Compliance and resilience
October 16, 2024 1:17 AM Subscribe
“There’s not going to be a fair (shoe), no one product that affects everyone the same,” says Yong. “Everyone’s biomechanics are different. Unfortunately, this is a part of the sport. If you really wanted to be fair, everyone should be running naked in bare feet. You don’t have any expensive clothes or shoes, but that’s obviously not where we’re at.” from How ‘shoe doping’ changed marathon times forever – in ways we still don’t fully understand [The Athletic; ungated]
Did Nike Just End the Super Shoe Debate? [Gear Patrol]
Supershoes are reshaping distance running [MIT Technology Review]
A Case Against Supershoes [I Run Far]
Did Nike Just End the Super Shoe Debate? [Gear Patrol]
Supershoes are reshaping distance running [MIT Technology Review]
A Case Against Supershoes [I Run Far]
I ran distances races as a youth, and the fancy shoes some folks wore back then (1991 or so) cost $125, which an online calculator tells me is $288 today, or about exactly the same price as the ugly fancy Nikes in question. I don't know anything about their durability in comparison, and there's still unfortunately the whole question of ethical manufacturing and sustainably sourced materials that was just as much a question then as now.
But yeah, if you are setting PRs by buying new shoes you're only cheating yourself. I don't run anymore but ride bikes, and am currently building up a "new" road bike almost identical to my worn-out 20 year old bike in order to use accumulated wheels and spare parts and whatever. This will also allow me to maintain a sort of standard of material for past performances, even if I'm denying myself valuable watt savings that would help me to keep up with the carbon-fiber crowd.
posted by St. Oops at 1:46 AM on October 16 [1 favorite]
But yeah, if you are setting PRs by buying new shoes you're only cheating yourself. I don't run anymore but ride bikes, and am currently building up a "new" road bike almost identical to my worn-out 20 year old bike in order to use accumulated wheels and spare parts and whatever. This will also allow me to maintain a sort of standard of material for past performances, even if I'm denying myself valuable watt savings that would help me to keep up with the carbon-fiber crowd.
posted by St. Oops at 1:46 AM on October 16 [1 favorite]
I don't think quite fair to compare supershoes to EPO as the first article does. EPO has a bunch of side effects including high blood pressure and elevated risk of strokes. Athletes don't seem to be risking their health by wearing supershoes.
It is a shame that supershoes put a financial barrier into running though. One great thing about it is that it's a fair and open sport: an average runner can sign up to the same race as the elites and run the same course in front of the same crowd. It goes against the grain that you now have to pay hundreds of dollars for a shoe that will only last a couple of races, or in come cases have early access to shoes that others don't. I'd prefer it if there were more rules about cost and availability so that it's a bit more level.
posted by TheophileEscargot at 1:56 AM on October 16 [1 favorite]
It is a shame that supershoes put a financial barrier into running though. One great thing about it is that it's a fair and open sport: an average runner can sign up to the same race as the elites and run the same course in front of the same crowd. It goes against the grain that you now have to pay hundreds of dollars for a shoe that will only last a couple of races, or in come cases have early access to shoes that others don't. I'd prefer it if there were more rules about cost and availability so that it's a bit more level.
posted by TheophileEscargot at 1:56 AM on October 16 [1 favorite]
I am a member of the MeFi Marathon Club (3:31 finisher) and have never run one in supershoes - yet. I do know people who have, and they unquestionably help. It's hard to quantify by how much, but my friend said they felt like he had attached springs to the balls of his feet as he ran.
Even "regular" distance running shoes nowadays have that distinctive boat-like appearance with a huge sole - they are designed to rock back and forth and protect your foot as it goes through your stride. When I started seriously running I was wearing old gym shoes and began to finish runs with my ankles and shins aching. Literally two runs after getting proper shoes, the pain disappeared, never to return.
Of course I feel the need to point out that the marathon times discussed in these articles are mind-blowing, supershoes or not. Running a marathon at all is a supreme challenge, running one in close to two hours is another level of human athleticism. Many runners would be happy with running a half marathon in that time.
I once ran a half and stuck around to see the marathon winner in the same event - the guy who won just missed breaking two and a half hours. He was so dialed into running he crossed the finish line, broke the tape, and crashed into one of the volunteers giving out medals. I'm not sure he knew where he was at that point. To make that time, he had just run an average of three and a half minutes per km for 42.2km - that's a pace I have only hit doing 400m track intervals - and it's a hard, hard sprint for me. On reflection, his effort was probably the most astounding athletic feat I'd ever personally witnessed.
posted by fortitude25 at 2:55 AM on October 16 [4 favorites]
Even "regular" distance running shoes nowadays have that distinctive boat-like appearance with a huge sole - they are designed to rock back and forth and protect your foot as it goes through your stride. When I started seriously running I was wearing old gym shoes and began to finish runs with my ankles and shins aching. Literally two runs after getting proper shoes, the pain disappeared, never to return.
Of course I feel the need to point out that the marathon times discussed in these articles are mind-blowing, supershoes or not. Running a marathon at all is a supreme challenge, running one in close to two hours is another level of human athleticism. Many runners would be happy with running a half marathon in that time.
