Enough already! It’s not the shoes! Maybe drugs, but not shoes!

Isnt this basically the same thing that speedo went through around (2008?) with their water-repelling suits?

Hardloper wrote:

Bekele ran his 2:03:03 in Zoom Streaks, then declined for 3 years, then came back to run 2:01:41 in Vaporflys. Nearly every unsponsored athlete wears them and even Adidas athletes have been caught wearing them with the logo painted over. If that's not an endorsement then I don't know what is.

No, Bekele ran Berlin 16 in zoom vaporfly 4%

Weird how you don't see people on the track wearing these magic rocket boots.

Are the shoes only useful for marathon?

Why they don't produce any result on track?

Ggggg wrote:

Hardloper wrote:

Bekele ran his 2:03:03 in Zoom Streaks, then declined for 3 years, then came back to run 2:01:41 in Vaporflys. Nearly every unsponsored athlete wears them and even Adidas athletes have been caught wearing them with the logo painted over. If that's not an endorsement then I don't know what is.

No, Bekele ran Berlin 16 in zoom vaporfly 4%

Yes you're right. I looked through some old threads that seemed to indicate he was wearing Zoom Streaks. But he was wearing a prototype more like what became the Vaporfly. Of course that race was also a 2-minute PR when it looked like his best days was over.

I just ran Chicago in the next% and didn’t really like it. I ran about 5:35 pace.

It felt way to soft. Someone on here talked about a trampoline being exhausting and that is what I noticed at about mile 14-15.

I think I like my firmer normal Nike Sp Zoomfly.

I liked the way the shoe felt in training but I’m not sure I’ll race it next time. The original 4% didn’t feel as awkward.

This is my opinion. I noticed it slightly in training, but late in the race I didn’t like the the squishy sole.

I’ve run similar times in the Lunar Tempo so I don’t think the shoe made any real impact on my race. I’m only running 5:30 pace but consistent enough that I think I’d notice 1%-4%.

Right. 10% improvement

Runners are always looking for shortcuts. And of all the banter I've seen online about them, there are very few actual lab experiments. "I went from 3:35 to 3:19 in the marathon with the Nikes!" is not a lab experiment. It sounds like a runner that was no where near their potential to begin with, and got a large placebo effect. Or as the OP said, is someone who was running in the Pegasus beforehand, so picked up time simply due to not having an unresponsive, heavy trainer.

Jared Ward's paper on carbon plates in shoes and his testing with Saucony summed it up nicely. "Sure, the shoe tech may help, but ultimately, whatever shoe makes you feel fast and run with the most confidence, will be the fastest" (paraphrased)

The Internet fuels a lot of self doubt, that's for sure. About appearance, training, equipment.

Hardloper wrote:

Ggggg wrote:

No, Bekele ran Berlin 16 in zoom vaporfly 4%

Yes you're right. I looked through some old threads that seemed to indicate he was wearing Zoom Streaks. But he was wearing a prototype more like what became the Vaporfly. Of course that race was also a 2-minute PR when it looked like his best days was over.

Don’t let the facts get in your way. You had an argument in the previous reply that was proven wrong since Bekele already wore these shoes in Berlin 16, so you build a new argument using his debut time in Paris? Come on.

I remember when I was a kid playing basketball and I got Nike air Jordan believing I would jump higher now. Guess what

Ggggg wrote:

https://mobile.twitter.com/Scienceofsport/status/1183490089944530945

Lately all kinds of people try to tell us the Kipchoge’s shoes shouldn’t be legal because they propel him like a trampoline. So here are some fact:

1. If it were the shoes all runners without exception who were them would significantly improve, and this isn’t the case.

2. Kipchoge ran London 16 without these shoes and clocked 2:03:05. Then he ran London 19 WITH the shoes in similar conditions and clocked 2:02:38. That’s not even 0.5%! And I can give many more examples like this.

I even have a feeling that he could have gone faster with “normal” shoes and not these moon boots. So it isn’t shoes! Might be EPO, but not shoes.

The shoes is plainly marketing gimmick to make amateur runners spend 250-300$ on shoes

you are a moron if you think that the shoes don't help

1) many runners did significantly improve. berhanu, the ethipian guy in dubai who switched from adidas to vaporfly and ran like 2.03 , geremew,washihun,bekele,brigid ....go to their iaaf pages and see their marathon progression

my hunch is that forefoot runners like kipchoge get more benefit out of it

2)london 2016 he was wearing a vaporfly prototype go look it up.

prior to that i would say that he was in 2.03.30 shape at best given his broken shoe performance in 2015 berlin.

it is not the drugs ,it is the shoes.

