
Nike Says Its $250 Running Shoes Will Make You Run Much Faster - sethbannon
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/07/18/upshot/nike-vaporfly-shoe-strava.html
======
SurrealSoul
Articles like this make me want to get a NYTimes sub, excellent reporting on
something mundane with enough statistics to make it worth the read.

If we ban shoes now, will we ban other augments in the future? Will this stunt
the progression of such human performance augmentations?

~~~
gascan
We seem to take it very much case by case. Running efficiency augments are
controversial. Drugs are verboten. But better bicycles are OK, and football
players can wear eyeblack and grip-enhancing gloves.

The closer a sport is to pure human performance, though, the more sensitive we
seem to be about it. Perhaps out of a sense of continuity through the ages.
Yeah, we train better than Athenian athletes. But we still run the same way
with the same air and the same gravity.

I'm not terribly worried about stunting development of augments; it's
practically the DoD's charter to develop and productize unfair advantages.

~~~
Alex3917
> We seem to take it very much case by case.

The principle is very consistent: You can't do something that gives you an
unfair advantage over other competitors. Everything banned basically falls
into one of three categories:

\- It would be prohibitively expensive for others to adopt the technology.
This is why you have weight minimums for bikes, boats, etc.

\- Others would have to risk their health to compete. This is why you have
bans of performance enhancing drugs, blood doping, etc.

\- Others would have to break the law to compete. This is why you have bans on
illegal drugs, even if they're not necessarily performance enhancing.

Occasionally things are also banned to preserve comparability to current
records or to preserve the aesthetic sense of the sport, but for the most part
when something is banned it's for one of the three enumerated reasons.

~~~
ekianjo
"unfair advantage" is particularly hard to define. We are not born equals, so
there are already folks among us who have unfair advantage due to their genes,
their upbringing, their social background, etc... I would say the definition
is still blur. What if you have a medical condition that impairs you in some
ways but make you stronger for doing one type of tasks? Is that unfair?

~~~
thret
Genetic advantage is what we're testing for in these running experiments
though. It isn't an unfair advantage, it's the whole point.

~~~
ak39
I like your comment and agree with it. The purpose of such sports, especially
the Olympics, is to test for genetic (and, I'll add environmental & epigentic)
advantages.

Your thoughts on Caster Semenya's "advantages"?

~~~
DaiPlusPlus
Events like the Olympics - and athletics as we know it - will lose the
public’s attention if the most publicsed events (e.g. men’s 100m) become giant
genetics microoptimization pissing contests - but it’s the direction the
sports-science industrial complex is heading in anyway; but I hope it will
lead to less contested sports becoming more popular.

~~~
tenpies
Genetics will be interesting, but I wonder if we eventually reach a point
where it's even beyond that. To use Gattaca as an example, a person with
vastly inferior genetics was able to outperform genetically perfect
individuals through sheer "human spirit" (the film's term) which manifested as
work ethic, drive, will, etc.

I could see a future where we've settled on the perfect genetic template for
specific disciplines so we progress on to brain chemistry and/or psychology in
order to reproduce the spirit aspect which separates the merely genetically
blessed from the world class athletes.

~~~
DaiPlusPlus
[Gattaca spoiler warnings]

> outperform genetically perfect individuals through sheer "human spirit" (the
> film's term) which manifested as work ethic, drive, will, etc.

I didn't like Gattaca's message for that reason: it's fallacious to suggest
those mental attributes aren't also subject to genetic advantages.

Another issue with the story is that the protagonist has a heart condition,
and in the end he got on the spaceship's crew, which meant other people's
lives were put at risk if he collapsed due to that heart condition in-transit.
Salute the human spirit, but he put others at risk for his own benefit, and
that's irresponsible and immoral.

> I could see a future where we've settled on the perfect genetic template for
> specific disciplines so we progress on to brain chemistry and/or psychology
> in order to reproduce the spirit aspect which separates the merely
> genetically blessed from the world class athletes.

