Nike Says Its $250 Running Shoes Will Make You Run Much Faster • Hacker News Board

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

#241

Post by justinator » Sat, Jul 21, 2018, 5:31 AM UTC

retsibsi wrote: post #213

sgc wrote: post #212

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't run competitively, but in the gym I feel like spending on better shoes takes away a false limit due to inappropriate technology. Unless you are running barefoot, I can see how a runner might feel the slower number is just false due to an arbitrary limitation. There is a decent chance, if you can afford it, that these shoes might help you progress faster as well. In the end it's all about how effectively your…

Good point, and I can understand that mindset in some cases. But even though the line between removing an obstacle and gaining artificial assistance is hard to draw sharply, the way these shoes are described makes me think they're clearly in the second category: > Unlike most running shoes, they have a carbon-fiber plate in the midsole, which stores and releases energy with each stride and is meant to act as a kind o…

> Unlike most running shoes, they have a carbon-fiber plate in the midsole, which stores and releases energy with each stride and is meant to act as a kind of slingshot, or catapult, to propel runners forward.

That's like literally every single midsole "technology" companies like Nike try to market their shoes with.

Your foot already has one of those catapult like things - it's called the Achilles. Just let it do it's job.

https://www.runnersworld.com/news/a20810504/how-much-energy-...

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

#242

Post by justinator » Sat, Jul 21, 2018, 5:36 AM UTC

lanestp wrote: post #198

justinator wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Meh, a 4% off a crappy marathon time is still a crappy time. I would save your money.

I don’t know 10 minutes off a 4 hour marathon is pretty huge.

But a 3:50 marathon is what a lot of people can do after a few beers, and having a few beers whilst doing. Ask me how I know.

You'd have better return on investment by just going to yourself, "Hey for every 10 miles you run this week, you get a beer!" and using that as a reward for actually following your training plan.

I mean try it out: $250 buys a good few slabs of beer!

And if it doesn't work - well, the beer was delicious.

Throwing technology as something as simple as running shouldn't be the first idea to get better. It should literally be the last. If you're marathon pace is some-a-wheres near 2:25 - then let's talk.

At that pace, good chance someone is buying your shoes for you.

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

#243

Post by flafla2 » Sat, Jul 21, 2018, 5:49 AM UTC

Consultant32452 wrote: post #231

Alex3917 wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> We seem to take it very much case by case. The principle is very consistent: You can't do something that gives you an unfair advantage over other competitors. Everything banned basically falls into one of three categories: - It would be prohibitively expensive for others to adopt the technology. This is why you have weight minimums for bikes, boats, etc. - Others would have to risk their health to compete. This is…

I think it's interesting that the Olympics banned certain swimsuits because they were "too good." I dunno how much they cost at the time, but a quick search on Amazon shows these swimsuits are $200-500. That seems a pretty low bar for Olympic quality equipment. https://www.eetimes.com/author.asp?section_id=36&doc_id=1286...

Those suits are so tight that after one (or a few) use they are effectively ruined. So it comes out to hundreds/thousands of dollars per race, not to mention during training.

Another thing to consider is that swimmers internationally compete on the same playing field — any aspiring swimmer can measure their times in direct comparison to the greats. In this way, even a child at his first swim meet is indirectly competing with their idols. I can understand why there is pushback against removing that aspect of the competition.

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

#244

Post by zhte415 » Sat, Jul 21, 2018, 5:54 AM UTC

sopooneo wrote: post #211

slg wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Swimming had this exact same issue a few years ago with the new full body suits that reduce drag too much. Each sports handles this differently and most decisions seem completely arbitrary with the biggest deciding factor simply being tradition. For example, no one cares that swimmers have always shaved their entire body and/or worn a cap to prevent drag. However the new suits just provided too big of a single jump t…

One point that surprised me about those banned suits is that the drag reduction they provide is largely indirect. Instead, they're buoyant . They make the swimmers float higher in the water leaving less of them in the pool to be dragged on. So for roughly the same reason you can't compete in the freestyle paddling on a surfboard, you can't use those suits. Apparently they worked by other mechanisms as well, but the f…

Your comment reminded me of the 80s movie Running Man. There are no rules, there is only winning.

