NYT: please do another update of this study. There are so many new running shoes out there now.
1
I've become disgusted with competitive sports in general. It's great if you want to do sports like running for your own enrichment, try to better your own time by practice.
Competitive sports however is big business. And the reason for this business and all the hoopla surrounding it is billions of spectators/wannabees who will pay to watch it live or on screen, they don't have the wherewithal to do something themselves.
Spectators translates to ad dollars which translates to "come out on top at any cost" mentality.
And let's not even start with games that pass as sport. Baseball, football, basketball, hockey, soccer, these are games not sport. While the professional participants are great athletes, their fans are no more than coach potatoes, living vicariously. Listen to callers on sports talk radio talk about how "We have to pick up this player or bench that player" as if they are part of the team. No wonder there is an obesity epidemic.
In the words of Keenan Thompson playing Big Papi on SNL, "Hey, just go outside."
2
They are still sneakers!
1
To be truly "equal" regrading equipment ALL runners would have to run barefoot. That's probably not going to happen.
The next best would be to have ALL runners' equipment be appropriately equal. Baseball players all use the same baseball, football player the same football...
1
Anyone who wants to try the shoes can do so for a few hundred bucks. Alls fair.
@Doug S Potentially, this is not true. The research studies done on the Vaporfly show that some people are "responders" and others "non-responders".
Meaning you and I could both have the shoes and I get a 7% improvement in running economy from them but you only get 2%
Well researched and written. But a good part of us ought to be asking what does it matter who wins a race and how fast they ran. That's where all this started after. People think it is important. Not sure why.
1
@True Believer $$$
It would have been nice to see a p-value and a statement of the null hypothesis.
As any first year engineer will tell you - simple averages with overlapping uncertainties tell you nothing about the 'real' world.
1
I have used custom carbon composite plates all with custom foot orthotics for decades in my Orthotic practice for athletes & others with certain foot pathologies. I have co-authored a peer reviewed article published in 2007 in Foot and Ankle International about using custom foot orthotics and carbon composite shanks in all types of mid and forefoot injuries. With some shoes I disassemble the midsole and add a "shank" to the midsole. On other shoes like football or track I would customize the "shank" to be used inside the shoes. I have different grades of stiffness depending on the injury, size of athlete and shoe type to maximize performance while healing. Most athletes, except distance runners the athlete often has learn how to use the modifications that can interfere with performance when they have to change directions or stop and start quickly.
But in distance runners with their repetitive gait patterns, running solely in a straight line the Nike modifications can give them a unique advantage. The contoured plate with a contoured rocker bottom and the light weight shock absorbent midsole adds strength to the shoe allowing for midsole to absorb shock yet allow quicker progression of the lower leg in stance phase: all in one package.
Running shoes like other athletic shoes have been evolving for decades. This is just another iteration. This shoe would not perform well in extreme environments like very hilly races or off the road racing. It really is a street racer.
2
I’m happy with my Newton’s and a coach in attempting to run a sub 3:00 marathon in my late 50’s
I encourage fellow runners to boycott all things Nike
@Paul why ? they came out with a great product, a product other companies have copied or are trying to. If you're in your 50's you may recall how poor shoes were in the early 70's - basically a piece of rubber and little arch cookie. I'm happy for improvements.
It seems clear that if shoes give a runner an unfair advantage that all shoes should be banned.
5
Looks like a lot of wishful thinking going on here. Correlation does not imply causation. Basic statistics.
Method 3 shows that any new pair of shoes improves performance. Really? No. They're following amateur runners mostly so there's an improvement over time irrespective of shoes worn.
So what else could be going on? My guess is that those who are most dedicated to winning will be more willing to spend money on the latest, most expensive shoes. I wouldn't go as far as saying the shoe has no influence on a runner's speed, but the difference is likely smaller. A real test would be to get two groups to switch shoes in consecutive runs and include a third group with a "placebo" Nike that just looks embarrassingly pink.
This reminds me of a statistics saying bearded men are likely to die younger. Makes no sense until you realise that most homeless guys have a beard.
For my daily walking and running I prefer a pair of Merrell (Trail or Vapor) Gloves. They're not likely to get me a gold medal, but my feet are immensely grateful as I never suffer from running related injuries.
@pehash True, on its own we can't take much from this data. However, multiple peer-reviewed cross-over studies have shown improvements in running economy with the Vaporfly vs other shoes. Some of these studies have also been replicated by independent researchers and found the same results.
Add to that the over-representation of the vaporfly shoes in race-winning and record-breaking performances in the last 3 years.
Then, when we look at this data in that context, it would seem to be reflective of the trend.
Is their any consideration being taken for the placebo effect around these shoes? There was quite a lot of publicity around them and Kipchoge over the last few years. I wonder if there's a psychological effect to people believing that these shoes will make them faster.
I loved to read this. I just bought my 5th pair of Hoka Bondi, allegedly the slowest shoe on Earth. However, for more than a year now, I have always used my "slow" Bondis with full-length "speedy" carbon insoles that I derived from the racing bike scene. Without any serious measurements, I can confirm this combo is giving me an extemely huge and unfair advantage.
2
Very interesting and thorough analysis.
One thing that is not clear to me are the results of method 3. It seems that regardless of the shoe switch one improves around 2% in race time. How is that possible? It may be that case that runners improve their performance over time in general. It would be interesting to see what is the race time change when not switching shoes.
PS: Also strange that switching to "other shoe" has the lowest confidence interval. I would expect it to be high since "other shoe" could be a any type.
This is very interesting, but the analysis does not control for the shoe being used only for peak events. I've done close to 90 marathons and never spent more than $110 on shoes. If I were to decide to splurge for a $250 pair of racing shoes, it would only be when I am fully ready and committed to running a PR. If I had a slight injury or just didn't feel ready to peak, the shoes wouldn't be used. The cost creates a selection bias that may falsely increase the measured advantage. Perhaps redo the analysis normalizing against their fastest 20 mile training run in the prior 6 weeks.
7
(a) does this hold for sprinters (100/400/800)?
(b) I'm very interested in the cost-benefit analysis once data on other vendors is available. e.g., can I get 2% for $100 less?
Everyone runs on the same track. So Everyone should wear the same shoes. Everyone wear the same clothes. End of issue.
Recently I think I read somewhere that it's the shoes that cause joint problems in old age because the human body receives the shock impact from running in such inventions.
I wonder if this would be true of new shoe technology as well.
I am only guessing here, but I would think that these shoes would help. The carbon plate absorbs shock that is returned later to propel the runner forward. So less shock on joints.
Shoes cannot add energy to the runner; it merely reduces energy loss of shoe friction but air resistance still acts on the runner.
Improving shoes is good especially if it is accompanied by reduced wear and tear on joints. So is improved fabric to wick sweat and to reduce air resistance.
Tracks have improved; footwear has gone from bare feet to clogs and sandals to keds to the technology marvels we have today.
And we all benefit from these improvements every day in multiple ways.
6
I'm curious about the effects of cushion and heel drop as well. I notice that the top shoes have a 10mm heel-to-toe drop, until you get to the 4mm Saucony Kinvara somewhere in the 20ish spot.
The Vaporfly, by the way, has a massive 31mm heel and 21mm toe! You're running on a mattress (with a steel plate insides).
Next, Nike, can you make a shoe where I can just show up at the race with no training and still get a PR? I'd pay $250 for that? Maybe not in pink though.
3
@Chris Notice the heel to toe drop is the typical 10mm.
The Vaporfly is not that massive. 31mm= 1.22" at the heel and .86 at the metatarsal heads. That is is close to a lot of shoes on the market. The width of the midsole which improves stability and durable shock absorption is wider giving the appearance of being "massive".
Is there any chance that the data set will be published and made available to the public?
4
The effect of these shoes will be to lower (i.e., make more difficult) the qualifying times for any race like the Boston or New York Marathons that requires such times. That means that runners who hope to qualify for those races will be all but obligated to buy these shoes, at least until competing companies come out with similarly speedy shoes. The problem is that because these shoes are so expensive, they effectively increase the price of admission to such marathons, segregating the likely qualifiers into those able to afford such shoes and those unable to do so.
11
While I am intrigued by the design, I will not be paying the asking price for the Vaporfly. I have a misshapen left heel that requires me to build a custom cardboard and duct tape insert every time I purchase new running shoes. There are probably better solutions, but my way works well and I achieve a good fit. I could end up negating any benefit of expensive advanced athletic footwear.
1
I did wear-testing for Etonic 40 years ago. They had a rigid plate in the middle of the insole, called a "dynamic reaction plate." Sounds as though that idea has just come around again and been refined.
3
Will these shoes help reduce repetitive stress injuries like plantar fasciitis? That's much more important to runners like me who run for simple enjoyment and exercise.
6
@Steve I also read this in hopes of learning the shoe reduces repetitive stress, but it didn't go there
The only problem is that there could be a major placebo effect that you just cannot spot in the data.
4
Could the difference simply be explained by someone willing to drop $250 on a pair of shoes follows a serious enough training regimine to get an outsized improvement. In other words, the selection criterion is simply those willing to spend to big coin on a pair of shoes to those who are not.
Love the statistical analysis.
1
@Surfer Dude
some athletes may be sponsored by Nike, etc. to wear their shoes.
"Unfair advantage" is usually defined as one that the general public cannot obtain. Oh, the Powers That Be might grumble and disallow for some time, but that shoe (lifting shirt, material, aerobars, etc.) floods the market and before you know it, everyone has that product, uses it, and yep, the rules are changed. Again.
Personally, I think runners should compete barefoot, but I also think cyclists should ride sans radios and support, that women and men should all compete in one class, regardless of the sport, and that less tech, less advantage for all should be used.
