nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Next % to be banned?

justdoit

I know it's been controversial and that there has been a lot of chat about whether Nike's Next % offers an unfair advantage to wearers, but The Times reporting that it is to be banned:

'The Nike shoe used by Brigid Kosgei to obliterate Paula Radcliffe’s women’s marathon world record last year is likely to be banned when World Athletics introduces new rules on running shoes.

However, the governing body may declare a moratorium that protects the Kenyan’s mark of 2hr 14min 04sec, set in Chicago last October, which is 81 seconds faster than the previous record, set by Radcliffe in 2003.'

I don't wear the shoes, and I definitely don't often trouble the podium, but would a ban like that trickle down to an amateur being precluded from winning a race, like a local half marathon for example?

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

skyblue46

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/12/13/upshot/nike-vaporfly-next-percent-shoe-estimates.html

Edit: When I open this link on the iPad I don't get to see or use the interactive graphs. It opens perfectly on the phone.

healy1835

skyblue46 wrote: »

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/12/13/upshot/nike-vaporfly-next-percent-shoe-estimates.html

I've been banging on about my Nike Streaks for ages......i knew they were a great shoe!

sideswipe

World Athletics reported to be about to make a decision Vaporfly's. Decision possible on Friday.

https://twitter.com/Scienceofsport/status/1221771284591280128?s=20

partyguinness

average_runner wrote: »

Anyone I know who has raced the marathon in them, said they do make a difference.

As a 41 yr old Sunday morning warrior with zero talent I can confirm that they have made a significant difference. At first I thought it was just in my head and the 'new shoe' bounce but no.

As someone else mentioned, as well as going faster with no obvious additional effort you are not as tired and simply do not feel it as much in the (for me) calves.

event

I see nike have now launched React Infinity Run. Claim to reduce injury for runners. If they do work, could certainly be helpful

Glencarraig

event wrote: »

I see nike have now launched React Infinity Run. Claim to reduce injury for runners. If they do work, could certainly be helpful

A replacement for the Structure 22 I believe. A light training shoe.

shotgunmcos

Hmm a chunkier pegasus... interesting

rovers_runner

event wrote: »

I see nike have now launched React Infinity Run. Claim to reduce injury for runners. If they do work, could certainly be helpful

Asics ds trainer is by miles a better shoe.

Ceepo

rovers_runner wrote: »

Asics ds trainer is by miles a better shoe.

How did you do a compare the 2 or is it a personal opinion

rovers_runner

Ceepo wrote: »

How did you do a compare the 2 or is it a personal opinion

They are selling them as a lightweight support shoe.
The ds trainer has been doing this well for 20 years without a big lump of foam padding it out.
I have the structure 22 as an everyday runner and like the lunar glide before it find it has no shape or structure to the upper, too flimsy.

Ceepo

rovers_runner wrote: »

They are selling them as a lightweight support shoe.
The ds trainer has been doing this well for 20 years without a big lump of foam padding it out.
I have the structure 22 as an everyday runner and like the lunar glide before it find it has no shape or structure to the upper, too flimsy.

The ds trainer has certainly lasted the test of time, but it wasnt a shoe to that was a big seller when you compare it to other Asics shoes... I don't see how you can say that its way better than the new nike shoe unless you have some objective measures.

Have you wore them yet, ?

mloc123

Ceepo wrote: »

The ds trainer has certainly lasted the test of time, but it wasnt a shoe to that was a big seller when you compare it to other Asics shoes... I don't see how you can say that its way better than the new nike shoe unless you have some objective measures.

Have you wore them yet, ?

But, he has worn other Nike models and didn't like them... therefore DS trainer is better than the new model... because, eh... because.

This thread is laughable at times.

rovers_runner

Ceepo wrote: »

The ds trainer has certainly lasted the test of time, but it wasnt a shoe to that was a big seller when you compare it to other Asics shoes... I don't see how you can say that its way better than the new nike shoe unless you have some objective measures.

Have you wore them yet, ?

How would I try them on without spending €160 for them via Nike, stupid question.

I have used Nike runners over a long period(well over 10 years) as well as Adidas and Asics, I have an opinion as an overpronator and Nike shoes don't measure up to the others.
It's not going to change now because of a bit of extra foam and some marketing.
If Nike had got it right with a support shoe like they had with the pegasus for the neutral foot they wouldn't need to keep changing the brand and design every year or two like they have done.

