Ben Barrows on 4%

His reasoning is flawed. He should just keep it simple and say:

I am gonna try and go sub 2:19 without the cheater shoes.

With his line of reasoning he will not use the 4% to qualify but would wear them in the trials race?

I respect Ben for his honesty and integrity. I'm also not going to comment on the shoes.

However, the other part of the video is where he talks about not doing a course like CIM either (to try to get an OTQ).

In 2015 I ran Boston in 2:19:12 and CIM in 2:19:52. CIM is definitely an "easier" course than Boston and my times don't reflect the speed of the courses but more "how good a day I had." In 2015 we also though we had to dip under 2:18:00 for an OTQ so I went out faster in 1:08:20s or so at the half and it bit me. CIM the past 2 years has been an "OTQ factory" due to the fact that it was a USATF champs with tons of depth, athlete support (fluid bottles etc), and the weather was a perfect, cool temperature with no wind. Sometimes CIM could have a headwind though.

But the real question with non-IAAF cert. courses isn't the 300' or so drop (certainly the downhill helps, but it is not the big factor as there are still rolling uphills). It is the fact that with "point to point" you can have a tailwind the whole way.

CIM is definitely a very, very fast course... But Boston or Grandma's with a tailwind and cool temps could also be very fast. Chicago or Houston on a "no wind" day and cool temps could be very fast. You usually don't get the massive packs right at 2:18 pace though....unless it's a USATF champs or something.

In any case, I would do CIM if I wanted an OTQ. If there was a massive tailwind on a non-cert. IAAF course I would probably tell people "yeah we had a big tailwind so that's maybe not technically indicative of my actual PR." Just like I will say my PR of 2:16:52 was at San Diego Rock n' Roll in 2011 was also on a non-cert. IAAF course with a net-downhill. I think it was just as "fair" of a course as CIM though!

One of the fastest courses that I've run besides those was the 2012 Trials in Houston....flat loops....and it was a very cool temp, with minimal wind, and the competition with 22 guys under 2:15:00 set up a line of guys running in packs.

That's cute and all but it doesn't matter. There is no shoe or course that will get him to run the OTQ so he's making his pre-made excuse.

When he made his thread last year, he started out humbly and received great advice but he neglected a lot of it because in his mind, he already had all of the answers. He just wanted to get a few more YouTube followers.

It has been almost a year since his half-marathon and master plan. What has he done other than make a few more YouTube videos while guys with less talent but more hunger than him have put in the work and got the OTQ?

Ben Barrows wrote:

CIM has roughly 340 feet of ascending and 680 feet of descending. Some argue that the uphills make it the same difficulty as a flat course. By that logic, the course should be the same difficulty if you run it in the reverse direction, right? How would people react if they announced the course was switching directions next year?

You're the one using incorrect logic. The argument people make whether it's right or not, is that the 340 foot total elevation drop is cancelled out by the climbs.

If you run it backwards, you now have a 340 foot total gain in elevation, which is a 680 foot swing from the real course. So running it backwards would definitely add several minutes.

SouthernFriedRealist wrote:

You're the one using incorrect logic. The argument people make whether it's right or not, is that the 340 foot total elevation drop is cancelled out by the climbs.

If you run it backwards, you now have a 340 foot total gain in elevation, which is a 680 foot swing from the real course. So running it backwards would definitely add several minutes.

So first, let's go over a couple rules for a course configuration being eligible for for US OTQ and for IAAF record certified.

IAAF Rules

1. Start and finish points shall be no further apart than 50% of the race distance when measured in a straight line (example: the finish point of a marathon shall not be more 13.1 miles away from the start)

2. Overall decrease in elevation between start and finish points shall not exceed 1m/km (example: the finish of a marathon shall be a maximum of 138 feet lower than the start)

US OTQ Rules

1. No rules on course configuration for start and finish points

2. Overall decrease in elevation between start and finish points shall not exceed 3.25m/km (example: the finish of a marathon shall be a maximum of 450 feet lower than the start)

I think the start/finish point distance rules is a bigger deal in determining whether a course is fair or not than the elevation. The finish being 13.1 miles away from the start allows for weather to be a major impact on times on a give course. For the elevation rules, that's mostly fixed if you are just more strict on the distance between the start and finish. When designing a course, I don't think it'd be that difficult to get the start and finish within a mile of each other. In most places, elevation will not be significantly different within a mile. Again, the only problems I have with point-to-point courses are with hitting time standards and breaking records (obviously course records are fine). Marathons like Boston obviously have their place in history.

