You want running shoes to be as light as possible. The book the sports gene went over how slender ankles (less weight on the feet) is a significant factor in running performance and potential. I don't think adding a motor and batteries to a runner's shoes will help them, unless they're looking to get more of a workout over the same period of time.
I don't think the relating running shoes to motors in bikes is a fair comparison. Motors in bicycles add energy to the system; running shoes simply allow a runner to be more efficient.
Wouldn't any shoe, and especially any running show of the last 40 years, return some level of energy? I mean, the entire concept of a shoe is a mechanical enhancement over running barefoot. Any equipment at all is a defacto enhancement above and beyond a "pure" non-mechanically aided base line. So if you accept and level of equipment, then it all becomes about where to draw the line, which type of enhancements are sanctioned, which not, etc.
Running shoes are funny things. Due to the fact that they are basically a weight at the end of a long fulcrum, the heavier they are the slower you will go. Plus they are full of padding which messes up the natural springs you already have built into your feet.
It is not surprising someone invented a shoe that is somewhat lighter which makes it faster. I find the spring idea somewhat dubious but maybe they do give you a slight boost. My question would be how fast you can run in these vs with no shoes on at all.
I feel like the running community would shun them, since it's technically an method of assistance.
Besides, I bet for ultra-elite marathon runners, the bulk of the shoe would outweigh the benefits it provides. You're talking about people who wear super-light minimalist shoes because it gives them an advantage.
A lot of people with tech backgrounds seem pretty pro-Vaporfly. As a (former?) competitive runner you might find my anti-Vaporfly perspective interesting.
To me, running is a non-mechanically-aided sport. The moment a shoe attempts to store and return mechanical energy in the stride, to me, that's a different sport.
We already know that people can go faster and farther with mechanical aid, if you use big enough springs on your feet. Look at the discussion around Pistorius' blades. Let alone something like putting wheels on your shoes.
So we know from first principles that there's going to be some limit to the mechanical advantage that footwear is allowed to provide. The only question is where to draw the line.
Now you could draw the line at providing any mechanical advantage at all, and keep the sport the same as it's been since the dawn of time. Or you could draw the line a little bit farther along, making the sport partially about the runner and partially about the technology. I see no coherent reason to do the latter, except for shoe companies' profits. It hurts the fairness of the sport, it takes a bunch of fun out of it, it transfers a whole bunch of money from a previously-dirt-cheap sport to the shoe companies, etc.
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.
>despite the aid of a shoe that designers say will make runners 4 percent more efficient.
Seems like this could be a big factor. A shoe itself acting as a spring and helping the runner make bigger strides with the same effort. I won't be surprised if the official race wouldn't allow these "enhanced" shoes.
I don't want to discourage doing that (I've been using those for ~10 years and love them), but please be very careful getting ramped up with thin-soled shoes. They tend to put a lot of strain on your calves and ankles if you aren't used to running in them. Even for you're an experienced runner and in good shape, going more than a mile or two in thin-soled shoes can sometimes really mess up -- or even strain -- your calves if you haven't used them before.
>I used to run a bit. Did an informal "couch to 5k" over a couple of months, before I'd even discovered that was a thing. The single most effective thing I did for my running was to buy a pair of Vibram Five-Fingers shoes.
The single most important thing I've done for my running, is run more and lose weight. This is a universal thing. Everyone who gets good gets good via more running and losing weight. Running more can be hard. If there is a shoe that helps you do it, go for it. But as pace increases sometimes a shoe as minimal as a vibram can be problematic. Its certainly isn't necessary for everybody. People set world records without ever using a strange shoe.
I've been running recreationally since high school, I average about 20 miles/week, an even mix of road/trail. I'm also a bit heavier than a typical avid recreational runner, putting more stress on my legs and feet.
Having gone through a variety of shoes, I'd like to caution people about the minimalistic shoe trend, especially if you run mostly on pavement. It's true that overly cushioned shoes can cause heel strike and poor form. But switching to ultralight shoes can cause much worse problems. Ultralights provide little/no lateral/pronation support, increase exposure to rolling and road hazards due to the more flexible sole, more easily pinch nerves and ligaments on the top of the foot, and make it harder to relax your leg muscles (increasing the likelihood of irritated ligaments and cramped muscles).
If ultralight shoes work for you, that's great. But if you're a casual runner, I would urge you to visit a good running store that analyzes your gait, and try on a variety of models. Many shoe makers assume a particular shape of foot. You need to try a number of shoes to see which ones fit you best. Don't try to pick the most or least cushioned shoe based on some mantra you've heard.
Also, "pushing off with your heel" is not a thing. It's impossible to finish the liftoff from the heel while running. You can talk about the angle at which most of the liftoff force is delivered, or whether the heel descends to contact the ground at all (vs. running on your toes), but you don't push off with your heel while running.
P.S. The biggest improvements to my running (aside from switching from ultralight back to stability shoes) came from joining a running club, and from buying a Garmin GPS watch and tracking my workouts against my friends from the club on Strava. So the only premise in the article that I agree with is that treadmills are silly :)
There probably is a case to be made to limit the height of running shoes: if anything to reduce ankle injuries.
But one solution to the technological race problem would be to allow only technologies that are accessible to any manufacturer. If patented, open the technology to indefinite free licensing in order to be used in competition.
For running, because the equipment required is so minimal, the costs of the materials should not become too prohibitive to any serious athletes.
You don’t need a machine you need someone to observe your feet as you run. Then based on your roll, buy shoes that support your feet. This is not rocket science, you need new running shoes every year or two. Protect your shins, get proper shoes, if it’s a minute to analyze on a treadmill (“machine”) then take the minute. If you have a friend, have them take a minute..
>a lot of the running/training type shoes wear out in 3-4 months, the sole is shot
This isn't about price but weight. Because of new materials tech, we've gotten used to super light shoes (and they definitely help in terms of performance) but the cost of that is durability. Typically in materials science weight and durability have an inverse relationship. There are exceptions, but you're not finding those in department store sneakers.
Interesting article. I see barefoot/minimal shoe running as possible way to correct issues in running form. Could practice running on your toes on a track or something like that. You could also just spend time with regular running shoes to correct your running form away from the heel-striking which some naturally fall into.
Although interesting, I don't think I'd ever go for a run without running shoes. Just seems like a good way to step on something sharp and have it go into your foot.
Imagine if your shoes had some sort of linear bearing system that would allow you to glide over the ground, preventing energy loss while allowing brief rest periods.
I don't know if I can even satisfactorily define running itself on the spot, but I'm pretty sure I know it when I see it.
reply