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

131–140 of 304 posts

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

#131

Post by crypt1d »

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…

Is such a cancellation model common in the US? I didn't think anyone does that anymore, except maybe porn sites. Its a really cheap sales tactic and would probably dissuade me from subscribing in the first place.

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

#132

Post by ryanlol »

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…

Can't you just quickly dispute the charges online with your CC provider until the company accepts your cancellation?

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

#133

Post by notacoward »

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”.

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.

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

#134

Post by maxxxxx »

doe88 wrote: post #37

If true I wouldn't discount the benefit, even small. It reminds me the theory of marginal gains popularized by Team SKY in cycling. In the aggregate all these small details add-up and may make the difference.

True. At the absolute top probably 0.1% will already make a big difference.

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

#135

Post by 21 »

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”.

For once, even if it's allowed no top athlete runs barefoot/minimal.

And it's not because of ad dollars - you don't see them wearing hats or gloves just because some company would pay for that.

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

#136

Post by 21 »

BanazirGalbasi wrote: post #104
js2 wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Which just goes to prove the point that it's the person, not the equipment, that determines performance at that level.

How do you know that. How do you know the improvement was not because now he was using shoes.

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

#138

Post by taurath »

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.

Also you can read offline after a refresh. Biggest feature for me

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

#139

Post by QML »

httpz wrote: post #96

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?

Why not make pro football players wear standardized shoes during a game? The issue with customized shoes I see is wealthier teams will have better equipment.

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

#140

Post by jopsen »

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.

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.

Post reply on HN