Ben Barrows on 4%

Eye don't even run, I'm a troll...aka zero life. No girlfriend and not even a boyfriend. Sad, but true. This is what fills my Sunday evenings.

S. Canaday wrote:

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.

Great post. The wind is the biggest factor. Grandma's this year had the tailwind and cool temps. Grandma's is probably the most aided course on average because the tailwind is prevailing and normal.

It’s up to the governing bodies to decide if the hardware is an unfair advantage. IAFF started discussing this last year but I think they haven’t come to a consensus yet.

If you open the patent doc link and look at the diagrams for Nike’s plate, you’ll see that the plate at rest has a downward angle for the forefoot for the unloaded position. So it’s designed to snap back upon impact.

The regular 4% that you can buy in a box isn’t a big deal, it’s the custom plates Nike can make for the elites and slip in their shoes, designed for a someone’s specific weight, foot shape, and custom designed density adjustments to compensate gait flaws. Not every professional athlete can afford their feet on the custom printed plates, so this is where the unfair advantage part comes into play.

So yeah, if the Mizuno wave can be tailored as aggressively as the vaporfly, I see the same unfair advantage issues come into play.

John 3:16 wrote:

For the love of God himself, it's not a net downhill of 1000 feet! The race "averages" a drop of just under 13 feet per mile! I'm 6 feet tall, so just over 2 of me spread out over a mile!

Great weather, great competition, etc... Yes it's fast, but it's 26.2 miles and it's not some outrageous amount of net downhill, hardly.

I'm 57 and shooting for a sub 3 hour next year. I'm going there for the weather and competition as I know I'll have company pulling me along. You guys can tell me that I suck and it doesn't count, but it's count to me.

Sage and Ben don't have to count it in their own minds, but I would if I were them.

Except Sage and Ben are right. Was Boston fair running into a 25mph headwind this year? No, it increased elite times by 20 minutes.

Oh.

ProRunnerAZ wrote:

Yer smart, yup. wrote:

Okay maybe, but why the f*ck would you?

Probably best if you just read and not post. It appears to be a real challenge for you.

On second thought, I take that back. That was pointlessly harsh of me. I'm just lonely and mistakenly let my cünt show.

Amateur wrote:

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?

Track spikes have had similar plates for years, and caffeine isn't a "gray area drug" - every pro runner on the planet uses it

Luke 2:59 wrote:

John 3:16 wrote:

For the love of God himself, it's not a net downhill of 1000 feet! The race "averages" a drop of just under 13 feet per mile! I'm 6 feet tall, so just over 2 of me spread out over a mile!

Great weather, great competition, etc... Yes it's fast, but it's 26.2 miles and it's not some outrageous amount of net downhill, hardly.

I'm 57 and shooting for a sub 3 hour next year. I'm going there for the weather and competition as I know I'll have company pulling me along. You guys can tell me that I suck and it doesn't count, but it's count to me.

Sage and Ben don't have to count it in their own minds, but I would if I were them.

Except Sage and Ben are right. Was Boston fair running into a 25mph headwind this year? No, it increased elite times by 20 minutes.

Are you on something? Let's stick to comparing Apples to Oranges here, not Apples to Dirt. No one is talking about a 25mph headwind, that's nonsense and so far out there it's bordering on absurd.

Thanks for insulting every one of us that hit the OTQ mark, in vaporflys or at CIM. Instead of taking potshots at us, why don’t you make recommendations on where the line should be in terms of aided efforts instead of excuses on why you didn’t hit the mark?

In my opinion, the line between champions and mortals is excuses. Mortals have an uncanny ability to create excuses and champions create results.

I consider myself a real level headed guy, but this video really pissed me off. Thanks for belittling what I’ve worked for because of the shoes I chose to wear.

Replace caffeine with asthma meds or thyroid meds.

What track spikes had a spring plate?

Mike Deren wrote:

Thanks for insulting every one of us that hit the OTQ mark, in vaporflys or at CIM. Instead of taking potshots at us, why don’t you make recommendations on where the line should be in terms of aided efforts instead of excuses on why you didn’t hit the mark?

In my opinion, the line between champions and mortals is excuses. Mortals have an uncanny ability to create excuses and champions create results.

I consider myself a real level headed guy, but this video really pissed me off. Thanks for belittling what I’ve worked for because of the shoes I chose to wear.

#MeToo!

John 3:16 wrote:

For the love of God himself, it's not a net downhill of 1000 feet! The race "averages" a drop of just under 13 feet per mile! I'm 6 feet tall, so just over 2 of me spread out over a mile!

Great weather, great competition, etc... Yes it's fast, but it's 26.2 miles and it's not some outrageous amount of net downhill, hardly.

I'm 57 and shooting for a sub 3 hour next year. I'm going there for the weather and competition as I know I'll have company pulling me along. You guys can tell me that I suck and it doesn't count, but it's count to me.

Sage and Ben don't have to count it in their own minds, but I would if I were them.

