Data for Discussion - Is this the impact of evolving spike technology?
- Thread starter galesxc
- Start date
psycho_dad
Well-known member
My personal opinion based on observations in practice and meets is that we have kids running much faster in races in the new spikes than you would expect based on what they are capable of doing in practice compared to kids in the past in the 1600 and 3200. No question in my mind that the spike technology is a 5-7% improvement.
oncearunner
Member
I'd say it's most likely because of you, coach... considering all those Gales recently running under 4:20, 4:30, 2:00, 9:35, etc.!
I think it is still too early to tell how much is the spikes and how much is random chance. At least in central Ohio, where I pay more attention to the middle school results, the current group of juniors and seniors were really good MS runners. So I would expect there to be a lot more fast times right now. Racing against lots of fast people tends to produce fast times. @galesxc, maybe we could do some analysis of MS to HS times over the past couple of years to see how much difference there is in improvement. My gut feeling when I look at my own team's data, is that you are correct that there is little to no effect on the 800 so far. And that the effect on the 3200 is greater than the 1600.
Runningfast
Active member
It's the shoes..
But it's also the availability of training information. The ability of kids to connect with remote coaching year round. The influx of opportunities for kids to run on FAST courses in XC. The growth in high level opportunities on brand-new tracks indoors. The increase in year-round training. The "Milesplit effect" where every kid is obsessed with times, leading to more willing to push their limits to run fast. The increase in attention to high-level performances that social media provides. More connected coaches with more access to information than ever before. . .
But it's also the availability of training information. The ability of kids to connect with remote coaching year round. The influx of opportunities for kids to run on FAST courses in XC. The growth in high level opportunities on brand-new tracks indoors. The increase in year-round training. The "Milesplit effect" where every kid is obsessed with times, leading to more willing to push their limits to run fast. The increase in attention to high-level performances that social media provides. More connected coaches with more access to information than ever before. . .
CC Track Fan
Well-known member
That is all true if comparing improvement to 10+ years ago but the recent spike from just 2-3 years ago is almost completely due to the shoe technology. New training/coaching and indoor tracks and other things has been around for a few years or more.
Runningfast
Active member
I don't doubt that alot of it is the shoes. I do think that year-round training and competing has increased in a huge way in the past couple of years...
I know that this is not at all scientific, but Milesplit listed 57 events on its calendar in the month of January in 2019. 83 in Jan. 2023 if I counted correctly.
In the last handful of years, Ashland, Wittenberg, Muskingum, Mount Saint Joe, Logan, Mt. Vernon, Norton (Louisville) and probably a few others I'm missing have opened facilities and started hosting meets (and in some cases weekly practice opportunities) for kids in the winter.
I know that this is not at all scientific, but Milesplit listed 57 events on its calendar in the month of January in 2019. 83 in Jan. 2023 if I counted correctly.
In the last handful of years, Ashland, Wittenberg, Muskingum, Mount Saint Joe, Logan, Mt. Vernon, Norton (Louisville) and probably a few others I'm missing have opened facilities and started hosting meets (and in some cases weekly practice opportunities) for kids in the winter.
Newton's Third
Well-known member
I saw something last summer that since the carbon fiber shoe/spikes introduction the number of college sub 4 miles has exploded. I forget the specifics but it was something like more in one year than the previous 5-6 combined. The article finished stating that due to the spikes, 4:05 is the new 3:58 and gets more pronounced the longer the race.
CC Track Fan
Well-known member
Penn State meet tonight perfect example of this with 6 at this indoor meet. Villanova had 3 go not just under 4 sub 3:58. We all know what shoes they were wearing. It reminds me so much of the tech suits swimmers were wearing 15(?) years ago when all records were being crushed weekly and then they ended up banning them.
JAVMAN83
Well-known member
I agree. These shoes are making a mockery of trying to compare this era's runners to others. The same argument was made when the fiberglass pole came into being, but it became obvious that an entire new technique of vaulting would be required to utilize the poles well. No such change is happening with runners. Same technique & training, yet major improvements in performance. Sorry, but shoes are making a mockery.
Newton's Third
Well-known member
An indoor meet at Boston yesterday for college and post-collegiate athletes. 52 men broke 4:00 for the mile.