But that's not profitable, and people don't like a level playing field, really.
3
Very nice to see serious statistical analysis applied by NYT.
For exercise 2, have you thought about looking at whether you can see a penalty from switching out of Nike Vaporfly/Next% ? If it is indeed the best shoe, we should see an time penalty even if the runner is switching to other good shoes.
Can you in exercise 2 identify pairs of shoes that runners commonly switch between? In particular combinations that involve Nike Vaporfly. Do you see symmetric effects as you see runners switching into Vaporfly relative to switching out of them?
Really interesting work.
3
@Sidetracked
LOL - you can't use the word "serious" to describe this piece when the words "placebo", "correlation", and "causation" are literally never once mentioned.
I think you just murdered some of the shoe companies in the bottom half of the chart.
2
@Dan Minor But not everybody runs, and fewer run competitively.
@Dan Minor Not really. When I train I have different goals in mind than when I race. Most folks that are competative have different shoes for racing than for training. Furthermore, if you have a serious problem with pronation, then you should not run in those shoes.
Did they also have the same runner, running the same distance, with different shoes, to check the difference?
@Frank Casa This is just one of the problems with this piece - there is no "same" runner from year to year.
If I ran 2,000 miles to train for the Berlin Marathon in 2018, ran it, and then ran 2,000 miles to train for the Berlin Marathon in 2019 and ran it, was that the "Same" runner in the "same" marathon?
The NYT needs to believe the answer is yes and yes, so that the only variable is the shoe.
However the answer is no, and no - for one, even if those 2,000 miles in 2019 were identical in intensity and quality to 2018, I'm going to be a much better runner for the additional year of consistent training. I'm going to be better at running the Berlin Marathon, additionally, because I know the course. And, just knowing "how much" I trained tells us nothing about how this was or was not equivalent to my past training - every mile, every workout is different.
At the aggregate level pulling data from Strava, you just don't have the granularity of data to control for these fundamental issues. And, at the end of the day, you just have a correlation, which proves nothing.
4
The disturbing thing going on here is that Nike doesn't acknowledge what they're doing.
And it's a pretty weird thing to not be truthful about.
1
As another has stated, the data isn’t available and one thing about Strava is that data can be measured in too many different ways- from using your phone to a Fitbit to a garmin. Often these recorded times are not consistent with actual marathon or half marathon times by as much as .2-.3 miles depending on how one runs in the actual course which impacts the data. The shoes may do something certainly but a scientific study of more than 15 men as a sample size (which was one study published) should be performed.
Either way it’s great publicity for the shoes
1
Nike says:
“We respect the I.A.A.F. and the spirit of their rules, and we do not create any running shoes that return more energy than the runner expends.”
Wouldn't that be true if you were running on springs?
There used to be articles about how certain tracks would make people faster by more efficient return of the energy used in the stride, and that was 40 years ago. Anyone know what happened to those ideas?
Exactly what does a 4 percent improvement mean when running in these shoes? Does it mean that a runner’s 4:00 minute mile time could conceivably lower to 3:50.4? Does it mean that a runner’s 2:10 marathon time could conceivably lower to 2:04? It would help if the researchers cited in this article would publicize some “before” and “after” times of a significant sampling of runners wearing these shoes.
1
Those who gathered these statistics appear blissfully ignorant about how a scientific experiment works. For one thing, where is the physical measurement of the different shoes' energy efficiency--you know, how much kinetic energy do they actually return to the runner? You won't find that, because their methodology exclude any measurable information about the shoes. That ought to be enough to induce suspicion.
Next, have the authors ever heard of double-blind trials? I guess not, because every one of those runners apparently knew which brand they were wearing. Double blinding is intended to exclude placebo effects and confirmation bias. Put more simply, there is no reason here not to think that runners did better the Nike shoes because they believed they would do better, and people who believe they are using something that will make them run faster usually do.
4
@Wile_E, presumably the NYTimes did not have the money to run a gigantic double blind study on shoes.
They used the data they have, and clearly explained how they used it.
2
Clap skates, oversize tennis rackets, the Fosbury Flop, LZR floating swimwuits ... been there, done that. These things sort themselves out eventually - best before podium medals have to be revoked.
As a runner with a 75% age-class rating nationally, male 64, I would caution against the Vaporfly. These shoes throw off your natural balance. What I experienced—and others I know like me—was perhaps faster times, but wobbly hips and knees, hip pain and knee pain to the point of long-term injury. These shoes were so different in terms of balance, and so unconventional, that when, because of hip and knee pain, I tried to go back to normal, traditional running shoes, I found that I had lost the muscle strength and balance to do so. In consequence, I can say that the Vaporfly ruined my running overall—put me back years—rather than helping. And I've seen this in other people after long races like half-marathons: that post-race wobbly look that you only get after running in the Vaporfly. Also, you cannot use these shoes for cross country and track. Try to transition to cross country shoes from these shoes and you risk injuries like plantar fasciitis. My advice: don't let Nike experiment on your body. The high price demanded for a few seconds faster is not worth it.
18
@Charles Kaufmann
Thanks for this important post.
What matters to most is health, not a somewhat faster time.
I had been thinking of trying these even for walking, just to cushion and protect my bone on bone damaged joints---your comment protected me from that idea
I see nothing wrong with these shoes and I commend Nike for developing them and advancing what is possible to do with our bodies.
Shoes have been advancing for as long as the have existed, the only difference here is that the shoes have made a relatively big jump all at once.
They are currently only about 50% more expensive than other high end shoes and with 40% of the faster racers already using them, we can not say they provide an unfair advantage. When other manufacturers release their own versions, the field will level out even further.
While the new shoes are not unfair to current athletes, they do represent a step forward over prior eras. But that has always been the case as training methods, nutrition and technology has advanced.
We should not fear the future but instead step into it boldly, ideally in a pair of Nike Vaporfly's!
4
“We respect the I.A.A.F. and the spirit of their rules, and we do not create any running shoes that return more energy than the runner expends.”
In other words, "We do not sell perpetual motion machines."
5
Will the treadmill move if I wear these?
4
Wasn't there a ban put onto the amputee because his metal legs were thought to give him an unfair advantage?
2
The working world of people who are on our feet for 10-12 hours a day in order to do our job want to know if shoes like these will stop or help with foot pain? Please makes US some great shoes!
3
@weiowans And until that day happens, may I recommend Superfeet insoles: they turn mediocre work shoes into good work shoes.
4
@weiowans looks like that shoe came out last month
https://news.nike.com/news/nike-air-zoom-pulse
@weiowans look at Hoka shoes, they have a high stack which is exceptionally "cushy". I know many in the medical fieldthat have switched to these.
Carbon plates (flat or slightly curved, sold singly for R or L) are readily available online (about $75 each). The plate slips into flat or nearly flat shoes after removing any removable insole; then reinsert the insole and voila! You'll need an insert over the plate because the plate is hard and, anywhere your foot is ever so slightly wider or longer than the plate, that edge will dig into your skin and be unbearable. I am not a runner. I have a really severe case of hallux rigidus in my right foot. The big toe no longer moves at all at the joint (arthritis), and I have a bunion on the side and another on the top of the joint, along with tremendous bone spur growth. I CANNOT walk without the carbon plate. With the plate in my shoe, I can walk for miles or all day long. I am not exaggerating. The plate makes the difference between my being sedentary 24/7 and my being an active, self-sufficient member of society. The plate works by preventing toe movement, basically, is how I understand it. In fact, when I was first shown a carbon plate in a doctor's office I thought, How in the world can someone walk with that in their shoe? With the carbon plate in my shoe, my foot ROLLS forward. In other words, my diseased joint is no longer being asked to bend when it literally can no longer bend. I now wear a plate in the other shoe as a prophylactic. I suggest that anyone with any toe/joint/foot pain try a carbon plate.
7
@Ann As someone with just plain old age messed up feet, this is very useful information. Thank you.
@Jet Phillips You are welcome--and I'm 65.
I do not see where the authors tested for psychological effect. There are studies showing that when bicyclists are told that they finished a timed course faster than they actually did, the cyclists will go on to match or exceed that speed the next time.
As another example, when the Sinbad, Jr. cartoon was broadcast, every kid believed that tightening his own belt gave him the strength of fifty men.
A good test of Nike’s technology would be to make ordinary shoes look like the new shoes, and vice-versa, and see the results.
6
How does a legally available consumer product, that any of the runners can choose to wear, compromise an "unfair advantage" over the others?
The availability of the shoes belies the "unfair" claim.
3
@Jeff Bowles But they do cost $250 a pair. Not every amateur athlete can afford them. Having high school cross country athletes, there is real concern out there that athletes from higher income communities can access these products while others cannot afford them. I think they should be banned in amateur completions, especially K-12 school competitions.
3
@Jeff Bowles
Availability has nothing to do with it. The full-body, 50-percent polyurethane swimsuits were readily available---and quickly declared illegal as they were providing an unfair advantage to everyone wearing them and destroying old world record times.
1
If I thought this would add 4% spring to my step I'd invest in a pair for walking...but I'd paint them funky.
Some places, it is not wise to walk around with 200 dollars attached to ones feet.
1
@lkent With these 'magic' shoes on your feet, you should be able to outrun any mugger . . .
2
Good article but remember to exercise and eat properly every day if you want to run. Runners say: not all who want to run do it but all who can.
1
Nike can make special shoes for America's Professional Political Action Figures, to assist them reach their goals.
2
Ban the shoes already.
@Imagine Ban them? I'm not sure why. Hiring a personal trainer or masseuse, or training in Denver, give an "unfair" advantage relative to those who can't afford that sort of thing.
This is a $250 intervention available in stores everywhere. Unlike steroids there is no known medical harm. In fact, I'd guess that for suffering older runners, these shoes are kinder on the knees and feet.