I once ran a half and stuck around to see the marathon winner in the same event - the guy who won just missed breaking two and a half hours. He was so dialed into running he crossed the finish line, broke the tape, and crashed into one of the volunteers giving out medals. I'm not sure he knew where he was at that point. To make that time, he had just run an average of three and a half minutes per km for 42.2km - that's a pace I have only hit doing 400m track intervals - and it's a hard, hard sprint for me. On reflection, his effort was probably the most astounding athletic feat I'd ever personally witnessed.
posted by fortitude25 at 2:55 AM on October 16 [4 favorites]
Are these “supershoes” the trickle-down reason it’s nigh-on impossible today to buy a consumer-level trainer that doesn’t feature a half-foot of foam? I’ve been trying to find a new pair of shoes and damned if I can find a decent shoe that doesn’t feel like I’m wearing disco platforms on my feet.
posted by Thorzdad at 3:29 AM on October 16 [1 favorite]
posted by Thorzdad at 3:29 AM on October 16 [1 favorite]
I started running about a decade ago and for the first year or so I didn't put a lot of thought into my shoes. I splurged on some good ones--for me that's about $100 USD--and yeah, huge difference. Good footwear is important for everyone, everywhere, not just for runners!
I tried Nike Free shoes for a while, which are kind of the antithesis of the Vaporflys: there's a very minimal sole. They are supposed to be the closest thing to running barefoot, but even that was surpassed by ultrathin shoes like the Vibram Five Fingers--I've seen quite a few people run in those, but I haven't tried it yet.
Running a marathon at all is a supreme challenge, running one in close to two hours is another level of human athleticism. Many runners would be happy with running a half marathon in that time.
I am a slow runner and that's fine with me. I have never done a full, and probably never will, but I've done four half marathons. My best time was about 2:05, and that was *hard* for me. It was a track that ran alongside a river. The course was a bit odd: you went 5km one way, turned around, ran 10k, then turned around again to the start, 5k away. This is all to say that when I reached the exact midpoint of the race, which was also the start and finish, the guy in front was finishing at almost the exact same time.
posted by zardoz at 4:01 AM on October 16 [1 favorite]
I tried Nike Free shoes for a while, which are kind of the antithesis of the Vaporflys: there's a very minimal sole. They are supposed to be the closest thing to running barefoot, but even that was surpassed by ultrathin shoes like the Vibram Five Fingers--I've seen quite a few people run in those, but I haven't tried it yet.
Running a marathon at all is a supreme challenge, running one in close to two hours is another level of human athleticism. Many runners would be happy with running a half marathon in that time.
I am a slow runner and that's fine with me. I have never done a full, and probably never will, but I've done four half marathons. My best time was about 2:05, and that was *hard* for me. It was a track that ran alongside a river. The course was a bit odd: you went 5km one way, turned around, ran 10k, then turned around again to the start, 5k away. This is all to say that when I reached the exact midpoint of the race, which was also the start and finish, the guy in front was finishing at almost the exact same time.
posted by zardoz at 4:01 AM on October 16 [1 favorite]
Whenever sports technology is discussed, it's about an obsession with a notion of 'fairness' that I think is completely fictional. There's this idea that you can somehow eliminate all variables and just test some core essence of two people head to head. But how is that fair? One of them is better/stronger than the other! Sports are inherently unfair, since you're always pitting somebody better against somebody worse.
Soh Rui Yong's comment in this article is the one that rings true to me:
"Soh points out that birthplace, genetics, finances and role models all significantly impact performance and could be classified as unfair. Track athletes in the 1960s benefited from the introduction of artificial tracks. Sports and technology evolve at unpredictable times and non-linear rates."
I think the obsession with fairness often comes in the context of records, because people hope that records can stand as a way to compare athletes in different eras who can't compete against each other, and they don't want the era to have an influence. But that's impossible for a lot of reasons - things like training science and nutrition advance a lot, so the best runner from the 1950s would be a lot faster now if they had access to those resources. And sports (at least elite sports) are about improving performance, so you don't want to go too far down the road of limiting what people can do and how they can prepare to slow them down - that's silly.
So all you can do is do what this article does in bits and pieces - is contextualize performance by looking at it in the context of the resources, era, and technology that produce it.
posted by entropone at 4:44 AM on October 16 [2 favorites]
Soh Rui Yong's comment in this article is the one that rings true to me:
"Soh points out that birthplace, genetics, finances and role models all significantly impact performance and could be classified as unfair. Track athletes in the 1960s benefited from the introduction of artificial tracks. Sports and technology evolve at unpredictable times and non-linear rates."
I think the obsession with fairness often comes in the context of records, because people hope that records can stand as a way to compare athletes in different eras who can't compete against each other, and they don't want the era to have an influence. But that's impossible for a lot of reasons - things like training science and nutrition advance a lot, so the best runner from the 1950s would be a lot faster now if they had access to those resources. And sports (at least elite sports) are about improving performance, so you don't want to go too far down the road of limiting what people can do and how they can prepare to slow them down - that's silly.
So all you can do is do what this article does in bits and pieces - is contextualize performance by looking at it in the context of the resources, era, and technology that produce it.
posted by entropone at 4:44 AM on October 16 [2 favorites]
Are these “supershoes” the trickle-down reason it’s nigh-on impossible today to buy a consumer-level trainer that doesn’t feature a half-foot of foam?
“Trickle down” isn’t the right term, but part of shoes being race-legal is that they’re “available for purchase” by unsponsored athletes for some period of time, I think six months, before race day.
posted by mhoye at 4:53 AM on October 16
“Trickle down” isn’t the right term, but part of shoes being race-legal is that they’re “available for purchase” by unsponsored athletes for some period of time, I think six months, before race day.
posted by mhoye at 4:53 AM on October 16
« Older Fly Like an Eagle
What's the answer? Get rid of shoes all together? Go back to running naked? Remove the vulcanized rubber from the tracks and only have cinder? But cinder is probably an upgrade from a horse path in a field, so maybe we should just quit running all together.
Or maybe just stop hand wringing and accept that change is inevitable. Chepngetich's time was amazing because she is amazing. The shoes didn't magically cause her to run 2 minutes faster than the previous record.
posted by Literaryhero at 1:30 AM on October 16 [6 favorites]