Breaking: Science of Sport calls for Nike Vaporfly Elite to be banned

Having run in the training version of these shoes, I'll say that it's essentially a plated, slightly beefier Saucony Freedom. There is no cheating. Sure, your legs aren't trashed in them, after a run. At the same time, YOU STILL NEED TO APPLY THE FORCE. This isn't some ACME rocket. Rather, it is just the future of shoes.

Mo ran in a version of them on his marathon debut. But because he didn't destroy the field, nobody's talking about it.

Shoes do enhance performance to some extent. We need to figure out where he line is as far as what should be allowed in competition. I believe it is closer to what our current shoes offer than the Pistorius blades, but obviously he the question hasn't been answered yet. Long blades have been eliminated, and coiled springs are not allowed currently.

A composite shank in a shoe seems okay to me as long as the shoe is made to normal dimensions (not much more than an inch thick). As others have pointed out, many spikes have somewhat rigid soles, and work boots have had metal shanks in them for a long long time.

Photos of Kipchoge working out today in the shoes

http://www.letsrun.com/news/2017/03/photos-eliud-kipchoge-working-nike-zoom-vaporfly-elite-shoes/

Maybe I'm missing something, but I think this is overblown. Traditionally, when athletes choose shoes, they have to trade off between "responsiveness" and cushioning. Shoes with more energy return, be they Boosts or Vaporflys, just minimize the need to make this tradeoff. You get cushioning without losing as much energy. But you aren't adding energy, and you aren't replacing an active spring like the knee joint (which has a biological limit to how much energy it can return)with a passive spring like a cheetah blade.

What happens in Caster Semenya competes in these new fangled shoes? Does her 3k time drop below 8? Would we need a 4th category in which to compete? Device Transgender aided?

I agree that things designed to return energy (springs, etc) ought to be banned.

But what about racing spikes, don't they have a hard forefoot plate? Maybe it doesn't return much energy?

The more calls there are for banning these, the more Nike will sell.

Let's not pretend that any of us are in anything for the greater good and stop acting like it's relevant one way or another if a company is or isn't.

READ THIS PLEASE. THERE ARE SOME FUN & GAMES ON THE GO FROM NIKE PR....

one word PROPULSION.... (which is mysteriously disappearing from all NIKE Breaking 2 PR)

This is what it is all about. The plate is key and the foam is the carrier. The foam is exactly the same as Reeboks new shoe

and while it is decent. it is nothing special and commercially available from

http://www.zotefoams.com/product/zotek/zotek-peba/

PROPULSION is the difference between a the energy return of a foam, and the energy return of a LEAF Spring (Carbon plate). Foam returns in energy in the same direction put in. Mechanical Springs like spoon shaped carbon plates add directionality to the energy return PROPELLING the foot forward = stride length increase = running economy improvement

This is the most important word... why? Because it was used in NIKE's original PR statements as a key part of the concepts but it seems to have mysteriously disappeared or has been edited.

Here are some examples still out there:

WIRED article:

https://www.wired.com/2017/03/nike-zoom-vaporfly-elite/

quote from Tony Bignell, VP of footwear innovation at Nike

"Bignell says three footwear variables most dictate economy: weight, to reduce the energy of lifting the foot; cushioning, to support bones and muscles; and PROPULSION to push the runner forward.......Within that sole lies the shoe’s engine: an ultrathin, lightweight, carbon-fiber plate that helps propel the runner."

NIKE NEWS

http://www.nike.com/gb/en_gb/c/justdoit/breaking2-product-innovation

The shoe features an ultralight, ultra-responsive Nike Zoom Vaporfly 4% midsole.

Nike ZoomX provides greater energy return than any foam Nike has ever put underneath

any athlete in any sport. Working in tandem with the foam is a unidirectional carbon plate

with a specific geometry that enhances the propulsive sensation in each stride.

PROPULSION is a key theme of the Patent application as well.

Another caveat is that there a lot of sports science studies already out there proving that mechanical spring like cushioning can improve running economy.

"Biomechanical and metabolic effects of a leaf spring structured midsole in heel–toe running"

Results: The leaf spring structured midsole shoe significantly increased the anterior shift of the foot by 8 ± 4 mm (p = 0.001) during stance leading to an increased stride length (1%; p = 0.044), while oxygen cost (2%; p = 0.031) and stride rate (1%; p = 0.039) were significantly reduced compared to the reference shoe.

Make your own judgement, but make it based on facts.

take my money nike wrote:

The more calls there are for banning these, the more Nike will sell.

This reminds me of during the 80s when the first air Jordan's came out and the NBA said Michael Jordan couldn't wear them because they were the wrong color. Nike made a big deal out of it and said that the NBA banned the shoes because they were too much of an advantage. Jordan continued to wear them and Nike paid the fines

Jimmy21 wrote:

This reminds me of during the 80s when the first air Jordan's came out and the NBA said Michael Jordan couldn't wear them because they were the wrong color. Nike made a big deal out of it and said that the NBA banned the shoes because they were too much of an advantage. Jordan continued to wear them and Nike paid the fines

Or back ten years ago when Spira ran the "Banned in Boston" marketing campaign.

Well, some guy who calls himself "Science of Sport" says so. The IAAF should immediately act!

This is pretty weak. All shoes contain technology, there are shoes in the past from all companies -- under this mindset should have been banned.