So now back to the argument of a +340/-680 ft course being equal to a flat course. I totally understand what everyone is vouching for. Here's an example that someone gave and I was discussing it with him, looking at extreme examples can help. We've got CIM at +340/-680 feet throughout and another marathon that is +3000/-3340. Both have a net decline of 340 feet. Obviously CIM is going to be faster than the other one. So the argument is as follows: at what point is the ratio of ascending to descending create a difficulty equal to that of a flat course over the distance of a marathon?

The disagreement is that I think +340/-680 in a marathon would yield faster times than a perfectly flat course under similar weather. This is coming from me, someone who has never even run a marathon, so my opinion is just that, an opinion. I have run a lot though and enjoy analyzing elevation data as it relates to training. Even the people that have raced CIM, their opinion is just an opinion as well, but more credible than mine.

I'm not sure that a study could be realistically conducted to accurately answer that question for us. However, I do know that we can create an absolutely fair course by making it start and finish in the same location.

I don't want this to come off as sour grapes for people that are qualifying for the trials by running at CIM in 4%'s. A guy that runs 2:18:59 in that scenario still destroys me regardless of conditions, I get that. I've just been thinking about these topics a lot lately and enjoy discussing things like this within the sport.

My down hill assisted PR at CIM is totally legit but your NYC PR in "Cheaterfly" is an insult to the sport.

Spoken like a kid that’s never run the marathon (which is true). Once he runs one, I think he will looking for technological advantages. Marathons are hard and he’s about to find out. I don’t have a problem with the technologic advances of the vapor fly, just a problem with nike’s distribution and marketing. Can’t wait for other shoe companies to figure it out and lop a 120 bucks off the price.

Great discussion regarding courses, but how do people feel about the conscious decision not to run in the 4% ?

For example, if your goal was say 2:28 and training indicated you were close, would it be more satisfying to you if you ran 2:28:01 in traditional racers vs. running 2:26:50 in the 4% already knowing about the advantage they theoretically provide?

My initial thoughts are that the 2:26:50 wouldn't feel as satisfying as if I did it in traditional shoes and would be more motivated by the 2:28:01 to keep at it and get better. Something about wearing them seems like it would take some personal glory away from us hobby jogger 2:25-2:35 types.

Personally, I'm going for sub 2:30 at Ottawa in May and will not wear 4% and then Chicago in October sans 4%... also makes me contemplate why not given the number of marathons a runner has in their legs. I'm 36 so we will see.

Caveat. If I was elite and getting paid to run, I'd wear them.

Strava GAP. Not sure what their formula is, but you add about 0.7 seconds per meter gained, and subtract about 0.3 seconds per meter of descent.

I don’t see the point in this, honestly, unless you plan to run in converses.

Any of the modern running shoes offers great energy return advantages over the shoes that were used a few decades ago. Didn’t Adidas boast for a while that the boost foam increased energy return by 2% or something and that it was the best foam in the market? How is that any different?

Amateur wrote:

Great discussion regarding courses, but how do people feel about the conscious decision not to run in the 4% ?

I think it may be a question of age.

In you're say under 25, maybe you'd just be happy to take the chunk of time they'd give you to smash your PRs. On the other hand, if you've got a body of results behind you and know how hard you worked in certain years / seasons to achieve a PR, and then did that again somewhere down the line, if you then run in these shoes you throw all that personal history away.

I agree though that elite level, you've really no choice but to erm, "jump onboard".

I like your videos, but you are crazy coming here and posting as yourself or reading anything about yourself. Nothing good can come from it.

DietBacon wrote:

I don’t see the point in this, honestly, unless you plan to run in converses.

Agreed. I was a purist once. All the allegations around the NOP made me challenge my views. I decided legal is legal and I have no problem using any available advantage to run faster. Caffeine, for example, is a known PED. I use it without a single twinge of guilt. 4%s are no different.

DietBacon wrote:

I don’t see the point in this, honestly, unless you plan to run in converses.

Any of the modern running shoes offers great energy return advantages over the shoes that were used a few decades ago. Didn’t Adidas boast for a while that the boost foam increased energy return by 2% or something and that it was the best foam in the market? How is that any different?