Ceepo

rovers_runner wrote: »

How would I try them on without spending €160 for them via Nike, stupid question.

I have used Nike runners over a long period(well over 10 years) as well as Adidas and Asics, I have an opinion as an overpronator and Nike shoes don't measure up to the others.
It's not going to change now because of a bit of extra foam and some marketing.
If Nike had got it right with a support shoe like they had with the pegasus for the neutral foot they wouldn't need to keep changing the brand and design every year or two like they have done.

With respect. To say that any shoe is miles better than any other shoe when you haven't tried it is probably stupid.
That's like me say that the VF next % isn't a good racing shoe just because nike added more foam and I base that on having tried the adizero Boston or Asics racing shoe are better than the streak,
Have you considered that they may they have got this one right.?

sideswipe

Few quids worth of % at Rahney last weekend!

EPW664MWkAArsN0?format=png&name=small

Some interesting analysis here too:

https://twitter.com/DonalCoakley/status/1221852151149932551?s=20

Very scientific test from Japan-

https://twitter.com/noelthatcher/status/1222050120130342912?s=20

robinph

I don't understand their reasoning behind the claim that a 2.7% improvement across 2019-2020 isn't significant. One persons results changing you can ignore as there are too many factors to that could effect the individual, but once they are looking at the top 100 and the weather was allegedly the same etc then you are removing the crazy outliers from the analysis.

2.7% is a massive change for doing nothing other than wearing a different pair of shoes.

28064212

robinph wrote: »

I don't understand their reasoning behind the claim that a 2.7% improvement across 2019-2020 isn't significant. One persons results changing you can ignore as there are too many factors to that could effect the individual, but once they are looking at the top 100 and the weather was allegedly the same etc then you are removing the crazy outliers from the analysis.

2.7% is a massive change for doing nothing other than wearing a different pair of shoes.

The weather absolutely was not the same. The wind last year was substantial, this year was about as good a running conditions as you could hope for.

They're also not looking at the top 100, they're looking at the individual runners who finished in the top 100 in 2020 that also ran in 2019, 27 runners in total. Straight away they're eliminating people who finished inside the top 100 last year, but not this year, while including runners who finished outside the top 100 last year, but inside this year. That's a massive bias towards improved times, as well as a very small sample size.

This year was also much more competitive at the top end of the field, which would likely have contributed significantly to an overall faster finish: this year, 5 seconds separated the first 5; last year Clohisey had a fairly comfortable win.

robinph

Unsurprisingly a twitter statistician didn't do very good statistics then, and wasn't able to understand the conclusions that their half baked stats threw out.

spc78

28064212 wrote: »

This year was also much more competitive at the top end of the field, which would likely have contributed significantly to an overall faster finish: this year, 5 seconds separated the first 5; last year Clohisey had a fairly comfortable win.

My own unscientific study on this:

1. the vast majority of people I know who purchased vaporflys (Next% or 4%) were serious about improving their running and increased their training in conjunction with forking out the big money for the shoes. The fact they had forked out the big money actually kept them focused on their training.

2. the vaporflys stop your legs from taking a hammering - most people wearing them in marathons report recovering much faster from said marathon which enables them to kick on in their training again afterwards. They allow runners to get more miles in with less chance of injury e.g a 22 mile run with a lot of MP miles thrown in is recovered from faster in vaporflys.

3. placebo effect - vaporflys remove a mental barrier - if you believe that the the vaporflys can knock 3-4% off your time then you will target a time 3-4% faster and you may achieve it! Whereas without them, you won't target an agressive time.

4. The next% release coincided with an Olympic qualifying window - all long distance runners are trying extra hard and are extra motivated to try to qualify for the olympics - I'm not sure we would have had seen such time drops in marathon running in general in the years immediately after an olympics.

5. I have a pair of 4% - I 100% believe they have a performance advantage but believe it occurs over a longer distance due to your legs not getting as much of a hammering. I would put it in the range of 1% over 5 miles which is 15-20sec - those 20sec can be significant - if you're stuck on 27:20 it can be the difference between hanging up your boots as a sub 28 man or achieving the Sub 27. Back to the placebo effect then - if you can believe the shoes can get you past that barrier that you though was beyond you, then theres a renewed impetus to train hard.