JAVMAN83
Well-known member
I read that this morning. Wild. The new shoes are dropping 4:05-4:07 runners under 4 minutes now. It appears to be aiding men a little more than women. I'm wondering if this has to do with the fact that men have a higher average body weight and are able to get a better response from the shoe design than women are. Time and data will tell.
I read that the Bearcats (GO BEARCATS) got their first ever sub-4:00 runner last weekend. Tyler Wirth ran 3:59.89 at Notre Dame last weekend for 6th in that meet.
T&F News has updated their list of all sub-4:00 minute guys and sub-4:30 women in the U.S. The guys' list has exploded after the past couple years.
The U.S. Sub-4:00 Miler's Club (Chronologically) - Track & Field News
ALTHOUGH THE MILE is rarely run outside the United States, it remains an immensely popular distance for Americans, particularly indoors.... Read More
trackandfieldnews.com
Sub-4 / Sub-4:30 - Mile History
Return the Mile to prominence on the American sports and cultural landscape by elevating, celebrating and creating a Mile Movement.
JAVMAN83
Well-known member
As a side note on miling, you all missed one of the great all-time duals. Mike Hallabrin (Mansfield Malabar / Miami U.) vs. Jeff Johnson (Yellow Springs / U. of Cincinnati). Crowd going wild with both teams driving them on over the Armory Fieldhouse's old 4-turn, 188yd track in February of 1984. Jeff trailed / drove Mike the entire way to an incredible 4:04.4 to 4:05.5 win for Hallabrin on that small, tight track. Hard to describe just how much energy was in the fieldhouse that night watching that race. I can still feel the energy all these years later.
Newton's Third
Well-known member
And probably 3:55-3:56 or faster on the modern tracks with the new shoes
JAVMAN83
Well-known member
If that race had been on a banked, 200m track with today's shoes, definitely.
EuclidandViren
Well-known member
I read that this morning. Wild. The new shoes are dropping 4:05-4:07 runners under 4 minutes now. It appears to be aiding men a little more than women. I'm wondering if this has to do with the fact that men have a higher average body weight and are able to get a better response from the shoe design than women are. Time and data will tell.
I read that the Bearcats (GO BEARCATS) got their first ever sub-4:00 runner last weekend. Tyler Wirth ran 3:59.89 at Notre Dame last weekend for 6th in that meet.
T&F News has updated their list of all sub-4:00 minute guys and sub-4:30 women in the U.S. The guys' list has exploded after the past couple years.
The U.S. Sub-4:00 Miler's Club (Chronologically) - Track & Field News
ALTHOUGH THE MILE is rarely run outside the United States, it remains an immensely popular distance for Americans, particularly indoors.... Read Moretrackandfieldnews.com
Sub-4 / Sub-4:30 - Mile History
Return the Mile to prominence on the American sports and cultural landscape by elevating, celebrating and creating a Mile Movement.bringbackthemile.com
I read a couple of data analyses and the women are about a 1.7% -2.3% decrease in times compared to men's times of .6% to 1.5%. But again small sample sizes and not enough data in the long term for most new research studies.
Newton's Third
Well-known member
Does the Four-Minute Mile Matter Anymore?
In the age of hydraulic tracks and super spikes, some say no
www.insidehook.com
"As Outside reported in a recent article, Track & Field News started a Twitter war last week after it announced it would stop updating its chronological list of sub-4:00 milers with the following statement: “The advent of super-shoes has bombarded the 4:00 barrier into something no longer relevant for tracking"
Running Man 101
Well-known member
The "science" that exists in the papers I've read say 1-4% benefit from a mechanical standpoint. Not all runners will get the same benefit as their foot striking mechanics are not the same.
For the high schools runners, I think the tell will be comparing XC and track times (which is not easy to begin with). I'm not sure that you get the shoe benefit in XC because of the uneven surface and surface elasticity properties you would get in track.
CC Track Fan
Well-known member
Do runner even wear them for XC? I thought they all just wore "regular" spikes for reasons you mentioned.
Newton's Third
Well-known member
College kids wear them for XC and the time comparisons on the same courses are drastically faster. One of the regions had 70-80 runners within 15 seconds of the previous course record with dozens under. i am working from memory so I may not have it exactly right but it was mind-boggling faster. Some were wearing the road shoes in 10K on the track due to excessive benefit compared to spikes, but that has since been banned.
