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

281–290 of 304 posts

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

#281

Post by saon »

ekianjo wrote: post #275
nradov wrote: post #226

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That would wreck the economics of pro cycling because most of the teams are partly sponsored by bike manufactures. Those manufacturers want to be exclusively associated with particular winning teams for marketing purposes.

So what? We have to be afraid of changing stuff because the current statu quo of pro cycling would be affected? That's a pretty weak argument.

Motorsport is sort of similar where manufacturers build cars and there are independent regulations about the cars that define a class. There are spec racing series confined to single cars with very limited additions (safety) that are more oriented towards the driver in terms of competition (spec miata and spec bmw come to mind), but any international world champion type of sport is probably going to require enough monetary backing that manufacturer and aftermarket sponsorship is required to even afford to compete in the first place.

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

#282

Post by nradov »

ekianjo wrote: post #275
nradov wrote: post #226

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That would wreck the economics of pro cycling because most of the teams are partly sponsored by bike manufactures. Those manufacturers want to be exclusively associated with particular winning teams for marketing purposes.

So what? We have to be afraid of changing stuff because the current statu quo of pro cycling would be affected? That's a pretty weak argument.

I don't think you understand how pro cycling works. Unlike other pro sports, cycling teams can't really sell tickets to spectators. Most of the revenue comes from sponsors for marketing purposes. So any change that makes it less effective as an advertising channel is a total non-starter.

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

#283

Post by bo1024 »

GatorD42 wrote: post #273
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…

If you think the plate is such a qualitative difference you may have fallen for Nike's marketing. The vapor fly 4% is very lightweight with an excellent cushioning to weight ratio thanks partly to Nike's new zoomx foam (which possibly provides superior energy return too). Shoes with plates in them have been around for a while and nobody complained - Mizuno shoes have plates like this as does the Nike zoom fly (differ…

The point isn't whether I think it works in providing mechanical assistance. The point is whether it is intended to provide mechanical assistance, which as you mention from Nike's marketing, seems to be yes.

Try this: http://sportsscientists.com/2017/03/ban-nike-vaporfly-carbon...

By the way, it doesn't really bother me if 3-hour marathoners want to wear them, or even 2:30 marathoners, but if you're competing for prize money, I think this sort of thing should be banned. At least the sport needs a discussion of where to draw the line on such devices.

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

#284

Post by bluetech »

macspoofing wrote: post #277
adrianN wrote: post #238

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or it's a clue that we figured out that building a trap or using a weapon to kill an animal from greater distance burns a lot less calories.

For sure. And that's the point. Persistence hunting is a strategy developed by a set of humans living in one small area of the world that isn't particularly hospitable to humans. In fact, give how inhospitable the African Savannah is, it is a point against the idea that this is somehow a 'natural' state of being for us. And it makes sense, this kind of long distance running is incredibly energy intensive and injury p…

It is not as clear cut as you say, there appears to be some scientific discussion on this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endurance_running_hypothesis

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

#285

Post by notacoward »

Too wrote: post #253
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.

The book mostly is against shoes that absorb the energy in the shock, because it makes you less careful when landing and allows you to incorrectly land straight on the heel rather than using the built in suspension of your toes and foot. It's not against shoes universally. These new shoes supposedly store the energy in the landing and gives it back on release. Think of it more as a spring rather than a damper.

> Think of it more as a spring rather than a damper.

...in which case it's definitely illegal under IAAF rules.

BTW, even the dreaded "heel strike" isn't as bad as many seem to think. In the article I cited in another comment here, they actually found that heel striking is more energy-efficient. Other studies I've seen have suggested that heel striking is more often a symptom of another problem than a problem itself. It might or might not be ideal, but among dozens of other mechanical issues people can have - e.g. overstriding, pronation/supination - it's only one part of the picture and IMO is often a distraction from any given runner's real issues.

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

#287

Post by DaiPlusPlus »

tenpies wrote: post #278
DaiPlusPlus wrote: post #249

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Genetics will be interesting, but I wonder if we eventually reach a point where it's even beyond that. To use Gattaca as an example, a person with vastly inferior genetics was able to outperform genetically perfect individuals through sheer "human spirit" (the film's term) which manifested as work ethic, drive, will, etc. I could see a future where we've settled on the perfect genetic template for specific discipline…

[Gattaca spoiler warnings]

> outperform genetically perfect individuals through sheer "human spirit" (the film's term) which manifested as work ethic, drive, will, etc.

