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

idiots everywhere wrote:

Times already got better before, nothing special. There are many great times run by athletes without a nike contract, but nike sponsors 95% of african elite runners nowadays, so even "experts" like the co-founders of this website or Jon Gault get tricked into thinking the shoe actually is more than a marketing stunt.

It's not a marketing stunt. I came out thinking it was a marketing stunt. Now only an idiot would think it's a marketing stunt.

At least 2 scientific studies not finded by Nike have proven the advantages to be real. And are you aware that the New York Times looked at hundreds of thousands of race resutls on strava and also found that the vaporflys work as well.

Please read the following 2 articles:

therunner101 wrote:

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.

Yes. And I agree with you. The shoes help those that run that way naturally. For others, they may feel too awkward.

But its like drugs in the sense they don't benefit everyone the same.

I love how the IAAF says they have no proof they shoes work yet there are tons of scientific papers - some by nike and some not - showing they do work.

rojo wrote:

therunner101 wrote:

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.

Yes. And I agree with you. The shoes help those that run that way naturally. For others, they may feel too awkward.

But its like drugs in the sense they don't benefit everyone the same.

I love how the IAAF says they have no proof they shoes work yet there are tons of scientific papers - some by nike and some not - showing they do work.

Is this a joke? 1-2 years ago everyone on LR said that Vaporfly only work well if you are a heel striker. Now it's the opposite apparently. Seems like people are so obsessed about these shoes they don't know what's right anymore.

Agreed. VF4% is old news. They didn't produce 2:14 or 2:15 times 3 years ago.

Sounds like the perfect randomized double blind clinical trial.

well i wan't there when that discussion was going on

i just said it is a hunch looking at the structure of the carbon plates

admittedly it also benefited heel strikers like bekele

but without doubt it has doubted everyone

I agree in part. I do think the shoes may help of course. But having run seriously in the late 70’s and then 80’s, my view is that current athletes have already gained many a % with already improved shoes and tracks and training techniques and assists. So your shoes should be banned too? Sillly idea, right, but maybe the same concept you are misapplying here.

When Harvard built their indoor track that was built via research (and written up in Scientific American) and then Eamonn Coghlan broke 4:00 as a 40 year old, we did not freak out about the track being tuned to better running. And research showed something like a 50% drop in injuries. Yes, there has to be some limit, but there is not a motor or space for a spring substantial enough to define these as anything other than improved running shoes. There may be a line needed to be drawn, but I don’t feel we have crossed such a line. Yet anyway.