I am pointing out that people actually in the science disagree with you that shoes as you said "only a few seconds" and the key is pacers.

People just disagree with your assessment and FYI shoe technology changes all the time. It's a balance between the "science" and what works real time with training volume, injury.

---

Brooks Doughtie, M.S.
Exercise Physiology
-USAT Level II

You see failure If they miss it, while I see customers looking at Nike and saying "pretty cool they are pushing the limits".

It's no wonder that I think adidas now is doing it.

ETA: this is more or less a marketing campaign "sub 2" but that's not even the absolute end goal. Theyll use all this info in 6 years if they fail with a new campaign "fastest marathon ever" etc.

So quitting mid race would be dumbest thing they can do unless like torn hamstring. But I certainly don't think they quit mid race if they know they are "only" running 2:02:12.

---

Brooks Doughtie, M.S.
Exercise Physiology
-USAT Level II

Ok, so the key is groundbreaking shoe technology to be revealed in the coming 3 months? Rrrrright.

And, to be clear, your position earlier in this thread was that this would be a gimmick if accomplished and times would revert to normal 2:04 - 2:05 immediately thereafter. But, if magical new shoe technology is the big breakthrough, would that not instantly be adopted by all elite runners bringing times of races down correspondingly?

Abebe Bikila and Zola Budd ran world class barefoot. So, any shoe technology is at best a percent or two. Yet, some new shoe technology is going to appear and provide 3%. No chance, Lance.

I am more convinced than ever that this effort is doomed to failure. Because unless they cheat with an aided (downhill or wind) course, the only tangible benefit they have over the thousands of attempts that have culminated in 2:02:57 is pacing. And no way does that benefit get you anywhere near sub 2.

you do realize new technology is used all the time right?
Nike had runners running with shredded singlets etc, now most races turn tactical so it becomes about efficiency and speed.

So technology is always improving. YOU are the one that said new shoe technology is about 1-2s and I'm just showing you that, that thought is wrong. I have science to prove that, you have what, your opinion?


What I said is that if they do all these things:

-closed sterile course
-nutrition plan
-fresh pacers
-controlled weather
-new shoe tech

And go 2:01 that most of that won't actually result into overall faster races in other events.

Thus if they need ALL that in order to set the record most of that won't translate to "real world" marathon running. Yes we'll have the wr at 2:01:33 but then th rest of running will go back to 2:05.

And yes even the scientist showing what would get them to sub 2 suggests they won't even come close.

ETA: I'm not really sure what your point is in arguing anything I've said? I've said from beginning this is going to be an gimmicky world record if they do it. It would be much more real world applicable if they did it in an recognized marathon now. Then I added that sports science guy suggests the way to running faster is in fact shoe technology, simply disagreeing with your assessment that shoe tech is maxed out.

---

Brooks Doughtie, M.S.
Exercise Physiology
-USAT Level II

Here's sorta the perfect explaination of why Nike is doing this. Nike is in the product business.

It certainly isn't to sell runners on pacers is the key to fast running.

From the Sports Science guy :

However, that all said, if I were a betting man, I’d say that this is where Nike are looking, and not only because it would give them a product to sell. I suspect they’ll find a way to build springs into shoes, and that’s if they haven’t already.

---

Brooks Doughtie, M.S.
Exercise Physiology
-USAT Level II

My sole point is that if they do it it will not be a gimmick. Because if they do it it will not be because of shoes, clothes, or nutrition. It will be because they have miraculously improved upon the limiting factor in marathoning: heart and lung capacity. Call me a Luddite, but I am very confident in the assessment that clothes and shoes are a non-factor and focusing on these factors is in Nike's best interest because they sell it. No course or weather can be substantially better than Berlin. The only unknown to me is how much pacing and drafting assists. Never has a 2:03 marathon had someone setting pace for him beyond 15 miles; how much benefit can be expected from simply dialing in lockstep inches behind someone from start to finish and focusing on nothing but the back of the guys neck for 2 hours. I don't know. Maybe some, but not much. You want to run 13.1mph for 2 hours. It's a battle of heart and lung capacity and unless they've got Salazar on the team nothing in the breaking2 program is addressing breakthroughs there.

So my only point is that sub 2 hours would not be a gimmick to me unless they truly cheat by going downhill or tailwind it. Which they won't.

  
Because if they do it it will not be because of shoes, clothes, or nutrition. It will be because they have miraculously improved upon the limiting factor in marathoning: heart and lung capacity. Call me a Luddite, but I am very confident in the assessment that clothes and shoes are a non-factor
-------

Do me a favor read the article from sports science. The whole efficiency is exactly why they think will come from shoe technology and making the runner more efficient from compression/return during foot strike. This is not my words but from research the guy pulled together.

Read it and tell me what you think.

The sports science guy is saying what you are saying. It will come from becoming better efficient at handling oxygen difficiency etc.

You simply don't think that comes from shoes, this research is showing how it can play a big role in this.

