Those who stupe so low as to wear the Nike Vaporfly 4% to dominate their fellow runners need to have their Man Card revoked

long dong silver wrote:

vivalarepublica wrote:

There is only one way to solve this issue: everybody runs in a loin cloth wearing those used tire sandals that the Tarahuma wear. Removes all advantages of modern runner gear tech and supports a small craft industry.

Done and done.

Why should I be penalized because I have an extra large johnson that will flap around way too much if there's only a loin cloth attempting (and failing) to contain it?

Can I wear the 4%s to make up for wind resistance and annoyance?

You can wrap the loin cloth to restrain your junk. It will be more of a diaper fit.

4%ers are either cheaters or suckers wrote:

It's quite easy. Either, these shoes really provide a substantial advantage. Then they should not be allowed and I honestly do not see the difference to using PEDs. Or they do not provide an advantage. Then those wearing them are stupid. I lean towards the latter explanation. In either case, I have nothing but contempt to offer to you.

It's actually not that simple because ALL shoes affect your running economy and performance. So what are the criteria for determining when a shoe is unfair? Should we just put every shoe through a bunch of testing and then outlaw the best one? It's not like the Vaporfly makes you faster and every other shoe does nothing. The Adios Boost was also shown to increase running economy over similar non-boost shoes. And nobody doubts that you're faster in racing flats than in trainers.

If you want to outlaw a shoe for providing an "unfair" advantage, then you should identify a particular kind of technology that shouldn't be allowed. For instance, it was easy to outlaw brush spikes. But can you pinpoint what makes the Vaporfly so good? Is it the plate? Plates have been around forever, including in almost every Mizuno. Is it the foam? Nike isn't the only one using blown pebax. Even if we were to outlaw blown pebax, would we do it by singling out the foam by name, or would be just say that any foam that exceeds certain parameters for energy return, etc., can't be used in racing shoes?

Fhkhcddjjbkiddvjtv wrote:

fsdfsdfsdfsdf wrote:

My sub-2:19 is laughing in the OP's face. Thanks Nike!

Wow bruh, that’s a really slow 800m

That was like, so predictable.

So, I agree with everyone about the unproven 4% improvement in running economy. However, ASICS (who now make some of the worse running shoes I've seen and worn) are selling the Kayano's for £186! That's £13 cheaper than the 4%.

I know which one I'd rather gamble my money on.

Go to hell ASICS.

+5

Running finally has to contend with something every sport with equipment deals with. Yes, wood golf clubs have been replaced with metal ones, but they still have limits on the elasticity of the clubface and ball, and the allowable groove designs so as to keep things within reason. Swimsuits provide no energy to the wearer, but ones that make you extra slick and bouyant have been banned. It's not always so black and white. The options aren't limited to accept everything or everyone gets nothing

In the research study the participants were shown to have a longer stride and thus take fewer steps for a given pace. Maybe they just felt more comfortable overstriding on a marshmallow shoe and that explains it. OR maybe the shoe doesn't just provide energy return in the traditional Boost sense, but in fact maybe the carbon plate provides energy redirection. So, what is normally a vertical rebound and wasted momentum/energy is redirected in a more horizontal plane. The mental image would a ball dropped on a trampoline vs. a ball dropped on a trampoline that's tilted on to a diagonal plane. Which ball will move forward further?

If this is the case, I could see an avenue towards claiming unfair advantage outside of "simple return energy" and something that could be clearly identified and legislated. Not that it will, but that's the way it's sometimes handled in other sports. It also goes without saying that this hasn't been proven either way, so maybe it's just placebo and people are suckers. Hard to say.

fsdfsdfsdfsdf wrote:

My sub-2:19 is laughing in the OP's face. Thanks Nike!

I don't understand the act of bragging about a race performance and then giving all the credit to the shoes. Like, if I ran a PR I would take all the credit and say the shoes were useless. Is it just because they were expensive?

Kewlstoriebro wrote:

fsdfsdfsdfsdf wrote:

My sub-2:19 is laughing in the OP's face. Thanks Nike!

I don't understand the act of bragging about a race performance and then giving all the credit to the shoes. Like, if I ran a PR I would take all the credit and say the shoes were useless. Is it just because they were expensive?

No it's cause my previous PR was 2:28 and now I'm going to the Trials. No way I coulda did that in my old Lunaracers.

fsdfsdfsdfsdf wrote:

Kewlstoriebro wrote:

I don't understand the act of bragging about a race performance and then giving all the credit to the shoes. Like, if I ran a PR I would take all the credit and say the shoes were useless. Is it just because they were expensive?

No it's cause my previous PR was 2:28 and now I'm going to the Trials. No way I coulda did that in my old Lunaracers.

But you still feel like you earned it?

Kewlstoriebro wrote:

fsdfsdfsdfsdf wrote:

No it's cause my previous PR was 2:28 and now I'm going to the Trials. No way I coulda did that in my old Lunaracers.

But you still feel like you earned it?

Yeah with A LOT of help.

“Stupe?”

You lost my vote there bro

Let it Rupp wrote:

It's girl MEN not girly guys you f*cking MORON!

its moran you MORAN

Stolen Valor wrote:

RejectJogger wrote:

They should have their intelligence card removed. What controlled studies have shown an increase in performance?

inb4 some guy links me a nike sponsored study

Are you suggesting the data in this study was falsified because Nike funded the study? Are you suggesting the peer reviewers of this study were paid off by Nike?

https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007%2Fs40279-017-0811-2.pdf

Yes

A lot of people don't know the IAAF already bans shoes with mechanical devices intended to make a shoe springy or bouncy. They could ban these shoes any time they want, even though they don't work.

You don't bounce off the ground when taking off, you push the rest of your body upward and forward off the forefoot. The heel rises naturally as the trailing leg gets further behind the body, not from anything pushing it up. No kind of "boost" or energy return system is slow enough to be relevant to this process. By the time you reach lift phase, the "rebound" has already happened and all it can really do is alter your rhythm.

Hmm.