is the new technology legal

#3
I agree on the colors; the new green or yellow color on the New Balance RC Elite is hideous. I was ready to pull the trigger but the color just sucks.
 
#5
This is more of a philosophical debate about "technological doping" that is quickly answered by the fact that we no longer run barefoot like the original Olympians. Shoe technology can and will continue to progress over the years.

While I agree that there should be some limits, I think those limits should be very generous. That is to say, it is probably unfair to run in Nickelodeon Moon Shoes or whatever the hell these are but the Alphaflys are fair game.

Also, I agree with Tom. As a former Running Red Fox (go Marist!), everyone knows that red is the fastest color.
 
Last edited:
#6
It's legal because World Athletics has said so. Now with some limits.

Being fairly old school (been running for 40+ years) I have mixed feelings. There were big technology changes before I started with all weather tracks and a shoe boom through the 1970s, and all the 1960s era records fell. Then for 40 years the technology changed incrementally.

What we've seen with the carbon plated shoes and new foam has really changed the sport very quickly. The Alphaflys are still really hard to get, right? I guess these things bother me the most: One company has cornered the market while other companies are slow to catch up, they are quite expensive, but the availability is not that great. They are also as ugly as sin. That said, I did pick up a pair of Saucony Endorphin Pros early this summer, they look cooler than Nike and seem to do a fairly good job. From listening to professional shoe geeks (podcasters with connections and ability to compare shoes) the 4% and Alphafly still seem to be the top choice, but the Edorphin Pro is very good. In a couple of test runs this summer, doing tempo reps, I've found about a 6-8 second/mile advantage with the Saucony compared to Adios Adizero. But have not had the opportunity to actually race in them. Will get that chance in a couple of weeks!
 
#7
It's legal because World Athletics has said so.
Right, in the absence of a more specific inquiry, the answer is a default yes.

Ethics is a different consideration, and the fact that Nike led this charge through a loophole and essentially rewrote their own loophole it's certainly valid to look at it critically from that angle. However, it seems Pandora's box is fully open now on this and no amount of conjecture will change that.

Personally, I haven't been in a rush to embrace the innovation as I've also never sought out downhill race course profiles in the name of scoring PRs. I do like cool, new things so I'll never say never, certainly for the prospect of diminished post-race soreness.
 
#8
Assuming this is pointed directly at carbon plated shoes:

I don't think there should be restrictions on new shoe technologies coming out.

Whatever way you want to spin it, the shoes on an athletes feet are not doing the work load of running. They are not cycling your legs for you. They are not deciding how and where your foot strikes the ground. They are not breathing, pumping arms or your heart for you.

Are carbon plated shoes providing an additional 'pop' off the forefoot? Yes. Are new shoes providing a rocking shape to roll the foot forward? Yes. Do new shoes promote proper running form? Yes.

Are new shoes creating such large technological advantages that just by putting them on youre cutting your PBs by 25-40%? HECK NO.

Most of what's happening is truly placebo in my opinion. I own carbon shoes, I feel faster when I wear them, due to the responsive feel of the shoes and updated foams in the midsole. But in reality I'm just as fast when wearing non-carbon plated shoes. Running is human, speed/endurance/efficiency truly comes from one's athleticism. That carbon plate only helps remind you of proper form late in the race.

Any athlete thats already running a 3:30 marathon, let's say, isn't going to be running a 2:45 marathon simply by putting on some alphaflys. Could you cut that to a 3:22-26? Maybe! I know my motivation goes through the roof when I put on the race shoes.
 
#10
#11
No one is saying 25-40% improvement. But 2-4%. And there is enough science and empirical evidence now to back this up. Not just a placebo.
Yes, I exaggerated the 25-40%, using that as what most of the anti-carbon shoe people think is happening. 2-4% absolutely has been proven, I agree and have read the same. My usage of the word placebo was supposed to be very loose, as 2-4% isn't really felt outside of what the timer says.
 
#12
I think there are two areas to consider in the ongoing shoe debate.
The first one is fair competition. I think a few years ago when you had certain athletes competing in prototypes that were vastly superior to anything available on the market was definitely not a fair and level playing field. However the updated World Athletics rules and the fact that many shoe companies are putting out somewhat comparable models now really has improved this in my opinion.
The other concern I hear a lot is whether these shoes change the nature/efficacy of the sport. While 2-4% is a large single improvement in efficiency, shoes have been getting more efficient for years. Also as someone who has run in many different super shoes I can say that it doesn’t really change the challenge or the overall physiology of running. Sure, it may be slightly easier to achieve an arbitrary time standard. However, I do not think that this takes away from the challenge or enjoyment of running/racing. I do know some people who choose not to use “super shoes” as they wouldn’t feel as good about beating a previous PR for example and that’s great. Whatever motivates and inspires an individual runner is fine with me. No matter what shoes they choose to wear.
 
#13
I think there are two areas to consider in the ongoing shoe debate.
The first one is fair competition. I think a few years ago when you had certain athletes competing in prototypes that were vastly superior to anything available on the market was definitely not a fair and level playing field. However the updated World Athletics rules and the fact that many shoe companies are putting out somewhat comparable models now really has improved this in my opinion.
The other concern I hear a lot is whether these shoes change the nature/efficacy of the sport. While 2-4% is a large single improvement in efficiency, shoes have been getting more efficient for years. Also as someone who has run in many different super shoes I can say that it doesn’t really change the challenge or the overall physiology of running. Sure, it may be slightly easier to achieve an arbitrary time standard. However, I do not think that this takes away from the challenge or enjoyment of running/racing. I do know some people who choose not to use “super shoes” as they wouldn’t feel as good about beating a previous PR for example and that’s great. Whatever motivates and inspires an individual runner is fine with me. No matter what shoes they choose to wear.
I think it’s similar to cycling, where you have to put up arbitrary lines if you want to maintain classic elements of the sport. I want to see this continue to happen.
 
Top