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

141–150 of 304 posts

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

#141

Post by posting2fast »

tomazio wrote: post #106
justinsaccount wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Running sneakers are a relatively new invention. This is true, humans have been running for thousands of years without them. > You wouldn't want to run a marathon in whatever the ancient greeks wore. why not? > Abebe Bikila (August 7, 1932 – October 25, 1973) was an Ethiopian double Olympic marathon champion. He won the marathon at the 1960 Summer Olympics in Rome while running barefoot, setting a world record. He…

When you get to the highest levels of competition in any event, it's almost exclusively the little things that make the biggest difference. This is because the greatest athletes/competitors will have mastered most everything else surrounding their sport/event and the only differences that remain between them lay in the minute details.

Let's say at that level who wins any given race depends mostly on how good indiviuals feel on the day of competition, not some "edge" that can be kept improving on, because they all did all of their homework.

Would that be so bad? I imagine if I had trained so hard for so long, and overcome so much, I would rather accept that I'm in a group of people who "are all so good it's impossible to tell who is the best", than have it decided by who has the bigger R&D department.

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

#142

Post by jopsen »

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…

Exactly, the business feels dishonest.

How is that a good start for a newspaper?

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

#143

Post by jartelt »

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?

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

#144

Post by jopsen »

ryanlol wrote: post #132
meritt wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

The problem is that they obscure prices, try to avoid cancellation..

Scammy tactics is dishonest, and that's not a good start for a news source. (I have problems finding a gym, because I prefer to do honest business - without obscure pricing)

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

#145

Post by bamboozled »

notacoward wrote: post #133
bamboozled wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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 without shoes. I haven’t any studies which say I’m more likely to be injured when going barefoot.

I think the real reason more people wear shoes is that there is seems to be something taboo about going shoeless. As a bare foot runner I feel judged for taking off the shoes and going for a run.

Edit: To the point about people who tried barefoot shoes and were injured, that’s probably because just running without shoes on with the same technique for 10 weeks isn’t an advisable way to run without shoes. It’s quite a different exercise.

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

#146

Post by drdrey »

lmilcin wrote: post #48
llimllib wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The idea is that you don't train in them, you save them for the race. (My last marathon training period peaked at a little over 70mpw. Normal trainers last me about 500-600 miles, my lighter shoes (Kinvaras) last 400-500, and my race flats even less than that)

You don't use your race as an occasion to test your running shoes.

I could see using them in a couple of marathon-pace training runs, but definitely not the whole training

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

#148

Post by jartelt »

einarfd wrote: post #83
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.

As a runner I want shoes to get more efficient and better. What is about todays running shoe that makes them acceptable, and that anything better is some form of cheating? I don't agree with what they did in swimming, those body suits where amazing, and that they got banned was really sad. But even if you agree with banning them. Shoes in running are a not comparable to full body swimming suits. Shoes are an central…

Because the sport is better for everyone if you aren't required to buy $250 shoes to have a chance to win. It's the same with the swim suits. If a new piece of equipment comes out that makes you 5% more efficient, then anyone who wants a chance to actually compete needs to buy it. It's just like a tax on competitors.

Otherwise running and swimming would just turn into cycling where you are basically forced to buy an expensive bike to compete.

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

#150

Post by tedunangst »

ryanlol wrote: post #132
meritt wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

You can do that too, but I still think you should tell others that it's difficult to cancel. That's the important part. :)
Post reply on HN