Nike Says Its $250 Running Shoes Will Make You Run Much Faster • Hacker News Board

Re: Nike Says Its $250 Running Shoes Will Make You Run Much Faster

#81

Post by paulcole » Fri, Jul 20, 2018, 8:10 PM UTC

pdpi wrote: post #33

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…

New rules say that athletes can't wear shoes not available to the general public:

> “Any type of shoe used [in competition] must be reasonably available to all in the spirit of the universality of athletics.”

https://www.outsideonline.com/2325366/track-and-field-iaaf-s...

Re: Nike Says Its $250 Running Shoes Will Make You Run Much Faster

#82

Post by sndean » Fri, Jul 20, 2018, 8:13 PM UTC

todd8 wrote: post #63

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 goa…

> “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.

Re: Nike Says Its $250 Running Shoes Will Make You Run Much Faster

#83

Post by einarfd » Fri, Jul 20, 2018, 8:17 PM UTC

fhood wrote: post #6

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.

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?

Re: Nike Says Its $250 Running Shoes Will Make You Run Much Faster

#84

Post by jdietrich » Fri, Jul 20, 2018, 8:18 PM UTC

justinsaccount wrote: post #77

gwbas1c wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Running sneakers are a relatively new invention. You wouldn't want to run a marathon in whatever the ancient greeks wore. If this kind of thing is important, the best approach is to narrowly define what athletes can wear. (Shoes, socks, compression sleeves, clothes, ect.) Then, working within the limits is part of the sport itself.

> Running sneakers are a relatively new invention. This is true, humans have been running for thousands of years without them. > You wouldn't want to run a marathon in whatever the ancient greeks wore. why not? > Abebe Bikila (August 7, 1932 – October 25, 1973) was an Ethiopian double Olympic marathon champion. He won the marathon at the 1960 Summer Olympics in Rome while running barefoot, setting a world record. He…

>why not?

We didn't evolve to run on tarmac or concrete. Public roads are strewn with broken glass and fragments of metal. Regular distance running is punishing on your joints, even if you're a forefoot runner with perfect form.

Re: Nike Says Its $250 Running Shoes Will Make You Run Much Faster

#85

Post by gamblor956 » Fri, Jul 20, 2018, 8:18 PM UTC

thr0awaz wrote: post #71

JacobJans wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wouldn't draw very many conclusions from that study. The study itself says: > This was an observational study where people chose whether or not they wanted to run; therefore there is always the possibility that people stopped running because they had knee pain. That's a pretty big flaw in their study.

knee pain isn't the same as joint problems. All runners who run regularly will eventually develop knee or ankle pain. It's sort of normal for semi-serious distance runners to own a pair of crutches. I'm not saying all of them, but, if you need a pair of crutches, ask your friends who run and one of them will have a pair. But, your knee can hurt for a while without it turning into joint problems. > This was an observa…

That's weird...I know hundreds of runners ranging from their teens to their 70s and only two of us own crutches. I have a pair because my brother broke his knee playing basketball and left them at my place. Another runner has a pair because a car hit her while she was biking and broke her leg.

Re: Nike Says Its $250 Running Shoes Will Make You Run Much Faster

#86

Post by dandr01d » Fri, Jul 20, 2018, 8:20 PM UTC

SurrealSoul wrote: post #54

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?

Did you get a subscription or not?!

Re: Nike Says Its $250 Running Shoes Will Make You Run Much Faster

#87

Post by andbberger » Fri, Jul 20, 2018, 8:20 PM UTC

tudelo wrote: post #72

andbberger wrote: post #3

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.

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

You may be being sarcastic, but I'm serious! More commonly referred to as huaraches in this situation. Works a treat.

Re: Nike Says Its $250 Running Shoes Will Make You Run Much Faster

#88

Post by post_break » Fri, Jul 20, 2018, 8:22 PM UTC

gordon_freeman wrote: post #58

pdpi wrote: post #33

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…

my question is: do amateur runners even buy $250 shoes? I don't think they do spend that much money on a Running Shoe at that stage. Also, how can this be not good marketing if the Shoes does exactly what the marketing message tries to portray?

Runners usually have multiple pairs of running shoes. The foam compresses from running so if you run every day, and you use the same shoe, the foam does not rebound and you can destroy the shoe. Three pairs is usually the sweet spot. Running shoes at like $200 a pair on not uncommon, and then multiply that by 3.

Re: Nike Says Its $250 Running Shoes Will Make You Run Much Faster

#89

Post by fredley » Fri, Jul 20, 2018, 8:22 PM UTC

mrnobody_67 wrote: post #79

Placebo effect.

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.

Re: Nike Says Its $250 Running Shoes Will Make You Run Much Faster

#90

Post by lmilcin » Fri, Jul 20, 2018, 8:23 PM UTC

loeg wrote: post #35

lmilcin wrote: post #28

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.

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.

"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.