Well. Tennis isn't about to ban the modern carbon/graphite/titanium/adamantium rackets. Nor will golf be going back to the old clubs. Progress races on! (And is now 4% faster.)
9
The one data point that the reader can verify completely is that Eliud Kipchoge improved on his previous non-Vaporfly 2017 Nike demonstration time of 2:00:25 to make a 2019 time of 1:159:40 in the new shoes.
That's an improvement of 0.62%, not 4 or 5%.
Of course even an 0.62% improvement due to the Vaporfly would be enough to persuade most dedicated runners to purchase a pair.
But to get the less dedicated runners to purchase a pair, you might need figures of 4 or 5 %. Hence this piece - not peer reviewed - not offering access to the raw data.
Let us pray that EPO played no role in any of this.
2
@Craig H. Good point. The cloud hanging over all the Times analysis is the placebo effect - people who just dropped $250 on a pair of shoes because science told them they would run faster are highly likely to run with a bit more effort and conviction.
Which is why drug experiments are, ideally, double-blind. The goal is that that neither the researcher nor the patient are on the lookout for results they "know" they ought to see.
And To Be Fair, the placebo effect didn't make as much of a showing for the other New Faster shoes.
8
@Craig H. As noted below, Kipchoge ran the first demonstration in the then current Vaporfly shoe.
2
Nike lost its soul long ago. During the Lance Armstrong fiasco I sent an email to Nike telling them I would sell all my stock in Nike unless they terminated their association with Mr. Armstrong. They did not and I sold the stock. A day later after more intense pressure they terminated their association. Up to that point I ran in nothing but Nike since 1978. I have never bought a Nike product since and had some financial losses with selling my stock. Now they have created a running shoe with a possible 5% advantage which is off the charts for competitive runners of any age! Usually at the elite level a .1% advantage would be considered huge! When I line up at the next race and spot one of my competitors with the " Pink Shoes", I will feel more motivation to out run them in my Brooks Hyperions. The real story here is Nike's ongoing support for cheater, Albert Salazar, and their knowingly sending runners to the starting line with a huge advantage over the supposedly level playing field.
4
@Bill Go ahead and try to outrun them . . . that's the whole point of a race, but don't think it's the whole story. An improved time on average feet will still be less than an average shoe on elite feet.
@Bill
If the shoe is available to anyone and everyone, how can it be called cheating. It is also very obvious that the runner is wearing them. It's not like reduced air pressure in a football.
2
@Bill If you wrote Nike saying you'd sell your stock unless they cut ties with Lance Armstrong, and then a day after you sold the stock they did terminate, maybe your note actually did help make a difference?
One contributing factor is certainly that runners who are up and coming, who are very determined to break their personal records are more likely to invest in a pair of short-lived shoes which supposedly can cut race time by a few minutes. The guys who take the whole thing a little bit more relaxed, or just are happy to make it through are much less likely to run in the top rated shoe.
4
@Jan I think the condition of your purse and your imagination have a bit more to do with it . . .
When the Vaporfly 4% came out, I was skeptical. But after reading more and more about them, I decided to give them a try, while feeling that I was being duped into paying an absurd $250. But after a year of remarkably successful racing at age 65, with totally unexpected PRs and reduced fatigue, and initially thinking it was all a placebo effect, I am reluctantly forced to admit they they work! I have run about 8 marathons, 6 half marathons, 5 10k's, and 8 5k's in them in the past year or so, and wear them only for races . . . given how much race entries cost, the shoes have cost me about $10 extra per race so far (less, when you factor in the that those miles have not been put on a "regular" $125 shoe). I have not gotten better educated, trained more, improved my socioeconomic status, eaten better, or got richer over the past year, so I think it must be the shoes!
32
@SF You are ON IT.
3
@SF You, Sir, are an inspiration.
3
This analysis needs to be controlled for confounders. People who buy a 250 dollar shoe are more likely to be in the higher social economic status, better educated, eat better, and so forth.
Unless you control for these confounders, this is just a correlation at best.
1
@Anoop No, the statistical analysis here is sound. When each runner is his/her own control you have effectively factored in the effect of confounders. These shoes do appear to be better at returning energy to the runner and should likely be outlawed for competitive running when prize money or other meaningful award (e.g., NCAA title, etc) is on the line. Other sports (e.g., golf, tennis, car/boat racing, baseball) have outlawed specific types of equipment that have been determined to give the participant an unfair advantage.
3
@Anoop Did you read the part about where they looked at people who switched shoes? Presumably they were the same people when they wore shoe A as when they wore shoe B. Thus the confounders were controlled. The same person has the same social economic status, education, nutrition, etc.
2
@Gene This is the thing - how do we assume they were the "same people" when they had shoe A on as opposed to B? For one, In shoe B, since this data looks backwards, they've had another full year of training and so almost by definition will be a better trained version of the person who wore shoe A. For two, even controlling for number of training miles run prior to a marathon (yes, even the same marathon) in shoe A and before the marathon in shoe B is not enough, because training miles are NOT equal. 2,000 miles one year is not equal to 2,000 miles in another year - intensity, quality, method, these are all hugely significant variables that make it near impossible to declare that you are looking at the "same" runner from year to year where the only difference is the shoe.
1
Nike defense of its shoes: We comply with the laws of thermodynamics! ("On Thursday, the company said in a statement, “We respect the I.A.A.F. and the spirit of their rules, and we do not create any running shoes that return more energy than the runner expends.”) The question is not whether the shoes "return more energy than the runner expends" - that's impossible (without adding external fuel or energy sources to the shoes). The question is "Do the shoes take runner's energy that would otherwise be wasted and turn it into useful propulsion that helps the runner?" NYT analysis seems to indicate the answer is "yes."
5
@AlaskaMatt
Hi. All shoes answer yes to this question.
We don't run marathons in chuck taylors anymore, but at the time, these classic athletic shoes would have provided a great advantage to competitors...at least compared to preceding designs. Bill Bowerman's original designs added a similar round of short term advantages until the bar was raised by shoe engineers again. This is not news.
If only the runners were the story. This data can almost be used to quantify placebo affect which would be more valuable.
Also not news: athletes will pay for marginal advantages, money can buy performance, placebo effect is worth some gains and these gains work for everyone. If there is an organized sport that does not follow these rules, then please report on that.
1
When I was a kid, circa 1950, Boys' Life magazine always had an ad for Spring-Shus, sold by mail. They had two springs fastened to the sole and heel and a platform attached to them. You could take a little hop and jump right over a fence or a house. I never met anyone who ever saw the real thing, but we could dream.
4
@Dick Ellingson I fail to see how that's possible. That'd be free energy.
@Imagine Eleven-year-old boys are in abundant possession of free energy.
@Dick Ellingson I had a pair. You were more likely to turn your ankle than jump over a house or anything else. The springs were cheap and compressed too easily; the leaf spring under the seat of a 19th century buckboard wagon was better made. The carbon-fiber springs that exist today make those spring shoes close to reality.
Would shoes engineered like this help people who are elderly or disabled be able to walk more easily and with less fatigue? Maybe this shoe's technology will help people other than runners.
13
@msd - I paid just $160 for my second pair of Hoka hoka Cliftons - listed in their table as shoe that makes you run SLOWER. The previous pair lasted for 2 years and made my ankle pain vanish the first day I wore them, saved money by never having to consult an orthopedist.
I used to run marathons and cross country until a herniated disk in 2011. Now I am an avid cyclist, and I only used my Hoka Hokas for walking and hiking.
1
@msd Yes! I am 65 and unable to walk without a carbon plate in my right shoe. I also wear one in my left shoe as a prophylactic. Please see my other, longer remark. Carbon plates cost about $75 each online.
2
@Craig H. as you know - the Cliftons are heavier trainers - the fact that 80% of the comp shoes are trainers tells you most of what you need to know about their study
1
It's true. The shoe has a definite unique quality. It's designed for the runner who has high cadence and midfoot.
Could it be that the smarter, more dedicated runners who are aware of this technology are simply the ones who upgrade to better shoes faster? This wouldn't explain all of the effect, but it may magnify it.
3
@Dexter Ford
That point is addressed in the article.
2
There are no such thing as given "two runners being of equal ability" because of the many variables of each runner and race at a given time. When I read articles about the latest "breakthrough" in equipment, I always recall my friend Gary Cohen who was at one time ranked as one of the top distance runners in the USA say "If you want to run fast, you must run fast". So buy the equipment and shoe that fits you the best, have fun and RUN FAST!
3
IAAF regulates shoes, specifically sole width, when it comes to long & high jumps. It's not a stretch that they may ban this shoe, much like FINA banned certain swim suits in 2010.
FYI, my PR is 2:52.
4
@Steve - The potential profits from long & high jumping hobbyists is effectively zero compared to that of running shoes. Swimming - also not much compared to running.
2
@Craig H. Irrelevant. Even if the IAAF regulates the shoe not be used in competition, it could still be sold.
Earlier this century swimming when through something similar. A new speedsuit was invented and as swimmers started wearing them, records tumbled. Eventually it was ruled as giving extra performance and was banned from competition. Records have NOT been tumbling since
This sounds similar.
2
@Adrien You mean the swim suit controversy from a decade ago? I still strongly disagree with the suit bans FINA implemented in the sport, but that's just because IMO where they drew the line for suit legality was arbitrary. No argument that those suits helped swimmers, though — they reduced fatigue. But you had to be really good for that to really matter. Couldn't put a LZR on a B swimmer and expect a better time, but you could put one on a AAA swimmer and perhaps see a AAAA.
It makes me cringe when I read things like "we see that runners who switch to these Nike shoes improved significantly more than runners who switched to any other kind of shoe.", which is pretty clearly accepting correlation as causation.
