Vaporflys In highschool?

beetelite03 wrote:

I know, another thread about the vaporflys. But I'm curious about if highschool athletic associations are looking at restricting them or not. Should they be restricted on a highschool level? Some kids can barely afford running shoes and some could deem running in vaporflys unfair. Yet at the same time the margin for winning on most highschool levels would never come down to a pair of shoes. On the national level it's a different story, most kids running on that level are going to have the money anyways to buy them. How much do you think we will see them this track season? I am expecting a jump in the amount of vaporflys used. I, myself was gifted a pair from a friend.

There are students in HS who also cannot afford:

- To replace running shoes every few hundred miles to minimize injury (I personally would only get new shoes maybe once every 1.5 years, and was routinely running 50-60 miles/week).

- Spikes

- Medical attention/therapy to recover from serious running-related injuries

- A proper diet.

Doesn't make a lot of sense to restrict them based on affordability.

Seyta wrote:

There are students in HS who also cannot afford:

- To replace running shoes every few hundred miles to minimize injury (I personally would only get new shoes maybe once every 1.5 years, and was routinely running 50-60 miles/week).

Seriously? You get 4,000 miles per pair of shoes!

NotMe wrote:

Seyta wrote:

There are students in HS who also cannot afford:

- To replace running shoes every few hundred miles to minimize injury (I personally would only get new shoes maybe once every 1.5 years, and was routinely running 50-60 miles/week).

Seriously? You get 4,000 miles per pair of shoes!

Very possible. The midsole is totally worn down by then, but if you're legs are resilient, you don't need the cushion anyway.

We had a kid get them and immediately cut 22 seconds from his 3200 vs wearing spikes.

That's a poorly reasoned response. Your position could be summed up as, there should be no attempt at making track equally accessible to all, because some people are poor.

The point - and the very beauty of competitive running - is that it is (or was) a reasonably level playing field out there. In the past, there were nice-looking, fancy spikes and flats, but did they really make any difference against a cheap, crappy pair of worn-out spikes? Maybe if the race came down to hundredths of a second, but in most cases, probably not. In principle, a poor kid from a crappy program, whose parents didn't give a sh!t and who had a pair of trainers from Walmart, could train hard and beat that annoying kid with the overbearing, super-motivated parents, the Nike International matching kit, the latest spikes, and the wraparound sunglasses, if he had the talent. Because the fancy kit was expensive, but it didn't provide a significant advantage performance-wise.

Now it's a matter of paying $250 to make your time in the 5k 10 seconds? 30 seconds? faster at the same effort, while the poor kid doesn't have that option.

I could see it if there was a road racing HS season, but most pros still use spikes for 5k and under on the track. I doubt vaporflies give any unfair advantage.

Possible, you could also replace the insert and get a little more out of them. But 4,000 is a lot regardless. You would need a pretty durable shoe in the first place to make them last that long.

Not sure why you'd need to block them. They'd be awful in xc, and the instability while turning would make them awful in track. Has anyone tried workouts on a track in them? I did, and they were so bad at turning that I literally cut my workout short and came back to start over in other shoes. You spend 50% of your time turning on a track, and they're incredibly unstable on turns, which negates any benefit.

My son is 12 and ran in XC nationals and there were a few kids wearing them in his age group. The course was hard packed frozen grass so I honestly don’t think they were better than spikes but who knows. I was surprised to see them I was like “oh this is what we’re doing now?” I’m not buying them because what is the point of gaining advantage from shoes at his age...I just don’t see the end game. In swimming they’ve banned the very expensive tech suits for U12 bc kids at 10 were showing up in $600 fast suits and it simply wasn’t fair to kids who couldn’t afford them. I think some rules around shoes may be coming for youth and high school. It’s not out of the question or unreasonable to try to even the playing field in my opinion, particularly since track has traditionally been a sport open to kids of all economic backgrounds.

BYU dominated on the track with them last year.

They dominated on the grass/mud without them...Also that was a 10K, which is 3x+ longer than the longest high school race. We'll see if pros start wearing them in the 5k and under, but until then I wouldn't worry too much about this.

How does distance matter? It is the pace that matters. BYU guys ran 4:30 pace for 10k which is faster than any of the kids that we are talking about for 3200. They also ran some 5ks at 4:20 pace which is the same pace as the fastest high school 3200 runner.

Not a scientist by any means, but the general anti-VF arguments on the track have to do with the springiness of tracks (negating the bounciness of the shoes), turns (not a good shoe for turns), weight (spikes can be lighter) and the length of the race (the longer the better for VF as they help preserve freshness/bounce in the legs). Some people talk about pace, but I had heard the idea that Vaporflies only help you below or above a certain pace might be apocryphal (considering we've seen them be good in 10Ks as you say and for 3:30 marathoners).

LDS wrote:

How does distance matter? It is the pace that matters. BYU guys ran 4:30 pace for 10k which is faster than any of the kids that we are talking about for 3200. They also ran some 5ks at 4:20 pace which is the same pace as the fastest high school 3200 runner.

So are you saying that Vaporfly's are only helpful at the paces run by BYU's men's team?

Elite women's marathoners seem to be benefitting from the Vaporfly's. So unless you believe it is all in their heads, that means they are at least helpful for people mostly running 5:20 to 5:30 pace.

I think they'd be a good shoe for XC on some courses. Not all XC courses are technical and muddy. Some even have significant paved sections.

No. I was responding to the comment that they may not be useful for a 1600 or 3200 because the pace is too fast for there to be any real benefit. People seem to forget that that pros are running faster at longer distances than high schoolers are for shorter distances. My opinion is that they are beneficial for anything slower than 4 minutes per mile. So yes, they will benefit a 3 hour marathoner in total even more than a 2:10 marathoner. But a 2:10 marathoner is running a faster pace than most high school 3200 runners.

If his response was poor, yours was pathetic. Your position could be summed up as... It wasn't until these special shoes that track became unfair? Where have you been for the last thousand years - new technology and people with money will always have the advantage whether it's new shoes or medical care.

He listed four things that can directly impact someone's performance if they're more well-off than another. Your response: "But THESE shoes!!!"

You think the classic Nike Zoom Victory spikes didn't give a few seconds advantage against the person racing in gym shoes, flats, or a crappy pair of spikes?

At my high school, some kids got weekly massages, new shoes every season, and new spikes every year. At the same time, there were some kids who had no access to doctors/chiros, had the same shoes every season, and couldn't afford spikes. These new shoes change nothing about the balance in HS.