22 ms·
Nike Says Its $250 Running Shoes Will Make You Run Much Faster
- nascar_is_bad 8y agono
- andbberger 8y agoI don't know, sandals work pretty good. > they have a carbon-fiber plate in the midsole, which stores and releases energy with each stride ... the achilles tendon + calf already play this role. Just don't heel strike.
- koverda 8y agocarbon fiber doesn't get tired
- monkmartinez 8y agoSo why not just add springs to the entire shoe?
- koverda 8y agocheck out Nike Shox: https://store.nike.com/us/en_us/pw/shox-shoes/9ifZoi3 https://store.nike.com/us/en_us/pw/shox-shoes/9ifZoi3
- taeric 8y agoSprings would also eat some of the power you throw at the impact. Same reason you don't do shocks on a road bike. (Above is speculation.)
- loeg 8y agoThe plate is the full length of the shoe. Not sure how you're imagining adding springs in a way that is more conducive to running. Keep in mind shoe weight matters quite a bit.
- monkmartinez 8y agoSprings are not always shaped like a car strut... AND Weight isn't important if the energy gained offsets the energy lost carrying the extra load.
- loeg 8y agoSure. I think Nike is probably aware of this and took it into account when designing this shoe. If you have a better design (your earlier comment suggests "just add[ing] springs to the entire shoe"), there's probably a financial motive for you to figure out how to sell that. (I think you are probably understating the difficulty of designing a better shoe, for any definition of "better.")
- bookofjoe 8y agoIt's been done: http://www.ohgizmo.com/2008/02/13/z-coil-shoes-are-apparently-not-a-sight-gag/ http://www.ohgizmo.com/2008/02/13/z-coil-shoes-are-apparentl...
- andbberger 8y agoITT: heel strikers
- tudelo 8y agoAhh yes, of course, sandals. A few people have won the Boston marathon in sandals, right?
- andbberger 8y agoYou may be being sarcastic, but I'm serious! More commonly referred to as huaraches in this situation. Works a treat.
- pmahoney 8y agoIt's possible to run at or near an elite level without modern running shoes. For example the 1960 Olympic marathon was won by a barefoot competitor (his winning time of 2:15:16.2 would be considered sub-elite today) [1]. One can speculate why all elite runners use shoes. Worth noting that running shoes designed for racing, as opposed to training, tend to be thinner and lighter and closer to a simple sandal [2]. I personally reverted from bare feet back to shoes after the occasional thorn or bit of glass getting stuck in my foot became too annoying. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abebe_Bikila#1960_Rome_Olympics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abebe_Bikila#1960_Rome_Olympic... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racing_flat https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racing_flat
- andai 8y agoAlan Watts called this running on the "balls of your feet."
- 6ak74rfy 8y agoThis reminds me of the powerful arguments that Christopher McDougall presented in his book (Born to Run[1]) around bare-foot running [2]. I've tried running bare-foot and using old-ragged shoes and absolutely love it. [1]: https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/6289283-born-to-run https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/6289283-born-to-run [2]: http://www.chrismcdougall.com/born-to-run/the-barefoot-running-debate/ http://www.chrismcdougall.com/born-to-run/the-barefoot-runni...
- RobertRoberts 8y agoAny reason this should be down voted? I read that "born to run" was partly a scam book (can't recall exactly, but the cover was photoshopped for one, and the stories about some runners never getting hurt was just totally false, etc...) But barefoot running is a great way to run, no knee or back issues after doing this for years.
- ABS 8y agopossibly because these shoes and the article are exactly the opposite of barefoot running?
- RobertRoberts 8y agoIt still seems like a relevant response if these shoes (long term) are even more detrimental to our bodies the previous designs. He was pointing out that the appeal of these shoes appears to be simply mimicking what the body already does. I took this as a valid criticism of these shoes. This is especially relevant because there's been decades of shoe manufacturers designing for poor running form. Surely HN isn't just for commenting on support of a product in a linked story, but also considered criticism?
- Buldak 8y ago>Compared with typical training shoes, the Vaporflys are believed to wear out quickly: Some runners have said they lose their effectiveness after 100 miles or so. This is about two weeks of peak marathon training, although if the shoes are as advantageous as the article claims that's impressive in any case. I suppose one could reserve them for races and train with cheaper shoes.
- ErikAugust 8y agoAbout one week (or even less) for pros or even the most competitive amateurs. However, if you ran for Nike, they'd likely send you plenty of pairs so that's not even an issue.