Here's a relatively obscure fact about tracks: they have turns. As it turns out, road-racing shoes (or racing flats) are not as useful as track spikes when running on a track.

UA Runner wrote:

Runners are always looking for shortcuts. And of all the banter I've seen online about them, there are very few actual lab experiments. "I went from 3:35 to 3:19 in the marathon with the Nikes!" is not a lab experiment. It sounds like a runner that was no where near their potential to begin with, and got a large placebo effect. Or as the OP said, is someone who was running in the Pegasus beforehand, so picked up time simply due to not having an unresponsive, heavy trainer.

Jared Ward's paper on carbon plates in shoes and his testing with Saucony summed it up nicely. "Sure, the shoe tech may help, but ultimately, whatever shoe makes you feel fast and run with the most confidence, will be the fastest" (paraphrased)

The Internet fuels a lot of self doubt, that's for sure. About appearance, training, equipment.

It's interesting what a company worth nearly $100 billion can achieve when it allocates considerable sums of money toward a single project.

Advances in technology moves a sport on. Is this the end? And should we bring back wooden tennis racquets?

Exactly. Maybe it would even things out if everyone just wore the original Nikes from 1979? The argument here is that runners shouldn't embrace new technology and that the only "real" world records are ones run with...the same exact shoes? From what year? What model? What is the "standard" shoe that has been agreed upon by all runners as "fair" ? Sure the shoes improve performance a little bit - so what? I'd bet the shoes the 1988 marathon record holder wore weren't as good as the 1995 record holder whose weren't as good as the 2005 record holder...

A Luddite wrote:

Advances in technology moves a sport on. Is this the end? And should we bring back wooden tennis racquets?

But there was a guy in the Tokyo marathon wearing the vaporflys that didn’t even make the cutoff time!

David Bailey's Running Club wrote:

Exactly. Maybe it would even things out if everyone just wore the original Nikes from 1979? The argument here is that runners shouldn't embrace new technology and that the only "real" world records are ones run with...the same exact shoes? From what year? What model? What is the "standard" shoe that has been agreed upon by all runners as "fair" ? Sure the shoes improve performance a little bit - so what? I'd bet the shoes the 1988 marathon record holder wore weren't as good as the 1995 record holder whose weren't as good as the 2005 record holder...

A Luddite wrote:

Advances in technology moves a sport on. Is this the end? And should we bring back wooden tennis racquets?

the problem isn't that. in other sports like soccer,tennis the main goal is winning out each other not something absolute like time in running. sure there are records like ball speed and so on but those are minor things.

look at cycling. the cycles have inarguably improved significantly but the main goal still is competing with each other not time and those that compete for time have extremely stringent rules on the bikes.

but in running right now we are looking at time as the main thing and we don't know how much of that is due to shoes

It is just a placebo effect. When I bought lighter shoes since it says that "this shoe is made entirely for running" plus having those ads that show the "science" why this shoe will make you faster, it made me think that I can run faster but I tried using my old shoes, and my speed is just the same (I can also run the same speed as my new shoes when eraing my old shoes) . The new shies just gave me confidence more.

warmice wrote:

It is just a placebo effect. When I bought lighter shoes since it says that "this shoe is made entirely for running" plus having those ads that show the "science" why this shoe will make you faster, it made me think that I can run faster but I tried using my old shoes, and my speed is just the same (I can also run the same speed as my new shoes when eraing my old shoes) . The new shies just gave me confidence more.

holy s**t how delusional would you have to be to think that the elites could be dropping something like 1.5 to 2 min with just placebo effect when so much physical effort is involved placebo doesn't mean jacks**t

dunes runner wrote:

Ross Tucker is a stupid F wrote:

Not drugs either. People are so naïve believing that drugs can make you faster.

Exactly.

Look at all the people forced to take drugs in hospitals and then they die, because of the drugs.

People get vaccinated, then get sick. And then they blame the smart people who didn't get vaccinated!

Almost all of the drug and shoe accusations are based on illogical thinking, racism, and/or prejudice.

Yeah, test. and EPO have no affect. Talk to people that have been on the stuff and how much it helps. It allows great athletes to train harder and reap more benefits from the training than the clean athlete.

If it didn't work they wouldn't use it.