3 ms·

I mean they lost me when they said the sole of the shoe operated like leg muscles that never tired, I’m mean seriously these probably account for half of 1% inc

I mean they lost me when they said the sole of the shoe operated like leg muscles that never tired, I’m mean seriously these probably account for half of 1% increased performance and I don’t believe other manufacturers won’t level the playing field too. I really don’t see better footwear as cheating or the authors belief that running shoes haven’t changed since the 70s. Poor journalism IMO.

airza 7y ago
Too bad they lost you there, since a few paragraphs down they link to their 2018 study showing that the number is apparently closer to 4%.
- andy_ppp 7y ago
  So that’s just not true because times haven’t dropped 4% have they?
  - bookofjoe 7y ago
    Mine did once I got these shoes, in all distances from 5K to half-marathon.
  - notacoward 7y ago
    Top times have not, but the charts in the article clearly show a 3-4% difference across the entire data set. Why are you so determined to ignore data?
    - andy_ppp 7y ago
      Okay fair enough, do we know why the top times haven’t changed so much, it would be interesting to know why.
      - gamblor956 7y ago
        Most top marathoners are not sponsored by Nike and don't wear its shoes. Those that do, like Galen Rupp, have not completed many marathons since the shoes were introduced but did see improvements in the probs of the races they ran before dropping out.
notacoward 7y ago
At marathon duration, half of one percent is still more than 36 seconds even for the top finishers, over a minute for a lot of people faster than you or I will ever be. That's more than enough to affect placement, e.g. more than the difference between men's first and second in all but one of the last ten Boston marathons. And that's all besides the fact that a genuine statistical analysis does show a 3-4% difference. https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/07/18/upshot/nike-vaporfly-shoe-strava.html?module=inline https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/07/18/upshot/nike-v... It's cool that you don't see better footwear as cheating. Others do, and that doesn't make them "poor journalists" (which Amby Burfoot wouldn't be anyway since a guest editorial isn't supposed to be journalism). Personally I haven't made up my mind yet. I'd hate to see shoes evolve to the point where they encourage a gait that's no longer what we think of as running, but the carbon-fiber "spring" in these shoes seem well short of that and I'm not sure where to draw the line. When we do get closer to that line, I'm inclined to look at data and listen to people with more domain knowledge, not just shrug off any opinion with which I disagree and insult its proponents.
cellular 7y ago
Poor journalism? Or great marketing? You decide! :-)

airza 7y ago

Too bad they lost you there, since a few paragraphs down they link to their 2018 study showing that the number is apparently closer to 4%.

andy_ppp 7y ago
So that’s just not true because times haven’t dropped 4% have they?
- bookofjoe 7y ago
  Mine did once I got these shoes, in all distances from 5K to half-marathon.
- notacoward 7y ago
  Top times have not, but the charts in the article clearly show a 3-4% difference across the entire data set. Why are you so determined to ignore data?
  - andy_ppp 7y ago
    Okay fair enough, do we know why the top times haven’t changed so much, it would be interesting to know why.
    - gamblor956 7y ago
      Most top marathoners are not sponsored by Nike and don't wear its shoes. Those that do, like Galen Rupp, have not completed many marathons since the shoes were introduced but did see improvements in the probs of the races they ran before dropping out.

notacoward 7y ago

At marathon duration, half of one percent is still more than 36 seconds even for the top finishers, over a minute for a lot of people faster than you or I will ever be. That's more than enough to affect placement, e.g. more than the difference between men's first and second in all but one of the last ten Boston marathons. And that's all besides the fact that a genuine statistical analysis does show a 3-4% difference. https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/07/18/upshot/nike-vaporfly-shoe-strava.html?module=inline https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/07/18/upshot/nike-v... It's cool that you don't see better footwear as cheating. Others do, and that doesn't make them "poor journalists" (which Amby Burfoot wouldn't be anyway since a guest editorial isn't supposed to be journalism). Personally I haven't made up my mind yet. I'd hate to see shoes evolve to the point where they encourage a gait that's no longer what we think of as running, but the carbon-fiber "spring" in these shoes seem well short of that and I'm not sure where to draw the line. When we do get closer to that line, I'm inclined to look at data and listen to people with more domain knowledge, not just shrug off any opinion with which I disagree and insult its proponents.

cellular 7y ago

Poor journalism? Or great marketing? You decide! :-)