- llimllib 8y agoThe idea is that you don't train in them, you save them for the race. (My last marathon training period peaked at a little over 70mpw. Normal trainers last me about 500-600 miles, my lighter shoes (Kinvaras) last 400-500, and my race flats even less than that)
- lmilcin 8y agoYou don't use your race as an occasion to test your running shoes.
- brianwawok 8y agoWith these you do. Maybe do a 3 mile tune-up run to make sure there are not hot spots and it fits well, then you go race in it. Can't spend 50 miles breaking in a shoe with a life of 100 miles.
- jmull 8y agoI'd do something more like 13-15 miles.
- lmilcin 8y agoMaybe not a particular pair, but you have to have experience with any types of shoes. I would frequently buy two pairs, one I would normally train in and the other will be reserved for events. Even the pair reserved for event I would typically test run (hahaha!) at least once during training to spot any problems. Now, this is pure conjecture, I don't think the shoes magically make you more efficient. Efficiency is something you learn when running over long period of time. I would expect, to reap benefits of these shoes (assuming there are) you would need to get used to the new mechanics of running that the shoes will require.
- fhood 8y agoIf these shoes really can provide a measurable improvement in times they probably should be banned. Otherwise it will go the way of swimming, where a bunch of world records got set before they ended up banning those full body suits.
- reaperducer 8y agoRunning on shoes with a carbon fiber plate should be banned, but running on carbon fiber blades† is OK? It wouldn't be the first time the Olympic Committee has been confusing. † https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oscar_Pistorius https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oscar_Pistorius
- llimllib 8y agoThe IAAF != the Olympics https://www.iaaf.org/news/news/oscar-pistorius-independent-scientific-stud-1 https://www.iaaf.org/news/news/oscar-pistorius-independent-s...
- gwbas1c 8y agoRunning sneakers are a relatively new invention. You wouldn't want to run a marathon in whatever the ancient greeks wore. If this kind of thing is important, the best approach is to narrowly define what athletes can wear. (Shoes, socks, compression sleeves, clothes, ect.) Then, working within the limits is part of the sport itself.
- justinsaccount 8y ago> Running sneakers are a relatively new invention. This is true, humans have been running for thousands of years without them. > You wouldn't want to run a marathon in whatever the ancient greeks wore. why not? > Abebe Bikila (August 7, 1932 – October 25, 1973) was an Ethiopian double Olympic marathon champion. He won the marathon at the 1960 Summer Olympics in Rome while running barefoot, setting a world record. He finished in 2:15:16.2 Or take Roger Bannister: [1] > Sir Roger clocked three minutes 59.4 seconds in the historic race at Iffley Road Track in Oxford on 6 May 1954 when he was a 25-year-old medical student. > The thin leather running spikes which weigh just four and a half ounces were snapped up by an anonymous buyer at the auction in South Kensington, London. I don't know about you, but I can't run a 2:15 marathon or a 4 minute mile, and I don't think fancy shoes would make the difference. [1] https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/sep/11/roger-bannisters-sub-four-minute-mile-running-shoes-sell-for-266500 https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/sep/11/roger-bannis...
- pcunite 8y agoWear running shoes that save your feet. Utilize a wide toe-box that help prevent Morton's Neuroma and other foot injuries. Maybe you won't get there as quickly (debatable) but you'll still be able to walk when you're older ... long after the confetti has been cleaned up.
- monkmartinez 8y agoSo at what point can we just start using jumping stilts [1] or something similar? I mean the shoes are $250 and the stilts from Amazon [2] are like $50 more when you include shipping. WRT to carbon fiber plate... how is that not "cheating" like the stilts? Its like electric motors in bicycles if you ask me. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gCqvUGFwee4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gCqvUGFwee4 [2] https://www.amazon.com/Air-Trekkers-JUMPING-EXTREME-Exercise-PROTECTION/dp/B01EBL5OCW https://www.amazon.com/Air-Trekkers-JUMPING-EXTREME-Exercise...
- llimllib 8y agoIAAF rules already prohibit that: > (e) Use of any technical device that incorporates springs, wheels or any other element that provides the user with an advantage over another athlete not using such a device. Nobody has brought a challenge over this shoe and its debatable use of a "spring"; the IAAF may in fact decide it's a mechanical advantage if/when somebody does
- monkmartinez 8y agoGreat comment. Now, how often are officials confiscating shoes and sawing them in half to see what is really inside? Corked bats? Hidden motors... etc...
