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

#91

Post by thr0awaz » Fri, Jul 20, 2018, 8:23 PM UTC

gamblor956 wrote: post #85

thr0awaz wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Weird. Must just be the people I know then?

Overuse injuries got a bunch of people I knew. They'd use crutches to speed recovery up a bit, or to get around if it was bad enough.

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

#92

Post by [deleted] » Fri, Jul 20, 2018, 8:23 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?

[deleted]

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

#93

Post by jmull » Fri, Jul 20, 2018, 8:25 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…

Well, many people do care.

You don't have to be elite to want to run faster. Keep in mind there seems to be no good reason to exercise more than 30 min 3-4 times a week, but many runners choose to do a lot more than that.

For that matter, there's no good reason for most of the things people buy or time they spend on the hobbies and other leisure activities they pursue.

I can assure you, they will not need to focus their marketing efforts on convincing people to care about going faster. A great number of amateur runners already do. (Not all, different runners are motivated by different things.)

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

#94

Post by not_a_moth » Fri, Jul 20, 2018, 8:27 PM UTC

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.

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

#95

Post by smileysteve » Fri, Jul 20, 2018, 8:28 PM UTC

einarfd wrote: post #83

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…

> Shoes are an central part of running, the swimming suit is not that in swimming

A Speedo vs a Short is a very big difference in swimming. Shaving body hair is a thing males at the high school level are doing.

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

#96

Post by httpz » Fri, Jul 20, 2018, 8:28 PM UTC

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?

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

#97

Post by zebrafish » Fri, Jul 20, 2018, 8:31 PM UTC

not_a_moth wrote: post #94

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.

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.

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

#98

Post by js2 » Fri, Jul 20, 2018, 8:35 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…

FWIW, four years later he won the Tokyo Olympics marathon wearing Pumas in a new world-record time of 2:12:11.2.

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

#99

Post by hiccuphippo » Fri, Jul 20, 2018, 8:41 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.

It seems very a very different perspective from other sports like Formula1. Nobody would bat an eye if someone created a better engine to win F1 races.

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

#100

Post by djohnston » Fri, Jul 20, 2018, 8:42 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?

i think at a competitive level we have already crossed this threshold, as we have barred j-blade runners from competing against full-legged humans at the highest level.

i think it's totally justified, but i don't think it will have any effect on the advancement of prosthetics, which pave the way to performance augmentations.