Now to go back to the original point of the thread, the 4% shoes. We are far past the point of prohibiting these shoes. Can you imagine the outrage if it was announced that these shoes are banned from competition? There would be people out there that just dropped all that money on brand new Vaporflys and never even used them in a race.

Technology advances, we all get that. There will be less of a fuss when several brands all have shoes that are similar in performance, especially if there is a significant price drop when there is more competition between brands. I'm sure there was similar discussion when they started making carbon fiber poles for pole vault. "But what about John Doe's world record in the pole vault without the carbon fiber pole?" I guess people eventually dealt with it and moved on, and this will be no different some day.

I still think there needs to be a line drawn somewhere in running shoe technology. Whether anybody thinks that is before the 4% shoes is irrelevant, because as I said, we are far past the point of being able to draw that line before them. I'm far from a shoe expert, so I've got no idea how to go about that.

So now for my personal stance on the shoes and why I'm not using them to chase a time... I know this is still up for debate among lots of people, but for the sake of this discussion, let's assume that these shoes really are that much better than any other shoe. I don't really get excited over a goal becoming easier with no extra effort from me. So before these shoes, let's say I'm in 2:20:00 shape; with the shoes in same conditions; 2:18:45 shape. Same fitness but I can faster because of a significantly better pair of shoes. It would be kind of like studying really hard for a test, but maybe not good enough to get an A. The teacher says you get credit for the questions you missed even though you didn't study hard enough, so you get an A anyways. Cool, you got the A, but did you actually work to learn that material? Hopefully that analogy makes sense haha.

So before these shoes came out, my long term goal was to run under 2:19 to qualify for the Olympic Trials. I believe I will have the greatest fulfillment if I can do that under similar conditions compared to what I had when I formed that goal. If we knew exactly how much these shoes could benefit me in a marathon (but we don't), then I could have that same level of satisfaction by adjusting my goal time and reaching that. It's really important to me to know that I am improving through training, and not wearing the 4% shoes helps with that regardless of whether they would help me or not.

jewbacca wrote:

DietBacon wrote:

I don’t see the point in this, honestly, unless you plan to run in converses.

Agreed. I was a purist once. All the allegations around the NOP made me challenge my views. I decided legal is legal and I have no problem using any available advantage to run faster. Caffeine, for example, is a known PED. I use it without a single twinge of guilt. 4%s are no different.

Which is why we should legalize EPO and all other drugs.

If someone really thinks the shoes are helping that much then I think it makes more sense to change goal PR rather than refuse to wear them. If you run an OTQ and actually feel unsatisfied because of the shoes, set another goal. By refusing to wear them, you isolate yourself in your own world. But if you allow yourself to be free to make all of the legal choices that you think will benefit you the most, then you can find where you place amongst your peers.

I think it's important to set goals and chase them but they should also be flexible as conditions change. This situation seems like very stubbornly sticking to a goal when it no longer makes sense. It is so extreme to isolate yourself from your peers like this out of loyalty to the original goal.

And I guess this could be a little insulting to all the people with marathon OTQ dreams, but people around here like the cold hard truth: the marathon OTQ is much much easier than most (all?) OTQ's. What other event has 100 people at the trials? It's uncommon. Certainly no other Athletics events. So these marathon OTQ dreamers are already gaming the system with the abnormally low-hanging fruit that is the Marathon OTQ. That's great to chase a goal PR but to care at all about the OTQ designation and decide to pursue it in the marathon and then refuse to wear a particular legal shoe out of principle is just hilarious.

My advice: set a goal place at marathon national champs. Compete against your peers. Forget about OTQ. Forget about your PR. You're taking this compete against yourself thing way too far. 50th place was a 2:18:47 this year. Make your new goal top 40. Wear whatever legal gear you think will give you the best result.

jewbacca wrote:

Caffeine, for example, is a known PED. I use it without a single twinge of guilt.

It's not banned in any concentration by WADA or USADA.

For me, it comes down to choosing to run with the carbon fiber plate vs not, but agree we may be splitting hairs here with shoes of today.

However, It is well known the 4% leads to a faster marathon for many. Yes, caffeine and other gray area legal PEDs help, but the 4% is the only legal PED that affords an external mechanical advantage.

My mind may change when other companies offer the same tech at a lower price point and just about everyone has them, because then what's the point in now? For now, with it only being Nike at a high cost it rubs me the wrong way as kind of lame and reaching for the hobby jogger crowd, myself included. I mean, how many amateur swimmers wore those shark skin full body suits before they were banned?