Adderall, lol.

------
GatorD42
The aggressive opinion on regulating these shoes seems over the top to me, the
next best shoes, the relatively unheralded Nike Streak, provided a 3%
performance improvement, and more runners achieved a personal best with those
shoes. And improvements with the vapor fly 4% were smaller for faster runners.
Also many runners choose shoes based on injury prevention and comfort - if a
shoe gets you to the starting line uninjured with plenty of training miles
that's an infinite time improvement over pulling out of the race injured.

Wired did a good analysis on this too [https://www.wired.com/story/do-nike-
zoom-vaporfly-make-you-r...](https://www.wired.com/story/do-nike-zoom-
vaporfly-make-you-run-faster/)

~~~
bo1024
If it were just "the shoes make you faster" there would be nothing to discuss.
The debate centers around a qualitative difference: "The shoes have a 'spring'
in them that make you faster."

It's similar to a mini version of prosthetics such as Pistorius's that were
banned from Olympic competition, as they are basically big metal springs on
the end of your legs. The Vaporfly was explicitly designed to use this spring
principle, i.e. store mechanical energy in a carbon fiber plate and release it
back on toe-off.

So some, like me, feel that shoes for competition should not be allowed to
mechanically assist the runner. It's not about percentages, it's a simple
binary criterion.

~~~
GatorD42
If you think the plate is such a qualitative difference you may have fallen
for Nike's marketing. The vapor fly 4% is very lightweight with an excellent
cushioning to weight ratio thanks partly to Nike's new zoomx foam (which
possibly provides superior energy return too). Shoes with plates in them have
been around for a while and nobody complained - Mizuno shoes have plates like
this as does the Nike zoom fly (different shoe), neither shoe is very high on
the list or higher than you would expect based on its weight alone.

Look at the top shoes on the list - the Nike streak is a super lightweight
shoe without Nike's new foam and it is second fastest. This should tell you
weight alone is probably the most important factor. Two other highly rated
shoes are Adidas shoes with boost foam, a type of foam similar to Nike's zoomx
with a better cushioning to weight ratio. So the newest generation of foam
probably provides a small benefit apart from the she's weight alone.

Runners capable of running a three hour marathon probably know the single most
important factor in a running shoe for speed is weight. If they still choose
to run in Saucony Guide or Hokas there's probably a good reason. What percent
of runners who switched to the Saucony Guide were injured and used the shoes
to recover, and what percent of runners in heavier shoes with more cushioning
and stability features made it to the Starting line vs runners in Nike
streaks? It's possible the heavier shoes provide protection from injury or
greater comfort - there's a reason runners don't race marathons in track
spikes.

I don't think the plate provides much benefit apart from weight and
cushioning, my guess is that it is there for the feel of the shoe and without
it the new foam would feel too mushy.

~~~
bo1024
The point isn't whether I think it works in providing mechanical assistance.
The point is whether it is intended to provide mechanical assistance, which as
you mention from Nike's marketing, seems to be yes.

Try this: [http://sportsscientists.com/2017/03/ban-nike-vaporfly-
carbon...](http://sportsscientists.com/2017/03/ban-nike-vaporfly-carbon-fiber-
devices-future-performance-credibility/)

By the way, it doesn't really bother me if 3-hour marathoners want to wear
them, or even 2:30 marathoners, but if you're competing for prize money, I
think this sort of thing should be banned. At least the sport needs a
discussion of where to draw the line on such devices.

~~~
GatorD42
So if a faster shoe came along (Vapor Fly 5%) that didn’t use a plate, that
would be okay? But if people preferred the Vapor Fly 4% over the faster shoe,
they couldn’t use it because of the plate? . . .

The patent application Ross Tucker cites has close to zero applicability. Nike
has been working on a different energy return “spring” shoe that probably
would be illegal - the patent could be for those shoes. And people claim lots
of things in patents, that doesn’t make the claims true. All shoes have some
combination of firmness and cushioning, and shoes have used an embedded firm
plate design before, and nobody complained.