I didn't like Gattaca's message for that reason: it's fallacious to suggest those mental attributes aren't also subject to genetic advantages.

Another issue with the story is that the protagonist has a heart condition, and in the end he got on the spaceship's crew, which meant other people's lives were put at risk if he collapsed due to that heart condition in-transit. Salute the human spirit, but he put others at risk for his own benefit, and that's irresponsible and immoral.

> I could see a future where we've settled on the perfect genetic template for specific disciplines so we progress on to brain chemistry and/or psychology in order to reproduce the spirit aspect which separates the merely genetically blessed from the world class athletes.

Adderall, lol.

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

#288

Post by Noumenon72 »

nradov wrote: post #229
mirkules wrote: post #225

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My favorite example of forbidden ingenuity is the "sucker car" (Chapparal 2J) which used a plastic skirt to seal the car to the ground, and pump that sucked the air from underneath the car, producing an insane amount of downforce. It was outlawed of course after blowing away the competition. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaparral_Cars#2J

There is a legitimate safety concern with active aero systems. If they fail in the middle of turn the car is likely to slide off the track, endangering everyone on the track.

The next equipment we should ban: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3tMJ8U-2ZMU

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

#289

Post by GatorD42 »

bo1024 wrote: post #283
GatorD42 wrote: post #273

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you think the plate is such a qualitative difference you may have fallen for Nike's marketing. The vapor fly 4% is very lightweight with an excellent cushioning to weight ratio thanks partly to Nike's new zoomx foam (which possibly provides superior energy return too). Shoes with plates in them have been around for a while and nobody complained - Mizuno shoes have plates like this as does the Nike zoom fly (differ…

The point isn't whether I think it works in providing mechanical assistance. The point is whether it is intended to provide mechanical assistance, which as you mention from Nike's marketing, seems to be yes. Try this: http://sportsscientists.com/2017/03/ban-nike-vaporfly-carbon... By the way, it doesn't really bother me if 3-hour marathoners want to wear them, or even 2:30 marathoners, but if you're competing for pri…

So if a faster shoe came along (Vapor Fly 5%) that didn’t use a plate, that would be okay? But if people preferred the Vapor Fly 4% over the faster shoe, they couldn’t use it because of the plate? . . .

The patent application Ross Tucker cites has close to zero applicability. Nike has been working on a different energy return “spring” shoe that probably would be illegal - the patent could be for those shoes. And people claim lots of things in patents, that doesn’t make the claims true. All shoes have some combination of firmness and cushioning, and shoes have used an embedded firm plate design before, and nobody complained.

What if a biomechanics lab proved the Vapor Fly 4% is not acting as a spring but makes runners more efficient through some other mechanism (firm underfoot feeling but lots of cushioning)?

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

#290

Post by bo1024 »

GatorD42 wrote: post #289
bo1024 wrote: post #283

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The point isn't whether I think it works in providing mechanical assistance. The point is whether it is intended to provide mechanical assistance, which as you mention from Nike's marketing, seems to be yes. Try this: http://sportsscientists.com/2017/03/ban-nike-vaporfly-carbon... By the way, it doesn't really bother me if 3-hour marathoners want to wear them, or even 2:30 marathoners, but if you're competing for pri…

So if a faster shoe came along (Vapor Fly 5%) that didn’t use a plate, that would be okay? But if people preferred the Vapor Fly 4% over the faster shoe, they couldn’t use it because of the plate? . . . The patent application Ross Tucker cites has close to zero applicability. Nike has been working on a different energy return “spring” shoe that probably would be illegal - the patent could be for those shoes. And peop…

> So if a faster shoe came along (Vapor Fly 5%) that didn’t use a plate, that would be okay?

Right, according to my logic, it would be fine if there was a shoe that was faster empirically but not designed to cheat. (In other words, cheating is still cheating even if you're bad at it.)

Analogy: if a silver medalist is on EPO and the gold medalist isn't, the silver medalist is still cheating and the gold medalist still is not.

Your second paragraph does not match my understanding of the issue. I believe the Vaporfly is the shoe with the embedded carbon fiber plate, and I don't think other shoes (except maybe spikes) with this technology have ever been worn, at least in top level races.

Post reply on HN