Mizuno fanboy wrote:
Rayo. wrote:Is that right, have they got a 10mm drop? If that is right then there is a significant amount of elastic recoil energy being lost through the Achilles due to it being prevented from being on higher degrees of stretch. This could easily add up to significant time over 26.2. We were given those 6 inch tendons for a reason.
And that reason wasn't running 26.2 miles on asphalt in 2 hours and change.
Running is running buddy, surface does not matter.
Rayo. wrote:
Mizuno fanboy wrote:And that reason wasn't running 26.2 miles on asphalt in 2 hours and change.
Running is running buddy, surface does not matter.
Apparently, neither do pace or distance. Good for you.
Related to the first quote, search "Naturalistic Fallacy" if you aren't already familiar. I can't post the link for some reason.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pkhtgbBr-cYkiptheman wrote:
Interesting. Can you link to a video?
well,. wrote:
igotatheory wrote:There's too much cushion in those Vaporfly 4% shoes, and we all know that cushion makes you lose energy by having to push harder. I think that Kip could break the world record by running the marathon in shoes that have 15mm of stack MAX in the front, and no more than 4mm of drop. 4 oz or less. It's not like his feet won't handle it, his form and lower leg strength are probably better than nearly all other runners.
Support or criticize me.
The runners in the sub2 project tried more minimal shoes and hated it.
That's to be expected. Wearing a shoe with no drop after years of 8-12mm will feel different and likely uncomfortable. Doesn't mean that it can't improve their performance. It always feel weird at first but it goes away once you are used to it.
Has it not occurred to anyone that shoe companies are just trying the make shoes comfortable "from the first step", and not actually making them properly for performance? The cushion does nothing if they are not heel striking. It is just a block of foam that they have to push harder through in order to find the hard ground, and gets in the way of using their natural spring (Achilles tendon). Cushion has no net shock absorbption, because the impact forces are what propel us forward. So, we are going to push harder to achieve the same speed in a cushioned shoe.
That's why I think a lightly cushioned, firm shoe (like a racing flat) will be able to let Kipchoge or any other marathoner run naturally, which will be faster because our bodies are most efficient when we can use our natural "spring" fully. Some cushion can be there for a little comfort, but any more than 15mm would most likely hinder performance. But, they key is here is the drop.
Mizuno fanboy wrote:
Rayo. wrote:Running is running buddy, surface does not matter.
Apparently, neither do pace or distance. Good for you.
Related to the first quote, search "Naturalistic Fallacy" if you aren't already familiar. I can't post the link for some reason.
Great. I have some rather nice running tights for you, a snip at £300, do you want to buy 2 pairs? They have this great technology that will reduce the force generation of your hams and gluts by 20%, but that is ok because they have ...........'new technology'.
Rayo. wrote:
igotatheory wrote:Technology is not the problem. Ever heard of Skora? Or the Altra Escalante?
Really all you would need in a running shoe is a thin layer of rubber. Even some cushion is okay, but NOT as much as the Vaporfly, and DEFINITELY NOT a 10mm drop. The drop just interferes with their natural stride.
Is that right, have they got a 10mm drop? If that is right then there is a significant amount of elastic recoil energy being lost through the Achilles due to it being prevented from being on higher degrees of stretch. This could easily add up to significant time over 26.2. We were given those 6 inch tendons for a reason.
This is exactly what I was going for! The body is more efficient when the Achilles can be fully utilized.
dopey historian wrote:
Running shoe manufacturers have been invited numerous times to present their technology and how it improves performance, reduces impact on the body etc... by leading physiologists, medical panels etc...
They never ever turn up, basically because almost all of their science is flawed and is market driven. There is good reason why we suddenly went from flat shoes to 10-12mm drop shoes and it wasn't performance.
Modern running shoes like the Nike and Adidas lines impair the function of the arch, your foot's natural spring, they make the pelvis tip forward and they impair glute function.
Very few shoe companies are getting it right but if you shop around and avoid the shocking efforts from the mainstream moon buts made by the likes of Nike, Adidas, Brooks etc... you will find that the product offered by the likes of Salming, Altra, Asics Japan (not US), Merrell are far far far superior.
After suffering with piriformis and achilles issues for years and wearing 'traditional' shoes I am now injury free in my 40's, I wasn't in my 20's and 30's because I bought into the crap that was pedalled by these huge companies.