What if a biomechanics lab proved the Vapor Fly 4% is not acting as a spring
but makes runners more efficient through some other mechanism (firm underfoot
feeling but lots of cushioning)?

~~~
bo1024
> _So if a faster shoe came along (Vapor Fly 5%) that didn’t use a plate, that
> would be okay?_

Right, according to my logic, it would be fine if there was a shoe that was
faster empirically but not designed to cheat. (In other words, cheating is
still cheating even if you're bad at it.)

Analogy: if a silver medalist is on EPO and the gold medalist isn't, the
silver medalist is still cheating and the gold medalist still is not.

Your second paragraph does not match my understanding of the issue. I believe
the Vaporfly is the shoe with the embedded carbon fiber plate, and I don't
think other shoes (except maybe spikes) with this technology have ever been
worn, at least in top level races.

------
Buldak
>Compared with typical training shoes, the Vaporflys are believed to wear out
quickly: Some runners have said they lose their effectiveness after 100 miles
or so.

This is about two weeks of peak marathon training, although if the shoes are
as advantageous as the article claims that's impressive in any case. I suppose
one could reserve them for races and train with cheaper shoes.

~~~
llimllib
The idea is that you don't train in them, you save them for the race.

(My last marathon training period peaked at a little over 70mpw. Normal
trainers last me about 500-600 miles, my lighter shoes (Kinvaras) last
400-500, and my race flats even less than that)

~~~
lmilcin
You don't use your race as an occasion to test your running shoes.

~~~
brianwawok
With these you do. Maybe do a 3 mile tune-up run to make sure there are not
hot spots and it fits well, then you go race in it. Can't spend 50 miles
breaking in a shoe with a life of 100 miles.

~~~
lmilcin
Maybe not a particular pair, but you have to have experience with any types of
shoes. I would frequently buy two pairs, one I would normally train in and the
other will be reserved for events. Even the pair reserved for event I would
typically test run (hahaha!) at least once during training to spot any
problems.

Now, this is pure conjecture, I don't think the shoes magically make you more
efficient. Efficiency is something you learn when running over long period of
time. I would expect, to reap benefits of these shoes (assuming there are) you
would need to get used to the new mechanics of running that the shoes will
require.

~~~
brianwawok
A carbon fiber spring isn't magic, it's mechanical engineering. Your foot has
a natural spring built into it. This is just slightly more efficient.

------
chairmanwow
What a phenomenal piece of journalism. If anything, I think a piece like this
can expose the limits of statistical analysis to the unfamiliar. They made a
very thorough analysis of something rather boring, all without making untrue
statements about the limitations of each approach. I enjoyed this a lot.

~~~
macspoofing
Either that or a brilliant piece of Nike PR masquerading as journalism.
Doesn't Nike also sell $400 basketball shoes that make you jump higher?

~~~
extralego
Having worked for Nike on ads and in the publishing industry (on branded print
content), I am very comfortable saying this is 100% an ad. If it weren’t, it
simply wouldn’t be run, because that would justify future Nike ad $$$ to
competing publications so as to not clump too much branding in one outlet, a
tell-tale sign of a _deal_. It takes a unique very scenario for a pub like NYT
to just hand something like this to a company like Nike; nothing about this
even moves that needle. I am similarly comfortable asserting the rough draft
was written by Nike in-house, simply because their people have this stuff
falling out of their heads already. NYT leading this would cost multitudes in
efficiency.

~~~
bootlooped
I think it would be illegal to run this without disclosing that it's an ad.

~~~
extralego
I don’t. It’s done all the time regardless.

------
whitepoplar
Best review of the shoes:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rXdxKamJDg8](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rXdxKamJDg8)

~~~
c0brac0bra
Does he blink?

