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

Glencarraig

daydorunrun wrote: »

Just checking back in on this thread- it seems to go around in more circles than the folks in Donadea earlier:pac:

This needs to happen. I'll cover the cost of the shoes if you get into shape and run 2:55.

To say they give 12/13% gain is fairly outlandish. I've heard it said using the current incarnation (NeXt%) means a top end marathon time has gone from 2:05 to 2:03. To suggest the bulk of a marathon field could improve by 13% by shoe choice is a stretch to say the least.

That'll be €500 for the Alphafly according to "those in the know"

and still ricky villa

Glencarraig wrote: »

That'll be €500 for the Alphafly according to "those in the know"

and still ricky villa wrote: »

So, available to the general public for a paltry $500

First time I've ever been in the know. I'm frightened

Glencarraig

and still ricky villa wrote: »

First time I've ever been in the know. I'm frightened

.

I'm frightened too Ricky, frightened that the wife will find out when I buy them.

sideswipe

Glencarraig wrote: »

That'll be €500 for the Alphafly according to "those in the know"

:eek: Maybe I'll just get a right foot for €250, sure a 6% gain would do me.

Damo 2k9

Glencarraig wrote: »

That'll be €500 for the Alphafly according to "those in the know"

I was reading last week on reddit (take from it what you will) that it was confirmed by "those in the know" at $275 initial release, meaning €300/325 here if going by the 4% and next% pricing. Also, looking like a late March EU launch compared to late Feb for US.

Cona

Theres 20% off for Valentines so I pulled trigger as I think the ekiden version look quite good. Only realised a few minutes ago that I have a 70€ voucher for Nike that I’ve forgotten about. Will have to keep it for the Alphas now

boydkev

Cona wrote: »

Theres 20% off for Valentines so I pulled trigger as I think the ekiden version look quite good. Only realised a few minutes ago that I have a 70€ voucher for Nike that I’ve forgotten about. Will have to keep it for the Alphas now

Looks like they have taken the Next % off the nike website or they have zero stock. So much for treating myself for valentines day.

Damo 2k9

Unless they are gearing up to release these on 29th Feb as well as US for Nike+ members.

and still ricky villa

They are on the site but only in a small range of sizes. I nearly bought an 11 a few weeks ago and by the time I had my credit card in hand they were sold. The same happened when I succeeded in buying an 11 recently, 5 minutes later they were out of stock.

Nike have created the perfect scenario - loads of free publicity with the WA dithering, proof in the form of various studies and records that these create an advantage and then the general public climbing over themselves to get a pair.
They can charge what they like as the scarcity is driving demand

chasingpaper

Let's say Nike came up with a supplement(Oregon Project Effect (OPE)). It enhances efficiency on average 6%.

It offers an average 2-3% improvement in times. Or an average of 5 minutes for those bordering on 3 hours, maybe much more for strong responders.

It's legal, within the letter of the law but maybe not within the spirit of the law. Once your dosage (stack height) is within certain parameters you will not fail a test, but you will still likely get performance benefits.

Would people buying these shoes have no issues taking OPE and claiming their times as long as its world athletics say it is legal?

IvoryTower

I'm not buying the shoes but I take caffeine, beta alanine and creatine, honestly it wouldnt surprise me if I got 2-3% between the 3. Maybe not but I wouldn't continue taking them if I didn't think they helped. Is that the same thing? Like if caffeine gave us 3% should we not take it

Damo 2k9

chasingpaper wrote: »

Let's say Nike came up with a supplement(Oregon Project Effect (OPE)). It enhances efficiency on average 6%.

It offers an average 2-3% improvement in times. Or an average of 5 minutes for those bordering on 3 hours, maybe much more for strong responders.

It's legal, within the letter of the law but maybe not within the spirit of the law. Once your dosage (stack height) is within certain parameters you will not fail a test, but you will still likely get performance benefits.

Would people buying these shoes have no issues taking OPE and claiming their times as long as its world athletics say it is legal?

