Vaporflys 4% and Next% are more placebo than not

You give far too much credit to the placebo effect. No way in hell a placebo would consistently take a minute or two (or three) off elite marathon times.

gwalkerruns wrote:

The shoes can explain the fast men’s times. Why didn’t the women run fast?

Because all of the top women aside from Hasay and Kipyego are sponsored by other brands, so only two women out of like the top 12 seeds could wear them. Very different situation from the men.

The first time I took VF 4% for a test run, I felt very pronounced DOMS in my quads.

I never ever had sore quads from (flat) running before that (I used to squat big weights, so they were relatively overdeveloped). I have a feeling the shoe's geometry redistributes the load a little bit, perhaps it's part of the efficiency gain. Definitely not a placebo, because I have not expected that.

But you're wrong, though. All of you. wrote:

This is a surprising thread, given how many studies have shown the distinct mechanical advantage they give.

There are studies saying how vitamin b12 vitamins can increase your red blood cell count and run better. Do you really hear people making excuses about forgetting to take their vitamin? They may help but it’s such a negligible amount and shouldn’t constantly be used to discredit people’s performances. The studies aren’t “they make you 4% faster”, it’s “4% more efficient”.... whatever the heck that means. Tons of people have bombed over the weekend wearing 4%, next%, alphas, brooks, saucing, ASICS.... seems the shoes do not matter nearly as much as people have been saying since the release of vaporfly

crap studies wrote:

But you're wrong, though. All of you. wrote:

This is a surprising thread, given how many studies have shown the distinct mechanical advantage they give.

There are studies saying how vitamin b12 vitamins can increase your red blood cell count and run better. Do you really hear people making excuses about forgetting to take their vitamin? They may help but it’s such a negligible amount and shouldn’t constantly be used to discredit people’s performances. The studies aren’t “they make you 4% faster”, it’s “4% more efficient”.... whatever the heck that means. Tons of people have bombed over the weekend wearing 4%, next%, alphas, brooks, saucing, ASICS.... seems the shoes do not matter nearly as much as people have been saying since the release of vaporfly

Here is an analogy. If you add insulation to your attic from say R16 to R30, you know your heating bill is not going to be cut nearly in half! No, your house just got more efficient at holding heat so your heater will have to work a little less hard/often to maintain the same heat. It may amount to a few percent decrease in energy bills, but over time it adds up to $100s or $1000s of dollars.

The same holds true for the shoes. A 4% increase in efficiency translates to a much lower percentage increase in speed at the same effort level. The studies show it is 1-2%. The longer the race, the more the difference becomes significant. A 1% increase in speed in a 15min race, it is 9sec. In a 2:05 marathon, it is 75 sec.

crap studies wrote:

Tons of people have bombed over the weekend wearing 4%, next%, alphas, brooks, saucing, ASICS.... seems the shoes do not matter nearly as much as people have been saying since the release of vaporfly

Jared Ward - Saucony

Scott Fauble - Hoka

Molly Huddle - Saucony

Sara Hall - Asics

Emily Sisson - New Balance

Noticing a pattern here? All of the biggest surprisingly bad performances were in non-Nike shoes. The one and only exception was Jordan Hasay, and I think literally everyone was already predicting that she was the most likely to under-perform due to her injury issues. But even if we count her that's 5-1 in favor of Nike.

"crap studies" = studies with results that I don't like and can't refute so I can only resort to name-calling