Itziger

Not banned. But I love the fact that I have a sub 3 time in other shoes too!! ðŸ˜

Smug, me?

skyblue46

It seems simple enough so far...nothing that is presently on the market will be banned. Neither will the upcoming Alphafly for anyone who frequents Boards or have no aspirations to win national, continental or global titles.

As the Alphafly are considered to have an 8% benefit, double that of the first Vapourflys, I look forward to the posts from people who run PBs in them. I'm sure it'll be more of the same nonsensical guff stating that the jury is still out on the benefits and that their shiny new PB is pure coincidence. :-)

Souf

I wasn’t in great shape coming back is all and doing less training than I used to then started wearing vaporflys in training and my sessions were better than ever. I couldn’t believe it. Of course I was in denial for awhile before the penny dropped; so I switched back into the adidas adizeros for some sessions to see. And I was back to the usual old hard nothing for nothing sessions, tough all the way legs sore. That’s my experience of vaporflys.

Then I ran cross country and ran **** even though according to my vaporfly sessions and road results I was in great shape.

IvoryTower

spc78 wrote: »

My own unscientific study on this:

1. the vast majority of people I know who purchased vaporflys (Next% or 4%) were serious about improving their running and increased their training in conjunction with forking out the big money for the shoes. The fact they had forked out the big money actually kept them focused on their training.

Pros across the board are smashing pbs thanks to them. Dooney even said after Raheny he was shocked with the time he got "shoes are a fantastic piece of kit". Sponsored pros spray painting them cause they won't wear their own sponsors shoe. If anyone still denys how good they are their head is well and truly stuck in the sand :pac:

looking forward to the spike version!

MY BAD

IvoryTower wrote: »

looking forward to the spike version!

There are companies customising them to spike versions.

and still ricky villa

So should we expect a rush of other brands releasing carbon soled, bouncy shoes or does this watery ruling prohibit any new shoes?
In fairness to WA they could hardly ban them outright. A bit like trying to ban guns in the US

sideswipe

If Vaporflys or Alphaflys are legal and available when I'm running my next Marathon in April I will wear them and not a f**k will be given.
I'll not be on my moral high horse. I've run over 22,000 miles in the last 10 years training for marathons even though my body type and genetics are probably more suited to rugby, why wouldn't I use any and every legal percentage gain to try to achieve my goal without apology. I'm a hobby jogger with little to no natural talent. I'm not sitting around not bothering to train in the hope that a pair of shoes will do all the work, I'm training hard and doing everything I can outside that- diet, S&C, recovery, sleep etc to give me a shot at my goal come April and even then it might not be enough.

Athletics has many issues, I'd say the attention the shoes are getting has a good few relieved that nobody is talking about lads jumping out windows to avoid drug testers etc. And yet positive exposure and coverage is up because of things like the breaking 2 project.

Ceepo

Mellow Yellow 26.2 wrote: »

There are companies customising them to spike versions.

A former national marathon champion had a pair "adapted" and ran the 2019 national cross country in them

KSU

Mellow Yellow 26.2 wrote: »

There are companies customising them to spike versions.

https://www.bbc.com/sport/athletics/47309183

event

sideswipe wrote: »

If Vaporflys or Alphaflys are legal and available when I'm running my next Marathon in April I will wear them and not a f**k will be given.
I'll not be on my moral high horse. I've run over 22,000 miles in the last 10 years training for marathons even though my body type and genetics are probably more suited to rugby, why wouldn't I use any and every legal percentage gain to try to achieve my goal without apology. I'm a hobby jogger with little to no natural talent. I'm not sitting around not bothering to train in the hope that a pair of shoes will do all the work, I'm training hard and doing everything I can outside that- diet, S&C, recovery, sleep etc to give me a shot at my goal come April and even then it might not be enough.

Athletics has many issues, I'd say the attention the shoes are getting has a good few relieved that nobody is talking about lads jumping out windows to avoid drug testers etc. And yet positive exposure and coverage is up because of things like the breaking 2 project.

100% agree.
Im an overpronator so not sure if these will work but if everyone else is wearing them, I will too

IvoryTower

It will just become normal soon, all the rivals will have their own version out and eventually there wont be much difference between them all, normality will resume with everyone a few % faster