Their ad copy states “the result is a lighter running shoe that absorbs more shock, and retains and releases more energy to drive you forward.”
I’m sorry, but if I wanted to drive forward, I’ll take my Subaru.
What kind of real runners want a shoe that gives them a mechanical advantage while running? Why not just ride a skateboard?
you can always run in army boots if you don’t want any mechanical advantage.
Just a question I guess. Do you ride a tri-bike that puts you in an aero position? How about aero wheels? helmet? Wet suit for the swim? Seems like these are all seeking an advantage of some sort don’t they?
Just a thought.
wow, you’re serious, man.
i haven’t bought them because of the price. :o Not because there is any moral disagreement or anything like that.
do you swim in a wetsuit? just curious…
I wouldn’t worry about it. If they are proven or even strongly suspected of giving a mechanical advantage, then the IAAF (running regulators) will likely ban them.
Styrrell
Don’t be a hater…if it makes running more enjoyable for people, good for them…just as long as they don’t try to tell me they run 1 min/mile faster, and then can tell because they feel faster after 1 run in zone 2.
What kind of real runners want a shoe that gives them a mechanical advantage while running? Why not just ride a skateboard?
Please tell you this was posted as a joke/sarcasm. Do you think that if the pro runners thought for one second that this shoe COULD actually do what they say, they wouldn’t wear them to get an advantage over their competitor? And I am pretty sure they are real runners.
Again, I am assuming these shoes can actually do what they are saying.
Its just marketing BS anyway. The shoe does not have a power source, it is not really driving you forward any more than any other shoe.
In fact the most efficient shoe would be a racing flat, or none at all, as the least energy is wastes crushing the cushioning
Nike Free fo life
a basic racing flat will do just fine, though im sure the boots offer plenty of stability.
i ride a road bike but thats besides the point - road bike, tri bike, unicycle: they all provide a mechanical advantage, thats what a bike is. so i dont think its a good analogy to the point im making about these shoes.
hell yeah i wear a wetsuit. but remember that the buoyancy that the suit creates is a byproduct of the material used to provide its primary function: warmth. hence the rules to ban them in situations where they cannot be worn for their primary function (warm waters).
running is the last pure sport left. leave it alone. the newton is no different from spiras, max 360s, or kinseis - youre buying a marketing gimmick, not a product.
running is the last pure sport left. leave it alone. the newton is no different from spiras, max 360s, or kinseis - youre buying a marketing gimmick, not a product.
That wasn’t the question you first proposed. You said what real runners would want the advantage. The answer is all of them. What is actually bothering you is that a company is saying something you believe to be false. So your issue is the with the marketing company.
If the primary goal of a wetsuit was warmth, they wouldn’t be allowed at 78F, which is considered to be the optimum water temperature for fast times when you’re swimming in plain old lycra.