Looking at the times from 2018 and 2019 on the "same" marathon course for the "same" runner where the "only" difference is the shoe is poor analysis; marathon courses are never the same from yr to yr because of weather, and more importantly, runners are never the same from yr to yr because of fitness, training, injury, mental mindset, etc. Even runner x in 2018 who ran 2k miles in training and runner x in 2019 who also ran 2k miles in training - they are NOT equal; those 2k miles could have infinite variations in terms of quality, intensity, etc. 2019's version of runner x could be in monster shape compared to 2018's version, knows that she is, buys the shoes, and goes out and runs a monster PR and this "analysis" is going to say it was all the shoes. Pfft.
Lastly, one more rejoinder to this analysis is - What about the Zoom Streak? What about this $80, "old tech" shoe that features phylon and, of all things, Zoom Air, that "causes" a ~2.5% improvement in runners? What's the explanation there? The Streak "causes" a 2.5% improvement, the Vaporfly "causes" a 4% improvement, but only in the case of the Vaporfly is the improvement actually "caused" by the fancy "new tech"? That's called confirmation bias and cherry picking your data points.
2
@Not a Scientist - This "paper" (haha) is not peer reviewed and the underlying data is not being made available.
That's huge. My PR for the 10K is 36:52. With a 5% increase, it would be 35:03. Wow! My 10 mile time would be 54 minutes instead of an hour. That's unreal.
2
@Ernest Montague - Eliud Kipchoge improved his non-Vaporfy 2017 Nike demo time of 2:00:25 to 1:59:40 with the Vaporfy in 2019.
That's an improvement of 0.62%. That's the only data in the article that the reader can actually verify.
@Craig H. Kipchoge ran the first demonstration in a version of that year’s vaporfly.
2
@Craig H. . . . and he was two years older. Sheesh!
From a standpoint of physics it is more a question of which design absorbs, wastes or disperses the most energy from the runner. Shoes are not muscles. This is a stupid issue. There is no breaking the law of thermodynamics here, nor is there energy storage. The dynamics all stem from the wearer. There is no spring, artificial extension of stride or other interference like a prosthetic. This is a stupid non-issue that is really just marketing hype for the obsessed.
4
I would say that the carbon fiber plate in the shoe acts as a spring, storing energy from landing in stride and then releasing it. No physics problem there. The foam and other elastic materials in these and other shoes do the same--it just appears that these Nikes do it better. Heck, shoes are an artificial protection and energy storage system---let's make everybody run barefoot. And people with good corrected vision gain an advantage simply by putting on their glasses.
1
@Dexter Ford - Eliud Kipchoge improved his non-Vaporfy 2017 demo time of 2:00:25 to 1:59:40 with the Vaporfy in 2019.
That's an improvement of 0.62%. That's the only real verifiable data here.
So yes, there may be an improvement. And yes, there absolutely is hype.
The running world will have to adapt to technologies that improve running peformance. Thirty-five years the first rock-climbing shoes with sticky rubber were introduced. That rubber gripped rock so well it made climbs easier, and some were made a lot easier. Climbers who didn't wear sticky-rubber shoes said the rubber was cheating, but shoe companies, because they wanted to sell shoes, stopped making shoes with the old non-sticky rubber and within a few years every climber used sticky rubber. Today, few climbers will remember the controversy and would think it stupid to not use sticky rubber. As the article noted, most running shoe companies will soon have a version of the magical running shoe. When they do, every competive runner will wear them and the fuss will go away. Yes, records done in the old style of shoe will be beaten, but, so what? Much harder rock climbs were done and continue to be done in sticky shoes. No one cares. Technology and records improve. That's the way of things.
11
In the "shoes' effect" graph, for "Chance of P.R.," What is P.R.? This should be clarified in the diagram if not earlier. I suspect it's a typo: P.R. should be P.B.: Personal Best *???* If so, please correct.
@Dale Mead
PR and PB are used interchangeably in the running world and both mean the same thing.
R = Record in PR and B = Best in PB.
There are numerous issues with this "analysis" but this isn't one of them.
@Not a Scientist Thanks! As a former reporter, when initials are used in stories (or graphs), what they stand for should be clarified somewhere near first use—in this case, for us non-running readers. NYT's bad.
(New York Times ; ^ )
Don't see how wearing these shoes constitute cheating anymore than the use of specialized equipment in almost every sport including bowling with balls that have holes bored to the bowler's hand. Or how athletes tape themselves up but that isn't considered a form of doping. As some other commenters have said, then athletes should compete naked and barefooted. Now, hiding electric motors in racing bikes IS cheating.
5
@Bill Has anyone seriously suggested the shoes are cheating? I suppose one could argue that violating IAAF’s shoe rules is cheating, but a decision hasn’t been made to that effect yet.
@Bill "Electric motors in racing bikes" AKA electronic doping. I wonder when someone will come come up with an electronically doped shoe as energy storage devices get ever smaller.
How does the price of the shoes compare? It would seem that runners who invested in a pair of shoes that cost
How does the price of the shoes compare? It would seem that runners who invested in a pair of shoes that cost twice as much as the average shoe might be either more confident of setting a PR or are motivated to set a PR.
If my preparation for a race is marginal that year I might not think to upgrade to the most expensive shoe. Especially if the shoes wear out as quickly as typical racing shoes.
Sprinters routinely use spikes and starting blocks....what's the difference?
Are we going to ban all athletes that used those shoes for 10 years from competition for "shoe-doping" like we are doing to "the Russians" ?
1
@Chris Ban them on what basis?They haven’t violated any rule yet, as the article clearly notes.
In other words, you're cheating if you wear these shoes. Nike's ability to manufacture and market the Zoom Vaporfly Next% and their freedom to make a profit from the sale of running shoes in general should not dictate whether this particular footwear is permissible in competition. Time to add some asterisks to the record book and official results of more than a few marathons.
1
The article is interesting, but I don't think you need to call out Nike in the headline. That makes it ad copy.
Having run on Nike shoes for decades there clearly has been an evolution to a shoe that offers more of a boost to running performance. Now I haven't tried the $250 version and likely won't, but even the lowly Pegasus has a nice pop to it these days. I do think the shoe is offering an advantage, but is it unfair? Isn't it more like having the better bike gear. A $10,000 bike is going to outperform a $2,500 bike any day of the week. Boils down to the competitor and what they want to spend to compete.
4
“We respect the I.A.A.F. and the spirit of their rules, and we do not create any running shoes that return more energy than the runner expends.”
THAT's the standard? In other words, if it's not an electric- or internal combustion-powered shoe, it's just fine? Shouldn't the standard have something to do with how much energy the shoe *prevents* the runner from *losing* while running?
4
@Sixofone
The sport is all about money, and Nike puts quite a lot of it into the sport. It would be very surprising if the IAAF went up against Nike over these shoes.
1
The shoes are soaked in a new version of testosterone which is undetectable by current tests and the shoes inject the hormone thru the soles and upper feet with every step.
The shoes are colored pink to throw everyone off as to what is truly happening.
I know, because I met Alberto Salazar at the end of the bar last night, and he was really knocking them back and he told me before he tipped and left. He was slurring pretty bad, but that's what he said. Alberto was hammered.
There's a womens version of the same shoe, he said. He also said that he really wasn't fired, the firing was just a publicity stunt to distract attention from the new testosterone injection shoe.
Looks like it worked.
10
@angry veteran I happened to run into ‘Beto this morning and he looked a little springy. “Did you see the NYT item and #AngryVet comment?” He looked down for a bit then looked over his shoulder like he’d realized looking down was probably not the thing to do (even though he was wearing Prada loafers (black ones). Dead give away.
1
@angry veteran
Buy the shoes and close your mouth. Go for a run. You will understand that these shoes are phenomenal. Just do it.
1
Now that we've got the running shoe situation under control. Do you folks have nothing to do?
2
Very thoughtful analysis. One thought: runners who decide to shell out $250 for a new pair of shoes may be ramping up their training regimen relative to those who don't. This could bias your results - particularly in method #2 and method #3. But couldn't you use Strava - which tracks training - to test for this? Do you see "switchers" increasing their training to either (a) their "runner twin" in method #2 or (b) their previous races for method #3? Overall great read.
@Carolyn
I am a serious runner but not a racer. I bought these Nike Next%. They are unbelievable. I bought them because I want the absolute best shoes available to protect my ankles and knees. It is a secondary benefit that they also help me run faster.
2
I'm older with feet that get tired and have balance issues as well as weak ankles. Yes, I invested around $250 - five years ago for a pair of Lowa Renegade hiking boots - they've held up well and I don't need to look like I'm wearing old women's orthopedic shoes. And the soles are deeply cleated for non-skid wear in winter. Sometimes quality footwear is worth the price.
3
What is all the fuss? A few decades ago young Africans from the high altitudes of Eastern Africa horned their running skills in public schools or at Christian missionary schools (lookup the influence of St Patrick's Iten on Kenyan running). Others gravitated to the running clubs organized by the police, prisons or army. The system was raw and unprofessional, very few made any real money.
Today proteges are courted like NBA stars. Every major running company has an operation in Eastern Africa, so do most of the highly respected college programs and road running clubs. Then add Gulf State billionaires and their mercenary operations tempting poor runners to change nationality and religion to bring olympic gold trophies before being discarded back to rural poverty of African life.
The village lifestyles and chores that produced a Kipchoge Keino, Paul Kiplagat or Henry Rono have been has been replaced by slick professional agents and trainers, organized practice, nutritionist, high tech shoes and apparel and let's not forget the modern plague of PEDs.
The problem is not the high tech shoes, it is the intoxicating allure sold to poor young Africans an unimaginable new life is within grasp of just a Boston Marathon win!
