5 ms·

If 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 w

by fhood 8y ago

If 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 ago
Running 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 ago
  The 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 ago
Running 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...
  - jdietrich 8y ago
    >why not? We didn't evolve to run on tarmac or concrete. Public roads are strewn with broken glass and fragments of metal. Regular distance running is punishing on your joints, even if you're a forefoot runner with perfect form.
    - dpark 8y ago
      Okay, but we did evolve to run on dirt and rock, neither of which are particularly soft. Equally important, studies indicate that impact does not decrease when running on softer surfaces. Runner instinctively step harder on soft surfaces and more softer on hard surfaces, to get the same feedback from their feet and legs.
    - pg314 8y ago
      > Regular distance running is punishing on your joints, even if you're a forefoot runner with perfect form. The studies I'm aware of (e.g. [1]) point in the opposite direction: runners have a lower risk of osteoarthritis, potentially because they have a lower BMI. As an avid long distance runner myself, if you have any evidence to the contrary, I'd be very interested to read it. [1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23377837 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23377837
      - sethammons 8y ago
        I did not see the original source, but this secondary source shows that running is the second most injurious sport, right behind football. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3724624/How-running-risky-boxing-rugby-Sports-perceived-dangerous-actually-fewer-injuries.html http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3724624/How-running-...
        tylerhou 8y ago
        I would be skeptical about any claim supported by a Daily Mail link. I couldn't find any references to the study they "cited" on Google Scholar, either.
  - 8y ago
einarfd 8y ago
As a runner I want shoes to get more efficient and better. What is about todays running shoe that makes them acceptable, and that anything better is some form of cheating? I don't agree with what they did in swimming, those body suits where amazing, and that they got banned was really sad. But even if you agree with banning them. Shoes in running are a not comparable to full body swimming suits. Shoes are an central part of running, the swimming suit is not that in swimming. If you ban improvement on something so core to running as the shoes, what is left to innovate on?
- smileysteve 8y ago
  > Shoes are an central part of running, the swimming suit is not that in swimming A Speedo vs a Short is a very big difference in swimming. Shaving body hair is a thing males at the high school level are doing.
  - einarfd 8y ago
    I wasn't arguing that there isn't significant drag in water, and to be able to win swimming competitions you need to care about that to. But I have a hard time accepting that swimming shorts, is to swimming as shoes are to running.
    - bigpicture 8y ago
      > But I have a hard time accepting that swimming shorts, is to swimming as shoes are to running. Oh, it's huge. These new "tech" suits are big and you now see them in competitions for young kids. Some states have banned them for the under-10 groups, other have not. These things are so ridiculous. They can cost hundreds of dollars, they take 5-10 minutes just to put on, and they wear out after wearing them 10-15 times.
- jartelt 8y ago
  Because the sport is better for everyone if you aren't required to buy $250 shoes to have a chance to win. It's the same with the swim suits. If a new piece of equipment comes out that makes you 5% more efficient, then anyone who wants a chance to actually compete needs to buy it. It's just like a tax on competitors. Otherwise running and swimming would just turn into cycling where you are basically forced to buy an expensive bike to compete.
hiccuphippo 8y ago
It seems very a very different perspective from other sports like Formula1. Nobody would bat an eye if someone created a better engine to win F1 races.
- al_chemist 8y ago
  Unless it's better suspension[0]? 0 - https://www.reddit.com/r/formula1/comments/7u2bmk/the_suspension_war_continues_fia_bans_ferraris/ https://www.reddit.com/r/formula1/comments/7u2bmk/the_suspen...
- zone411 8y ago
  Current engine specifications in Formula 1 are quite strict. If these rules didn't exist, it would be easy for the teams to create more powerful engines than the current 1.6L turbo V6s.
jnotwell 8y ago
Track spikes for shorter events have included a rigid plate - sometimes made of carbon fiber - for as long as I can remember. The Vaporfly 4% could simply be viewed as a technology transfer to shoes intended for longer distances.