I've never said anybody sucks for running a certain course. Nobody can take away the fact that Brogan Austin ran a great race at CIM and beat a lot of great runners. With how strong he closed, he probably had more in the tank and might've been capable of beating all of our best behind Rupp (Ward, Fauble, Kibet, Biwott, Derrick, etc).

From page 1, someone stated that you add 0.7 seconds per meter ascended and subtract 0.3 seconds per meter descended. If that's accurate, then CIM almost exactly the same as a perfectly flat course (in fact, that would put it 10 seconds slower than a perfectly flat course). That would mean that CIM is fair in terms of elevation change.

So now to combine these two topics of course fairness and 4% shoes: what if the 4% shoes provide a greater benefit on downhills than other shoes compared to the benefit on flat roads or uphills? Something like that could change the conversion from above. I'm not claiming one way or the other because I haven't seen any research on it, but I've just seen people mention that they have greater benefits on downhills.

All that doesn't change the fact that it's a point to point course which can be heavily affected by wind. So if the elevation conversion above is correct and if there is a neutral wind, then CIM is a totally fair course. Then it's pretty close to being the fastest course possible while still being fair. Not to mention that the course has some other things in the runners' favor such as lots of competition, high probability of good temperature, and great race organization from what I've heard.

Congratulations on the OTQ!

The line is drawn with the carbon plate.

If I'm you and beat the OTQ mark by more than :30 seconds I would be fine with it, but by :1-5 seconds I would question myself, but that's just me.

Nobody is taking a shot at anyone, it's personal preference to know your performance was all you.

Enjoy the ride to Atlanta though. You earned it.

Sincerely,

Amateur

I didn't say CIM "didn't count." I specifically said if i was going for an OTQ (or BQ or any fast time for that matter) CIM would be the race (in the US) to do! CIM hasn't always been super fast though. Some years there are headwinds and it is wet and warmer. Most years haven't been like the last 2 with the USATF Champs. I think for BQs they actually do allow some very big downhill courses for some reason though. My advice for Ben: Pick a small (local) low key marathon and try to run a "comfortable" negative split 2:25-2:28 just to get a feel for things. Heck you could probably even only go 2:30 if you don't want to beat yourself up too much. Make your debut a positive experience. A full is a totally different race from a half. Then once you have one under your belt worry about getting that half speed down under 1:07. It is very hard to put two 1:09:30s back to back if you can't go sub 1:07:00. It can be done, but I'd periodize it where you have some good 10km/half speed and intensity and then work on "extension" Canova style.

Luke 2:59 wrote:

John 3:16 wrote:

For the love of God himself, it's not a net downhill of 1000 feet! The race "averages" a drop of just under 13 feet per mile! I'm 6 feet tall, so just over 2 of me spread out over a mile!

Great weather, great competition, etc... Yes it's fast, but it's 26.2 miles and it's not some outrageous amount of net downhill, hardly.

I'm 57 and shooting for a sub 3 hour next year. I'm going there for the weather and competition as I know I'll have company pulling me along. You guys can tell me that I suck and it doesn't count, but it's count to me.

Sage and Ben don't have to count it in their own minds, but I would if I were them.

Except Sage and Ben are right. Was Boston fair running into a 25mph headwind this year? No, it increased elite times by 20 minutes.

Ben Barrows has big ol' eyes like a puppy dog but he aight.

Ben and Sage should do a video together

another runner wrote:

ThatAverageRunner wrote:

And how does this article counter the other study that was done that says a majority of the advantage in the 4%s is in the foam and not the tiny plate?

You might as well not wear a shoe with boost or everrun in it either, or else you’re cheating because of the enhanced energy return

Why do people bring up that the majority of the advantage in the 4% is the foam? We don't care if the foam gives more advantage, that is not the problem. The problem is the plate. Take out the plate and we will stop complaining about it. External devices with the purpose of providing a spring should not be allowed. This is exactly what the carbon plate does according to the patent.

Everyone has their own opinion as to why they think these shoes are better. What the studies haven't done are:

1. Isolate the variables. Ie. Test a shoe idential to the Vaporfly, but remove the plate, or put a carbon plate in a Zoom Streak, for example.

2. Lab test it at the marathon distance.

It could be as simple as preventing fatigue. In which case, it's likely the foam helping, and the plate is in place for rigidity. The general public, usually aren't show engineers so they/we are simply speculating.

People get way too worked up over this issue. If the gains are legit, then who cares..other companies should follow suit. If they banned the Vaporfly, people would find another shoe to take issue with..like that three ounce Reebok.

Sorry Ben, that was not for you or Sage (the suck part), it was the guys ripping on others who ran CIM and my way of saying to go ahead and rip me but that I'd count it. As for you and Sage, I'd count it as well and I never said that Sage said it didn't count. I was saying that for the peanut gallery. Carry on and good luck to you both.

The thing I've never seen mentioned, is IF the plate acts like a spring, then it will have a different effect for everyone. Similar to a leaf spring on a truck. A 1.5mm thick carbon leaf spring in a shoe will provide a different benefit to a 125lb runner than it will a 175lb runner. So the whole argument is dumb. Unless Nike made different thickness plates for different sizes.

I'd be curious to have one removed and see how firm the plate actually is.