1
@Frederick Sounds like you've been to Iten, Kaptagat, Eldoret and Kapsabet! I went to high school in those parts of Kenya in the early 2000s and i was in the rugby team. On Saturdays, we would wake up around 5am to run about 10km to build our cardiovascular 'shape.' You wouldn't believe how many young men and women would be out there at 5am in the morning running. We would literally meet several hundreds of people running. All of them hoping that they would one day win a major marathon in Europe or the USA i.e. New York, Boston, Chicago, London, Berlin etc and change their lives. The sad reality is many of them would never make it. Many of them would do this for years and eventually give up. So no, the shoes might be helpful but it is not the difference.
1
I often like articles and graphics in the Upshot column. However, this article and its graphics are an exception. Case in point, the first figure with black and red dots is very confusing. The percentages increases in both directions. Should the values on the left be negative values? The heading on the top group of the dots simply says:"Using statistical models to measure shoe effect". Of course, the whole article is about this issue. But a heading is supposed to guide the readers to understand the statistical findings not making a bland statement. The bottom group of dots is also unbelievable. It appears that most of shoes would give about 50% chance to runners to be at their personal best. I guess personal best must be top 1-5 percent occurrence for a frequent racer. How can wearing an average shoe gives 50% chance to be at the person's personal best? Don't these runners always wear some shoes? Or should we understand this statistics is the probability a particular brand of shoes is worn when a runner reaches his or her personal best. But how can multiple brands of shoes have 50%? Shouldn't the sum add up to 100%? I am quite disappointed by the quality of this article. The Upshot column is usually a bright spot in the use of statistics to analyze data with depth in today's media environment. I really hope that the editors of this column continue to uphold a high standard for clarity and rigor.
1
I ran from a bull in a pasture wearing cowboy boots. Don't recall the brand of boot, but they sure made me faster.
9
@Harmon Smith
How did the bull pull on cowboy boots?
19
@Bob Krantz He didn't - you are willfully misunderstanding this! The sentence makes it quite clear that it was the pasture that was wearing the boots.
9
I'm not understanding the issue here. Wearing spiked shoes gives one an advantage on wet ground in futbol. Wearing better and sharper skates gives one an advantage in ice hockey. Wearing the right wax gives one an advantage in x-country skiing. What am I missing?
6
@Jim Greenberg
All skiers know what the right wax is, all footballers know what length/type spikes to wear based on the conditions, all hockey players know which blades to put on their skates and to keep them sharp, etc.
How many runners before today knew they were losing out by not having this shoe? (On the other hand, we might also ask how many using the shoe knew they were benefiting to this extent.)
1
@Sixofone They do NOT all know what the right wax is. The Norwegian XC ski team brings a PLATOON of experts to races to be sure their wax is more right than anybody else's. If you wander by the their waxing tent and are excessively curious, you will have a mysterious accident with a hot iron. Races have been won by huge margins when someone's ski tuner makes a better guess about the weather and or the snow conditions, and some of the waxes are $100 an ounce. It is an entire subset of the sport.
Interesting article, but it sure feels like part marketing.
8
Too bad that they lumped all of the Nike Pegasus models into one bucket. The Pegasus turbo has the "magic" zoomx foam thats in the vaporfly, whereas the regular Pegasus does not. I have both the Pegasus Turbo 2, and the Brooks Ghost, and I can tell you for a fact that the Turbos are a faster shoe than the ghost, which this analysis woudn't necessarily support.
2
Nike's shoes didn't help Kaepernik get a football job.
1
How do these new shoes compare to running barefoot - which has the additional benefits of being free as well as easier on the knees?
There is nothing unfair. It's new technology to improve energy efficiency, but there is not "added" energy. Compare this with competition bikes, and the few scandals about hidden motors. No such thing here.
They are expensive? Competition equipment is often much more expensive. Bikes can cost thousands of dollars. Nothing new here.
And if the technology is really good, sooner or later all shoes will have it. It's not new either: runners don't use the sames shoes as in the 19th century I guess.
If the advantage is confirmed, it's just a "technology shock", as were starting blocks 90 years ago. It's very good news that we can still improve running, without drugs.
16
@Jean-Claude Arbaut can’t disagree more. In a 5,000 meter race, a 1% advantage represents 30 seconds at the elite level. If these advantages are true, then what is a competition really measuring? True, we can all buy the Nike shoes, but where does this end? Running shoes, in my view, are about injury prevention, not getting a leg up on the competition.
3
@Jean-Claude Arbaut
If there was ever a competitive sprint 90 years ago in which some runners were using blocks and not others, I'm guessing it was just that one. After which, everyone was enlightened.
2
@Dave Your math is off, though I agree with the general sentiment of your comment. If 30 seconds represents 1% of the race, you are talking about a 50 minute 5k, which is not elite (or even running?). If we are talking about sub 15 minute races, a 1% advantage is 9 seconds or less.
2
As the audience and the rewards grow, even running becomes like NASCAR or the NFL. Do anything to gain an edge. Always skirt the rules. Money and fame will follow winners, no matter how they win. The big dogs eat, the little dogs watch.
1
I run like a turtle (yes! like a turtle) and love it: the only thing I would like from running shoes co. is COMFORTABLE running shoes (yes, even for turtles like me!). And, of course, moderate prices, not $250?!
2
If the change in technology is available to everyone, it shouldn't make any difference, but the governing bodies of a range of sports still restrict it: buoyant swim suits, golf balls, javelin design, etc. If in running, breaking the world record in the marathon depends on the shoe design as opposed to conditioning, then you might want to consider the IAAF rule, or put an asterisk at the record.
It would be interesting to see the difference, and improvements , in the times Kipchoge and Bekele ran over the past 5-6 years and compare it to when they started using the Nike shoes; the times have dropped pretty fast and particularly in the past 2 years. Its unlikely that the names at the top of the list of the worlds best runners will change much, with or without technology, but the times they run might.
1
this recalls the debates of vaulting poles, initially made from stiff materials such as bamboo or aluminum. The introduction of flexible vaulting poles made from composites such as fiberglass or carbon fiber allowed vaulters to achieve greater height.
3
@Gretna Bear Same for composite hockey sticks over wood, and just about any technological improvement in any sport. I'm not sure why this is any different. I don't see why people are upset. I didn't think hockey stick price points made much of a difference until my kid's $60 stick broke during a tournament and she borrowed a teammates $250 stick. The difference in her shot was immediately obvious to everyone, and I was really quite surprised. Her cheaper stick was also composite, just not top notch. Who knew?
3
Much ado about nothing.
If everyone has the opportunity to wear these shoes, what does it matter?
Or you could always make every participant run without shoes.
There are always changes in technology that are made to improve performance. Nobody pole vaults with bamboo, races in the freestyle wearing boxer trunks, uses wood racquets at WImbledon, plays football in a leather helmet, etc., etc., etc.
4
@Chris for now at least, none of the faster shoes are available in a wide or 4E wide width. I’m close to qualifying for Boston, and everyone else around me has a 5% advantage over me? Seems significant. Of course as soon as an extra wide version of these shoes is available I will purchase a pair the same day.
2
Like Kangaroos and Impalas (and fiberglass pole vaulting poles). Same principle store energy and release at the right time. I wonder if the shoes are easier on the knees and other joints, perhaps less jarring.
3
@Bobb C-smith I was wondering the same. I would start running again if this were the case.
@Bobb C-smith
please see this article
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/11/well/move/marathon-running-may-be-good-for-your-knees.html#commentsContainer&permid=104116480:104116480
That "running is bad for the knees" is an old husband's tale, told by non-runners who are not informed by medical science.
Wow! and I thought insects were the only creatures that used stored resilin to catapult them to jump, run, or fly higher, faster, with greater efficiency.
Bravo, Nike! Just DO IT.
1
Nike’s advantage is temporary, another manufacturer will produce a shoe that is just different enough to avoid patent infringements. $250 for sneakers, really?
1
Love this type of analysis! Yet, there is still plenty more work to be done.
How much of this is placebo effect of switching from current old shoe to New $250 Shoe That the Elites Run In? You need to be in a certain mindset to decide that you are going to run in A BRIGHT PINK $250 SHOE! You are calling a lot of extra attention to yourself here. There is a mental aspect to this. It is different, I believe, than switching to pretty much any of the other shoes on this list.
Also, as a hobby runner, there would be no purpose in someone like me owning this type of shoe. It would be equivalent to me shaving my leg hair to reduce wind drag in order to finally get under the 9mn/mile pace. As opposed to, you know, just simply running more...
But, yeah, a carbon plate that gives you 1, 3, or 5% more energy return could sure add up over 5 or 10 or 20 miles.
3
Would these shoes fix my chronic painful feet problem? Bone spurs all around?
What's interesting to me is that no one has commented on Nike's using the bright pink color for what are, essentially, men's running shoes.
1
@Annie S. well Annie nobody has been so dull to make the comment because they don’t exclusively come in pink, aren’t exclusively sold to men, and owning or wearing pink clothing hasn’t been considered “just for girls” since the 1970s
3
Athletics (or track & field) needs all the positive publicity, personal bests, and world records it can muster.
Hence, this new shoe is a good thing for the sport.
By the way, the I.A.A.F has changed its name to "World Athletics."
This shoe will sell because of the big profits made from selling entry to marathons, Ironmans, and road runs to recreational runners with disposal income.
The optimal result for Lord Sebastian Coe, head of World Athletics, would be to marry the popular recreational runner with the elite runner, whose recent world championships in Doha played to empty stadiums.
This story was bereft of information as to whether this technology could be applied to shoes designed for the track and shorter distances. Could Nike manufacture similar shoes as spikes used on a synthetic track for runners competing in the 1500 meters, or the esteemed mile run?
