Vaporfly placebo

You are right, but no one here will believe us. Many people are paid by Nike to create buzz that the VF actually work. Who wins in all of this? NIKE. They make hundreds of millions of $ by convincing the entire running world that their shoes make you faster.

Why do you think no other shoe company has brought out something similar yet? BECAUSE IT'S ALL IN THE HEAD/MARKETING. Just like Nike, Asics, Adidas, etc. CAN'T produce a wonder shoe that's 4% faster. They would need to make a regular shoe and brand it like Nike did the VF but that won't work anymore since Nike was first mover and has all the resources, like sponsoring all top-elite athletes.

Abebe Bikila won Olympic Marathon 1960 running BAREFOOT. Chelimo lost his shoe in Doha and FINISHED FIRST in his heat. Yes, it's all about the shoes!

Out of morbid curiosity, I purchased the 4% Vaporfly's last Spring. Every for the past 6-yrs I run the same 2-races. I've established a very solid baseline on what I could/should run in each of these events. This past year I definitely ran faster in these 2 races than I've done in the past. My fitness/training was less than prior years, but the Vaporfly's allowed me to run faster. I'm a 48-yr old guy running 6-min pace - I have ego or horse in the game other than sheer curiosity. Based on my isolated experience, I'm 100% confident the shoes give the elites a distinct, significant advantage over anyone else not wearing them. Kinda bums me out. But then again, other sports have evolved with technology (golf - metal drivers, tennis - composite rackets, cycling - carbon fiber, etc...) and have survived quite well. As much as I'd love to say there was a placebo effect, it's minor at best. Yes you *do* feel faster with the shoes, but that novelty wears off in the throes of a race. It's the physicality of the technology for sure.

Placebo effect would need to be studied in a blinded manner. Obviously, there's no way to blind subjects, as they will know what shoes they're wearing. The other problem is that the lab testing (as opposed to comparison/analysis of results data, as in the NYT/Strava study) is all about energy usage, not whether the VFs are faster than shoe X or Y. So even if you could find a study population that had never heard of the VF and had no preconceptions that softer feeling = better (presumably you would literally blind them so they couldn't see the shoes they're wearing, since the VFs look fast/better), which you can't, the results wouldn't be that interesting.

1. How much faster did you run?

2. Lighter = faster. VFs are likely lighter than the shoes you previously raced in. Yes or no?

3. Your anecdotal experience, no more meaningful than any other anecdote, still reinforces the placebo effect. A person is not able to turn the placebo effect off and on.

The placebo affect is overrated. These are athletes who are used to pushing their bodies to the physiological limits (HR, breathing, etc). It would be unlikely for a placebo to be able to push athletes who are already know where the red line is to find an extra 2 or 3 percent. One or two athletes here and there - maybe. But given that the shoes seem to work about the same amount for everyone, it seems unlikely that the placebo effect is playing a large role. A more likely explanation is that the shoes actually work as intended.

Dr. Awesome, MD wrote:

1. How much faster did you run?

2. Lighter = faster. VFs are likely lighter than the shoes you previously raced in. Yes or no?

3. Your anecdotal experience, no more meaningful than any other anecdote, still reinforces the placebo effect. A person is not able to turn the placebo effect off and on.

Vaporflys are 1 oz heavier than Zoom Streaks and not really lighter than other brands. Studies have shown an increase in running economy (ratio of running speed to oxygen consumption) with the Vaporflys so while the placebo effect could push you to run harder, I doubt it would cause you to consume less oxygen at the same pace.

You could do a double blind study on a few aspects of the shoe.

Group A - Vaporfly, told it's Vaporfly w/plate

Group B- Vaporfly, told it's Vaporfly w/o plate

Group C- Vaporfly without plate, told it's vaporfly w/ plate

Group D- Vaporfly without plate, told it's Vaporfly w/o plate

If Group A and Group B are demonstrably faster than Group C and Group D, you have proven the efficacy of the plate. If A and C are faster than B and D, you have proven that the carbon plate is a placebo. Repeat for whichever part you like, except those that would be immediately obvious (uppers, stack height, etc)

the real question is: are the people on these boards crying for the shoes to be banned, the ones actually paid by nike? saying the shoes give an unfair advantage is great press. in other words the same people calling everyone else nike shills are the actual nike shills? makes you think.

