If you wear Nike Vaporfly 4% running shoes in races, you are cheating. Plain and Simple.

Also, rigid full length spike plate in sprint spikes.

Exactly... oh yeah - Etonic Quasar - very similar plate to the VF except in the heel to mid-foot. Nobody ever raised the "cheating" question.

No one has been able to explain it exactly. The hype works on the following premises.

1.) It's expensive

2.) It's limited distribution

3.) Nike submitted a patent for them and the patent is called "spring plate"

4.) People all over are claiming huge PRs. 5k PRs on training runs. 8min off a marathon for someone already well under 3 hours.

-Is it the foam?

-Is it the plate?

-Is it the geometry?

-Is it placebo because you spent a crapton on a pair of shoes so it MUST be helping?

-Some combination of all of the above?

5.) Nike has the best marketing team in the biz.

No one can say for sure. They just know the above basic truths and like to argue on the internet.

The PRs are happening and there's anecdotal evidence galore, but the world records aren't dropping like they did with the LAZR swimsuits, so probably it's something in between. They're not going anywhere.

Math Professer wrote:

Dril wrote:

There's simply less energy lost than other shoes. Why would you draw the line there? Like I pointed out the relative improvement of the technology is very similar to the Boost versus the standard at that time. The only reason people have their panties in a knot is because they are expensive. Boo hoo. It's called capitalism.

Thanks for implicitly admitting that you were trying to be deceptive by claiming that the difference between the VF and Adios was bigger than Adios vs. Streak. I will accept your tepid apology and reclassification as "very similar" as accurate enough.

Ha, "bigger"! I pity your unfortunate students, professor dumbledore.

The relative difference is greater. I never claimed the absolute difference was greater, nor did I ever claim to calculate the absolute difference. You quite foolishly assumed that I was trying to calculate the absolute difference. Had I calculated the absolute difference between two percentages I would have presented the difference in terms of percentage points, which is common practice.

Regardless, if you use the absolute difference, the relative difference, or eyeball the numbers, the point is unchanged, which is that the VF:Boost::Boost:Streak6. I used the phrase "very similar" in my last post so fools like you don't get tripped up over simple calculations.

Go back to teaching 2nd grade math now.

Level the playing field wrote:

Foam can act as a spring, and science will continue to develop better foams.

it's not the freaking foam, what is with people, the excessive foam is only there to protect you from the harshness of the full plate in the shoe

there is no foam on the planet that gives back more than 1% to running economy

as far as I know there are only three foams in existence, EVA, TPU and pebax, though every manufacturer likes to add little tweaks so they can patent and market their variation

however they can use way less foam to lighten the weight and then the shoe over all can give back 2% like the adidas sub2

less shoe is not "cheating" because it's literally LESS SHOE

however adding a full plate with no purpose other purpose than to provide energy return (unlike a midfoot-toe based spike plate in a track/xc shoe) is CLEARLY against IAAF rules

I have to assume IAAF is somehow influenced by Nike, it's the only explanation for their lack of action - bureaucracy is slow but shouldn't take this long

are they seriously going to wait until other manufacturers have all introduced full plate models too and then make all records from 2017-2019 suspect? will people then horde vaporflys like they do guns everytime there is a whisper something might be banned?

people can train in anything they'd like, if they think it is protecting them and giving better recovery do whatever makes you happy

but don't toe the line in vaporflys, it cheats yourself, it cheats everyone else if you are taking overall or age-groups, OTQ when others never had that advantage, and especially cheating if you are taking prize money away from others

Dril wrote:

professor dumbledore.

Thank you! I recognize that you are too proud to admit your mistakes, so you hide your conciliatory respect amongst attempted outward defiance, but I can read between the lines. Professer Dumbledore was widely respected for his mastery of his art. There could be no greater compliment to bestow upon a professer than to favorably compare him to Albus Dumbledore. He was a true gentlemen and a scholar. A hero even.

zoomzoomzoom wrote:

there is no foam on the planet that gives back more than 1% to running economy

source?

Even if true, it's not clear the foam being very light and responsive isn't a big part of the supposed benefit.

moist wrote:

fsdfsdfsdf wrote:

You guys are missing the point. I've never run barefoot or on a cinder track. My current PRs were not set running barefoot or on a cinder track. I ran them on the roads in racing flats (Nike Streak). The next time I set a PR, it would be more meaningful (personally satisfying) if I can do it with the same shoe and not one that would theoretically give me an advantage.

No YOU'RE missing the point. Part of your success is due to wearing really nice racing shoes. Maybe you shouldn't wear really nice racing shoes if you want to be a purist. Think of how satisfying if you PR with bricks duct taped to your feet.

Again, you're missing the point. My goal is not to discover how fast I can run without any assistance whatsoever. I understand that Nike Streaks already provide assistance. My goal is to find out how much faster I can run as a result of training, not as a result of shoe selection.

fsfsgsfsffsgsfs wrote:

moist wrote:

No YOU'RE missing the point. Part of your success is due to wearing really nice racing shoes. Maybe you shouldn't wear really nice racing shoes if you want to be a purist. Think of how satisfying if you PR with bricks duct taped to your feet.

Again, you're missing the point. My goal is not to discover how fast I can run without any assistance whatsoever. I understand that Nike Streaks already provide assistance. My goal is to find out how much faster I can run as a result of training, not as a result of shoe selection.