2
I switched to Hokas about 6 years ago - have used both the Cliftons and Bondis - because I realized that, in my 50's, I was getting pain in the balls of my feet after my longer (10+ miles) runs.
My runs and occasional race may now be slower, either as a result of the shoes or just of aging in general, but I am running pain-free. Not everybody switches shoes for PR purposes!
4
I would feel better about such shoes if the competition caught up and I could grab a pair for $100.
At the moment Nike never even has to put these on sale. They’re $250 everywhere, all the time and don’t last 150mi.
3
@Fred Ebay as low as $125
and to all - the % gain is nonsense - 80% of the shoes listed as slower are heavier training shoes
The Nike streak listed as 2.5% faster than others is a racer and better comparison
@Fred Famous runners probably get them for free.
When the writers sa "it’s possible that runners who choose to wear Vaporfly or Next% shoes are somehow different from runners who do not" they do a disservice to anyone trying to conduct or explain studies.
The word is not possible. It is CERTAIN that they are different. That is why they are using multiple models to try to understand and offset some of the obvious differences.
I understand that if the writer points out the problems that longitudinal studies in which the subjects self-select what group they will enter it becomes nearly insoluable for an expert much less a reader.
Well anyway yes the rich are different, they have more money.
Excellent work compiling the dat; that is not a trivial issue and the results are impressive but it is a relatively small group of runners wearing the Nike shoes and everyone will agree that if you mange to acquire a rare and expensive piece of equipment that you will most likely up your performance level. It is not merely possible but certain.
2
@G nichols Yes, indeed, the rich are a different breed altogether.
1
The biggest problem with these "studies" is that everyone picks their own shoes. So, of the group who picked Nike, it made a big difference. Picking the right racing shoe makes a big difference. Apparently, those who like Nike get more of a bump than people like me, who raced in NB. But the real question is whether I would get more of a bump using a shoe that otherwise is not my first choice.
I own a pair of the Hoka carbons and I do not think that I would wear them in a race because they feel clunky and slower than a racing flat. That said, for a midweek tempo run, I enjoy it because it stresses different muscles than my other shoes and absorbs some of the shock, so I recover better.
Long story short, no matter the technology, I do not see most people running faster in a shoe that they otherwise do not like, period.
1
@Jon the vapor fly and next% racing shoes are the only Nike shoes I own - all my training shoes are a mix of brands (Hoka, NB, Brooks, Adidas). I wear the Nike racing shoes because clearly they have an impact on performance, and virtually every one of my competitors has them. YMMV, but if PRs and fast times are part of what motivates you, and you can afford it, seems worth the price to me.
1
Seems to me these results can also be interpreted as the Nike shoes do not bestow an advantage, they just don't incur the disadvantages that previous generations of shoes have been incurring. Sounds like progress to me, and not something we should try to inhibit.
1
I’m fine with this if Nike allows this technology, or equivalent, to be used by other makers. Nike shoes don’t fit my feet well, uncomfortable to walk in let alone run. There has to be parity among makers for fairness. And maybe scholarships at this price point!
1
@bpedit
Why would they give away the technology or even license it? This is how companies innovate... there has to be a market incentive.
3
@D
Sure, I understand that. So I guess that solidifies the fact I'm "not fine with this" since I, and others with a non-Nike foot profile, are left out.
1
Why not use a pogo stick, jump around like a kangaroo and call that running?
1
It's gotta be the shoes!
2
If you give me a pair of running shoes and tell me that they will make me run faster, I WILL run faster in them. That's how the human mind works...
3
Thanks for publishing this very definitive study. I don't understand anybody getting upset about Nike's advantage, and I say this as a Hoka One One runner. My reason for buying my shoes is that they are very kind to the leg joints; I'm not running for speed.
As the article implies, the other manufacturers realize what Nike is onto and they're rushing to match Nike's results.
$250 is not a huge financial obstacle to overcome in buying a pair. If you want your best time, get a pair of the Nikes. If you're old like me and want to save your body, buy a different shoe.
7
@Dr Chris Siebrasse I agree with all your points, but wanted to add that in my experience the Nike shoes are also great for speeding recovery (meaning it seems like you feel good much more quickly after a hard effort). Many elite athletes in Kenya are seen doing their training runs in them, not just races. Ultimately the game of racing fast is about doing more fast training in the preparation stage + having your best performance on the day.
@Dr Chris Siebrasse $250 is a HUGE financial obstacle to racers from Third World countries! Also, for Americans in the lower classes. I find your comment to be cavalier.
@Katherine
It depends on what level you run at. Elite runners will get sponsors to pay for their shoes, in any country.
1
The authors evaluate the performance benefits of the shoes using several different models, which is commendable. However, each model includes a wide variety of shoes, including heavier trainers that few serious racers would ever wear in a race.
It would be useful to include a model which limits the comparison to other racing shoes (and perhaps light-weight trainers). The limits for inclusion might be a bit fuzzy, but some reasonable definition could be applied. One would expect to run substantially faster in any racing flat vs. many of the shoes listed in the article.
As noted by other posters, many runners fail to update the shoe information in Strava. Presumably, the authors can figure out a way to filter the Strava data to omit users who do not switch between shoes on a regular basis, but the article doesn't make it clear whether they have done that. If you take the data at face value, I know someone who has run 24000 miles in the same pair of shoes. In contrast, I don't wear shoes at all.
Note that just changing to different shoes is worth 2%, independent of brand or model, according to the Method 3 analysis. Either way, makes me wonder if Mars Blackmon had it all figured out, "It's gotta be da shoes!"
Am I missing something here?
If the shoes allow a 5% faster running pace, doesn't that mean about 6 minutes on a roughly 120 minute marathon? That would be huge, if true.
Or are the benefits of these shoes lost on the truly elite runners?
9
@J Fogarty
Any thoughts on the question I posed?
This seems like getting new tires that improve your gas mileage by 5%.
1
"On Thursday, the company said in a statement, 'We respect the I.A.A.F. and the spirit of their rules, and we do not create any running shoes that return more energy than the runner expends.'"
Shorter version: we did not create a perpetual motion shoe.
This is disingenuous in the extreme.
13
@Kevin Stevens - I think you're failing to appreciate their position. Their interpretation of the rule appears to be that a shoe that doesn't use energy external to the athlete (e.g., electricity, gasoline) complies with the rule. There's nothing disingenuous about that. It's certainly a plausible understanding of fairness.
2
@Kevin Stevens
Look, it's one thing to sell shoes to recreational runners who desire to achieve a goal in a marathon or Ironman, and another thing to give the shoe to professional runners gunning for world records.
Nike's market is the guys and girls with disposable income paying high fees to enter marathons. Those guys in the photo, they get their shoes for free!!!!
Disingenuous? Perhaps. But legal or illegal is an ancillary consideration. The whole purpose of Nike is to sell shoes that make profits. Also, the whole exercise is wonderful publicity for the Nike brand.
Don't weekend duffers occasionally utilize golf clubs that are not permitted on the PGA Tour?
2
@Kevin Stevens
Not disingenuous. Merely stating the conserved energy comes only from the runner, nothing added by artifice. I’m not saying I’m on board with this but don’t feel this is the reason to take umbrage.
2
It sounds like these shoes are providing a mechanism for more efficient use of the energy that an individual is able to expend in running. They are not bringing any additional energy into the process of running.
So, an advantage over other shoes (or no shoes) but an unfair advantage? No more so than other shoes, or wearing shoes vs. barefoot, provides an unfair advantage.
Runners are always trying to improve their performace by tweaking things like diet, training regimen, hydration, electrolyte replacement. These tweaks are all aimed at conferring an advantage, and some do. So does light weight and wiry build, but there aren't weight and height classes in distance running.
So don't sweat it - if that marginal advantage is so important, blow the money like the pros. Otherwise, just enjoy running and personal improvement.
12
@WJG …Per Nike: "“We respect the I.A.A.F. and the spirit of their rules, and we do not create any running shoes that return more energy than the runner expends.”
That would require an external power source - or defy the laws of physics. Seems they've put in a spring-like mechanism. Whether it's ok is the question.
3
@WJG I disagree with this because the carbon plate is essentially a coiled spring. It comes into the runner's life with all its potential elastic energy already installed in the molecular bonds of the material. Without that coiled spring in the shoe, the runner would have to rely on her muscles and tendons, ligaments, etc to supply all of that work needed to spring up off the ground, which depletes stored energy in her body. These shoes most definitely bring additional, external energy into the process.
That said, ALL running shoes do this--read the promo materials and they all talk about how this gel or that foam will make you faster. Nike's simply hit upon a more successful design, fair and square.
2
@Erin You are incorrect - springs do not bring external energy into the process of running.
What they do is capture some of the kinetic energy of one step in the running process in a way that it can be used for the next step.
So not at all like having an electric motor concealed in a bicycle or getting a tow.
And all shoes have some springiness to their soles; this is a quantitative improvement in a property that is already well accepted by the IAAF.
1
If the general consensus among the runners is that the Nike Vaporfly/Next% is the best shoe to wear, then wouldn't we also expect the fastest runners to wear these shoes to begin with compared to the rest?
1
@Randy They adjusting for that and also measuring the change of individual runners and the improvements made to their best times.
2
Level the playing field, everyone runs barefoot!
2
@Jimmy I like your idea! Then the Kenyans will win by minutes, not seconds!
The Greeks in the good old days har it right, barefoot and naked. The notion of winning/losing based on the bigly expensive piece of wearable plastic is fraught with inhumanity.