~~~
NullPrefix
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rXdxKamJDg8&t=20](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rXdxKamJDg8&t=20)

------
not_a_moth
Whatever happened to the whole "born to run" thing, which surveyed a lot of
evidence that running shoes - recent inventions - cause injuries almost
universally, that you're better off with totally minimal shoes if not no shoes
at all.

~~~
zebrafish
Generally found to be untrue. Lots of different running styles and gaits.
Runners generally take the "shoe for every stride" approach now rather than a
"one style fits all" mindset.

~~~
bamboozled
Not saying you’re wrong but do you have any evidence to say it’s “Generally
found to be untrue”.

~~~
notacoward
The question is more whether the "barefoot is best" meme was ever more than
theory/anecdote.

[https://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/06/05/is-barefoot-
style-...](https://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/06/05/is-barefoot-style-
running-best-new-studies-cast-doubt/)

As others have said, people are different. There might well be a subset of
runners for whom a barefoot/minimal style is best, but AFAICT it's a minority
at best, so "generally found to be untrue" is a pretty good summary.

~~~
bamboozled
To be honest that article just says that both techniques are similar in
efficiency, which I think no one really disputed.

There is also a claim which I’m not so familiar with which is that bare foot
runners think their feet will become more “taught and spring like”, ,not
really familiar with that idea.

What I’m interested in, and the article doesn’t discuss is the injury rate
between runners who run barefoot and without shoes. I haven’t any studies
which say I’m more likely to be injured when going barefoot.

I think the real reason more people wear shoes is that there is seems to be
something taboo about going shoeless. As a bare foot runner I feel judged for
taking off the shoes and going for a run.

Edit: To the point about people who tried barefoot shoes and were injured,
that’s probably because just running without shoes on with the same technique
for 10 weeks isn’t an advisable way to run without shoes. It’s quite a
different exercise.

~~~
notacoward
> I haven’t any studies which say I’m more likely to be injured when going
> barefoot.

Can you cite any studies at _all_ on the subject, even showing the converse?
It's not clear why the entire burden of proof should be on one side.

> As a bare foot runner I feel judged for taking off the shoes and going for a
> run.

I've only been running a bit over four years, and I've seen plenty of judging
from both sides. Personally, I have something that works for me, even through
New England winters when barefoot simply isn't an option. If somebody half my
age and half my annual mileage wants to look down their nose at me because I
wear pretty standard shoes, all I can do is laugh.

------
fhood
If these shoes really can provide a measurable improvement in times they
probably _should_ be banned. Otherwise it will go the way of swimming, where a
bunch of world records got set before they ended up banning those full body
suits.

~~~
einarfd
As a runner I want shoes to get more efficient and better. What is about
todays running shoe that makes them acceptable, and that anything better is
some form of cheating? I don't agree with what they did in swimming, those
body suits where amazing, and that they got banned was really sad. But even if
you agree with banning them. Shoes in running are a not comparable to full
body swimming suits. Shoes are an central part of running, the swimming suit
is not that in swimming. If you ban improvement on something so core to
running as the shoes, what is left to innovate on?

~~~
jartelt
Because the sport is better for everyone if you aren't required to buy $250
shoes to have a chance to win. It's the same with the swim suits. If a new
piece of equipment comes out that makes you 5% more efficient, then anyone who
wants a chance to actually compete needs to buy it. It's just like a tax on
competitors.

Otherwise running and swimming would just turn into cycling where you are
basically forced to buy an expensive bike to compete.

