodger Kram at the University of Colorado. Given that there is (literally) billions of dollars at stake in this market, has he really done this study independently? What was he paid to do it? Was he influenced by Nike execs in any way? Was theUniversity paid? Etc.

Rod Munch wrote:

Where do you draw the line on allowable equipment? Do we ban wearing sunglasses because the energy spent squinting in the sun could provide a 1% energy boost? Do we ban wearing shoes altogether because shoes provides a large increase in economy for most runners? Do we prevent athletes from meditating before the race because the energy saved from stress and nerves could provide a 0.5% boost?

I think the idea would be to ban anything that acts as a spring. Otherwise, the end result will be a little better Springs in each shoe iteration until one day you realize they're all running on two inch Springs tuned to their body weight and stride rate.

They could just set a maximum sole thickness. Then you know it will never be a large benefit.

Of course, Hoka will lobby against that.

I tested the first shoe Nike put air in, the Tailwind, which they purported would increase efficiency 3%, enough to make a three-hour marathoner into a 2:55 marathoner.( In those days, a BQ was 3:00) But it was, after all, still a heavy training shoe, so I opted to race in my Elites, which featured a somewhat rockered forefoot. Technology advances, and design and material which aid in the natural function of the shoe, to facilitate efficient forward will always be part of the game. As long as they are generally available, where is the unfairness, aside from some people being priced out of the market? And shoe companies will always try to cash in on the "magic bullet" hysteria. They will either prove to be great shoes, or they won't. I didn't see people flocking to buy that Spira spring shoe that was supposedly banned in Boston.

Other shoes have stiffeners in the forefoot that behave as springs too. The Adidas torsion plastic plate that extends into the forefoot in some of their shoes does the same thing. If you think that this Nike should be banned, then you should think that a lot of Adidas and probably Mizunos and other shoes need to be banned to. Someone's old review of the Takumi Ren mentions this:

"Like the Takumi Sen 2, the Takumi Ren 2 is one of the most responsive shoes I have ever tried.  This is all thanks to the firmer sole and extended torsion system that goes into the forefoot.  Most Adidas shoes have this torsion system in the midfoot, but a few have it into the forefoot including the Adios (don't feel this as much in the new Adios Boost 2), Takumi Sen 2 and Takumi Ren 2.  This gives the shoe an awesome propulsive feel that I've never experienced elsewhere.  This shoe works really well for longer workouts but can handle anything you throw at it.  I prefer the Takumi Sen for shorter workouts, but the Ren can definitely handle them given their weight and how much pop the sole has."

http://kleinrunsdpt.blogspot.com/2015/01/adidas-takumi-ren-2-review.html

What is damning about Ross Tucker's quotes? He has never seen the shoe first hand, nor has anyone really that is making comments on the shoe. It is solely speculation.

I don't see the difference in this shoe against anything that has been designed with a "plate". Adidas Pro Plate for Geb's World Record.

And does anyone really think Nike would produce a shoe like that, put in the extreme amount of R&D money, set up production lines for it, just to have it banned? It'll never be banned.

Seems to me this is an extension of the argument about Oscar Pistorius.... With the carbon spring technology of the prosthetic embedded in the shoes.

Wasn't there another brand that ACTUALLY had springs in the middle, and that was banned?

Yes, reading the article they make it clear this technology is affording the same "spring" action/benefits of the Spira shoe and Pistorius' blades. It should therefore also be banned.

Oh, my. Yes, a random NYT writer is an expert at shoe technology/biomechanics/physiology. Give me a break. Nike has had a spike with a carbon fiber shank/plate since the professional versions of the Nike Victory were developed nearly a decade ago. C'mon, man.

A spring is a spring, whether made of carbon-fiber or steel. For a runner, any spring action in the shoe means they need to expend less energy lifting their feet. i.e. less energy is used in any vertical component of the stride. This is critical for marathoners since conserving energy allows them to maintain efficiency late in the race.Evidence: from the Runner's World article on the Vaporfly:

One of the consistent points of feedback from Nike athletes who’ve used the shoes is that they reportedly feel less leg soreness and fatigue late in marathons, and they recover more quickly on subsequent days.

runnersworld.com/sweat-science/nikes-magic-shoes-what-if-they-really-work

and from wejo's screed on Spira 9 years ago:

David Cheruityo (2:10:36 Kenyan and Spira wearer) : "I am far less fatigued after racing and training in Spira compared to any other shoes. As a result I have suffered no injuries and can train and race at more intense pace, and I find that my recovery time following a race or a hard workout is greatly reduced. I had no soreness of any kind after the marathon. At 37, I expected my best racing days were behind me. Now I think I can eventually run 2:08."

letsrun.com/2008/spiraarticle0306.php

It's apparent that the same spring action and benefits are being conferred by Nike's shoe as they were with the Spira. Nike's shoe should be banned.

MarathonMind wrote:

Nike's shoe should be banned.

Do you think track spikes should be banned? This is literally no different than any number of track spikes on the market for the past few decades.

So is the science behind something like this that that the energy that is 'stored and released' comes from the force of the foot hitting the ground, and that it is 'stored' in the fancy nano-carbon plate instead of being dissipated into the ground and wasted?

Anecdotes from some runners saying they felt better in the special shoes is NOT evidence that they provide any advantage.

So is the science behind something like this that the energy that is 'stored and released' comes from the force of the foot hitting the ground, and that it is 'stored' in the fancy nano-carbon plate instead of being dissipated into the ground and wasted?

Who banned the Spira shoe?