Reports: Vaporfly to be banned

Please post a link to a single such study!

There are none, because there haven't been such studies and there haven't been such improvements.

And a guy running on uncalibrated treadmill switching different pairs of running shoes in arbitrary order is not a controlled study.

Work Commute Track Club wrote:

Some runners showed 9 percent improvement in efficiency in the studies conducted

Please post a link to a single

such study!

There are none, because there haven't been such studies and there haven't been such improvements.

And a guy running on uncalibrated treadmill switching different pairs of running shoes in arbitrary order is not a controlled study.

nv4 wrote:

Regarding this whole Vaporfly situation there are two clearly distinct and polarized groups – one that wants them to be banned and the second that doesn't want them to happen. It seems however that those who wants them to be banned are mostly people who are beyond their running prime or those who are in their prime but are sponsored by other shoe brands or slower hobby joggers that for some reason rant about it. Basically all those who insist on banning are those who for some reason can't use the shoes now to run fast times.

That I agree with, a shoe is a shoe, but same are better than others and will always be and lucky that 99.9% of people have a choice wat to wear. People will always complain if they are feeling left or missing out, i personally don’t have the mechanics to run in a racing flat over long distance, maybe they should be banned too? We also know that a lot of the sub elite were running in the same racing flats for the marathon as the elite where simply they could to tolerate the stresses on their bodies at the paces they were running, and are surprised at the wonder shoe of the vaporfly which just happens to be lightweight and cushion means faster times...

The rocker of the hoka or Skechers should also be banned if you heel strike as it gives an advantage over long distances, right, maybe it’s be 4% Efficiency than barefoot, or more or less?

It only makes a difference over if you are sponsored and if you were probably already in heavy Brooks or asics shoes otherwise put your big boy pants on and accept you should be wearing the lightest most comfortable shoes that does not impact the pace you intend to run for the distance you are running

nv4 wrote:

Please post a link to a single such study!

There are none, because there haven't been such studies and there haven't been such improvements.

And a guy running on uncalibrated treadmill switching different pairs of running shoes in arbitrary order is not a controlled study.

I’ll see if I can find the original study for the vaporfly 4%, and if my mind is misremembering. The 4% number was the average efficiency improvement over the distances run at the paces, some of the original runners experience a lot less and some a lot more, and I believe the time improvements for all of than were less than 1%. The 4% was from the Nike streak and Adidas adios 2 too. These tests were done by elite and sub elite sponsored runners.

I on the other hand will challenge anyone to conduct their own tests and see how they perform, though you maybe think 4% is large just compare your own shoes and treadmill to barefoot, you may find that the difference or not a statistical difference

Good post!

I did dig into it a couple of months ago.

The thing is 4% economy improvement should translate to about 1-1.5% improvement in time on paper. However in real world I see more like a 0.5-1% improvement in times for the faster runners with 4% shoes and another 0.5% improvement vs 4% with Next%.

For example three guys I know who were all 1:06 flat HM runners two years ago were able to run 1:05 mid with 4% shoes. However this improvement (30 sec/year) was in line with their normal year-to-year improvement without Vaporfly shoes as well. Now year later one of the guys switched to Next% and were able to squeeze just sub-1:05, the other two guys still raced in 4% and improved to 1:05 flat. Again close to 30 sec year-to-year improvement for all of them just in line with their previous progression. If the shoes really were improving 4% economy then those guys should've instantly become from 1:04 mid runners. Yet I don't see this happening around me in real world.

Those who say that sub-2:10 and sub-2:30 performances have doubled last year doesn't lie. They truly has. Obviously the Vaporfly shoes are helping. Anyone who have run in them knows this. But the sick numbers like 8-9% economy improvement you claim is bollocks. Anyone who have trained seriously for years understand this.

A big factor with any technology is how different people respond. Here we have a shoe where everyone is a responder.

But the key here is that some athletes respond much more than others. The 4 percent or next percent is an average.

This was a key consideration in banning the full body swim suit. Some athletes responded much more than others to the technology which was deemed to be an unfair advantage.

The Nike shoes have the least effect on elites, because they are already light, efficient, and fast. The only effect that the Next% really benefits the elites is how the shoes, for most people, significantly reduce the impact on the legs, allowing everyone to feel better to some degree. Reduce muscle fatigue and you will almost always run faster than in a shoe that does not absorb as much shock.

Work Commute Track Club wrote:

But the key here is that some athletes respond much more than others. The 4 percent or next percent is an average.

The problem is – yet there are no quality controlled studies that could verify any of these claims. As I said – real world times suggest consistent running economy improvement around 1.5-2% for sub-elite runners (65-66 min half marathoners).