Ridiculous argument. Many people take BCAA, Iron supplements, Electrolytes, Sodium tablets, Protein drinks etc etc. These enhance runners performance but are all perfectly legal, both in law and spirit, no doubt aiding them in achieving a time they are aiming for.

mloc123

chasingpaper wrote: »

Let's say Nike came up with a supplement(Oregon Project Effect (OPE)). It enhances efficiency on average 6%.

It offers an average 2-3% improvement in times. Or an average of 5 minutes for those bordering on 3 hours, maybe much more for strong responders.

It's legal, within the letter of the law but maybe not within the spirit of the law. Once your dosage (stack height) is within certain parameters you will not fail a test, but you will still likely get performance benefits.

Would people buying these shoes have no issues taking OPE and claiming their times as long as its world athletics say it is legal?

Some of the nonsense in this thread :rolleyes:

chasingpaper

IvoryTower wrote: »

I'm not buying the shoes but I take caffeine, beta alanine and creatine, honestly it wouldnt surprise me if I got 2-3% between the 3. Maybe not but I wouldn't continue taking them if I didn't think they helped. Is that the same thing? Like if caffeine gave us 3% should we not take it

I think there are some differences in caffeine/BA.

They have been around, in one form or another, as long as athletics.
So there has not been this sudden, undeniable spike in performances of elite runners that coincided with their introduction.

High dose caffeine was reintroduced 2004 after ban, there was not a huge surge in performances. The only comparison to the shoes is the steroid era in throws, women's short/mid distance, and epo era in distance running. There was a huge drop in certain elite performances after testing for these substances began, showing they had a real world effect.

A small amount of BA/caffeine which may produce results in clinical setting but nothing proven about sustained, significant results in elite athletes in real performances.

Even in trials benefits reduce after an optimal dose.
This is not what happens with the shoes, more tech=more improvements.

If EPO was legal would you take it? What about testosterone, you already produce it. So why not take an optimal dose right up to legal limit. T/E ratio is allowed to be 4.0 why not push to that level? Spirit of the law vs letter of the law.

In my mind these shoes are a complete farce, worse than actual doping. At least when you take PEDs your body is still running the race. This is mechanical doping. WA put on a 40mm limit but what if it was allowed to continue, when would the users say it is too much?
100mm with springs and 20% energy improvement?
150mm with wheels?

This is my view, I think they undermine the integrity of the sport
Everyone can make their own decision but all results in the shoes are tarnished in my opinion.

Edit. Sorry if this reads as a direct attack on you IT. I was talking in generalities, not you specifically.

chasingpaper

Damo 2k9 wrote: »

Ridiculous argument. Many people take BCAA, Iron supplements, Electrolytes, Sodium tablets, Protein drinks etc etc. These enhance runners performance but are all perfectly legal, both in law and spirit, no doubt aiding them in achieving a time they are aiming for.

So you would take the pill?

Can you really not see how a shoe that literally lets you run the same pace but with less effort is different to taking food/hydration supplements?

skyblue46

I saw an interesting comment today. The drive for sustainability and a lower carbon footprint is on the rise. Meanwhile hobby joggers are spending mad money on shoes with a life of 100 miles...

Cona

skyblue46 wrote: »

I saw an interesting comment today. The drive for sustainability and a lower carbon footprint is on the rise. Meanwhile hobby joggers are spending mad money on shoes with a life of 100 miles...

This thread needs to be closed at this point.

OOnegative

Lads the shoes are legal, I don’t like it, fcuk me there’s millions I’d say don’t like it. Train the fcuk harder if you don’t agree!!

To the lads wearing them, sleep well at night!!!

sideswipe

chasingpaper wrote: »

So you would take the pill?

IvoryTower

I'll take the runners, the pill, all of the PBS that come with them and I will sleep like a baby, unless it's a caffeine pill

sideswipe

IvoryTower wrote: »

I'll take the runners, the pill, all of the PBS that come with them and I will sleep like a baby, unless it's a caffeine pill

I’d say Kipchoge has chronic insomnia;)

Damo 2k9

chasingpaper wrote: »

So you would take the pill?

