UK Gearmuncher wrote:
devashish_paul wrote:
1) You need to actually be precise on definitions. Energy Expended by the human organism = Mechanical Work Generated + Heat
2) We can't have something that allows for increased mechanical work generation (example built in motor on a bike). But wait, we also can't have tools that change speed for the exact same mechanical work (an example of this is fins or paddles).
3) The question is if Vaporflies allow for a better conversion of the same mechancal work to speed.
4) Energy return in another matter. Its not really energy return as its impossible for a passive device to return more energy to forward motion than the human put into it in mechanical work. They can only help convert the same mechanical work to more speed.
5) So really the question is the mechanical energy conversion capability of the passive device to forward speed fundamentally altering the sport at a competitive level:
6) I think there is mounting evidence that the conversion rate from mechanical work to speed is superior for Vaporfly's vs conventional shoes is in the exact same camp as rubberized skinsuits in swimming (at least in rough percentages).
7) None of this concocted race.....we can let IAAF decide what shoes they can wear, but dammit, break 2 hrs in a real race, not a fake staged event.
Good points Dev.
1) My choice of language was deliberate and is aligned to one of the discussion points in a framework illustrated here here
https://link.springer.com/...86/s40064-015-1331-x . The idea being that you have an ethical foundation and then substantiate this through science (Freeman 1991). In the case of talking about energy return, it relates to a discussion point about the need for 'passiveness' but as you rightfully point out, that is merely one angle to the debate. I'll get to your other excellent points further down here...
2) In philosophical terms, the concern you raise is whether the sport has been 'deskilled' or alternatively 'reskilled' due to these shoes. Or in other words, has it been made easier or changed the nature of running entirely. Pistorius prosthetics are a good example of where he reskilled running but did not deskill it (as he was still running at maximum possible pace but the style of locomotion he used was inherently different to what has gone before). Deskilling and reskilling will likely be discussed by the panel as its pretty common in sports ethics parlance.
3) The shoes have been shown to be reduce inefficiency so I don't believe this is in any doubt. The question is whether the amount of improvement is deemed acceptable. That's an ethical debate. I do have a journal paper that I've submitted that argues (with evidence) about the margin of improvement and I'll share that here if it gets accepted for publication.
4) .... so this then leads into another standard discussion point about whether the technology is 'an advantage over the sport' itself. You need a baseline on that. That baseline is debatable as things stand but I'd be interested to know what any of you here think about that. My point regarding energy return was worded the way it was as the WA rules specifically mention 'passiveness' (and energy return discussion addresses that). I would argue with you that the debate of their efficacy involves other mechanisms. The bottom line is that the rules are currently inadequate - I was part of the team that looked at the Pisotorius effect and his prosthetics were legal by the rules yet had many advantages (and disadvantages to be fair).
5) It's big question but not the only question that we need to ask.
6) I would argue you're comparing apples to oranges in those examples but I like your thinking on the speed to improvement conversion. I should also add that the reason the suits were outlawed (eventually - it took nigh on 9 years to resolve the case) was as much due to concerns over access and other factors as it was due to their improvement. It should be noted that by the time the suits were eventually banned, it didn't take long for the records that were set with them to still be beaten - I have argued in the past that part of their benefit was psychological. Either way, I have evidence submitted that demonstrates the level of performance gain of these shoes is in keeping with the sport of running over the last 50 years and no worse than many other sports either.
7) It wasn't ever intended to be a race. The exercise has been misrepresented by the press and media. It was an experiment. Albeit a very successful one.
In my "sports fan" and "athlete" mind, I come back to this
"Does this gear result in a superior conversion of my mechanical energy output to forward motion speed than without it?"
I see paddles as a really good example (swim run use of paddles bothers me, but then again they have to swim with water logged running shoes, so that's a different sport entirely). But in a pool or triathlon, paddles, offer a mechanical advantage for the same amount of energy expenditure to move you forward faster. So you can't use them in FINA racing. I use them in at least 50% of my swim workouts (not in meters, just 50% of visits to the pool), noting that I cannot use them in racing, however they offer a conditioning advantage.
I can't really answer if 4% shoes are in the same category as paddles, but they seem to roughly give the same percent of speed gains and they mechanically alter how one runs just like paddles mechanically alter how we swim. Having said that Hokas mechanically alter how we run (Usein Bolt would sprint very differently in Hokas vs spikes....the latter being almost the same as he would sprinting bare foot).
So I am not sure where you draw the line. Something that mechanically alters how we do sport, but slows us down or keeps us at par to industry baselines is OK, but if it speeds you up, its banned?
As for Kipchoge and sub 2, while real athletes KNOW it was not supposed to be race, those that organized it no full well that it would be packaged up in the media as a race. It was not a IAAF marathon, it was a 42.195 km group run that happened to be timed and paced. He may have well worn Pistorious springy prosthetics and it would have not mattered. I do agree he was fundamentally doing the sport himself, its just that many other forms of assistance were illegal from a competition running framework.
So should IAAF ban the shoes, if I was in the marketing department of competing running shoe companies, I'd start a viral online campaign about Nike and Kiphchoge's banned shoes being used for the sub 2....now that would kind of suck for the effort Kiphchoge put in, however, he fully well knew it was at a concocted event.