Yes Altra and Merrell are vastly superior to any other cushioned shoes in my opinion. I cut over 3 minutes off my half marathon after transitioning to Altras from Mizunos. However, Altra has been moving in the direction of Hoka, which I don't like. The Merrell Vapor Glove, though is AWESOME. Love it. Really, I think the most benefit will come from learning to run barefoot, but a shoe that at least allows better biomechanics doesn't hurt either.
Didn't Kipchoge run pretty fast when his Nike Streak 6 insole came undone and was flapping all over the place for most of the race?
What do you pay for the Sortie Magic in Japan? I've gotten a couple pairs as freebies, they last forever, by the way, but inevitably will need replacing. I've found a website that sells them for much more than my self imposed maximum running shoe price and may have to break down and order.
ndrunnerguy wrote:
well,. wrote:
The runners in the sub2 project tried more minimal shoes and hated it.
That's to be expected. Wearing a shoe with no drop after years of 8-12mm will feel different and likely uncomfortable. Doesn't mean that it can't improve their performance. It always feel weird at first but it goes away once you are used to it.
Has it not occurred to anyone that shoe companies are just trying the make shoes comfortable "from the first step", and not actually making them properly for performance? The cushion does nothing if they are not heel striking. It is just a block of foam that they have to push harder through in order to find the hard ground, and gets in the way of using their natural spring (Achilles tendon). Cushion has no net shock absorbption, because the impact forces are what propel us forward. So, we are going to push harder to achieve the same speed in a cushioned shoe.
That's why I think a lightly cushioned, firm shoe (like a racing flat) will be able to let Kipchoge or any other marathoner run naturally, which will be faster because our bodies are most efficient when we can use our natural "spring" fully. Some cushion can be there for a little comfort, but any more than 15mm would most likely hinder performance. But, they key is here is the drop.
Elite runners have been wearing more minimalistic, lower drop shoes for their entire career when they´re doing intervals, short races etc, so that argument doesn´t hold up.
It is always funny when non elites are lecturing world class runners on messageboards, claiming to know better or saying stuff like "they are forced by shoe companies to run in a certain type of shoes". Any shoe company want their athletes to run as fast as possible, and the result from Nike was the Vaporfly Elite.
Like an earlier poster said: a lot of people are falling for "the natural fallacy" here.
Correct. He might actually run faster.
This reminds me of the amateur cyclists spending thousands of dollars on lighter wheels but with a spare fat tire around their waist. Unless you are running at least 120mpw, watching your nutrition and resting like a Kenyan those shoes are pointless. You are talking minuscule differences. They are a marketing phenomenon but remember Kiochige would probably run 2.02/3 in a pair of waffle racers circa 1980.
Just putting this out there, but I don't think Nike would have put all those resources into breaking2 and then purposely slow them down with a crappy shoe. Would trimming the fat of the shoe and making it more minimal reduce the weight? Sure. But I imagine they put a lot of work into the shoe to have a good energy return despite how the 4% feels. Remember, they had a shoe slightly different than anything we'll get on the market from Nike. But again, I think all the research they did with those runners lead them to developing that shoe.
I would say that regardless of how the 4% feels it is still a gimmick and they have no real impact whatso ever.
The WR shoe is still a Adios boost and the fact that he ran 2.00.25 on Monza doesn't matter, it was mostly the conditions and pacing.
Kimettos high 2.02 and Kipsangs low 2.03 is still up there. I don't know what Nikes Bekeles 2.03.03 was exactly but it was something before the Vapor right? Same with Kipchoges 2.03.05.
That to say, the Adios isn't some holy grail either, it's just a shoe that a lot has worn. Also, i hate the look of the new Vapor series.
mikey666 wrote:
I would say that regardless of how the 4% feels it is still a gimmick and they have no real impact whatso ever.
The WR shoe is still a Adios boost and the fact that he ran 2.00.25 on Monza doesn't matter, it was mostly the conditions and pacing.
Kimettos high 2.02 and Kipsangs low 2.03 is still up there. I don't know what Nikes Bekeles 2.03.03 was exactly but it was something before the Vapor right? Same with Kipchoges 2.03.05.
That to say, the Adios isn't some holy grail either, it's just a shoe that a lot has worn. Also, i hate the look of the new Vapor series.
I think Bekele wore prototypes that were half way between the Vaporfly and the Streak 6. The truth is the prototypes maybe just as good as the final version, if not better.