3 ms·

This just seems like an add for Nike. The reason all the fastest runners are using Nike shoes isn’t necessarily due to superior performance as much as the effec

by nabdab 7y ago

This just seems like an add for Nike. The reason all the fastest runners are using Nike shoes isn’t necessarily due to superior performance as much as the effects of superior sponsorships. It would be interesting to compare times with other shoes under controlled conditions, but likely there are hundreds of factors more important that small differences in the shoes. And why would Nike allow scientific comparison when they all-ready payed all the athletes millions to side with them on the conclusion? The are other important factors, but no-one is pouring millions into marketing “Nike brand pacer support with efficient patented wind-breaking formations”.

NickNameNick 7y ago
I wonder if the runner's gait/style is adapted to/trained for the shoes? Getting the same runner to run with different shoes might not be quite so easy to do.
- imglorp 7y ago
  Right, and you have to rule out the "superior sponsorship" effect, above. I think you'd want to control for that by having a large sample size of unsponsored runner, who were accustomed to their chosen model of shoe, and then examine their race times vs shoe.
gameswithgo 7y ago
>It would be interesting to compare times with other shoes under controlled conditions, but likely there are hundreds of factors more important that small differences in the shoes The shoes reduce oxygen consumption by 4%, which translates to 2 minutes in a marathon. They are the primary contributor to the sub 2 marathon stunt. The effort in a regular race without those shoes would have produced about a 2:03. Shoes -2 minutes, drafting effects from the lead vehicle and contrived pacers, another minute.
- gamblor956 7y ago
  Kipchoge already has a legit world record in the 2:01:xx range, run in an actual race. The pacers and shoes combined only took off roughly a minute in the first 2 hour attempt.
  - nabdab 7y ago
    Exactly. And I honestly don’t believe anyone even Nike would claim the shoes to be an bigger factor than the pacers.
nradov 7y ago
You can check marathon times and shoe brands for elite runners easily enough. All the major shoe companies sponsor runners and give them similar resources. But pretty much all the really fast marathons within the past year were run on Nike Vaporflys. The shoes definitely make a difference.
notacoward 7y ago
> as much as the effects of superior sponsorships. > likely there are hundreds of factors more important The more detailed NYT analysis linked in the OP did account for those kinds of confounding factors, and still found a 3-4% difference attributable to the shoes. If you can find a flaw in their analysis, we'd all love to hear it. Simply ignoring that analysis in favor of guess-work and hand-waves isn't persuasive.

by nabdab 7y ago

NickNameNick 7y ago

I wonder if the runner's gait/style is adapted to/trained for the shoes? Getting the same runner to run with different shoes might not be quite so easy to do.

imglorp 7y ago
Right, and you have to rule out the "superior sponsorship" effect, above. I think you'd want to control for that by having a large sample size of unsponsored runner, who were accustomed to their chosen model of shoe, and then examine their race times vs shoe.

gameswithgo 7y ago

>It would be interesting to compare times with other shoes under controlled conditions, but likely there are hundreds of factors more important that small differences in the shoes The shoes reduce oxygen consumption by 4%, which translates to 2 minutes in a marathon. They are the primary contributor to the sub 2 marathon stunt. The effort in a regular race without those shoes would have produced about a 2:03. Shoes -2 minutes, drafting effects from the lead vehicle and contrived pacers, another minute.

gamblor956 7y ago
Kipchoge already has a legit world record in the 2:01:xx range, run in an actual race. The pacers and shoes combined only took off roughly a minute in the first 2 hour attempt.
- nabdab 7y ago
  Exactly. And I honestly don’t believe anyone even Nike would claim the shoes to be an bigger factor than the pacers.

nradov 7y ago

You can check marathon times and shoe brands for elite runners easily enough. All the major shoe companies sponsor runners and give them similar resources. But pretty much all the really fast marathons within the past year were run on Nike Vaporflys. The shoes definitely make a difference.

notacoward 7y ago

> as much as the effects of superior sponsorships. > likely there are hundreds of factors more important The more detailed NYT analysis linked in the OP did account for those kinds of confounding factors, and still found a 3-4% difference attributable to the shoes. If you can find a flaw in their analysis, we'd all love to hear it. Simply ignoring that analysis in favor of guess-work and hand-waves isn't persuasive.