- dmurray 8y agoNobody had even a proof of concept for a shoe that looked like a running shoe on the outside but had "springs, wheels" inside, so the officials didn't need to. Compare it with competitive cycling, where for a hundred years officials didn't need to X-ray the bike to check for hidden motors, but now they regularly do [0]. If the Nike shoe is banned from professional competition, athletes will stop wearing it, and officials will investigating other shoes for carbon fibre inserts, and will likely catch some. They're not stupid. [0]https://cyclingtips.com/2015/04/hidden-motors-for-road-bikes-exist-heres-how-they-work/amp/ https://cyclingtips.com/2015/04/hidden-motors-for-road-bikes...
- iguy 8y ago
- danvoell 8y agoProps to whomever at Nike PR got this article released. Now I want a pair. Its better to be controversial (Uber, Lime, Bird) these days than on the up and up. Help us fight for consumer rights!
- fhood 8y agoComparing these shoes to Uber's issues seems a bit odd. Particularly since there isn't anything all that amoral about them.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- makemoniesonlin 8y agowhoever\
- ABS 8y agoI hope they somehow collected the official gun and chip times for those runners because the times and distances on Strava are never the official ones and can vary massively (GPS accuracy, when people pressed start on their watches and so forth)
- loeg 8y agoGPS distances can vary somewhat, but is there any reason to believe they should be biased in favor of GPS-using runners with these shoes instead of averaging out?
- ABS 8y agono but that's not the point: if the data is unreliable then it's unreliable. And here it's unreliable in a way that cannot be accounted for since it can be massively (e.g. minutes) over or under the actual time per individual.
- loeg 8y agoYou're still talking about data error magnitude as if it explains bias. It does not.
- whitepoplar 8y agoBest review of the shoes: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rXdxKamJDg8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rXdxKamJDg8
- c0brac0bra 8y agoDoes he blink?
- NullPrefix 8y agohttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rXdxKamJDg8&t=20 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rXdxKamJDg8&t=20
- eknkc 8y agoScrew you, I can't watch it now.
- overcast 8y agoThis would have been infinitely better if it was genuine, and not a character. Disappointed.
- NightlyDev 8y agoI'm not quite sure what I just watched, but ok...
- lmilcin 8y agoThere might be a simpler explanation. People that are willing to spend $250 on racers mmay be more serious than average runner. It might also be that the act of putting on $250 shoes may have purely psychological effect to stimulate runner as not doing their best could have additional perceived cost of wasting money spent on very expensive shoes.
- loeg 8y agoThey did attempt to control for this in other ways (at least skim the article), but it's true that at the end of the day you cannot control for any psychological factor.
- lmilcin 8y ago"Attempt to control" is not the same thing as proving it. You yourself admitted "you cannot control for any psychological factor". Well, maybe you can, but definitely it is not easy. Now, you get a lot of data on lots of people running in non-laboratory setting. The people tested actually bought the shoes and we know, if they paid for them, they have invested in them and the idea that the shoes represent. The idea behind this pair of shoes is "extreme efficiency even at high cost". What you get is you get people that may have been biased by the act of selection based on the idea and then you compare them to other people who chose to buy other pair of shoes. Let's test this idea. Let's say you are comparing Lamborghini to Fiat with regards to whether the car is safe. Instead of doing laboratory tests, you decide to mine data of all miles ever driven in all cars ever produced. Now, you see that, on average, Lamborghini last less between crashes and then are more frequently totaled. Is your conclusion that Lamborghinis are less safe than Fiats or maybe your conclusion should be that it is actually difficult to say given the data because there might be other factors at work (for example, Lamborghini buyers may be biased to be drivers that tend to drive faster and less safe?) It might also be that the act of sitting behind wheel of Lambo may cause you to drive less safely.
- loeg 8y ago> "Attempt to control" is not the same thing as proving it. Understood. > You yourself admitted "you cannot control for any psychological factor". Your comment suggests we disagree, but I don't think we actually disagree on both the possible impact and lack of ability to control for psychological factors.
- pdpi 8y agoThere's something interesting at play here — clearly, they're selling these shoes to enthusiasts, rather than just targeting elite athletes. While I can see a competitive athlete reaching for whatever legal means they can to try and buy themselves a victory or podium or some other high-profile result that buys them sponsorships, there's just no good reason why amateur runners should care — you don't magically become a fitter, better runner by posting faster numbers through fancier shoes. Selling people on to the idea that they _should_ care about this is, depending on perspective marketing at either its finest or at its worst.
