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

111–120 of 304 posts

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

#111

Post by rhinoceraptor »

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.

If you have running shoes, then sure you have different styles. For instance, you can land on your heels and blow out your knees and hips, whereas without shoes you would never run that way.

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

#113

Post by meritt »

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 time (e.g. Netflix) and a fixed rate so I knew I wasn't overpaying. I'd love to sub.

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

#114

Post by exhilaration »

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.

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

#115

Post by loeg »

JacobJans wrote: post #61
loeg wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This oft-repeated claim is factually inaccurate. Runners and former runners, as a population, have better knees than non-runners.[0] [0]: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27333572

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.

Sure. It's just provided as an example of a source. The comment it responds to provided no evidence for the claim made.

> > 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.

How do you figure? These people are accounted for in the data. Regardless of why people stopped running, they have better outcomes than never-runners. E.g.:

> Any history of running was associated with less frequent knee pain (table 2) in the unadjusted and adjusted models compared to those who never ran.

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

#116

Post by pmahoney »

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?

It's possible to run at or near an elite level without modern running shoes. For example the 1960 Olympic marathon was won by a barefoot competitor (his winning time of 2:15:16.2 would be considered sub-elite today) [1].

One can speculate why all elite runners use shoes. Worth noting that running shoes designed for racing, as opposed to training, tend to be thinner and lighter and closer to a simple sandal [2]. I personally reverted from bare feet back to shoes after the occasional thorn or bit of glass getting stuck in my foot became too annoying.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abebe_Bikila#1960_Rome_Olympic...

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racing_flat

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

#117

Post by loeg »

lmilcin wrote: post #90
loeg wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 be…

> "Attempt to control" is not the same thing as proving it.

Understood.

> You yourself admitted "you cannot control for any psychological factor".

Your comment suggests we disagree, but I don't think we actually disagree on both the possible impact and lack of ability to control for psychological factors.

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

#118

Post by rajacombinator »

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…

Maximizing speed is a legitimate desirable outcome, not pure marketing. It doesn’t have to be all about mastering the zen of running.

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

#119

Post by bigpicture »

einarfd wrote: post #101
smileysteve wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

I wasn't arguing that there isn't significant drag in water, and to be able to win swimming competitions you need to care about that to. But I have a hard time accepting that swimming shorts, is to swimming as shoes are to running.

> But I have a hard time accepting that swimming shorts, is to swimming as shoes are to running.

Oh, it's huge. These new "tech" suits are big and you now see them in competitions for young kids. Some states have banned them for the under-10 groups, other have not.

These things are so ridiculous. They can cost hundreds of dollars, they take 5-10 minutes just to put on, and they wear out after wearing them 10-15 times.

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

#120

Post by softbuilder »

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…

This was how they lost my business forever a few years ago. I had to tighten spending for a bit so I called to cancel, thinking I'd be able to renew in a few months. The experience was horrible.
Post reply on HN