Which is the antithesis to principles of competing fairly. And in Running Man there were undiscovered rules, but only ones to game the sport which came crashing down resulting in a loss of trust of the institution.

Transparency is key for trust in sport and thus continuality of the larger body.

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

#245

Post by themodelplumber » Sat, Jul 21, 2018, 6:17 AM UTC

nradov wrote: post #230

bo1024 wrote: post #219

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If it were just "the shoes make you faster" there would be nothing to discuss. The debate centers around a qualitative difference: "The shoes have a 'spring' in them that make you faster." It's similar to a mini version of prosthetics such as Pistorius's that were banned from Olympic competition, as they are basically big metal springs on the end of your legs. The Vaporfly was explicitly designed to use this spring p…

Even regular foam soles have at least a little bit of springiness.

I was just discussing this with a runner who uses Hokas. She said she thinks she gets a similar slingshot-like effect with them, maybe not as drastic but it's there.

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

#246

Post by ak39 » Sat, Jul 21, 2018, 6:27 AM UTC

thret wrote: post #228

ekianjo wrote: post #221

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"unfair advantage" is particularly hard to define. We are not born equals, so there are already folks among us who have unfair advantage due to their genes, their upbringing, their social background, etc... I would say the definition is still blur. What if you have a medical condition that impairs you in some ways but make you stronger for doing one type of tasks? Is that unfair?

Genetic advantage is what we're testing for in these running experiments though. It isn't an unfair advantage, it's the whole point.

I like your comment and agree with it. The purpose of such sports, especially the Olympics, is to test for genetic (and, I'll add environmental & epigentic) advantages.

Your thoughts on Caster Semenya's "advantages"?

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

#247

Post by alwaysdoit » Sat, Jul 21, 2018, 6:34 AM UTC

ronreiter wrote: post #233

Can someone please explain to me why this isn't a classic "correlation does not imply causality"? This is not a randomized trial, which means that if there is a bias of "better athletes spend more on their shoes" then it can also explain the 4% increase of Nike Vaporfly.

Sure, the NYT will explain that very thoroughly to you if you'd like to read the article.

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

#248

Post by dmix » Sat, Jul 21, 2018, 6:49 AM UTC

1337biz wrote: post #128

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.

If they would really focus on interesting articles like these I would follow that. But their political bend has just become too pedantic. Of the big paper WSJ is for me the last one readable as I find their slight conservative bend a lot less obnoxious in their tone.

Agreed, I subscribed to NYT since subbing was an option, and read daily for a decade, until they decided to double down on partisan politics (I presume as a business decision over quality) since the last US election. The switch was very noticeable if you were paying attention. Maybe coinciding around the time the new Arthur took over as lead...

I too switched to WSJ and don't mind paying the extra cost. I miss the days when NYT feigned neutrality and focused on the balanced reality of stories over fermenting outrage via opinion pieces packaged as breaking news.

You can still find the good NYT content as the pop up on content filters like HN, Twitter, and Pocket without having to put blinders on to ignore half the other content on the site.

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

#249

Post by DaiPlusPlus » Sat, Jul 21, 2018, 7:20 AM UTC

ak39 wrote: post #246

thret wrote: post #228

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Genetic advantage is what we're testing for in these running experiments though. It isn't an unfair advantage, it's the whole point.

I like your comment and agree with it. The purpose of such sports, especially the Olympics, is to test for genetic (and, I'll add environmental & epigentic) advantages. Your thoughts on Caster Semenya's "advantages"?

Events like the Olympics - and athletics as we know it - will lose the public’s attention if the most publicsed events (e.g. men’s 100m) become giant genetics microoptimization pissing contests - but it’s the direction the sports-science industrial complex is heading in anyway; but I hope it will lead to less contested sports becoming more popular.

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

#250

Post by darawk » Sat, Jul 21, 2018, 7:48 AM UTC

Alex3917 wrote: post #186

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…

> We seem to take it very much case by case. The principle is very consistent: You can't do something that gives you an unfair advantage over other competitors. Everything banned basically falls into one of three categories: - It would be prohibitively expensive for others to adopt the technology. This is why you have weight minimums for bikes, boats, etc. - Others would have to risk their health to compete. This is…

> Others would have to risk their health to compete.

This is pretty tenuous for some things though, like ephedrine, clenbuterol, or blood doping.