It's an easy 5 min read.
http://sportsscientists.com/...17-thoughts-concept/

---

Brooks Doughtie, M.S.
Exercise Physiology
-USAT Level II

This is highly speculative and he acknowledges that. I'm saying that there's no Fosbury Flop like revolutionary shoe spring technology out there to revolutionize the efficiency of running. The Pistorius analogy is flawed; there an entire limb and large part of the fulcrum was replaced, in shoes there is no magic bullet. With Pistorious you had the lower leg, ankle, and foot all to be replaced with something better. In shoes you have an 1/8" of cushion to operate in. There's nothing here but marketing. Take it to the bank. It's no different than high cadence to explain Lance's beyond belief post-cancer improvements.

But, yes, if these guys appear running on some sort of crazy-ass shoe stilt spring things and bomb to a 1:59 marathon on them, then yes, gimmick. I concur.

There's nothing here but marketing. Take it to the bank.

-----------

That's my point in all this. This whole thing is an Nike science experiment to push another run product. So some of the tech will be put in the market and some of the variables are only useful in an controlled setting.

Has there ever been an marathon that has been run when they want to run under ideal conditions or is it always; race is on x date at Y time, weather will be what it is, good/bad/indifferent.

I can't think of very many marathons that have the ability to run in conditions they want the runners to run in. This "event" will have that variable. They can choose the time of day, based on weather forecast to get the conditions they want too.

So again this is simply a kick ass science project to see simply how fast a human can run. Over half the variables in this project do not then translate to real world applicable in current run conditions/races/rules.

---

Brooks Doughtie, M.S.
Exercise Physiology
-USAT Level II

We can go around and around and derail this thread further, but I continue to disagree. Nike will be unable to improve upon perfect conditions that have existed when WRs have been set. You cannot meaningfully improve upon the ideal course and ideal weather conditions that have existed in the past in Berlin and London and Rotterdam and Tokyo and Seoul. Hundreds of marathons on ultra-fast courses have been run and some have been in ideal weather conditions while many others not. All Nike can hope to do is maximize their odds to replicate these conditions; there is no real improving them. By doing so does not give the runners an advantage over those who raced in similarly ideal conditions elsewhere, it just reduces or eliminates the odds of a wasted attempt through poor conditions.

Bob Beamonn set the long jump world record under ideal conditions. If Nike were to embark on an attempt to go after the 30' long jump would they be in the wrong to set up the attempt in Mexico City? That is simply controlling the environment to best-case scenario, which is the scenario in which all world records are set.

And, runners have to be properly tapered and primed for such an attempt. They cannot be sitting roadside every day just waiting for Nike to make the assessment: no not today, no not today, no not today, today is perfect, go for it. So, just like in a scheduled race, there will be environmental uncertainty because the date will be set in advance.

The only uncertainty to me is how they handle pacing/drafting and what level of benefit that will provide. You've added the uncertainty of a magic shoe spring elixir being dropped into the equation, but I'll believe that when I see it. Closed course, ideal weather, skin-fitting aero clothing - none of these reduce the accomplishment to a gimmick. Somebody runs 1:59:59 fourteen times around a 3k loop course in windless 38 degree weather, and it's worthy to me.

Anyway, I think you know where I stand I know where you stand, so time to step back and let others back in on this thread.

kny wrote:

I'm saying that there's no Fosbury Flop like revolutionary shoe spring technology out there to revolutionize the efficiency of running.

Ok, maybe I'm wrong. Though just because Nike's filed a patent for a spring plate shoe does not mean it produces meaningful gains. Pretty clear the direction they're going with this, though.

https://www.google.com/...WO2016179265A1?cl=en

I think it's safe to say that such a shoe would not be IAAF-legal:

Hopefully they're not as ugly as the Adidas Springblade.

little late to the party having just read the runnersworld article about the spring plate shoe patent.... Doesn't that cross the line? I don't understand how that can be considered for this attempt or for them to sell a shoe like that. At that point, what is the difference between having pogo stick attachments to each leg and a tiny spring in the heel of a shoe. Or moon shoes, remember those?

I'd like to think that springs would totally change running dynamics and injure anyone who tries it. Or more so, that you are right and it doesn't actually produce meaningful gains.

---

808 > NYC > PDX > YVR
2024 Races: Taupo

My gut says that spring-loaded shoes provide no actual speed benefit. But, we'll see, I guess. After all, one could easily argue that shoes themselves provide no actual speed benefit, as shown by Zola Budd and Abebe Bikila.

It all comes down to how much forward propulsion is lost due to compression of foot/sole. Because that is all that a spring can be reducing. I'm going to wager that for those running 2:03 marathons, the answer is little.

"Moon shoes"! Haven't thought about those things since the early 70's when I got a pair for Christmas...red metal with the steel springs; I didn't weigh enough to compress the springs so I was basically just jumping an inch off the ground with metal blocks tied to my feet. Thanks for bringing back some great memories!!!

The date(s) for this have been announced!

Nike have designated a preliminary 3-day window from 6th to 8th May for the attempt, with Saturday 6th being the first choice, but the 7th and 8th as fallbacks depending on weather conditions. Just over three weeks to go then!

Despite the numerous caveats and asterisks that go along with this project, I for one am looking forward to it.

http://www.runnersworld.com/...-be-run-in-early-may

They were already used in the last Olympics by Flanagan and Rupp. Nike is just too big.