Next % to be banned?

OOnegative wrote: »

I know a guy who improved his 10k nigh on 40secs & puts it purely down to the Vaporflys. Went from 37.1x to 36.3x. He’s been improving rapidly past 12 months and I put it down to consistent training instead.

Fair enough, but he knows best! (Hopefully).

Itziger wrote: »

Jeez, 11 lads jogging along - it really does look like a Long Tempo Run or something - at km 41......

The new normal. Not sure it's the shoes though..........

I liked the comment on letrun.com particularly about the person finishing 11th.

With one kilometer to go in Friday’s Dubai Marathon, 11 men ran in a tightly-bunched lead pack. One of them would earn $100,000 for winning the race; one of them would finish 11th and earn nothing.

Unheralded Olika Adugna Bikila of Ethiopia kicked best, using a late move on the final turn to pass Kenya’s Eric Kiptanui and win in his debut in 2:06:15 (Kiptanui, also making his debut, was second in 2:06:17). The odd man out Ethiopia’s Beshah Yerssie Eskezia, who finished 11th, though he did pick up a small consolation: with a time of 2:06:34, he became the fastest 11th-place finisher in history. A time that would have stood as the world record as recently as 1998 is now a complete afterthought, not worth even a single cent of prize money.

Just another day in the post-Vaporfly marathon world.

sideswipe wrote:

I'm not buying this whole 'they're only fast because of the shoes'. Dubai was always fast with big pay cheques. No magic shoes in 2016 and times were still fast.

Whatever about dubai its no coincidence the amount of records that have fallen in the past year, most of which have been down to the Vaporfly.

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

Hmm a chunkier pegasus... interesting

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 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, ?

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.

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.

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.

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!

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

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

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

Ceepo wrote: »

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

The main advantage is the feed back or bounce from road running so I am skeptical that you will get the same effect from softer ground.

skyblue46 wrote: »

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. :-)

Yooooooooooooooo!!!!

Feel I have to jump in here because that's the very expression I used after a recent marathon PB wearing the Vapoflys. Here's exactly why the jury is still out for me. I trained hard and well for the marathon and to be honest I really expected to PB with whatever shoes I wore on the day. As it was my first time trying the Hansons plan, I don't know how much that contributed in terms of improvement.

My PB was from Cork which is a tougher course than Valencia and in the end I only improved by 95 seconds or so. I was targeting a 5 minute improvement but faded in the second half of the race in very similar fashion to most of my other 42.2k efforts. My legs were well sore after the race. My first recovery run was 6 days later and still my quads were aching. Sorry to disappoint some of ye but I didn't feel a great benefit on the day. Yes, they had felt great in a training spin but that's not what I bought 'em for!!

I know the stats do not support my own experience but what I wrote and felt is not nonsense.

Itziger wrote: »

Yooooooooooooooo!!!!

Feel I have to jump in here because that's the very expression I used after a recent marathon PB wearing the Vapoflys. Here's exactly why the jury is still out for me. I trained hard and well for the marathon and to be honest I really expected to PB with whatever shoes I wore on the day. As it was my first time trying the Hansons plan, I don't know how much that contributed in terms of improvement.

My PB was from Cork which is a tougher course than Valencia and in the end I only improved by 95 seconds or so. I was targeting a 5 minute improvement but faded in the second half of the race in very similar fashion to most of my other 42.2k efforts. My legs were well sore after the race. My first recovery run was 6 days later and still my quads were aching. Sorry to disappoint some of ye but I didn't feel a great benefit on the day. Yes, they had felt great in a training spin but that's not what I bought 'em for!!

I know the stats do not support my own experience but what I wrote and felt is not nonsense.

Sounds like you're unwilling to accept you just bought yourself a nice pb

Is it not an issue for folks not knowing if the gains made are down to a well laid out and executed plan or a pair of runners? It's certainly my dilemma. I'd rather know if I trained well

sideswipe wrote:

Nope. Maybe I’ll think about that afterwards, who knows. Maybe I’ll then decided to run again in a lesser shoe, perhaps not. Maybe I’ll run in a similar pair to the ones worn by John Tracey in LA just so I can compare my time with his on a level playing field. Of course that’ll mean giving up gels and wearing a cotton vest too but hey we have to keep things the same I guess

I get your point and I'm under no illusions, yes times have moved on, yes we have better methods and technologies and gels and all that nowadays but this just seems like something more than that for me.

I'm not really interested in comparing my times to the days of yore. I'm more interested in seeing if my training in 2020 is more effective than last year and so on. I have a pair of the 4%.i have used them. First question I asked myself after was, would I have run that time in my adizero? I dunno. Im not taking moral highground or anything. It just doesn't sit well with me.