Facts, Not Fiction

 
Page 4 of 23 FirstFirst ... 2345614 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 222
  1. Collapse Details
     
    #31
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Location
    on task
    Posts
    12,127
    Quote Originally Posted by jazzcyclist View Post
    It's not meaningless just because you don't know the units of measure or how to convert one to the other.
    There is no conversion . . . every athlete and every situation is different. It is a meaningless term.
    Reply With Quote
     

  2. Collapse Details
     
    #32
    Quote Originally Posted by Conor Dary View Post
    The problem with doping is it is not great for the health....if taking EPO and testosterone had zero negatives on health I wouldn't have any problem with it....
    Serious question. Is there good evidence anywhere that doping in the modern era with the guidance of health care professionals (like Ben Johnson, Marion jones, Lance Armstrong, A-Rod, etc.) has negative health effects?
    Reply With Quote
     

  3. Collapse Details
     
    #33
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    right here
    Posts
    16,062
    Quote Originally Posted by steve View Post
    Serious question. Is there good evidence anywhere that doping in the modern era with the guidance of health care professionals (like Ben Johnson, Marion jones, Lance Armstrong, A-Rod, etc.) has negative health effects?
    But it's one thing to use doping under a testing regime - you have to limit dosages and timing to cheat testers. What would happen if athletes could use them without any limits?
    Było smaszno, a jaszmije smukwijne...
    Reply With Quote
     

  4. Collapse Details
     
    #34
    Quote Originally Posted by Atticus View Post
    There is no conversion . . . every athlete and every situation is different. It is a meaningless term.
    Only to folks who don't understand the STEM fields is it meaningless.
    Last edited by jazzcyclist; 10-16-2019 at 08:09 PM.
    Reply With Quote
     

  5. Collapse Details
     
    #35
    Quote Originally Posted by Powell View Post
    But it's one thing to use doping under a testing regime - you have to limit dosages and timing to cheat testers. What would happen if athletes could use them without any limits?
    I wasn't trying to make a suggestion that they should be allowed, just wondering if there is any evidence that there are health risks with modern doping regimens.

    I definitely think that unchecked usage of PEDs, or almost any drug for that matter, could be very problematic to health. But in those cases I would wonder if they would also be problematic to performance, especially over the long-term.
    Reply With Quote
     

  6. Collapse Details
     
    #36
    Quote Originally Posted by jazzcyclist View Post
    That would depend on what unit of measure they're using. 4% greater energy efficiency doesn't mean 4% greater velocity.
    Quote Originally Posted by Atticus View Post
    Exactly my point. It's a meaningless term in this context.
    Why is it a meaningless term, because energy efficiency isn't simply interchangeable with velocity? That makes no sense.

    What does Nike mean by 4% greater energy efficiency, and let's grant them their premise, then why do I want the shoes?

    Presumably they mean you run faster, and even if it's not 4% faster, it's still faster. 4% faster for a 3 hour marathoner is 7 minutes. Maybe 4% greater energy efficiency means something greater than a 4% velocity increase.
    Last edited by trackCanuck; 10-16-2019 at 08:28 PM.
    Reply With Quote
     

  7. Collapse Details
     
    #37
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Location
    on task
    Posts
    12,127
    Quote Originally Posted by jazzcyclist View Post
    Only to folks who don't understand the STEM fields is it meaningless.
    We'll agree to disagree. My expertise is in semantics, and I am certain that the term "4% energy return", though very meaningful to the engineers who designed it, is a meaningless term in any real-world application. How much time (I'll be generous and give you +/- 30 seconds) will these shoes cut off the finish-time of a 6'2, 200 lb. marathoner with a best of 3:45? Same at Berlin as it does Boston? Even the Nike engineers would touch that question. Nor would your STEM credentials help you here either.
    Reply With Quote
     

  8. Collapse Details
     
    #38
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Bronx, NY
    Posts
    1,596
    Got "complaints?" Do the research, and see if it does provide "unfair" advantage. Then, ban it. Until then......!
    Reply With Quote
     

  9. Collapse Details
     
    #39
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    ???? ???? in Ronald MacDonald's Home Town, and once a Duck always a Duck.
    Posts
    11,732
    Quote Originally Posted by einnod23 View Post
    Got "complaints?" Do the research, and see if it does provide "unfair" advantage. Then, ban it. Until then......!
    Unfair to whom? Are there any sub 2:08 guys not running for Nike....
    Reply With Quote
     

  10. Collapse Details
     
    #40
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Location
    on task
    Posts
    12,127
    To be clear, I do believe they are the 'fastest' shoes on the market, because I trust Nike, in pursuit of the bottom line, to do their homework. And I do believe EK's sub-2 was helped by them. But so were the runners around him, so was the laser lights guiding the pacers to precisely the pace, so were the hydration formulae that he drank, and many other factors.
    My beef is with the term '4% energy return', which, in engineering-speak, I'm sure is quite accurate, but in real-world application is useless. It's not like 'basic' sprint times where we apply a chart of altitude (sic) and wind-readings to come up with an 'equivalency' number; in this case no amount of calculations will come up with a good estimate of how much time they save for varying runners. I saw a ball-park estimate once for EK's time trial of ~2 minutes, but the cordon of men around him and precise pacing could account for that too.
    My final point is that these shoes are merely the next logical step in developing good running shoes, and should not be banned.
    Reply With Quote
     

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •