To ban or not to ban is the question

ultrapercy · 29-10-2019 1:35pm

Cona wrote: »

I heard some mumblings about the Nikes and how you have to be running a certain pace (lets say sub 7 min/mile) to be able to get the full advantage of them...Anyone know if there is truth to this?

Id say its more your style than your pace that is the factor. Id be quicker than 7 min pace but have a choppy shuffley stride so dont think they would suit me. Id imagin if you'r not a fore foot strike they wouldnt work for you.

Murph_D · 29-10-2019 1:55pm

Cona wrote: »

I heard some mumblings about the Nikes and how you have to be running a certain pace (lets say sub 7 min/mile) to be able to get the full advantage of them...Anyone know if there is truth to this?

I certainly passed plenty of them on the course the other day, running a fairly even 8-min mile pace. So it’s definitely not just the shoes!

Limpy · 29-10-2019 2:01pm

Cona wrote: »

I heard some mumblings about the Nikes and how you have to be running a certain pace (lets say sub 7 min/mile) to be able to get the full advantage of them...Anyone know if there is truth to this?

There's people running 10min miles wearing them.

Having better form will give you more of an advantage with them. If your form is not good and you run a marathon in them, and your legs feel like you only ran a half then they'll have giving you a return I think.

Being able to run your MP runs easier and recover faster is worth as much as what they are supposed to give you on a race day.

03-11-2019 9:44pm

Interesting thread on LetsRun: https://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?thread=9677634

Salient point of the OP:

Here are the sub-2:10 performances by year in the last decade (total sample size is 2921):

2019 – 180 (6.1%)
2018 – 171 (5.9%)
2017 – 186 (6.4%)
2016 – 146 (5.0%)
2015 – 167 (5.7%)
2014 – 196 (6.7%)
2013 – 173 (5.9%)
2012 – 197 (6.7%)
2011 – 174 (6.0%)
2010 – 158 (5.4%)
2009 – 116 (4.0%)
2008 – 106 (3.6%)

2016 being the year that the Vaporflys were released. The argument being that we haven't seen a significant increase in 2:10 performances since then (2:10 being a pretty reasonable time to take that a lot of elites would be on the threshold of)

Plenty of counter-arguments available, including:

Vaporflys were released November 2016, so including that year above the line is a bit misleading
2:10 is pretty arbitrary
2019 isn't over yet, and had another 4 sub-2:10s today
A year is a pretty broad brush stroke to be painting with, especially in athletics
Extremely difficult to control for other factors e.g. how much did the horrendous weather at Boston 2018 skew that year's results
No figures on what percentage are actually wearing Vaporflys
Small sample set

Still, it's interesting to see 2012 and 2014 being such outliers in the BV* years

Also Jepkosgei and Keitany (1st and 2nd in NY today), and Korir (2nd man) all wearing Adidas

Before Vaporfly... sorry

Trampas · 04-11-2019 11:16pm

Any signs of a different brand coming out with something similar soon?

Enduro · 05-11-2019 12:58am

Trampas wrote: »

Any signs of a different brand coming out with something similar soon?

The Hoka Carbon - X has been out for a while now.

IvoryTower · 05-11-2019 10:49am

Adidas have one as well

average_runner · 05-11-2019 10:54am

IvoryTower wrote: »

He mentioned on his podcast he was one of only 15 athletes not wearing them in doha. I imagine it's pretty disheartening knowing that everyone else is getting a 1-2% bump. Makes complete sense to wear them.

In fairness he also said in a podcast, the nike runner before the vaporfly offered a 3% improvement and no one complained.

boydkev · 05-11-2019 10:58am

Trampas wrote: »

Any signs of a different brand coming out with something similar soon?

Skechers Speed Elite Hyper, these are supposed to be released this month. Some pre-released shoes have been getting very good reviews.

Ceepo · 05-11-2019 11:41am

https://www.asics.com/ie/en-ie/metaride%E2%84%A2/p/1011A142-001.html?width=Standard

Don't have a carbon plate as far as I can tell.
But certainly trying to match them on a price point..

Stark · 05-11-2019 11:47am

They're a little bit expensive but still pennies compared to what people spend to gain a performance advantage in cycling/triathlon and there doesn't seem to be a reason why competitors can't wear the same shoes or risk to health in doing so, so don't see why they would be considered to be an unfair advantage.

average_runner · 05-11-2019 12:23pm

boydkev wrote: »

Skechers Speed Elite Hyper, these are supposed to be released this month. Some pre-released shoes have been getting very good reviews.