Of course I have seen those videos of treadmill tests where they switch between "ordinary" shoes and Vaporfly and compare HR, ground contact time etc. But there is one thing – none of these tests comes anywhere close to controlled study in their execution. There are so many flaws I have seen in what they do that it's insane people believe that crap. Multiple times I have seen they start the "test" with "ordinary" shoes without proper warm-up. Then changing into Vaporflies after few minutes of hard pace running they will obviously show miraculous drops in HR as they are warmed up and all systems are ready to deliver. And then they claim like 7-8% running economy improvement. It's bollocks

aesthete, thinkerer wrote:

great post, Vonstridenmaster, I agree completely. The most maddening thing about the pogo-shoe, cheaterfly apologists is their inability to think things through to their logical conclusion.

lol ur poor.

nv4 wrote:

I did dig into it a couple of months ago.

The thing is 4% economy improvement should translate to about 1-1.5% improvement in time on paper.

A 4% economy improvement would be more like 3-4% performance improvement. Speed is directly proportional to economy around marathon pace

runforcupcakes wrote:

We are even seeing these used at the high school level. Outside of the technology I would say that these $250 shoes are totally out of reach for 90% of T&F families. Is this ok? Is $250 at the high school level an ethical access issue?

Since everyone is talking about bikes, can the average high school triathlete afford a $15K bike, not to mention the $300 carbon fiber cycling shoes, and super expensive kit the pros wear? No.

This argument has nothing to do with financial accessibility.

nv4 wrote:

Of course I have seen those videos of treadmill tests where they switch between "ordinary" shoes and Vaporfly and compare HR, ground contact time etc. But there is one thing – none of these tests comes anywhere close to controlled study in their execution. There are so many flaws I have seen in what they do that it's insane people believe that crap.

Ok. It is difficult to design a study to account for all variables.

You speak like 1.5 to 2 percent in times is no big deal. That's a massive improvment. It could be 3 minutes for an elite runner. It's the difference between medals.

What is abundantly clear is that marathon times have rocketed downwards because of the shoes. We have no idea if Kipchoge is better than Kimmetto or Kipsang [ep(l)o(l)] in a traditional flat. The integrity of results has been lost.

From my own anecdotal results I was enabled to run well under 220 which I was unable to get near without the shoe.

Whether this is the new normal will be determined by WA this month it seems.

DC Wonk wrote:

The Nike shoes have the least effect on elites, because they are already light, efficient, and fast. The only effect that the Next% really benefits the elites is how the shoes, for most people, significantly reduce the impact on the legs, allowing everyone to feel better to some degree. Reduce muscle fatigue and you will almost always run faster than in a shoe that does not absorb as much shock.

That is the big point here. People can argue whether new shoe technology that reduces times should be allowed. But if the new shoe technology reduces shock and therefore injury risk, then it is difficult to say that the new technologies shouldn't be explored. Who doesn't want a sport in which injuries play a smaller part? What non-elite runner would not want to spend more time running and less time in rehab? Stifling new developments may stifle things that can be very positive for the sport.

But technology can often change faster than regulations, and that is what is happening now. Regulators cannot keep up with the rapid improvements Nike has been making over the past couple years. So putting a pause on things for the time being seems reasonable. Limiting stack height, for example, doesn't have to be permanent, but it can stop something like the AlphaFly from being used until a greater consensus develops as to how people want the sport to go.

This is a spurious and silly point. "The integrity of results"?! Please, man, get a grip.

Faster track surfaces, better nutrition, better training, better medicine knowledge and techniques, more and better biometrics, more and better technology as relates to many areas (not just shoes, not just carbon plates, not just foam), better fabrics, faster and lighter shoes....these progressions have been constant since the dawn of the modern age.

runforcupcakes wrote:

We are even seeing these used at the high school level. Outside of the technology I would say that these $250 shoes are totally out of reach for 90% of T&F families. Is this ok? Is $250 at the high school level an ethical access issue?

Most kids who play one of the big three - baseball, football and basketball - routinely pay way more than $250 for equipment. Go to a sporting goods store and look at bats gloves, basketball shoes and the cost of a football helmet/pads. Even if every kid had to buy $250 shoes, T&F is still one of the most affordable sports.

I stand corrected, the only source I can find quoting the study that Nike conducted was running economy over the streaks & adios was just 1.59% for one runner and 6.26% for another runner, this was similar to the Adidas (though these were never released, likely less). The average across all test subjects was just over 4%. I found another study and the average of an average was 4.14% for the 4%. In real world time performance is going to be closer to 1%

A better source....

This might be a naive question, but after reading all the info etc, how do they actually work?

I get that the plate keeps the toes straight, stabilises the ankle, possibly reduces stress on the calves and the 'curve' encourages 'forward' movement - along with the zoomx foam returning a high degree of 'energy', but how does that make you a quicker runner?. Does the plate curve combined with the high fore/mid foot midsole increase your stride length? (a 1cm increase, combined with 180 strides a minute will make 324 metres difference over a marathon at 3 hour pace - nearly 90 secs).

Alternatively is it simply a matter of less stress on the muscles and potentially less energy being used, allowing you to keep a higher pace for longer?