Whether it is college or HS, historical comparisons are pretty much obsolete at this point. Much like the buoyancy swimsuits a few years ago that they introduced then banned because a historical comparison had become irrelevant.
My concern is will low income school districts fade from view in HS track as many cannot afford the $250-$350 shoes?
Running Man 101
Well-known member
I would require some hard proof in XC. Yes, on hard surfaces the shoes could provide a benefit, but on bermuda grass with some give, not so much.
That being said, 1% gain is significant. If you are a miler it is a few seconds and out to 10k would be 15-20s.
In parallel, the average athlete is getting better. Would need a decent set of data to show how significant it is.
Running Man 101
Well-known member
Not sure the level of training hasn't improved over the past few years. I think COVID really allowed some deeper dives on-line. The shoes may be a component, but there are some new approaches to training that have trickled down into HS that may explain some of this as well.
For cross country, we are also dealing with the tendency to try to make every course as fast as possible.
I am trying right now to parse through data from my recent athletes, looking their times from middle school or high school when they were not wearing the new spikes and when they were wearing the new spikes in high school/college. Then comparing them to athletes from a few years before. I know @galesxc and I will probably keep banging away at this trying to find a good model for the effect of the shoes.
Right now just straightforward regression (the best fit model is a fairly linear polynomial) argues for about 3.3 seconds faster for a 4:20 1600 kid and about 4.1 seconds faster for a 5:00 kid. My data also shoes more benefit for boys than girls.
I am trying right now to parse through data from my recent athletes, looking their times from middle school or high school when they were not wearing the new spikes and when they were wearing the new spikes in high school/college. Then comparing them to athletes from a few years before. I know @galesxc and I will probably keep banging away at this trying to find a good model for the effect of the shoes.
Right now just straightforward regression (the best fit model is a fairly linear polynomial) argues for about 3.3 seconds faster for a 4:20 1600 kid and about 4.1 seconds faster for a 5:00 kid. My data also shoes more benefit for boys than girls.
Last edited:
CC Track Fan
Well-known member
On a dry course with short grass I am sure the shoes would be a big help. I wonder how much help they would be on a muddy course or one with tall grass or very uneven surface? I know Oberlin has a good portion of course on mulch I would think that would decrease the help the new shoes give.
psycho_dad
Well-known member
What would be an example of these "new approaches to training?" What training improvements have you seen?
Runningfast
Active member
I can't speak for Running Man 101, but I think training has evolved a lot in recent years.
1. Much less periodization - For many, gone are the days of summer and winter being purely "Base building"
2. Multi-paced training year round - The more popular thing now seems to be a looser periodization in which you are emphasizing certain areas (speed development, aerobic development, etc.) at certain points, but are still touching race pace work, threshold work, max velocity work, VO2 work year round.
3. There are more indoor opportunities than ever- I think this has fostered a more year-round approach to training. December and January are not the black hole of training in which only a handful of most dedicated are getting the work in.
4. The strava effect - I think this can be a negative, but I think some kids see others doing certain mileage, certain workouts, etc. and that motivates/pushes them to do the same.
1. Much less periodization - For many, gone are the days of summer and winter being purely "Base building"
2. Multi-paced training year round - The more popular thing now seems to be a looser periodization in which you are emphasizing certain areas (speed development, aerobic development, etc.) at certain points, but are still touching race pace work, threshold work, max velocity work, VO2 work year round.
3. There are more indoor opportunities than ever- I think this has fostered a more year-round approach to training. December and January are not the black hole of training in which only a handful of most dedicated are getting the work in.
4. The strava effect - I think this can be a negative, but I think some kids see others doing certain mileage, certain workouts, etc. and that motivates/pushes them to do the same.
JAVMAN83
Well-known member
Regarding #1, do you really think there is less periodization? Or just smaller blocks of periodization? Tudor Bompa's classic work "Periodization: Theory and Methodology of Training" is of course the gold standard work in this area. I tend to think that the periodization has only changed in duration of building blocks, not periodization itself.
Your thoughts?
Your thoughts?