Can you really not see how a shoe that literally lets you run the same pace but with less effort is different to taking food/hydration supplements?

I'm from Finglas, we can get much better pills :pac:

And yeah, I'd replace my gels for them pills no bother :rolleyes:

chrismean

I just wanted to note that records are still being broken without the Vaporfly/Next % tech. For example: https://www.runnersworld.com/news/a30496379/rhonex-kipruto-10k-world-record/

There has been an undeniable improvement across the board, but not all athletes making great breakthroughs are wearing the shoe.

And the lab-based measures are focused on efficiency improvements in shorter time trials. Shayla Kipp doesn't believe the marathon distance would *increase* the benefit of the shoe:

https://www.letsrun.com/news/2020/01/olympian-and-key-vaporfly-researcher-shalaya-kipp-talks-to-lrc-about-world-athletics-new-shoe-regulations/

chasingpaper wrote: »

They have been around, in one form or another, as long as athletics.
So there has not been this sudden, undeniable spike in performances of elite runners that coincided with their introduction.

ultrapercy

chasingpaper wrote: »

So you would take the pill?

Can you really not see how a shoe that literally lets you run the same pace but with less effort is different to taking food/hydration supplements?

Do you feel as strongly about caffeine gels etc?

chasingpaper

ultrapercy wrote: »

Do you feel as strongly about caffeine gels etc?

Gel is just food, I don't care about that.
When were gels introduced and was there a noticeable improvement in world class athletes? I'm not talking about distances longer than marathon.

As I said before about caffeine, high doses were banned. It was reintroduced and did not have an impact on elite performances. The performance benefits are not clear.

Even in the lab, the benefits do not continue past a certain dose. With the shoes adding more technology is continuing to improve efficiencies. Is there a limit where you say enough is enough?

I don't really care about average runners using special shoes, trying to beat a random round number or PB in the marathon. That's up to them, the only person they are really competing with is themselves. If Joe Blogs 2020 Next% beats Joe Blogs 2019 pegasus and he is happy with that it's ok. Its not for me, I'd rather know I actually got better and wouldn't just go back to my old times if I changed my shoes.

I care more about the top end of the sport. The inequality for elite athletes who are not sponsored by nike. The farce of the "difficult" 2020 qualifying time where 371 men ran the time in 2019. It makes performances incomparable to 5 years ago. The 5 fastest times in history all run in a 12 month period.

It is bad enough for them to ruin road running. But now this technology is infiltrating elite track all the way down to middle distance.

I think it is sad. I love this sport because of the purity of the endeavor, improving your body's ability to perform a certain task. Gaining an artificial mechanical advantage just goes against that for me.

mloc123

chasingpaper wrote: »

If Joe Blogs 2020 Next% beats Joe Blogs 2019 pegasus and he is happy with that it's ok.

What if he beats his time which he originally set in Pegasus 28, now in Pegasus 36?

skyblue46

mloc123 wrote: »

What if he beats his time which he originally set in Pegasus 28, now in Pegasus 36?

This debate is going around in circles and I keep promising myself to get out! Haha. However the step that the Next and even more so the Alpha offer are in a different league to new iterations of old shoes.

Bottom line is they are now legal. Different people will have different questions to answer in their own minds. Perhaps there is no right or wrong....

solidasarock

How is the "4% better" thing calculated?

Is it 4% better then bog standard trainers or 4% better then whatever was the leading elite marathon shoe was previously?

adrian522

The claim is that the original "Vaporfly 4%" improve running economy by up to 4%. The actual running performance improvement will be somewhat less than that.

The effect is different for different people and the newer versions presumably have a bigger potential for improvement that the original Vaporfly.

Murph_D

adrian522 wrote: »

The claim is that the original "Vaporfly 4%" improve running economy by up to 4%. The actual running performance improvement will be somewhat less than that.

The effect is different for different people and the newer versions presumably have a bigger potential for improvement that the original Vaporfly.

4% was the average of the observed improvements (not the maximum) in the original, NIKE-sponsored study.