[HN Gopher] Supershoes are reshaping distance running
       ___________________________________________________________________
        
       Supershoes are reshaping distance running
        
       Author : Brajeshwar
       Score  : 147 points
       Date   : 2024-06-25 19:26 UTC (4 days ago)
        
 (HTM) web link (www.technologyreview.com)
 (TXT) w3m dump (www.technologyreview.com)
        
       | waderyan wrote:
       | Golf is facing a similar crisis with distance gains caused by
       | driver technology. Many of the world's famous golf courses can't
       | hold the best players.
       | 
       | Two of golf's governing body, the USGA (the United States Golf
       | Association) and the R&A (the Royal and Ancient) have recommended
       | a rollback of the golf ball, which has caused significant debate
       | in golf circles.
        
         | cainxinth wrote:
         | Swimming dealt with it in 2009 after complaints that suits like
         | the LZR Racer provided too much buoyancy and records were being
         | broken at an unusual rate:
         | 
         | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LZR_Racer#FINA_rule_changes
        
           | thih9 wrote:
           | What happens with the world records that were scored before
           | the rule change?
        
             | bobbiechen wrote:
             | They stand. But if you look at the current records (based
             | on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_world_records_in_s
             | wimm... ), most of them were set after the 2009 ban. In
             | other words, the full-body suit advantage was not
             | overwhelming.
        
         | fire_lake wrote:
         | Bigger golf courses, just what we need...
        
         | toss1 wrote:
         | Tennis also changed irrevocably when they changed from wooden
         | to composite rackets.
        
       | randomcarbloke wrote:
       | I'm contemplating a switch from the minimalist shoes I adopted
       | not long after Born to Run was released.
       | 
       | Although I don't run as regularly or consistently as I used to, I
       | suspect there are gains to be had from wearing a squishy carbon-
       | plate 8-10mm drop shoe.
       | 
       | I'm on a stint of running at the moment, and wonder whether it's
       | better to persist with my minimalist shoes until I (once again)
       | reach a plateauing of gains, or do I switch now and benefit
       | immediately?
        
         | dgimla20 wrote:
         | As a fellow runner, it really depends on where you are
         | currently at to answer questions like this.
         | 
         | I think of myself as a pretty good runner, but doubt these
         | shoes would benefit me in a meaningful way at this point.
        
           | randomcarbloke wrote:
           | I watched a video recently where a reasonably good runner
           | switched from minimalist to vaporflys and it was
           | transformative, I think you're underestimating just how
           | significant the advances in performance shoes have been (as
           | the article points out).
        
           | mikestew wrote:
           | _...doubt these shoes would benefit me in a meaningful way at
           | this point._
           | 
           | You would probably be surprised. Can you race at 8:00/mile?
           | Do you _not_ heel strike like you 're pounding fence posts?
           | Then they'll probably work for you. I've run 50 mile races
           | averaging around 9:00/mile in Vaporflys, and I still
           | benefited greatly, if only because my legs weren't as trashed
           | as they might have been in other shoes.
        
           | jurassicfoxy wrote:
           | I can assure you that many super shoes will make you
           | noticeably faster. Try them on in the store, you'll know
           | right away. That being said, some of them (Nike's especially)
           | are really hard to run in. Almost zero heel support, and so
           | you _do_ have to be quite fast to make some of them work.
           | 
           | I have run in Endorphin Pro 3's and they are super super
           | stable. I've work them for very slow ultras as well as fast
           | workouts: excellent shoes all around.
        
         | chis wrote:
         | You should switch immediately. The underrated piece is how much
         | friendlier squishy shoes are on your joints and muscles. I have
         | pretty good form and modern shoes still decrease my recovery
         | time by like 1/3 compared to minimal ones.
        
           | randomcarbloke wrote:
           | noted, thank you, I'll heed your advice.
        