~~~
jonknee
No one other than a small group of elite athletes is ever expected to win a
marathon, it's mainly a race against yourself.

~~~
AtlasBarfed
Not when it comes to boston qualifying, or running scholarships.

------
monkmartinez
So at what point can we just start using jumping stilts [1] or something
similar? I mean the shoes are $250 and the stilts from Amazon [2] are like $50
more when you include shipping.

WRT to carbon fiber plate... how is that not "cheating" like the stilts? Its
like electric motors in bicycles if you ask me.

[1]
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gCqvUGFwee4](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gCqvUGFwee4)
[2] [https://www.amazon.com/Air-Trekkers-JUMPING-EXTREME-
Exercise...](https://www.amazon.com/Air-Trekkers-JUMPING-EXTREME-Exercise-
PROTECTION/dp/B01EBL5OCW)

~~~
llimllib
IAAF rules already prohibit that:

> (e) Use of any technical device that incorporates springs, wheels or any
> other element that provides the user with an advantage over another athlete
> not using such a device.

Nobody has brought a challenge over this shoe and its debatable use of a
"spring"; the IAAF may in fact decide it's a mechanical advantage if/when
somebody does

~~~
monkmartinez
Great comment. Now, how often are officials confiscating shoes and sawing them
in half to see what is really inside?

Corked bats? Hidden motors... etc...

~~~
dmurray
Nobody had even a proof of concept for a shoe that looked like a running shoe
on the outside but had "springs, wheels" inside, so the officials didn't need
to. Compare it with competitive cycling, where for a hundred years officials
didn't need to X-ray the bike to check for hidden motors, but now they
regularly do [0].

If the Nike shoe is banned from professional competition, athletes will stop
wearing it, and officials will investigating other shoes for carbon fibre
inserts, and will likely catch some. They're not stupid.

[0][https://cyclingtips.com/2015/04/hidden-motors-for-road-
bikes...](https://cyclingtips.com/2015/04/hidden-motors-for-road-bikes-exist-
heres-how-they-work/amp/)

------
6ak74rfy
This reminds me of the powerful arguments that Christopher McDougall presented
in his book (Born to Run[1]) around bare-foot running [2]. I've tried running
bare-foot and using old-ragged shoes and absolutely love it.

[1]: [https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/6289283-born-to-
run](https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/6289283-born-to-run)

[2]: [http://www.chrismcdougall.com/born-to-run/the-barefoot-
runni...](http://www.chrismcdougall.com/born-to-run/the-barefoot-running-
debate/)

~~~
RobertRoberts
Any reason this should be down voted? I read that "born to run" was partly a
scam book (can't recall exactly, but the cover was photoshopped for one, and
the stories about some runners never getting hurt was just totally false,
etc...)

But barefoot running is a great way to run, no knee or back issues after doing
this for years.

~~~
ABS
possibly because these shoes and the article are exactly the opposite of
barefoot running?

~~~
RobertRoberts
It still seems like a relevant response if these shoes (long term) are even
more detrimental to our bodies the previous designs. He was pointing out that
the appeal of these shoes appears to be simply mimicking what the body already
does. I took this as a valid criticism of these shoes.

This is especially relevant because there's been decades of shoe manufacturers
designing for poor running form.

Surely HN isn't just for commenting on support of a product in a linked story,
but also considered criticism?

------
pdpi
There's something interesting at play here — clearly, they're selling these
shoes to enthusiasts, rather than just targeting elite athletes.

While I can see a competitive athlete reaching for whatever legal means they
can to try and buy themselves a victory or podium or some other high-profile
result that buys them sponsorships, there's just no good reason why amateur
runners should care — you don't magically become a fitter, better runner by
posting faster numbers through fancier shoes. Selling people on to the idea
that they _should_ care about this is, depending on perspective marketing at
either its finest or at its worst.

