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

171–180 of 304 posts

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

#171

Post by seiferteric »

Swizec wrote: post #160
jopsen wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

To be fair they have some shady practices. They were forcing you to call to cancel for example. I am sure this works well for them to act as a deterrent, but it's still shady I think.

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

#172

Post by rolleiflex »

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.

I concur. They might be a highly respectable news organisation, but their sales team or whoever is coming with their consumer advertising tactics are outright nasty. Deeply discounting the first few periods to let people forget about it and then start to charge X times as much on autopay is pretty much the shadiest tactic that’s still legal.

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

#174

Post by Swizec »

seiferteric wrote: post #171
Swizec wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

To be fair they have some shady practices. They were forcing you to call to cancel for example. I am sure this works well for them to act as a deterrent, but it's still shady I think.

Yeah that’s annoying, but going so far as them losing all credibility over that seems extreme.

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

#175

Post by bluetech »

meotai wrote: post #169
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.

Even the author of that research paper that that book is based on doesn't run marathons barefoot. He said humans aren't meant to run 26.2 miles nonstop barefooted.

Have you heard of persistence hunting? Here's is a short documentary from the BBC: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=826HMLoiE_o

It is believed to be one of the oldest hunting techniques, and so would indicate that humans are in fact meant to run long distances. According to Wikepedia, the runner runs for "about two to five hours over 25 to 35 km (16 to 22 mi)".

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

#176

Post by ahnick »

mulletbum wrote: post #40
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…

This isn't really stated or testing, but one of my biggest issues with running is how much pain I feel on my joints. I actually find it really enjoyable to run through the woods with my dog, but my knees just get mad. If these shoes relieved just a tiny bit of that pain I would find them almost worth it. Not saying one should buy an expensive pair of shoes, but if it was the case, maybe the shoes don't just make you…

This is why I use an elliptical machine. (specifically the Octane Fitness Q47) Zero impact to joints. The Octane Fitness machines are great b/c they are very close to actual running. In fact from the looks of it the Zero Runner may be exactly like running now. https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=2&v=xUIIsjX7mJg

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

#177

Post by civilitty »

chrisseaton wrote: post #165
lagadu wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not a very good example, stock cars are effectively ancient in many ways compared to modern cars. For example they only started playing with (indirect) fuel injection a few years ago.

Aren't stock cars literally by definition modern cars? They're cars currently available in the stock of consumer retailers. That's the whole point of the game isn't it?

Stock car racing's history traces to Prohibition era moonshiners. They had to upgrade their cars to get away from authorities but had to do so without raising suspicion. NASCAR races can be in excess of 200 miles per hour when race track conditions allow it which only extremely high end sportscars can do (NASCAR engines are up to 900 horsepower).

By definition, they are cars that look like they're consumer cars but inside they're made to be powerful racing vehicles.

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

#178

Post by cortesoft »

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…

Grip enhancing gloves are definitely not without controversy.

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

#179

Post by symmitchry »

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.

People have never believed that being barefoot was faster. Even Bikila (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abebe_Bikila), who ran an Olympic world record while entirely barefoot, was faster in shoes once he got used to them.

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

#180

Post by sethammons »

pg314 wrote: post #109
jdietrich wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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.

> Regular distance running is punishing on your joints, even if you're a forefoot runner with perfect form. The studies I'm aware of (e.g. [1]) point in the opposite direction: runners have a lower risk of osteoarthritis, potentially because they have a lower BMI. As an avid long distance runner myself, if you have any evidence to the contrary, I'd be very interested to read it. [1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubme…

I did not see the original source, but this secondary source shows that running is the second most injurious sport, right behind football.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3724624/How-running-...

Post reply on HN