5
I am a “hobbyist” runner and I have a wide foot. It appears that these shoes don’t accommodate wide or narrow feet, which is a bummer. I could see how it could be an unfair advantage to an elite runner with wide or narrow feet who can’t take advantage of the benefits of this shoe. I think Nike should make them accessible to different foot widths in order to level the playing field.
7
@Katie If you're truly interested in leveling the playing field, then reducing the price ($250) would be a far, far greater leveler than accommodating people who have wide or narrow feet.
2
@EMB I absolutely agree that reducing the price is the best way to level the playing field. But, I also think it’s important to make sure that anyone who wants to benefit from the shoes’ technology can physically fit into it. Perhaps Nike should offer the option to get custom fittings for these types of shoes so that they are made to order. That would probably increase the cost, but then it’s (physically) accessible to everyone. I’m sure they already do this for elite runners.
4
@Katie - If you go on the website, you'll see that the sizes are Unisex; in other words, they don't even have specific shoes for men and women. Women's are usually wider in the toe area and narrower in the heel, which can be an important variable in walking, let alone running.
3
Warning: unavoidable puns ahead.
IAAP rules disallow shoes which confer an "unfair advantage" or are out of financial reach to runners. As this excellent article shows, the Vaporflys confer a uniform advantage over all competitors. The field is now altered. All runners are now impelled to use them.
The IAAP must now review this new situation, as it results in a single go-to shoe which may unfairly favor certain runners' anatomy over another -- whereas before Vaporflys the matching may have been more fair given the variety of equally-performant shoes available. In other words, there was no clear winner among shoes before.
Nike vacuously says they "respect the I.A.A.F. and the spirit of their rules, and [they] do not create any running shoes that return more energy than the runner expends.” The first bit should be reviewed per the above, and the second clause is just a restatement of the Law of Conservation of Energy. If Nike found that a way to violate that, they'd solve the energy crisis.
3
@RA - The pinnacle of human achievement is profits, which Nike has a fiduciary responsibility to adda spring to.
How different is this from using a superlative tennis racquet (with superlative springs)?
16
@Barb
Way different. I can play with any tennis racquet of the proper grip size, all makers make all sizes. Nike shoes don’t fit my feet yet they, currently, corner the market here.
2
Every problem has a duality. Are older shoes causing a disadvantage? Eliminate disadvantages and runners will improve. Should a race require require everyone to wear same shoe, or barefoot?
1
Given that all of these running shoes ensure faster times compared to bare feet, perhaps the only fair thing is to ban shoes.
5
Nearly everyone who has them has known this all too well, including me. They really work.
But... Running used to be the one sport in which money didn't matter, and in which race times didn't come with asterisks.
Now there are two classes of runners: those who can afford 250$ shoes and those who don't. And we'll never know who's currently the BOAT: Kipchoge or Bekele.
And on a personal note: sure, it's nice to race PBs again when previously I was over my peak but it also feels kind of empty and fake.
22
@Bender - well said. I think you've nailed it on the head. For many people (those who have long since accepted they are never going to step on a podium), what's important is answering the question "Am I improving and able to beat my personal best?" And for me shoes don't come into that equation. Change to the Next% and you'll never really know the answer.
On a personal note, I just cannot justify spending that much on a pair of trainers
2
@SimonH
A lot of shoes are different than they were 30 years ago, No?
3
Mechanical doping that dilute the "purity" of the sport.
Or:
Modest technical innovation that is widely available to all who can afford them (and tbh, distance running in the West is an affluent pursuit). No different than technical innovations in frame design or gearing in cycling.
Grudgingly I am inclined to believe the latter. In due course Adidas, Saucony, Diadora, Puma and all the rest will close the gap with other their own offerings. Times will simply be faster all around.
But of course times are likely faster in shoes at all, opposed to barefoot. No one thinks of shoes as technology, but they are.
10
Perhaps runners who are competing in professional/official races should only wear one type of shoe. What shoe and how it would be decided upon, I have no idea. Or perhaps they should run barefoot. Difficult to know where to draw the line between fair and unfair.
2
@urbanhiker Feet are sufficiently personally different enough that this "one type of shoe" would have to be customized individually to avoid unfair advantages, which could cost as much or more than $250 and still introduce a different vector of unfair advantage.
@urbanhiker - That would shift the onus of better performance to the Al Bundy's of foot racing.
@urbanhiker it can be called one design running.
On the question of whether this conveys an unfair advantage, I feel differently than I do about the buoyant swimsuits that swimmers used before they were banned. Buoyant swimsuits should be banned. Stiff or springy soles are inevitable. There will be no unfair advantage once the technology becomes the standard. If you tried to ban it you couldn't unless you mandated that the soles of shoes had to be completely flexible.
2
Clearly the new carbon fiber soled shoe confers a significant advantage to any runner. It’s ability to absorb a load of energy and return it in a slingshot action enhances the efficiency of each stride. I don’t understand why every competitive runner isn’t wearing such a design.
1
Its not as if these shoes create energy, they are just more efficient in utilizing the runner's energy. No different than a slick rowing shell being more efficient than a dory or a 15 pound super bike vs a 40 pound cruiser/clunker. I do not see a problem with them.
6
This is interesting. However, I noticed that none of the Brooks racing flats (e.g., Hyperion, Asteria) were used in this article for the statistics. Is that true for other brands as well? Comparing a racing flat to a trainer provides some information, but misses the point when it comes to comparing apples to apples. This would be far more telling if the stats shown included all/most of the racing flats from each brand.
1
This is fascinating; however, I do have one methodological bone to pick. I'm a little concerned with the fact that the study relies on self-report on Strava to determine the shoes used for races. The issue here is that Strava doesn't prompt you to "tell" it which shoes you wore for a particular activity; you can add several pairs, and set one of them as your default that will auto-populate. So, my concern is that some of these races were not actually run in the shoes indicated on Strava, because the runner neglected to switch away from their default (which is something I frequently forget to do, even for training runs - I rotate shoes daily).
Now, this won't be a problem for the Vaporflys and similar, as those are racing shoes that few people would wear for training runs. But a lot of the shoes examined - Brooks Ghost and Ravenna, Asics GT series, Hoka Clifton to name a few - are popular everyday trainers. It wouldn't surprise me at all if a substantial fraction of those "ran a marathon in GT 2000s" reports actually used a different shoe for the race, but forgot to indicate that on Strava, which defaulted to their everyday trainer. That might be artificially improving the results for those trainers - or just generally biasing the results.
2
One set of data I think would be useful is performance against cost of the shoes.
It might help test, given the data on hand - race times associated with gender, age, weather - whether those who invest in more expensive shoes then also invest more time and energy into training.
I doubt it would account for all of the variance, but it might flatten out the curve.
If I were to spend $250 on running shoes, it would mean i was very motivated to PR and would train even harder.
4
@ML
I like your suggestion. Not difficult to add, and an interesting measure of socioeconomic status.
Some thought would have to be given to which data to use...
I'm a non-competitive runner, save for the occasional 5 or 10k. In my humble opinion, if the advances by Nike and others can be leveraged by the "masses" to get more people active and running in a meaningful fashion, that's a worthwhile endeavor.
12
The injustice comes when a record is set by an athlete wearing these shoes. Studies of other sports technology show that those records are unlikely to fall.
Baseball hitters on steroids is one example.
Sports, as a means of social mobility, is compromised when governing bodies of athletes do not ban this kind of technology.
Sooner or later, all athletics will be corrupted by technology.
@Robert Should Olympic rowers abandon super slick carbon fiber shells and be required to row wooden dories? These shoes do not change the runner's physiology, or generate energy, they are just more efficient in using the runner's energy. Seems fair to me.
3
@Robert If you're concerned about social mobility and equity, it's not just the major records that matter. Amateur runners may garner attention by winning races, for examples. The Times has run several articles on amateur cheating and the many ways that it compromises other athletes.
1
@James Cunningham
Not fair if you can’t afford them and the guy in the next lane can.
“Shoes must not be constructed so as to give athletes any unfair assistance or advantage.”
I don't think the IAAF is referring to off-the-shelf shoes here. Anyone can buy the Zoom Vaporfly 4% or ZoomX Vaporfly Next% so everybody is technically on the same playing field, or err, road/track. If Nike was making this shoe exclusively for elite athletes, that would be another story.
31
@misterdangerpants
Actually, no: not anyone can buy the Zoom Vaporfly 4%.
Not all of us of have $250 to spend on a pair of running shoes.
3
@misterdangerpants these shoes are only made in standard widths. No one with wider feet has access to this technology. Yet, Boston Qualifying times are shooting up faster than ever, so there is a real cause and effect here.
2
@J, let me clarify: These shoes are not solely available to endorsed or professional athletes. They are available to the general public.
1
Anyone know if this new technology might also offer advantages to older runners simply looking to reduce impact injuries like plantar fasciitis?
6
@Frank actually I wonder if this may be more detrimental to injury because of the higher energy return and the resulting shock to joints and muscle. While 3-4% may seem slight, over the course of a marathon it may lead to more stress. In any case, the shoes should be made legal as every generation of runners has benefited from better technology, and no one has every examined the effect from generation to generation.
3
@Andy @Frank -- I am a 68 year old runner who has run 1 marathon and 1 half marathon in 4% and 1 marathon in Next (because the 4% prematurely disintegrated and were replaced by Nike with Next). In all cases my legs "felt" less beaten up after each race. My times were very slightly better, but not so much as to be statistically meaningful.
FWIW -- there is a lot of discussion about whether it is the carbon plate or Pebax foam that is the main contributor to the shoe's performance.
5
@Frank Yes these shoes definitely help reduce impact, especially if you would have ordinarily raced with flats.
But most people barely get 200mi out of them before they lose their magic or fall apart so unless you have $$$ training in them is out of the question.