~~~
mulletbum
This isn't really stated or testing, but one of my biggest issues with running
is how much pain I feel on my joints. I actually find it really enjoyable to
run through the woods with my dog, but my knees just get mad. If these shoes
relieved just a tiny bit of that pain I would find them almost worth it. Not
saying one should buy an expensive pair of shoes, but if it was the case,
maybe the shoes don't just make you run better, but actually walk better and
more safe?

~~~
thr0awaz
If your knees hurt it's either a form problem (you're likely overstriding or
lifting your knees too high and slamming your feet into the ground), or a shoe
problem (shoes are only good for 300-600 miles of running, assuming you never
wear them walking and that you let them bounce back at least overnight after a
run, or you're wearing like... motion control and heavily padded shoes when
you need less stability or less padding, or vice versa)

Other options are bad knees (unlikely, honestly. Not many people have knees
that are so genuinely shot that they can't run, unless they're former
paratroopers or are very years old)

Or, if you're carrying a lot of extra weight (backpack full of water? I don't
know, people do whatever they do), that'll hurt.

Since you're talking about running in the woods, it's almost definitely not
the sidewalk, but, some people need to build up their muscles and tendons by
going from softer surfaces (not so soft like sand, but grass) to ashphalt, to
concrete.

~~~
justinator
Don't forget lack of ankle mobility. If the ankle can't do the job, the knee
tries to, and that doesn't work all that well.

------
todd8
It’s fun and exhilarating to run faster, but very few people, almost by
definition, enter the ranks of elite runners. One of the best pieces of advice
I heard while training for my first marathon was “No one here in this
(beginner) training group is going to finish in first place.” Obviously, I
knew this was true about me, but it always reminded me to keep my goals for
doing a marathon in perspective.

I had set a goal for myself and a faster set of shoes might have gotten me to
the Boston marathon a year sooner, but it was the journey not the destination
that was so rewarding.

~~~
sndean
> “No one here in this (beginner) training group is going to finish in first
> place.”

Almost always true. But it's fun to dream about being in Bill Rodgers'
situation (in running or any other activity). In 1973 he was chain-smoking
bar-regular who liked eating pizza topped with mayonnaise and who had no
interest in running marathons. In 1975 he was the fastest American ever.

------
laxd
Shoes so fast they might have to be banned. Good old marketing trick.

------
httpz
When cleats were first introduced to soccer decades ago people had the same
debate. I think technological advancements changing a sport is inevitable.
What if Adidas makes a similar shoes that makes you 3% faster? 2% 1%? where do
you draw the line?

~~~
QML
Why not make pro football players wear standardized shoes during a game? The
issue with customized shoes I see is wealthier teams will have better
equipment.

~~~
retsibsi
> Why not make pro football players wear standardized shoes during a game?

I don't know whether this image is accurate, but:
[https://www.thesun.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/es-
footb...](https://www.thesun.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/es-football-
boot-deals-graphic.jpg)

Really though, standardised boots would probably not kill this market. In
cricket, for example, it's common for players to use a bat that is dressed up
to look like the product of their sponsor, while actually being manufactured
by someone else entirely. This is a bit of an open secret, so I guess that
footwear companies would also be willing to pay good money to have 'their'
boots worn by the big stars, even if the public knew that they weren't allowed
to be meaningfully different from the boots everyone else was wearing.

A genuinely good reason not to force standardised boots is just how different
everyone's needs are. Feet don't just differ in size, but in shape (in three
dimensions), not to mention all the other things that can affect a person's
natural gait, weight distribution and so on. I think it would be hard to write
regulations tight enough to preclude an unfair advantage for richer teams,
without also forcing some players into boots that would be not only sub-
optimal but even dangerous (in the sense of increasing the risk of injury).

------
doe88
If true I wouldn't discount the benefit, even small. It reminds me the theory
of _marginal gains_ popularized by Team SKY in cycling. In the aggregate all
these small details add-up and may make the difference.

~~~
maxxxxx
True. At the absolute top probably 0.1% will already make a big difference.

------
48snickers
I'm surprised they didn't compare the Vaporfly 4% to two other shoes: the Nike
Zoom Fly and the Reebok Floatride Run Fast. The former is an identical shoe,
but with the Pebax replaced with another foam (Lunarlon?). The latter is
another Pebax foam shoe, but in a different form factor. That way they could
tease out of it is the material or the shoe design.