by fhood 8y ago

reaperducer 8y ago

Running 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 ago
The 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 ago

Running 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...
- jdietrich 8y ago
  >why not? We didn't evolve to run on tarmac or concrete. Public roads are strewn with broken glass and fragments of metal. Regular distance running is punishing on your joints, even if you're a forefoot runner with perfect form.
  - dpark 8y ago
    Okay, but we did evolve to run on dirt and rock, neither of which are particularly soft. Equally important, studies indicate that impact does not decrease when running on softer surfaces. Runner instinctively step harder on soft surfaces and more softer on hard surfaces, to get the same feedback from their feet and legs.
  - pg314 8y ago
    > Regular distance running is punishing on your joints, even if you're a forefoot runner with perfect form. The studies I'm aware of (e.g. [1]) point in the opposite direction: runners have a lower risk of osteoarthritis, potentially because they have a lower BMI. As an avid long distance runner myself, if you have any evidence to the contrary, I'd be very interested to read it. [1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23377837 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23377837
    - sethammons 8y ago
      I did not see the original source, but this secondary source shows that running is the second most injurious sport, right behind football. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3724624/How-running-risky-boxing-rugby-Sports-perceived-dangerous-actually-fewer-injuries.html http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3724624/How-running-...
      - tylerhou 8y ago
        I would be skeptical about any claim supported by a Daily Mail link. I couldn't find any references to the study they "cited" on Google Scholar, either.
- 8y ago

einarfd 8y ago

As a runner I want shoes to get more efficient and better. What is about todays running shoe that makes them acceptable, and that anything better is some form of cheating? I don't agree with what they did in swimming, those body suits where amazing, and that they got banned was really sad. But even if you agree with banning them. Shoes in running are a not comparable to full body swimming suits. Shoes are an central part of running, the swimming suit is not that in swimming. If you ban improvement on something so core to running as the shoes, what is left to innovate on?

smileysteve 8y ago
> Shoes are an central part of running, the swimming suit is not that in swimming A Speedo vs a Short is a very big difference in swimming. Shaving body hair is a thing males at the high school level are doing.
- einarfd 8y ago
  I wasn't arguing that there isn't significant drag in water, and to be able to win swimming competitions you need to care about that to. But I have a hard time accepting that swimming shorts, is to swimming as shoes are to running.
  - bigpicture 8y ago
    > But I have a hard time accepting that swimming shorts, is to swimming as shoes are to running. Oh, it's huge. These new "tech" suits are big and you now see them in competitions for young kids. Some states have banned them for the under-10 groups, other have not. These things are so ridiculous. They can cost hundreds of dollars, they take 5-10 minutes just to put on, and they wear out after wearing them 10-15 times.
jartelt 8y ago
Because the sport is better for everyone if you aren't required to buy $250 shoes to have a chance to win. It's the same with the swim suits. If a new piece of equipment comes out that makes you 5% more efficient, then anyone who wants a chance to actually compete needs to buy it. It's just like a tax on competitors. Otherwise running and swimming would just turn into cycling where you are basically forced to buy an expensive bike to compete.

hiccuphippo 8y ago

It seems very a very different perspective from other sports like Formula1. Nobody would bat an eye if someone created a better engine to win F1 races.

al_chemist 8y ago
Unless it's better suspension[0]? 0 - https://www.reddit.com/r/formula1/comments/7u2bmk/the_suspension_war_continues_fia_bans_ferraris/ https://www.reddit.com/r/formula1/comments/7u2bmk/the_suspen...
zone411 8y ago
Current engine specifications in Formula 1 are quite strict. If these rules didn't exist, it would be easy for the teams to create more powerful engines than the current 1.6L turbo V6s.

jnotwell 8y ago

Track spikes for shorter events have included a rigid plate - sometimes made of carbon fiber - for as long as I can remember. The Vaporfly 4% could simply be viewed as a technology transfer to shoes intended for longer distances.