Does the Nike Vaporfly 4% help you run a better marathon?
My research assistant and I eliminated the elites and just focused on the civilians. The fastest finished in around 2:30; the slowest in about 3:15.
Of the 92 photos Greenberg took, 138 runners have both shoes and bibs visible. Of those, 22 are wearing the Nike Zoom Vaporfly and 116 are not. We looked up the data for each of these 138 runners, and, interestingly, the Vaporfly runners finished much better. Of that group, seven, or 32 percent, ran negative splits. Of the others, seventeen, or only 15 percent ran negative splits. The average Vaporfly runner ran the second half of the marathon a minute and a half slower than the first. But the average non-Vaporfly runner ran the second half five and a half minutes slower. Both groups of runners had faded, but the people in the new shoes had faded less.
Im Forum von Letsrun wird teilweise an den Daten der Schuhe gezweifelt:
Letsrun | Wired Mag: Legal doping? Were Zoom Vaporfly 4% wearers twice as likely to negative split NYC?
Interessante Daten gibt es schon etwas länger vom Runnersworld Labor:
Our runner experienced an average of 4 percent less muscle activity in the quadriceps, gastrocnemius (calf), and tibialis anterior (shin) muscles, consistent with Nike’s energy-savings claims. His heart rate (172 bpm) was also lower than when wearing two control models (180 bpm), indicating less effort required to maintain a consistent pace.