------
danvoell
Props to whomever at Nike PR got this article released. Now I want a pair. Its
better to be controversial (Uber, Lime, Bird) these days than on the up and
up. Help us fight for consumer rights!

~~~
fhood
Comparing these shoes to Uber's issues seems a bit odd. Particularly since
there isn't anything all that amoral about them.

~~~
danvoell
Just the initial Uber launch issues. I view municipalities questioning whether
Uber should be allowed to operate in their jurisdiction as akin to should
these shoes be legal in races.

~~~
fhood
Ah, that makes a whole lot more sense. I completely misunderstood.

------
citiguy
Running shoes are funny things. Due to the fact that they are basically a
weight at the end of a long fulcrum, the heavier they are the slower you will
go. Plus they are full of padding which messes up the natural springs you
already have built into your feet.

It is not surprising someone invented a shoe that is somewhat lighter which
makes it faster. I find the spring idea somewhat dubious but maybe they do
give you a slight boost. My question would be how fast you can run in these vs
with no shoes on at all.

~~~
lnanek2
Vaporfly is actually heavier than some other racing flats that have performed
worse, like the Nike Zoom Streak 6. So your theory of what is happening
doesn't fit, unfortunately.

Regenerative braking makes cars heavier and generally only returns 4-5%
energy, but you don't see people demanding their electrics don't have it, do
you? This is the same sort of thing for running shoes, but with energy
returning foams and plates making their weight worthwhile for improving
effectiveness instead.

------
walrus01
I know nothing about running shoes, but there is a very quantifiable
difference between a $100 pair of road cycling shoes and a $250 pair.
Stiffness of sole, comfort, weight, a lot of things.

As in many things in road cycling there is a certain point of diminishing
returns (a $550 seatpost hand blessed by some artisan in italy is not
significantly better than an aluminum Thomson).

------
ozy
Maybe it is a self-filtering effect, they should have shown a graph of shoe
price vs improvement, and improvement over time.

That would capture if those willing to pay more are self-selecting for being
better, training more, etc. And if today the effect is stronger than a year
ago, perhaps because of rumors of it making you faster.

------
amai
I think they didn't answer an important question: Did runners switching back
to other shoes get slower again?

~~~
lyk
"Runners who improved their performance in Vaporflys and then switched to
other shoes got slower.

There were very few runners in our data who met this criterion: We counted
just 24 such races. But these runners finished about 7 percent slower on
average than they did while wearing the Vaporflys. (Of the 24 races, 17 races
were slower, and 7 were faster.)"

------
codezero
This is cool, but since I’m not a professional runner I’d love shoes that
could reduce the likelihood that I develop an injury.

------
genofon
Very likely an ads in disguised, such a shame seeing things like this in
newspapers.

------
Cursuviam
To quote Mars Blackmon, "It's got to be the shoes."

(In ref. to Nike's Air Jordan ad campaign)

------
HugoDaniel
I have been hearing the motto: "High tech shoes: low tech runner"

Not sure how accurate it might be...

------
Fang_
But then what would be the point? Are we going back to old hunting tactics?

------
glitcher
The title image animated gif should come with a seizure warning lol

------
kchoudhu
Yes, but will they make me get off my ass and go running?

~~~
rconti
I bought an expensive carbon fiber bicycle and the price tag made me feel
guilty if i didn't ride it more.

So, maybe.

------
andbberger
I don't know, sandals work pretty good.

> they have a carbon-fiber plate in the midsole, which stores and releases
> energy with each stride

... the achilles tendon + calf already play this role.

Just don't heel strike.

~~~
tudelo
Ahh yes, of course, sandals. A few people have won the Boston marathon in
sandals, right?

~~~
pmahoney
It's possible to run at or near an elite level without modern running shoes.
For example the 1960 Olympic marathon was won by a barefoot competitor (his
winning time of 2:15:16.2 would be considered sub-elite today) [1].