           | mikestew wrote:
           | The next day, after the first marathon I'd run in Vaporflys,
           | I said to my wife, "I don't think I ran hard enough." Oh, I
           | ran hard enough, but super shoes really save the legs, such
           | that you won't feel as beat up the next day.
           | 
           | And they _do_ make me faster as an added benefit. :-)
        
         | mikestew wrote:
         | Switch now, use them for your hard workouts (intervals, tempo,
         | and the like), and racing. Don't use them for your plodding
         | recovery runs, as they won't really work and you're wasting
         | expensive shoes. Yes, you'll be faster, but as sibling says the
         | real benefit is your legs don't get as trashed on hard runs.
         | 
         | They will last longer than advertised. yeah, I probably
         | wouldn't race marathons in them much past 200 miles or so, but
         | I've got some Vaporflys that I only use for workouts now, and
         | they are approaching 400 mile, IIRC. I've done back-to-back
         | comparisons with the worn pair and a practically new pair, and
         | yes, they lose a fair bit of bounce after 200 miles. But they
         | can still be used for workouts, and they still preserve the
         | legs.
        
           | randomcarbloke wrote:
           | great advice to make them last with the added benefit of
           | forcing good technique by using my flat shoes for
           | recovery/steady-state.
        
           | fire_lake wrote:
           | If your legs don't get "trashed" is it because you are
           | training them less?
        
             | mikestew wrote:
             | That's a solid question, but AFAIK it's the cushion and
             | energy return from that pricey foam that is the leg-saver.
             | Training benefit remains the same for practical purposes.
        
               | fire_lake wrote:
               | My read on it is that it reduces the amount of engagement
               | required by various muscles and particularly feet. It
               | makes running a lower impact exercise, closer to cycling.
               | This is great for training VO2 max but we mustn't forget
               | that one of great things about running is that it trains
               | all sorts of small support muscles, particularly in feet
               | and lower legs.
        
         | sn9 wrote:
         | There are so many other reliably low-hanging fruit for most
         | runners that jumping to supershoes is unlikely to make nearly
         | as much of a difference.
         | 
         | Like you'll see much larger gains adding 10+ miles per week to
         | your training volume.
         | 
         | The supershoes mainly benefit those who've maxed out their
         | training volume and ability to recover, and are training for
         | professional competition instead of health or recreation.
         | 
         | And strength training is still severely underutilized by most
         | endurance-focused athletes. It also improves running economy
         | while having a host of other benefits.
        
           | randomcarbloke wrote:
           | this is categorically untrue, it would've been true
           | ten/fifteen years ago perhaps, supershoes absolutely make a
           | difference to both performance and recovery, moreso if you're
           | used to the relatively demanding minimalist shoes.
           | 
           | >Like you'll see much larger gains adding 10+ miles per week
           | to your training volume.
           | 
           | me personally? I won't as I row 35/40km a week.
        
             | sn9 wrote:
             | I'm not familiar enough with rowing volume to comment on
             | that. And I'm not sure how running shoe selection impacts
             | rowing . . . .
             | 
             | The overwhelming majority of runners are running less than
             | 30 miles per week. Competitive amateurs might be doing
             | 40-60. Most would see better than 4% improvements adding
             | 10+ miles to their training volume.
        
               | rojeee wrote:
               | This is definitely true. Distance/time running is the
               | most effective lever you can pull to increase performance
               | assuming your form isn't completely messed up.
               | 
               | I used to run competitively in my teens. Now nearly 40
               | and getting back into it. Recently upped distance to 50
               | miles a week (mostly slow) from 20 and I'm suddenly doing
               | sub 17min 5ks. Couldn't get below 19 mins before upping
               | mileage.
        
         | jasonpeacock wrote:
         | It's all about running technique, not the shoes. If you switch
         | to minimalist shoes, but continue with the same (wrong)
         | technique then you'll have problems.
         | 
         | Big, padded shoes are for a specific (wrong) technique.
         | "Barefoot" running technique doesn't need fancy shoes.
        
           | zardo wrote:
           | Big padded shoes are making the fastest long distance runners
           | in the world faster.
        
           | mikestew wrote:
           | _It 's all about running technique, not the shoes._
           | 
           | Nike, et al., spent millions of dollars demonstrating that
           | this statement is untrue.
           | 
           |  _Big, padded shoes are for a specific (wrong) technique._
           | 
           | Demonstrably untrue, as TFA discusses at length. TFA isn't
           | talking about the Hokas that your grandmother wears to the
           | grocery, these are race shoes. You going to go tell Kipchoge
           | that his "technique" is all wrong, and he needs to switch to
           | Vibram Five Fingers?
        
