The most important aspect of the Vaporfly technology that is often neglected

Another thing that I have seen brought up is that the fact that is healthier for the legs is an unfair advantage for those who use them in training.

Understand that this is irrelevant because if you ban them for races and record setting, you will still be able to train in them, just as you can train on a bike, roller blades, etc. You can get on an underwater or alter-g treadmill, in order to increase your mileage by 20-30% without having to deal with all the pounding that normal running would cause. You would have to be deluded to think that this is not an unfair advantage—it is extremely expensive and is an option available to only a privileged minority. That does not mean they should be banned. What about altitude? That is okay—but setting your sea-level house to 9,000 ft of altitude? Seems okay to me (but Norway disagrees to be fair, but I think they are wrong).

The fact that it is relatively cheap (I imagine the prices in the next couple years, with competition, being reduced to ~$100-$140, which is how much I paid), would make it significantly more fair than things like having an underwater treadmill, access to cryotherapy, or having an altitude home.

If the Vaporfly is banned from racing, they will become cheaper than that.

You’ve got it backwards. The softer the shoe (or running surface), the harder the body has to land to get any sort of proprioceptive feedback. So you land harder in soft shoes. This is a benefit in a marathon since it results in less energy spent on absorbing impact, thus saving your legs for late in the race, but harder on your joints.

The harder the surface the softer you land but the harder your muscles and tendons have to work to do it.

Shoes have been getting softer and softer over the past 40 years but injury rates haven’t changed. Vaporfly and superfoams won’t change that.

What maniac is training in them? Trust fund kids!

Tugboat1980 wrote:

You’ve got it backwards. The softer the shoe (or running surface), the harder the body has to land to get any sort of proprioceptive feedback.

This view is outdated.

Excellent point, OP. In my late 40s, I'm noticing how beat up my legs are a lot more, especially as my best events require high volume and lots of mileage. I can do big workouts and long races in Vaporflies without thrashing my feet. After I tried Vaporflies, I reset my mental clock of how many years go good running I have left by 5 years. If they were banned, that would make me a lot less likely to continue training and racing at a serious level.

Did you even read that article? It literally said the exact same thing I just said a few posts ago. You just proved my point.

To run “correctly” takes a lot of strength and tendon mobility. If you don’t have the strength and mobility then of course something super cushioned may help because you’re not working to absorb the impact. Which is why max cushioned shoes tend to work for many people. Easier to throw a marshmallow on and go run than to do some squats.

Tugboat1980 wrote:

To run “correctly” takes a lot of strength and tendon mobility. If you don’t have the strength and mobility then of course something super cushioned may help because you’re not working to absorb the impact. Which is why max cushioned shoes tend to work for many people. Easier to throw a marshmallow on and go run than to do some squats.

The conclusions you make I don’t think are logical. If one has built strength in their feet and legs, cushioned will still be better. Do you want to run barefoot on concrete (assuming you could handle the roughness), or on grass? The argument already falls apart there.

If everyone rode bikes in the marathon the injury rate would go down, hence everyone should ride bikes instead of running.

Believe what you want...I’m simply relaying the data that force plate treadmills and biomechanical analysis cameras tell scientists. Holds up barefoot too. Many barefooters heel strike in grass or mud because it’s softer. Get them on concrete and they forefoot strike to absorb the impact.

Hey just wanted to say thanks for dropping that Outside article! I loved Born to Run (and ran in minimalist shoes and altered my footstrike because of it), but I always like learning something new even if it pushes back against what I thought I knew.

I took a little more in-depth look at the studies themselves, and I honestly don't know how that 2010 study became so popular. They found the same results that the updated study found: that loading rates are very similar no matter the type of footwear. Like, I could blabber on about why your POV won me over, but I am just gonna file this one away in the "always look at the study, don't just read the press release" section. Lesson (re-)learned for me - if it sounds shocking, maybe don't let a journalist summarize the results for me!

I like...really read it. Not just the article, but the SMU press release and the journal articles themselves. The bottom line was: exercise scientists agree that running injuries are generally caused by the rate of loading (how quickly the ground reaction force spikes after the foot touches down), not by the peak ground reaction force. In the new study and in the old study, the rate of loading was found to be similar no matter the type of footwear.

Now, the new study also decomposed the ground contact time into two different phases: one involving the impact of the lower leg, and one where the rest of the body weight is supported. The way runners support their main body weight stays the same regardless of footwear. The main difference between heel strikers and forefoot strikers was in how they decelerated their lower leg. Forefoot runners, especially barefoot, elongate that initial contact period.

But overall, the main factor that correlates to injury is similar no matter the type of footwear.

Which brings me to my main point, people get injured because they do too much too soon. They need to start out with brisk walking and some short spurts of running, then they need to learn to run appropriate paces, then they need to gradually increase their intensity. I think most running injuries stem from a failure to adhere to basic principles when creating a plan.

There are many who have learned to run correctly—at this point, when the running ability has hit threshold, it is other factors that affect injury rate.

This seems obvious, but perhaps some people do not understand this.

If you run correctly, than doing a 10 mile run on dirt will be better for your legs than a 10 mile run on asphalt. Footwear can help simulate this.

I don't see how anyone can claim that the VF is healthier to run in and prevents injury, extends running careers, etc., as some people have been claiming here, until there's been some kind of long term study on it.

Hypothetically speaking, for all we know, the unnatural spring like effect of the carbon plate flexing back could cause some yet to be seen consequences.

You reject the results of a meta-analysis that suggests it is force loading rate that largely determines injury, and you propose your own theory, that it is "other factors" in experienced runners? This was a meta-analysis of many individual studies. That meta-analysis pairs with another study that showed loading rate doesn't change much depending on footwear.

It is not clear from the literature we've mentioned so far that cushioned shoes reduce injury. You made that assertion when we started the thread. "Seems obvious" isn't going to cut it, that often gets us the wrong answer.

You got to my point much more eloquently than I did.

Assuming that shoes “reduce impact” defies physics. Your body is absorbing the impact no matter what. Shoes (or lack thereof) influence what parts of your body that see that load.

So if someone says that soft shoes are easier on your body, they’re not. Compared to firm shoes they’re harder on some parts, easier on others.

After 40+ yrs of running, I've learned the hard way that super- soft shoes don't work for many of us. When you're weaned on old-school waffle trainers and racers, tiger explorers, saucony flites, adidas cubato, etc., going to super cushioned shoes creates havoc. For the old-timers reading this, remember the Nike Columbia? - I think the first full-length air? It crippled me. As did the Vortex - after one mile my plantar fascia was screaming, same w/ the adidas New York, same with the Nike Terra TC, the first adidas Supernova, and more recently Skechers hyper burst. I keep thinking my old bones need cushioning, but they let me know quickly that I don't. Currently, the adios 4 is about as cushioned a shoe as my body can handle.

Thanks for saying that. Your point about how the type of shoe affects what body parts receive the load got me thinking: some people report experiencing relief in ultra-padded shoes. But could that just be their gait mechanics changing, meaning the spots that were sore/overtrained are no longer being used as much? (And I sort of assume, the new components being stressed will develop their own injuries over time)