One can speculate why all elite runners use shoes. Worth noting that running
shoes designed for racing, as opposed to training, tend to be thinner and
lighter and closer to a simple sandal [2]. I personally reverted from bare
feet back to shoes after the occasional thorn or bit of glass getting stuck in
my foot became too annoying.

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abebe_Bikila#1960_Rome_Olympic...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abebe_Bikila#1960_Rome_Olympics)

[2]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racing_flat](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racing_flat)

------
mrnobody_67
Placebo effect.

~~~
fredley
No. If this were really a psychological boost given by switching to a new pair
of shoes, regardless of model, then the Vaporflies would show no statistical
difference to other similarly priced shoes in the 'switching' test.

------
Paul_S
This isn't journalism, this is marketing.

------
ABS
I hope they somehow collected the official gun and chip times for those
runners because the times and distances on Strava are _never_ the official
ones and can vary massively (GPS accuracy, when people pressed start on their
watches and so forth)

~~~
loeg
GPS distances can vary somewhat, but is there any reason to believe they
should be biased in favor of GPS-using runners with these shoes instead of
averaging out?

~~~
ABS
no but that's not the point: if the data is unreliable then it's unreliable.

And here it's unreliable in a way that cannot be accounted for since it can be
massively (e.g. minutes) over or under the actual time per individual.

~~~
loeg
You're still talking about data error magnitude as if it explains bias. It
does not.

------
ronreiter
Can someone please explain to me why this isn't a classic "correlation does
not imply causality"?

This is not a randomized trial, which means that if there is a bias of "better
athletes spend more on their shoes" then it can also explain the 4% increase
of Nike Vaporfly.

~~~
alwaysdoit
Sure, the NYT will explain that very thoroughly to you if you'd like to read
the article.

------
pcunite
Wear running shoes that save your feet. Utilize a wide toe-box that help
prevent Morton's Neuroma and other foot injuries. Maybe you won't get there as
quickly (debatable) but you'll still be able to walk when you're older ...
long after the confetti has been cleaned up.

------
lmilcin
There might be a simpler explanation. People that are willing to spend $250 on
racers mmay be more serious than average runner. It might also be that the act
of putting on $250 shoes may have purely psychological effect to stimulate
runner as not doing their best could have additional perceived cost of wasting
money spent on very expensive shoes.

~~~
loeg
They did attempt to control for this in other ways (at least skim the
article), but it's true that at the end of the day you cannot control for any
psychological factor.

~~~
lmilcin
"Attempt to control" is not the same thing as proving it. You yourself
admitted "you cannot control for any psychological factor". Well, maybe you
can, but definitely it is not easy.

Now, you get a lot of data on lots of people running in non-laboratory
setting. The people tested actually bought the shoes and we know, if they paid
for them, they have invested in them and the idea that the shoes represent.

The idea behind this pair of shoes is "extreme efficiency even at high cost".
What you get is you get people that may have been biased by the act of
selection based on the idea and then you compare them to other people who
chose to buy other pair of shoes.

Let's test this idea. Let's say you are comparing Lamborghini to Fiat with
regards to whether the car is safe. Instead of doing laboratory tests, you
decide to mine data of all miles ever driven in all cars ever produced. Now,
you see that, on average, Lamborghini last less between crashes and then are
more frequently totaled.

Is your conclusion that Lamborghinis are less safe than Fiats or maybe your
conclusion should be that it is actually difficult to say given the data
because there might be other factors at work (for example, Lamborghini buyers
may be biased to be drivers that tend to drive faster and less safe?) It might
also be that the act of sitting behind wheel of Lambo may cause you to drive
less safely.

~~~
loeg
> "Attempt to control" is not the same thing as proving it.

Understood.

> You yourself admitted "you cannot control for any psychological factor".

Your comment suggests we disagree, but I don't think we actually disagree on
both the possible impact and lack of ability to control for psychological
factors.