Ah, the two-hour barrier. It should be about the human body, not the stuff on the feet, shouldn't it? (Bikila, etc.) I'm surprised at Nike--but perhaps I shouldn't have been. For them, it's all about selling stuff. That's the only reason to sponsor this sort of extravaganza. So of course stuff is involved. And the bad publicity is great publicity. All part of the plan, I'm sure.

So let's talk inserts. I've had several dozen over the 40 years I've been running, starting with thick hard plastic arch supports crafted for me by Dr. Thomas McGuigan of Trenton back in 1978. When I revisited him in 2004 to get measured for new orthotics, he said, "I can't even buy the raw materials I used to make those early inserts, because the government says they cause cancer."

I've been using carbon fiber inserts for the past five years, because I've got hallux limitus--a very bad arthritic big toe on my left foot. They've given me a new lease on life, but not because they offer anything springy.

On the other hand, when I realized that the plates were wearing out, I went online looking for replacements. I ended up at MyFootShop.com, where I've now gone through three separate pairs of inserts that don't quite do the job like my old podiatrist-installed plates. One set was called "spring plates":

https://www.myfootshop.com/spring-plate-carbongraphite-fiber-insert

They most closely resembled my "old" plates. But in action, they turned out to have a whole lot more spring than I wanted. They created quite a bit of instability--wobble--and they just didn't feel right. My feet do best with flat, not-too-thick carbon plates, not something that wants to launch me through the front window.

When I realized that they just weren't right, I ordered flat plates:

https://www.myfootshop.com/carbon-graphite-shoe-plate-flat

I had high hopes. But they were twice as thick as my "old" plates and very stiff. On toe-off, I felt as though the heels of my running shoes were being yanked down.

So last Sunday morning I went back to my old plates, after three weeks of messing around with the two products above and a third set of inserts--the only pair that I plan to keep--called "hallux trainers":

https://www.myfootshop.com/hallux-trainer-insoles

These did an excellent job of killing off my Morton's neuroma. But they gave me slightly more heel lift than I want, and they feel hard, blocky, when I run. Wearing thicker socks helped that. But still: not optimal.

This past Sunday morning I finally said F--k it and put my old thin carbon fiber plates back in. I'm quite sure they don't give me any competitive advantage. They're too short. But they help my hallux limitus.

Before going out, I dug a metatarsal pad out of a box where it had been sitting, unused, for the past ten years. I found the sweet spot and stuck it onto the removable shoe liner--the thing that actually COMES with the damned shoes.

And, to my great surprise, I had the fastest, best long run of the past two years. I finally got the biomechanics right, after months of things not being right.

For this old geezer, "fastest, best long run of the past two years" translates to 13 miles at an average pace of 8:43/mile and an average HR of 155 (82% of max, thanks to hammering the last five miles)

So yes: the stuff that's built into the shoe and inserted into the shoe makes a difference. I've had much too much experience with that.

I think that this particular imbroglio is an inflection point, much as Pistorius's bionic limb is/was an inflection point.

When push comes to shove, I'll go with the Science of Sport guys every time.

Nike claims a 4% improvement. Let's see...a 3:45 miler, just by wearing these shoes, would be able to run the mile 9 seconds faster! That would be a 3:36 mile! Does anyone believe this drivel? The whole thing is a great marketing tool, no doubt about it. As the song says, "Let's See What Happens".

Basically, I think there are two historical cases in play: The Pistorius advantage, which draws a direct line to this, and the Speedo LZR Racer swimsuit and subsequent suits, which illustrate a couple of conceptual issues....

Historically, Dr. Tucker should know that CAS found the Pistorius "advantage" to be nonexistent on the whole.

800 dude wrote:

Maybe I'm missing something, but I think this is overblown. Traditionally, when athletes choose shoes, they have to trade off between "responsiveness" and cushioning. Shoes with more energy return, be they Boosts or Vaporflys, just minimize the need to make this tradeoff. You get cushioning without losing as much energy. But you aren't adding energy, and you aren't replacing an active spring like the knee joint (which has a biological limit to how much energy it can return)with a passive spring like a cheetah blade.

Exactly. I've found that the minimalists actually know something about the foot. When I put on my racing flats with thin, slightly-to-somewhat flexible carbon fiber inserts, I can feel my foot doing the work. And it DOES do work. I've shifted in and out of a range of different inserts over the years, and it always feels to me as though less is more.

I don't want Pogo-sticks on my feet.

You cannot compare stiff flat plates designed to limit bending vs a spoon shaped carbon fibre leaf spring.

Flat plates work by bending. Spoon shaped spring plates will deform more during vertical deformation, and the shape of the spoon will PROPEL the runner forward.

One thing also to note is the custom aspect because this essentially means Joe Public can buy them but they may not work for him/her and may actually negatively impact performance.

Customised spring plates for individuals is not a level playing field as they are not freely available to all athletes. Just ask Kara Goucher and Callum Hawkins (NB athlete beaten in NYC by 8 seconds).

Schweik wrote:

Nike claims a 4% improvement. Let's see...a 3:45 miler, just by wearing these shoes, would be able to run the mile 9 seconds faster! That would be a 3:36 mile! Does anyone believe this drivel? The whole thing is a great marketing tool, no doubt about it. As the song says, "Let's See What Happens".

Hey, I believe in the technology. It is a fact that springs in shoes increase runner efficiency. All you whinners will get left behind in the dust.