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

151–160 of 304 posts

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

#151

Post by my_username_is_ »

gascan wrote: post #124
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 ru…

As another example of equipment that is banned because its technological advancements are deemed to give an unfair advantage, take a look at golf. Equipment manufacturers need to get their products tested & approved by the USGA in order to be allowed in many tournaments. Clubs or balls that fly too far when you hit them do not get the required approval.

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

#152

Post by eitally »

bamboozled wrote: post #121
zebrafish wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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”.

I can't remember the source (or I'd paste a link here), but the current thinking is that, overall, the best way to choose shoes (for safety & performance) is to pick a pair that's comfortable. That might range from Tarahumara style sandals to Uber-cushioned Hokas to a super-stiff stability shoe. The important thing is to test a bunch and pick what works for you, and not to isolate in a specific sub-category (minimal, zero drop, cushioned, stability, neutral).

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

#154

Post by microcolonel »

jartelt wrote: post #143
GatorD42 wrote: post #102

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 un…

Being 3 or 4% more efficient on race day is a HUGE advantage. Maybe not every elite runner wants to have to wear these shoes to compete?

Then they will have to find shoes which are competitive, doesn't seem that crazy to me. It'd be great if footraces continued to advance consumer shoes like stock car racing advances consumer vehicles.

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

#155

Post by csmajorfive »

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…

If you subscribe in the mobile app, you can self-manage the subscription through iTunes just like any other app.

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

#156

Post by justinator »

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 to say you're wrong either, but there's been a huge shift in running: trail running is more popular than ever (or just not running on the road - see OCRs), shoes have wider toeboxes, and although minimal shoes seem to have come and gone, a neutral heel drop is pretty normal these days.

Overengineered shoes in general are not as popular: if you look at something like thruhikers on the AT or PCT, a lot of them opt for a wide-toebox, neutral heal drop trail runner over an overly built up and heavy hiking boot. I've seen thruhikers do whole sections in Crocs.

So perhaps "minimal" wasn't the right thing to focus on. But the design of the shoes have def. changed.

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

#157

Post by fenwick67 »

iguy wrote: post #57
llimllib wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Have there been any cases under this rule about "incorporates springs"? I mean for things which might vaguely count as running shoes... not oscar pistorius etc.

This is funny to me because there's nothing magical about a metal spring - the sole of every running shoe is a "spring" in that it has a spring force that helps you run.

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

#158

Post by justinator »

mpg33 wrote: post #29
Buldak wrote: post #5

>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.

>I suppose one could reserve them for races and train with cheaper shoes. That's what I would do. You'd have a slight boost on top of the usual race day boost and $250 to get ~4 marathons/8 half marathons isn't bad. I mean that would probably be 4+ years for a lot of non-serious runners.

Meh, a 4% off a crappy marathon time is still a crappy time.

I would save your money.

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

#159

Post by notacoward »

bamboozled wrote: post #145
notacoward wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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-... 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.

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 with…

> 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.

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

#160

Post by Swizec »

jopsen wrote: post #140
exhilaration wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Last I tried I had to immediately cancel on principal since the pricing was deliberately obscured. Credibility was lost before I could even read the articles.

If The New York Times, a 166 year old newspaper with a tradition of fine reporting, can lose all its credibility over that ... I don't even know what to say. You sound like a terrible customer and I'm sure they're happy not to have you?
Post reply on HN