DorothyMantooth wrote:

You could do a double blind study on a few aspects of the shoe.

Group A - Vaporfly, told it's Vaporfly w/plate

Group B- Vaporfly, told it's Vaporfly w/o plate

Group C- Vaporfly without plate, told it's vaporfly w/ plate

Group D- Vaporfly without plate, told it's Vaporfly w/o plate

If Group A and Group B are demonstrably faster than Group C and Group D, you have proven the efficacy of the plate. If A and C are faster than B and D, you have proven that the carbon plate is a placebo. Repeat for whichever part you like, except those that would be immediately obvious (uppers, stack height, etc)

No, sorry, this would prove nothing. That's not how placebo effect or blinding works...nor is that the definition of "double-blinded," which means that both the participants and the investigators are unaware of what the subject gets. There's no need for double-blinding and there's no need for randomization, since investigator bias/subjectivity is not an issue.

You can't feasibly test placebo effect for these shoes, full stop.

I experienced the opposite. I ran the same races in recent years as well. Switched to Vapor Fly 4% as they came available, I had a small PR in one of the races and ran slightly slower in the other. My training was same or better this year. If they do improve the speed, it's marginal. I'd say they're equal to other racing flats from recent years, mostly because it's more about the weight of the shoe. If I wore Nike Pegasus I would go faster in any other flat simply because they're lighter. But equal weights of flats don't have much of a difference.

Hardloper wrote:

Dr. Awesome, MD wrote:

1. How much faster did you run?

2. Lighter = faster. VFs are likely lighter than the shoes you previously raced in. Yes or no?

3. Your anecdotal experience, no more meaningful than any other anecdote, still reinforces the placebo effect. A person is not able to turn the placebo effect off and on.

Vaporflys are 1 oz heavier than Zoom Streaks and not really lighter than other brands. Studies have shown an increase in running economy (ratio of running speed to oxygen consumption) with the Vaporflys so while the placebo effect could push you to run harder, I doubt it would cause you to consume less oxygen at the same pace.

Interesting. I've run the same half and the same 15k every year since 2011. They're about 45 days apart. My previous bests in both have come in the Zoom Streak (for the 15k) and Lunaracer for the half. Times have been consistent, or just steady improvements of 15~30sec each year. Last year, I ran both in the Vaporfly 4%. Usually around 1:25 for the half, 59min for the 15k.

The half marathon in the 4% was my slowest time since 2012. Slower than my best time by 2min. No idea why either, as it felt fine.. but I just couldn't hold the pace.

The 15K was my personal best at that event by 30 seconds, so I was happy with that. However.. I have been trying to beat this one guy in the 15k, pretty much since I started doing it. I finally passed him at mile three and decided not to let him pass me back, so I was pretty motivated and really dug deep. That, in my opinion, was probably more of the reason for improvement.

To me.. they're just shoes.

The Opposite wrote:

I experienced the opposite. I ran the same races in recent years as well. Switched to Vapor Fly 4% as they came available, I had a small PR in one of the races and ran slightly slower in the other. My training was same or better this year. If they do improve the speed, it's marginal. I'd say they're equal to other racing flats from recent years, mostly because it's more about the weight of the shoe. If I wore Nike Pegasus I would go faster in any other flat simply because they're lighter. But equal weights of flats don't have much of a difference.

Keep in mind there are a lot of people running marathons and such in adidas Ultraboost, or Brooks Glycerin etc and never used "racing flats" because they were too minimal. The Vaporfly allowed those people to run in race shoes for the first time, that probably weighed half of what they were used to using for many years, and thus got a good improvement and are posting online everywhere about how great they are.

The NY Times study from a year or two ago shows the VF is great, but marginally more efficient than the Zoom Streak 6. That was my recollection.

Hardloper wrote:

Dr. Awesome, MD wrote:

1. How much faster did you run?

2. Lighter = faster. VFs are likely lighter than the shoes you previously raced in. Yes or no?

3. Your anecdotal experience, no more meaningful than any other anecdote, still reinforces the placebo effect. A person is not able to turn the placebo effect off and on.

Vaporflys are 1 oz heavier than Zoom Streaks and not really lighter than other brands. Studies have shown an increase in running economy (ratio of running speed to oxygen consumption) with the Vaporflys so while the placebo effect could push you to run harder, I doubt it would cause you to consume less oxygen at the same pace.

