Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

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

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 304 posts

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

#121

Post by bamboozled »

zebrafish wrote: post #97
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.

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

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

#122

Post by ndrake »

meritt wrote: post #113
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'd love to get a NYT sub but they operate like SiriusXM when it comes to cancellations. You have to talk to a human, during business hours, and you have to fight with them for 15 minutes to get cancelled (meanwhile they offer you continually cheaper rates to stay on, so if you pay rack rates you're clearly overpaying in the first place). If they offered a way to self-manage a subscription that I could cancel at any…

I recently cancelled via online chat. Only took 5 minutes.

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

#123

Post by zone411 »

hiccuphippo wrote: post #99
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.

Current engine specifications in Formula 1 are quite strict. If these rules didn't exist, it would be easy for the teams to create more powerful engines than the current 1.6L turbo V6s.

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

#124

Post by gascan »

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?

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.

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

#127

Post by gascan »

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.

The two concepts can coexist. We are born to run, but we are also born to dream of figuring out how to make ourselves run better.

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

#128

Post by 1337biz »

exhilaration wrote: post #114
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?

It's worth it. They run sales all the time, I've been paying $7.50/mo since January for a basic online subscription. There's enough new content every day that you'll never run out of interesting stuff to read. Just sign up for a free account and watch the promotional e-mails for a sale.

If they would really focus on interesting articles like these I would follow that. But their political bend has just become too pedantic. Of the big paper WSJ is for me the last one readable as I find their slight conservative bend a lot less obnoxious in their tone.

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

#129

Post by RobertRoberts »

ABS wrote: post #36
RobertRoberts wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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

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?

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

#130

Post by staplor »

monkmartinez wrote: post #11

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 [2] https://www.amazon.com/Air-Trekkers-JUMPING-EXTREME-Exercis…

I don't think the relating running shoes to motors in bikes is a fair comparison. Motors in bicycles add energy to the system; running shoes simply allow a runner to be more efficient.
Post reply on HN