Edgar Poe wrote:
absolutely. the map from energy input to pace is highly non-linear due to various factors. in other words, even if the shoes are 4% more efficient in the sense that for the same pace, you spend 4% less energy, that doesn't mean you'd run 4% faster if you spent the same amount of energy. similarly, if you improve two factors like shoes + nutrition by 1% each, you don't necessarily get 2% as combined effect.
really basic stuff. I don't expect the TV pundits and the T voters on this board to understand this, but a sports scientist should know better.
Finally, someone gets it. Thank you for that.
So I've actually heard that a 1% improvement in efficiency DOES correspond to a 1% improvement in pace. I can't find a source right now, but I assume Ross is taking that for granted if he's equating the two. I can't vouch for the accuracy myself though.
I also don't think you're quite right about the 1+1 doesn't equal 2 part either. Shoes and nutrition are pretty independent, so I wouldn't think their benefits would overlap. Now, what does happen is diminishing returns, but that effect would be pretty minor for just two factors and just 1% each. I could see 1%+1% = 1.8%, say, but not much less than that.
Another way to think about it is say there are two guys, and one is 1% slower than the other. Then he improves his nutrition and they are equally fast. Then they both get a pair of Vaporflys. Who knows who will benefit more, but I don't think there would be a big difference due to nutrition strategy. Imagine telling your coach "these new Vaporflys aren't really helping me" and they say "well, you improved your nutrition strategy last year, so the springs can't help you as much".[/quote
"So I've actually heard that a 1% improvement in efficiency DOES correspond to a 1% improvement in pace."
Blatantly false information passed off as fact. Someone is dishing out black pearls. They'd fit in great on this site.