But do they though? Shoes provide XX% energy return, always less than 100% because some of the energy is absorbed by the shoe. Sooooooo....don't you get 100% energy return when you're barefoot? And centrifugal weight carry of the shoe further places the shoed runner at a disadvantage.

It's considered game changing because at least anecdotally it seems to work. adidas had its shoes and said they were better and now Nike has this and at first just assumed both were marketing claims, but have shifted my belief.

This sums it up well. If the shoe was totally 4% game changing the world record would have been smashed. Yet Guy Adola nearly beat Kipchoge in Berlin and he was running in adidas shoes.

However, if I was a non Nike athlete right now, I'd want a pair at least to try. I don't want athletes to be winning races because they have a technology others don't. It might help some more than others. Maybe Kicchoge is super efficient so it doesn't help him as much but someone else it does.

zoomzoomzoom wrote:

however adding a full plate with no purpose other purpose than to provide energy return (unlike a midfoot-toe based spike plate in a track/xc shoe) is CLEARLY against IAAF rules

I have to assume IAAF is somehow influenced by Nike, it's the only explanation for their lack of action - bureaucracy is slow but shouldn't take this long

but don't toe the line in vaporflys, it cheats yourself, it cheats everyone else if you are taking overall or age-groups, OTQ when others never had that advantage, and especially cheating if you are taking prize money away from others

So what about the guy who said this, "in the zoomfly the plate is nylon so the effect is not as dramatic but it still has the some of the effect as the carbonfiber plate in the vapors"

Would you ban that too?

It’s funny.

If you really think the shoes make a big difference (whether or not they actually do) - you are demonstrating a willingness to use equipment to gain an advantage.

The same thing applies to compression sleeves.

Many sporting equipment companies profit from this grey area. If their products are too obviously effective - they won’t be able to sell any!

Lemma Lemma wrote:

The same thing applies to compression sleeves.

Many sporting equipment companies profit from this grey area. If their products are too obviously effective - they won’t be able to sell any!

Oh my god. I'm dying. Compression sleeves are grey area, lololol now I've heard it all.

You know, your #5 point makes the most sense out of anything I’ve read in this thread. I remember when “air” was marketed - same hype, same observations.

Yeah I see your point, but if all the major road racers wear them, then everyone is on a level playing field. As for the non-major competitors, do you really care if they get a small advantage? If so, you might be taking this running thing too seriously.

wejo wrote:

So what about the guy who said this, "in the zoomfly the plate is nylon so the effect is not as dramatic but it still has the some of the effect as the carbonfiber plate in the vapors"

Would you ban that too?

yes, ban any full length plate that serves no other purpose than energy return ie. stability shoe for foot deformities or running form defects is okay but it comes down to true purpose - spike plates obviously should never be full shoe - I could maybe see rough trail shoes needing a full length plate for puncture protection but they ain't doing sub7 miles

if people want the pebax foam and think it's such a miracle over TPU or EVA, then they should use something like the Reebok FloatRide Racer (4 ounce shoe, uses pebax but no plate) and I think other shoes have come out using pebax

when it comes to the zoomfly and vaporfly, if you want to use them in training because you think it protects your feet better, prevents fractures from those prone to them, and recover faster, go for it, just don't race in them

Problem is everything has a element of energy return to it. Spike plates were developed for traction and to hold spikes. Over time they were reduced as much as possible to eliminate weight. Less is more in some cases or maybe all cases. The minimalist shoe craze faded but what it did do was uncomplicate the over engineered aspect of running shoes.

The carbon plate has a nice ring to it ( I think we call this marketing). Engineering flex or snap back return rate in other materials can be done and is cheaper. Tuning a plate would be the reference point.

Rebound foam no matter the compound, brands are touting their various formulas is nice, its not new just newly hyped. Given the hype for new midsole compounds they will get better, longer lasting rebound with higher abrasion levels.

btw there is a qualified sports science and medicine researcher who you can actually ask about this subject, if they are not hype, if it's the foam or the plate, etc.

and she used to be active on this site

in fact she set the world record for 100 miles, breaking the record by over an hour, in vaporflys

yup, Camille Herron

and yup, that world record needs a huge asterisk next to it

but now that she is sponsored by Nike, probably can't get an honest answer from her if they are cheating or not, if other ultra runners won't race against her wearing them if it's fair

had huge respect for her, she is an incredible athlete, several OTQs and many other achievements

but her using the vaporflys during a race diminishes everything

she could have won and probably still could have set a WR, just not by an hour, maybe instead minutes

if the IAAF does eventually ban plates, she will lose that record, how regrettable will that be

I quoted your entire post because I agree with/am responding to all of it:

I think that the placebo effect is strong here, supported by the fact that the shoe does make some small difference. I'm going to wear it for Boston because my belief is that I'll run a bit better in it than the Adios. Just as I used to race marathons in the Adios because I believed I'd run faster in them than the Bostons.

Because the shoes are so hard to find and so expensive and have a reportedly short lifespan, people tend to save them for special races. They don't wear them for a race unless they really care about the result of that race. Which means that they've likely done all the other things to ensure a fast performance.

I've raced twice in my Vaporflies. Once was a 5K that I really didn't care about, on a slow course in bad wind, with not much rest. I didn't PR. The second was a half-marathon on a fast course in great weather that I was peaking/tapered for. And I PR'd, meeting my A goal.

I really don't think I can say the shoes were the exclusive cause of my PR. I PRd because I was fit and rested and had a great course and conditions and wore fast shoes.

(and I passed a few people wearing Vaporflies who had blown up).