- mulletbum 8y agoThis isn't really stated or testing, but one of my biggest issues with running is how much pain I feel on my joints. I actually find it really enjoyable to run through the woods with my dog, but my knees just get mad. If these shoes relieved just a tiny bit of that pain I would find them almost worth it. Not saying one should buy an expensive pair of shoes, but if it was the case, maybe the shoes don't just make you run better, but actually walk better and more safe?
- whitepoplar 8y agoI could never understand why so many people run as a sport, when nearly all runners eventually develop joint problems, many requiring knee replacements (which you supposedly can't run on).
- loeg 8y agoThis oft-repeated claim is factually inaccurate. Runners and former runners, as a population, have better knees than non-runners.[0] [0]: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27333572 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27333572
- JacobJans 8y agoI wouldn't draw very many conclusions from that study. The study itself says: > This was an observational study where people chose whether or not they wanted to run; therefore there is always the possibility that people stopped running because they had knee pain. That's a pretty big flaw in their study.
- doe88 8y agoIf true I wouldn't discount the benefit, even small. It reminds me the theory of marginal gains popularized by Team SKY in cycling. In the aggregate all these small details add-up and may make the difference.
- maxxxxx 8y agoTrue. At the absolute top probably 0.1% will already make a big difference.
- SurrealSoul 8y agoArticles like this make me want to get a NYTimes sub, excellent reporting on something mundane with enough statistics to make it worth the read. If we ban shoes now, will we ban other augments in the future? Will this stunt the progression of such human performance augmentations?
- dandr01d 8y agoDid you get a subscription or not?!
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- djohnston 8y agoi think at a competitive level we have already crossed this threshold, as we have barred j-blade runners from competing against full-legged humans at the highest level. i think it's totally justified, but i don't think it will have any effect on the advancement of prosthetics, which pave the way to performance augmentations.
- meritt 8y agoI'd love to get a NYT sub but they operate like SiriusXM when it comes to cancellations. You have to talk to a human, during business hours, and you have to fight with them for 15 minutes to get cancelled (meanwhile they offer you continually cheaper rates to stay on, so if you pay rack rates you're clearly overpaying in the first place). If they offered a way to self-manage a subscription that I could cancel at any time (e.g. Netflix) and a fixed rate so I knew I wasn't overpaying. I'd love to sub.
- softbuilder 8y agoThis was how they lost my business forever a few years ago. I had to tighten spending for a bit so I called to cancel, thinking I'd be able to renew in a few months. The experience was horrible.
- ndrake 8y ago
- citiguy 8y agoRunning shoes are funny things. Due to the fact that they are basically a weight at the end of a long fulcrum, the heavier they are the slower you will go. Plus they are full of padding which messes up the natural springs you already have built into your feet. It is not surprising someone invented a shoe that is somewhat lighter which makes it faster. I find the spring idea somewhat dubious but maybe they do give you a slight boost. My question would be how fast you can run in these vs with no shoes on at all.
- lnanek2 8y agoVaporfly is actually heavier than some other racing flats that have performed worse, like the Nike Zoom Streak 6. So your theory of what is happening doesn't fit, unfortunately. Regenerative braking makes cars heavier and generally only returns 4-5% energy, but you don't see people demanding their electrics don't have it, do you? This is the same sort of thing for running shoes, but with energy returning foams and plates making their weight worthwhile for improving effectiveness instead.
- WhompingWindows 8y agoWouldn't a better control just be a typical running shoe? I don't see many serious runners running barefoot
- symmitchry 8y agoActually Noakes (I think it was) found that reducing weight was only effective to a point. Being barefoot is definitely not faster than having shoes on. See my other comment above re: Bikila.
- todd8 8y agoIt’s fun and exhilarating to run faster, but very few people, almost by definition, enter the ranks of elite runners. One of the best pieces of advice I heard while training for my first marathon was “No one here in this (beginner) training group is going to finish in first place.” Obviously, I knew this was true about me, but it always reminded me to keep my goals for doing a marathon in perspective. I had set a goal for myself and a faster set of shoes might have gotten me to the Boston marathon a year sooner, but it was the journey not the destination that was so rewarding.
- sndean 8y ago> “No one here in this (beginner) training group is going to finish in first place.” Almost always true. But it's fun to dream about being in Bill Rodgers' situation (in running or any other activity). In 1973 he was chain-smoking bar-regular who liked eating pizza topped with mayonnaise and who had no interest in running marathons. In 1975 he was the fastest American ever.