Zoom streaks are not cushioned and almost no one but elites wore them for the marathon (compared with everyone wearing the VFs), so this comparison is not really saying anything. Also, in the NYT study, VFs were 4% faster than other shoes, and Streaks were 3% faster than "other shoes" (VFs were the fastest shoe, Streaks the second fastest). They're both lighter than other shoes. Only one of them has cushioning that makes them not flats. And that, a very light weight and very cushioned shoe, is the fastest.

"Not really lighter than other brands"... This is demonstrably false. Lighter than Adios, lighter than Carbon X, lighter than NB 1400.... If you think that most people who are now wearing VFs would otherwise wear a flat (ie, a lighter shoe), you're free to claim that, but I don't think it's remotely true.

To clarify...I don't think the placebo factor is that important, if at all. My point was only that it's not possible to scientifically test this. Whether placebo effect has physiological effects (such as O2 consumption) is I think a little too in the weeds, and also not feasible to scientifically test.

1. I ran 42-secs faster for a 5K; 1:21for a 10K

2. Have always worn minimalist racing flats; negligible weight difference

3. Correct about turning on/off the placebo effect. My Vaporfly experience was based on running the same 2 races 6-yrs in a row, all under similar conditions. I didn't get my PhD based on this informal study. I'm just sharing my humble, personal experience.

TheyreRealandAmazing wrote:

1. I ran 42-secs faster for a 5K; 1:21for a 10K

2. Have always worn minimalist racing flats; negligible weight difference

3. Correct about turning on/off the placebo effect. My Vaporfly experience was based on running the same 2 races 6-yrs in a row, all under similar conditions. I didn't get my PhD based on this informal study. I'm just sharing my humble, personal experience.

Interesting!

I do think we're past the point of debating whether they're faster. I'm curious why they work for most but not all, and why the positive effect tends to vary person to person.

I don't get any benefit from them at 5Ks (I've raced enough of them with and without) but I've had some good races in them at HM and marathon. I'm guessing they benefit you more the closer you are to heel striking, hence the greater benefit at longer races or races with up and downhills. In order to maximize the "spring" effect it would have to be "tuned" depending on your ground contact time, speed, weight, and technique. So it's possible those who don't feel any benefit would receive some if the shoe were customized for them.

The shoes don't make you explicitly faster. Or else they'd be just as effective down to the mile (and definitely 5k) for elites as well.

They're essentially a maximalist shoe without the traditional downsides of a maximalist shoe. Uber thick and protective, yet incredibly light and poppy. Other shoes have either of these elements (not gonna get much faster than you can in a racing flat), but not both.

That's what makes them marathon-specific, maximized impact absorption for long distances, preventing leg fatigue from needing to absorb the initial impact of landing at high speeds. This would be especially helpful for elites since they're pounding the ground especially hard at those paces.

This would also help non-elite runners for shorter distances. Harder paces don't feel so hard when you have a nice wedge of foam eating that landing.

Obviously there's energy absorption, spring-rate, and all that crap. But if they really made you *FASTER* (like, literally spring you forward), there wouldn't even be a question, we'd be seeing improved times for every endurance-oriented distance in these shoes.

Hardloper wrote:

I don't get any benefit from them at 5Ks (I've raced enough of them with and without) but I've had some good races in them at HM and marathon. I'm guessing they benefit you more the closer you are to heel striking, hence the greater benefit at longer races or races with up and downhills. In order to maximize the "spring" effect it would have to be "tuned" depending on your ground contact time, speed, weight, and technique. So it's possible those who don't feel any benefit would receive some if the shoe were customized for them.

I think it's more simple than that. That tall chunk of soft foam should reduce muscle fatigue, which isn't as much of a factor in a 5k as it is in a half or full marathon. 26 miles on pavement is brutal. This is echoed in everyone's comments about how they feel great the next day after a race/training in the VF.

I believe there was some material in one of Nike's patents that showed an ideal thickness for the carbon plate based on a runner's mass. IF the plate worked as a spring, you'd certainly think the thickness would have to be changed for a runner's weight, ideally. Similar to a leaf spring in a truck.

Well it has to be more than "maximalist" cushioning. If cushioning is all that mattered, a marathon on grass would be faster than roads because it would be free cushioning with no extra weight added. The energy return definitely matters.