         | jurassicfoxy wrote:
         | Your minimalist shoes aren't going to be faster in a race, but
         | they are still good for you. I think the way to go is to run in
         | many pairs of shoes. Super shoes for some fast workouts and
         | races, normal shoes for long runs and tempo work, minimalist
         | shoes good to keep your feet strong, Achilles long, etc. Some
         | of the fastest runners I know run in zero drop shoes, but they
         | also run in carbon shoes. There's no value in limiting
         | yourself.
        
       | thenoblesunfish wrote:
       | Another way that, a bit sadly, running is becoming more like
       | triathlon or F1. In those, there are a lot of rules about what
       | technology you can use. Annoying, but it will have to happen with
       | running - consider that these "supershoes" in part work like
       | prosthetic running blades do, and those are more efficient than
       | human feet (as they are springs).
        
         | _DeadFred_ wrote:
         | If we are going to limit tech I think they should reduce the
         | improved precision of chronometers. Lots of records fall simply
         | because of this. It isn't fair that previous record holders
         | lose their record simply due to better measuring technology.
        
         | bluecalm wrote:
         | I see it the opposite way. Triathlon (and cycling time
         | trialing) becomes very expensive if you want to be competitive
         | because there is too little regulation. You can buy a lot of
         | performance on a time trial or triathlon bike and I don't think
         | it's good for those sports long term.
        
         | AtlasBarfed wrote:
         | What you should truly remember in Olympic sports like this is
         | that really only the top 1% should care about this and even
         | then those people probably not.
         | 
         | The engine matters so much more and running. Yeah, 1 to 2% of
         | advantage at the high end. It makes a huge difference for a
         | metals.
         | 
         | But if you're in any sort of participatory level don't bother
        
           | BizarroLand wrote:
           | If you run for fun, and you have the cash, go ahead and buy
           | the shoes and see if it makes you any faster.
           | 
           | Why not? You only live once. Might as well try all the things
           | you can try and do all the things you can do. Who knows?
           | Maybe the psychological impact of having supershoes will make
           | you a faster, better runner.
        
             | nradov wrote:
             | The benefits aren't just in speed. There is pretty strong
             | anecdotal evidence from many elite distance runners that
             | training in supershoes reduces leg strain and speeds up
             | recovery. Thus they can come back and do a hard workout
             | again the next day and achieve bigger training gains.
        
       | saltybytes wrote:
       | Vivid runner here with very low arches.
       | 
       | My question is: do these supershoes work with supporters (that
       | prevent my arches from collapsing)?
        
         | digging wrote:
         | Glad you asked here. I was taking down notes during the article
         | to inquire about if this would help me get into running. I have
         | very flat arches as well, but I've never been a runner and my
         | knees are already pretty bad.
         | 
         | (Aside: I think you meant "avid runner here")
        
         | jasonpeacock wrote:
         | I too had flat fleet, and wore arch supports for many years,
         | but after training in barefoot running for a year I "fixed" the
         | issue. I even ran a marathon in barefoot shoes! It sounds like
         | an advertisement, but it was life-changing for me. (I'm also a
         | big guy at 240lbs)
         | 
         | The book I used is "Chi Running" but there's many similar
         | books.
        
           | hgomersall wrote:
           | Yeah, not quite the same but my arches stabilised by moving
           | to a more forward strike - mid to forefoot. We've been
           | careful with my son who is now 6 to have flexible soled shoes
           | and he naturally runs like this (may not be related, but
           | interesting to note).
        
       | tiffanyh wrote:
       | Off topic: you'd think a university site wouldn't bombard you
       | with pop-ups, ads and subscription sign-up.
       | 
       | Immediate first impression isn't good, for this (presumably)
       | respected publication.
        
         | inemesitaffia wrote:
         | No affiliation with the university
        
           | tiffanyh wrote:
           | It's owned by the university.
           | 
           | Just the editorial is independent (no influence from
           | university on topics/content published).
           | 
           | > MIT Technology Review is a bimonthly magazine wholly owned
           | by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and
           | _editorially_ independent of the university.
           | 
           | > Technology Review billed itself as "MIT's Magazine of
           | Innovation". Since 2001, it has been published by Technology
           | Review Inc., a nonprofit independent media company _owned by
           | MIT_.
           | 
           | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MIT_Technology_Review#:~:text=.
           | ...
        