- kchoudhu 8y agoYes, but will they make me get off my ass and go running?
- rconti 8y agoI bought an expensive carbon fiber bicycle and the price tag made me feel guilty if i didn't ride it more. So, maybe.
- mrnobody_67 8y agoPlacebo effect.
- fredley 8y agoNo. If this were really a psychological boost given by switching to a new pair of shoes, regardless of model, then the Vaporflies would show no statistical difference to other similarly priced shoes in the 'switching' test.
- not_a_moth 8y agoWhatever happened to the whole "born to run" thing, which surveyed a lot of evidence that running shoes - recent inventions - cause injuries almost universally, that you're better off with totally minimal shoes if not no shoes at all.
- zebrafish 8y agoGenerally found to be untrue. Lots of different running styles and gaits. Runners generally take the "shoe for every stride" approach now rather than a "one style fits all" mindset.
- rhinoceraptor 8y agoIf you have running shoes, then sure you have different styles. For instance, you can land on your heels and blow out your knees and hips, whereas without shoes you would never run that way.
- bamboozled 8y agoNot saying you’re wrong but do you have any evidence to say it’s “Generally found to be untrue”.
- notacoward 8y agoThe question is more whether the "barefoot is best" meme was ever more than theory/anecdote. https://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/06/05/is-barefoot-style-running-best-new-studies-cast-doubt/ https://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/06/05/is-barefoot-style-... As others have said, people are different. There might well be a subset of runners for whom a barefoot/minimal style is best, but AFAICT it's a minority at best, so "generally found to be untrue" is a pretty good summary.
- bamboozled 8y agoTo be honest that article just says that both techniques are similar in efficiency, which I think no one really disputed. There is also a claim which I’m not so familiar with which is that bare foot runners think their feet will become more “taught and spring like”, ,not really familiar with that idea. What I’m interested in, and the article doesn’t discuss is the injury rate between runners who run barefoot and without shoes. I haven’t any studies which say I’m more likely to be injured when going barefoot. I think the real reason more people wear shoes is that there is seems to be something taboo about going shoeless. As a bare foot runner I feel judged for taking off the shoes and going for a run. Edit: To the point about people who tried barefoot shoes and were injured, that’s probably because just running without shoes on with the same technique for 10 weeks isn’t an advisable way to run without shoes. It’s quite a different exercise.
- httpz 8y agoWhen cleats were first introduced to soccer decades ago people had the same debate. I think technological advancements changing a sport is inevitable. What if Adidas makes a similar shoes that makes you 3% faster? 2% 1%? where do you draw the line?
- QML 8y agoWhy not make pro football players wear standardized shoes during a game? The issue with customized shoes I see is wealthier teams will have better equipment.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- retsibsi 8y ago> Why not make pro football players wear standardized shoes during a game? I don't know whether this image is accurate, but: https://www.thesun.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/es-football-boot-deals-graphic.jpg https://www.thesun.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/es-footb... Really though, standardised boots would probably not kill this market. In cricket, for example, it's common for players to use a bat that is dressed up to look like the product of their sponsor, while actually being manufactured by someone else entirely. This is a bit of an open secret, so I guess that footwear companies would also be willing to pay good money to have 'their' boots worn by the big stars, even if the public knew that they weren't allowed to be meaningfully different from the boots everyone else was wearing. A genuinely good reason not to force standardised boots is just how different everyone's needs are. Feet don't just differ in size, but in shape (in three dimensions), not to mention all the other things that can affect a person's natural gait, weight distribution and so on. I think it would be hard to write regulations tight enough to preclude an unfair advantage for richer teams, without also forcing some players into boots that would be not only sub-optimal but even dangerous (in the sense of increasing the risk of injury).
- laxd 8y agoShoes so fast they might have to be banned. Good old marketing trick.
- GatorD42 8y agoThe aggressive opinion on regulating these shoes seems over the top to me, the next best shoes, the relatively unheralded Nike Streak, provided a 3% performance improvement, and more runners achieved a personal best with those shoes. And improvements with the vapor fly 4% were smaller for faster runners. Also many runners choose shoes based on injury prevention and comfort - if a shoe gets you to the starting line uninjured with plenty of training miles that's an infinite time improvement over pulling out of the race injured. Wired did a good analysis on this too https://www.wired.com/story/do-nike-zoom-vaporfly-make-you-run-faster/ https://www.wired.com/story/do-nike-zoom-vaporfly-make-you-r...