Brooks hyperion elite will have a carbon plate also

average_runner · 05-11-2019 12:25pm

Limpy wrote: »

There's people running 10min miles wearing them.

Having better form will give you more of an advantage with them. If your form is not good and you run a marathon in them, and your legs feel like you only ran a half then they'll have giving you a return I think.

Being able to run your MP runs easier and recover faster is worth as much as what they are supposed to give you on a race day.

They are also known for causing injuries. So be careful and take your time getting used to them

Ceepo · 05-11-2019 12:46pm

average_runner wrote: »

They are also known for causing injuries. So be careful and take your time getting used to them

Source??

average_runner · 05-11-2019 12:54pm

Ceepo wrote: »

Source??

It was in a podcast by Scullion, but also there is a study that extra cushioning causes you more injuries, which is what the vaporfly's now have, ie extra cushioning.

Most normal racing flats don't have much cushioning.

Ceepo · 05-11-2019 1:18pm

average_runner wrote: »

It was in a podcast by Scullion, but also there is a study that extra cushioning causes you more injuries, which is what the vaporfly's now have, ie extra cushioning.

Most normal racing flats don't have much cushioning.

I haven't listened to the podcast..
And while the VF has more cushion it also has the carbon plate to give it stability.
How much more cushion has the VF compared to the standard high mileage shoe of any other brand?
I'm not sure that any particular type of shoe can prevent or cause injury.
Simply stating that more cushion cause injury, you could infer that less wont cause injury, and this is not the case.
And they're studys to say that a particular type ( motion control, stability etc ) of runners doesnt prevent injury
Can you link the study stating that more cushion causes more injury. Tbh if find most of these studys very poor for the simple reason, they cant take into account the huge amount of variables that make up the gait cycle. So doing a "controlled study" is next to impossible.

average_runner · 05-11-2019 1:49pm

Ceepo wrote: »

I haven't listened to the podcast..
And while the VF has more cushion it also has the carbon plate to give it stability.
How much more cushion has the VF compared to the standard high mileage shoe of any other brand?
I'm not sure that any particular type of shoe can prevent or cause injury.
Simply stating that more caution cause injury, you could infer that less wont cause injury, and this is not the case.
And they're studys to say that a particular type ( motion control, stability etc ) of runners doesnt prevent injury
Can you link the study stating that more cushion causes more injury. Tbh if find most of these studys very poor for the simple reason, they cant take into account the huge amount of variables that make up the gait cycle. So doing a "controlled study" is next to impossible.

I cant find it right now, but if you google it or go through runners world you should find it. Most cushion runners are causing us injuries compare to be miminal racing flats etc.

Ceepo · 05-11-2019 2:20pm

average_runner wrote: »

I cant find it right now, but if you google it or go through runners world you should find it. Most cushion runners are causing us injuries compare to be miminal racing flats etc.

I dont have the time now to Google or go through runners world.

You made a fairly blanket statement, it would have been helpful if you cited your source of information.

"Most cushion runners are causing us injuries compare to be miminal racing flats etc"

If you believe this to be true, what is the optimum level of cushion? Is that down to stack height? What about the same stack height with a different density foam?

Most people race in racing flats don't use them for training. Some might use them for a speed session... so taking that into account they run in them 4 to 6 times per month (pure guess work).
Can we compare that to someone using a cushioned shoe say 20 times a month.. and thats before you factor in any biomechanical differences.

IvoryTower · 05-11-2019 3:45pm

its TLTR for me but here it is if anyone wants to read it

https://www.runnersworld.com/health-injuries/a27259092/how-maximalist-shoes-affect-biomechanics/

Ceepo · 05-11-2019 4:43pm

IvoryTower wrote: »

its TLTR for me but here it is if anyone wants to read it

https://www.runnersworld.com/health-injuries/a27259092/how-maximalist-shoes-affect-biomechanics/

I didnt read the study but here are a few take outs from the article.

No shoe has ever been shown to reduce or increase overall injury risk,”
The study didn’t find enough evidence to recommend or warn against using maximalist shoes. What runners can take away from this study, however, is that no matter what shoes they wear, their biomechanics won’t change while wearing them. So if your shoes are aggravating an injury, they’ll probably continue to aggravate it as long as you run in them.

“If the goal is to reduce impact during running, it seems that there is likely a ‘sweet spot’ for cushioning in shoes,”

The cushioning sweet spot is probably highly individual,