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

Post by symmitchry » Fri, Jul 20, 2018, 11:34 PM UTC

citiguy wrote: post #60

Running shoes are funny things. Due to the fact that they are basically a weight at the end of a long fulcrum, the heavier they are the slower you will go. Plus they are full of padding which messes up the natural springs you already have built into your feet. It is not surprising someone invented a shoe that is somewhat lighter which makes it faster. I find the spring idea somewhat dubious but maybe they do give you…

Post by matwood » Fri, Jul 20, 2018, 11:38 PM UTC

my_username_is_ wrote: post #151

gascan wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Post by mathgladiator » Fri, Jul 20, 2018, 11:52 PM UTC

lojack wrote: post #166

gascan wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> But better bicycles are OK UCI has lots of rules around the size, geometry, and weight of equipment that can limit how much better you can make a bike. They even explicitly don't allow new innovations without their prior approval. Manufacturers find ways around the rules but to a large degree better bikes are actually not OK.

Post by kqr2 » Fri, Jul 20, 2018, 11:58 PM UTC

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…

Post by hinkley » Sat, Jul 21, 2018, 12:03 AM UTC

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…