- jartelt 8y agoBeing 3 or 4% more efficient on race day is a HUGE advantage. Maybe not every elite runner wants to have to wear these shoes to compete?
- microcolonel 8y agoThen they will have to find shoes which are competitive, doesn't seem that crazy to me. It'd be great if footraces continued to advance consumer shoes like stock car racing advances consumer vehicles.
- lagadu 8y agoNot a very good example, stock cars are effectively ancient in many ways compared to modern cars. For example they only started playing with (indirect) fuel injection a few years ago.
- chrisseaton 8y agoAren't stock cars literally by definition modern cars? They're cars currently available in the stock of consumer retailers. That's the whole point of the game isn't it?
- 8y ago
- Paul_S 8y agoThis isn't journalism, this is marketing.
- glitcher 8y agoThe title image animated gif should come with a seizure warning lol
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- Fang_ 8y agoBut then what would be the point? Are we going back to old hunting tactics?
- HugoDaniel 8y agoI have been hearing the motto: "High tech shoes: low tech runner" Not sure how accurate it might be...
- codezero 8y agoThis is cool, but since I’m not a professional runner I’d love shoes that could reduce the likelihood that I develop an injury.
- chairmanwow 8y agoWhat a phenomenal piece of journalism. If anything, I think a piece like this can expose the limits of statistical analysis to the unfamiliar. They made a very thorough analysis of something rather boring, all without making untrue statements about the limitations of each approach. I enjoyed this a lot.
- macspoofing 8y agoEither that or a brilliant piece of Nike PR masquerading as journalism. Doesn't Nike also sell $400 basketball shoes that make you jump higher?
- extralego 8y agoHaving worked for Nike on ads and in the publishing industry (on branded print content), I am very comfortable saying this is 100% an ad. If it weren’t, it simply wouldn’t be run, because that would justify future Nike ad $$$ to competing publications so as to not clump too much branding in one outlet, a tell-tale sign of a deal. It takes a unique very scenario for a pub like NYT to just hand something like this to a company like Nike; nothing about this even moves that needle. I am similarly comfortable asserting the rough draft was written by Nike in-house, simply because their people have this stuff falling out of their heads already. NYT leading this would cost multitudes in efficiency.
- bootlooped 8y agoI think it would be illegal to run this without disclosing that it's an ad.
- extralego 8y agoI don’t. It’s done all the time regardless.
- AtlasBarfed 8y agoso idealistic...
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- Cursuviam 8y agoTo quote Mars Blackmon, "It's got to be the shoes." (In ref. to Nike's Air Jordan ad campaign)
- ronreiter 8y agoCan someone please explain to me why this isn't a classic "correlation does not imply causality"? This is not a randomized trial, which means that if there is a bias of "better athletes spend more on their shoes" then it can also explain the 4% increase of Nike Vaporfly.
- alwaysdoit 8y agoSure, the NYT will explain that very thoroughly to you if you'd like to read the article.
- amai 8y agoI think they didn't answer an important question: Did runners switching back to other shoes get slower again?
- lyk 8y ago"Runners who improved their performance in Vaporflys and then switched to other shoes got slower. There were very few runners in our data who met this criterion: We counted just 24 such races. But these runners finished about 7 percent slower on average than they did while wearing the Vaporflys. (Of the 24 races, 17 races were slower, and 7 were faster.)"
- ozy 8y agoMaybe it is a self-filtering effect, they should have shown a graph of shoe price vs improvement, and improvement over time. That would capture if those willing to pay more are self-selecting for being better, training more, etc. And if today the effect is stronger than a year ago, perhaps because of rumors of it making you faster.
- walrus01 8y agoI know nothing about running shoes, but there is a very quantifiable difference between a $100 pair of road cycling shoes and a $250 pair. Stiffness of sole, comfort, weight, a lot of things. As in many things in road cycling there is a certain point of diminishing returns (a $550 seatpost hand blessed by some artisan in italy is not significantly better than an aluminum Thomson).
- genofon 8y agoVery likely an ads in disguised, such a shame seeing things like this in newspapers.
- 48snickers 8y agoI'm surprised they didn't compare the Vaporfly 4% to two other shoes: the Nike Zoom Fly and the Reebok Floatride Run Fast. The former is an identical shoe, but with the Pebax replaced with another foam (Lunarlon?). The latter is another Pebax foam shoe, but in a different form factor. That way they could tease out of it is the material or the shoe design.