4
On Thursday, the company said in a statement, “We respect the I.A.A.F. and the spirit of their rules, and we do not create any running shoes that return more energy than the runner expends.”
I certainly hope not. Unless the shoes were powered, or somehow disobeyed the laws of physics, the shoes could not return more energy than the runner expended. What a silly thing to say.
109
@Ed from Maine LOL ... cold fusion shoes!!!
9
@Ed from Maine I found the Nike statement entertaining but its clear intent was merely to evade the question about unfair advantage.
Shades of slippery swim suits and aluminum baseball bats.
8
@Ed from Maine Couldn’t Nike create bicycles with the same feature?
2
How long before the NFL, a sport rife with equipment designed to enhance performance, from adjustable cleat lengths to sticky gloves to all sorts of pads and braces, works this into cleats. Imagine a wide receiver or DB that gains a few percentage points of speed AND endurance, with more energy left to burn in the fourth quarter. Imagine an offensive or defensive line with that same extra allotment of energy at the end of the game. Those advantages could easily be the difference in many games.
It certainly seems unfair in running, at least until every professional wears them, but in football, the rule is there are no rules unless someone makes them. And, of course, eventually all players will wear them, so at that point any advantage will be gone. The only real winners will be the early adopters.
@Bob Lacatena I think its less relevant in the NFL and like situations because shaving 4% off of 2+ hours is a lot of time but you can't shave 4% off of a 3 second out route and do anything statistically significant. It won't help you change direction faster or be any shiftier. That's what the cleats can do.
2
If the statistical analyses provided by the NYT are correct, as at first read they appear to be, the shoes in question DO provide significant assistance and/or advantage.
This means the shoes do violate the rules of track's governing authority, which state: “Shoes must not be constructed so as to give athletes any unfair assistance or advantage.”
There is no ambiguity here: the operative word is "any." "Any" means more than zero, so the question is how much above zero is sufficient to confer assistance or advantage? 0.1%? 0.5% 1%? 2%?
The word in the rule that needs closer examination is "unfair." If runners may choose their own shoes, and the shoes are available to and can be bought by anyone, how can the advantage or assistance they provide be considered "unfair?"
16
@Mon Ray The problem isn't necessarily with the average runner, I think the issue at heart is professional runners who rely on sponsorships from major companies. If you're a New Balance athlete and your competitor is a Nike athlete who has access to these shoes (and if the shoes really do provide a major advantage), then it becomes less of a sport of athleticism and more of who has access to the tech.
23
@Mon Ray I think the operative word in the policy regarding the advantage is actually "unfair" rather than "any." As someone said above, if everyone can wear these shoes, then the advantage they provide is not "unfair."
4
Sorry did not read your whole post rightly, there, though my point still stands; these shoes' advantage does not seem unfair.
Thank you for the work that went into this really fabulous and detailed analysis. I often appreciate how the Upshot provides another layer on top of the mere reporting of information, but this analysis goes above and beyond.
Articles like this are why I continue to support journalism.
59
Thank you for the analysis. I must comment that I have run and competed since a freshman in high school. I started running on cinder tracks. I was fortunate enough to see the change to 3-Ms rubberized synthetic track replace cinders on the prototype at MaCalister College in Minnesota.
Track and field also changed the pole vault event. It moved from bamboo, to steel and to currently fiberglass. Once again, a technical improvement similar to the synthetic grass track at McCalister.
The tack and field world (road warriors included) has always sought improvement though technical improvements. Nike has led the shoe industry in the evolution of shoes since the 1970s
My point is that change is inevitable. How we adapt to the change is the question. Shoemakers will adapt to the improvements in technology.
Knowing most runners, those interested in their Personal Record (PR) will spend their last nickel to secure any advancement in shoes to assist them. We even tried barefoot.
However, the "improvements" totally frowned on are ones derived from drugs. Russia, the old East Germany and possibly China incorporated state sponsored drug enhancement programs. Russia continues banned from next year's Olympics. Even Nike's Alberto Salazar currently faces censorship for his skating of the drug rules.
I support any non-drug technical improvement.
msd
76
@MSD
I agree and can remember when the large metal and compost tennis rackets came out. Within a year or so my Dunlop Maxply wood rackets were gathering dust...
6
I own and use ultra-lightweight carbon sporting goods for distance paddling. I would love to think the carbon does the work, but alas without my effort the goods just sit there. It is true that carbon goods make some of us more efficient, and that frequently results in significantly improved race times. Others prefer bamboo and still others teak, which actually have quite a bit of carbon in them. I can guarantee, however, that the top athletes will win no matter what their gear, and that whatever they use, the rest of us will end up buying it with hopes we too will accelerate. Your shoes problem exists on a level playing field. So, how is it a problem?
5
Of all the statistical analysis performed there is one glaring hole. Why didn't you take the shoe to a lab and actually calculate the returned energy compared to other shoes? Show hard data that the shoe does what other shoes don't. I have little doubt the shoe functions as a spring, but that's a testable hypothesis. So do the test.
We should also point out the absurdity of the Nike statement. "We do not create any running shoes that return more energy than the runner expends." Neither does a bicycle but it clearly utilizes that expended energy in a mechanically advantageous manner.
35
@Chris Hinricher Lab tests have been done, by one of the most respected biomechanics labs in the country. Running economy improved by an average of 4% (which isn't the same as saying performance improved by 4%).
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s40279-017-0811-2
8
Solution simple: you want to compete, get the shoes. Unless they are prohibitively expensive, they would probably be a minimal expense added to what athletes already spend to be at their best.
3
@Barry Williams
If the shoes are basically good for one marathon and then should be replaced, then the situation is very analogous to the (now banned) swimming supersuits which were expensive and had very limited lives. It obviously could make it very difficult for many non-sponsored runners to compete on a level field having to spend $250 on shoes each race.
What about distances lesser than a marathon? I could see a situation where richer HS runners in say, a 1,500m race, would have a real advantage over poorer competition.
7
@Jay Notice that I said "unless they are prohibitively expensive".
But given your scenario, the solution is still simple: ban their use in official competitions, at the very least where records can be set, possibly also where prize money is involved.
These days even amateur sports is really a business, and if your participating piece of the business can't afford the best equipment, oh well. There could be runners who can't afford proper nutrition, or training facilities, etc. We make these kinds of issues more complicated than they need to be. What we do should be based on one consideration: what is the goal of the competition? Is it to run the fastest time, or is it to be completely fair to all competitors? Attaining both goals is likely impossible, and has never been achieved at any time in history.
Pick a measure of fairness, make rules accordingly, and go. Understand, though, there will be that special someone who will lose the possibility of feeling that wonderful sense of achievement in beating the privileged athlete with the shoes and the state of the art training facilities without help.
2
@Jay This is a very good point; however, right now, there's no evidence that the shoes provide an advantage on the track - which is already a springy surface. Also, typically runners wear spikes for track races (the design differs between sprint spikes and middle distance spikes, but they're definitely different from road-racing shoes like the ones discussed here). It's possible that tech like this could be added to spikes, though I'm not sure how much advantage there would be, as spikes are already more rigid than trainers.
2
While the data is interesting, all it shows is that times improved by self-reported shoe changes. The arguments against the VaporFly/Next% fall apart when you see that most shoe switchers see some percentage improvements in their times. The significant performance improvement of the VaporFly/Next% for most runners is due to the combination of three features these shoes have that other shoes don't:
1) Fairly lightweight -- nothing special here. Many many other racing shoes are lighter than the VaporFly/Next%
2) Super soft cushioning -- this is special. The shoes have a large amount of the cushioning, but other manufacturers have access to the same cushion material
3) Efficient to run fast in. The controversial carbon plate in the shoes is necessary to provide stability and responsiveness to the shoes. Without the plate, the shoes would just be super soft, but not very efficient.
So Nike is the first to get all three of these features in one shoe, and it clearly works. The main reason above all others that the shoes result in faster times for most runners is that the shoes take a significant amount of pounding off the legs, while still being efficient. That's the key. The difference in a marathon is huge: anyone who races a marathon (26.2 miles), but who feels like their legs have only run 22-23 miles, is going to run faster, whether they finish in 2 hours or 4 hours.
37
@MrDeepState All of that is besides the point. It's not like getting six million dollar bionic legs or something, or training harder than your competition. If the shoes would give everyone the same advantage, then official competitions must require either everyone has the shoes or no one does.
The only problem would be that we'd have to start keeping track of records' history anew, starting an Age of the Vaporfly/Next%. Records would be broken with foot gear as a massively significant factor, instead of because of improvements in an athlete's training or individual genetic superiority.
3
@MrDeepState
Regardless of the spring discussion I think the real issues are whether one values the historical relevance of race times and athletes, i.e. without asterisk, and whether one values running as the ultimate equal sport in which the ability to buy 250$ shoes doesn't matter much.
I, for one, regret that we'll never know if Kipchoge would have beaten Gebrselassie.
2
I've run tens of thousands of miles in my life and many marathons, and can summarize a much shorter version of the story than MrDeepState's:
The carbon plate acts as a spring and returns energy (bounce) upwards whereas a typical shoe does not. This does two things:
1. The runner uses less energy to lift his feet with every step of the race. That energy can then be shifted from an upward component into forward movement
2. The spring action is also absorbing impact damage usually imparted to all of the lower leg- feet, achilles, and calves. This is a critical benefit at the end of the marathon when the legs are deadening from the impact and losing efficiency.
All of which is to say: the shoes are clearly performance enhancing aids and should be banned.
Finally, note Nike's carefully worded statement: that the shoes "do not... return more energy than the runner expends.” of course they don't. What they do is conserve energy. And they return a statistically large portion of the downward forces usually lost to ground impact to result in these 5% improvements.
Ban the shoes IAAF.
4