         | getwiththeprog wrote:
         | I agree, I u-block zapped the elements, but it dissuaded me
         | from seeking other articles on their site.
        
       | mcswell wrote:
       | "... physical attributes more common in this group that are
       | conducive to an energy-efficient gait, including... a high ratio
       | of leg length to torso." I wonder how much the added height of
       | the shoes mimics (or exaggerates) having long legs?
        
         | AtlasBarfed wrote:
         | Increases the torque arm.
         | 
         | Also probably increases the amount of elastic energy stored in
         | the Achilles tendon.
        
           | Qem wrote:
           | > Increases the torque arm.
           | 
           | Does the increased torque arm of thick sole shoes also
           | increase ankle spraining risk?
        
       | stevesimmons wrote:
       | Here's a very good article from The Guardian about the rise of
       | supershoes.
       | 
       | I remember it well: it was published on the morning of this
       | year's Paris marathon - which I was running in - and it made me
       | feel inadequate for not having supershoes of my own.
       | 
       | https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2024/apr/07/carbon-fibre-s...
        
       | fire_lake wrote:
       | We take up running to get fit and then spend hundreds of dollars
       | on footwear to reduce the effort it takes to run. People are
       | funny :)
        
         | yread wrote:
         | it's even worse with cycling. You could get fit cycling a heavy
         | bike around the neighborhood instead you spend thousands to go
         | 100kms. And accidents always happen at the point most distant
         | from home. And you get more flats the further you go
        
           | stavros wrote:
           | I took my (cheap and heavy) bicycle to the shop. The guy was
           | going to oil the chain, but I told him not to, as my commute
           | is fixed and I want it to be good exercise.
           | 
           | I guess that, when you're racing, you want to win, not
           | necessarily to expend max effort. For a commute where I use a
           | bicycle instead of motorcycle specifically for the exercise,
           | I want the opposite.
        
             | fire_lake wrote:
             | This would lead to increased component wear though.
        
               | stavros wrote:
               | Yeah, definitely. I expect I'll have to pay something to
               | keep fit, and the chain and gears are probably cheaper
               | than a gym subscription. They're also not very good
               | components, which puts them in the bottom end of the
               | price range, so that's good too.
        
               | nsteel wrote:
               | Please do be careful and monitor the condition of your
               | chain if you're going to deliberately let it degrade. You
               | can cause yourself quite a nasty accident when your chain
               | snaps, or even slips on the teeth at an unfortunate
               | moment. I'd personally find a different way to increase
               | the effort e.g. carry more mass
        
               | lukas099 wrote:
               | This is real, it happened to me and it hurt.
        
               | amluto wrote:
               | Not to mention that a broken chain means an inoperable
               | bike, and replacing a chain on the go is a messy job. And
               | if the chainrings are worn due to a poorly maintained
               | chain, a replacement new chain may not even fit
               | correctly.
               | 
               | So, even without injury, a broken chain even two miles
               | away from town and a bike shop is no fun.
        
               | sunshinesnacks wrote:
               | I was going to say the same thing. A poorly maintained
               | chain wears and "stretches," and in turn wears gears
               | faster. There's no need to intentionally wear out
               | components for better exercise - just ride a longer route
               | faster, throw rocks in a backpack, etc. A poorly lubed
               | chain only adds maybe 5-10 Watts, which is not much in
               | terms of fitness improvements. And a worn chain and
               | drivetrain is more prone to slipping or breaking, which
               | is a good way to get injured.
               | 
               | Edit: I just realized nsteel said pretty much the same
               | thing below.
        
             | finger wrote:
             | If you want it to be even harder to bike, try releasing
             | some air from the tires :)
        
               | stavros wrote:
               | Oh I do! I pump them up to considerably less than full.
        
             | alamortsubite wrote:
             | A trailer is another nice handicap that has the benefit of
             | greatly expanding cargo space. Cumbersome in an urban
             | environment, however.
        
         | ericmcer wrote:
         | I run to get fit but it is also freeing to know your body can
         | cover distance without much effort. If the coffee shop is a
         | mile away but you are a decent runner you can go there and back
         | in ~20 minutes without getting tired/sweaty. No car, no bike or
         | other equipment, just step out the door and go. If a pair of
         | shoes could extend my range I am all for it.
        
       ___________________________________________________________________
       (page generated 2024-06-29 23:02 UTC)