LikNes

22/11/2021

Super shoes: Explaining athletics’ new technological arms race
In the 1960s, when traditional cinder athletics tracks were replaced by spongy, synthetic surfaces, endurance running experienced a revolution. Long distance runners began clocking far faster times on the synthetic tracks, smashing multiple world records in the process.

Today, another revolution is afoot: the development of the so-called “super shoe”, which is driving another spike of record toppling in endurance running. The new shoe technology was introduced to road running in 2016 and track running in 2019, and since those key dates virtually all endurance running world records, from the 5,000m to the marathon, have been broken.

This has divided opinion in the athletics world, with some arguing the shoes are unfair while others argue they’re just like synthetic running tracks: an inevitable technological leap for endurance runners to capitalise upon.

Research in sports biomechanics helps explain exactly what’s happening inside these shoes. While super shoes are clearly disruptive to old records – some of which have stood for decades – this technology should simply be seen as another entry in sports’ long list of performance-enhancing innovations.
Nike’s new shoes
In the 2016 Olympic marathon, all three male medallists climbed onto the podium in the same shoes. They were a Nike prototype, later released as the “Nike Vaporfly 4%”, which are now almost ubiquitous on the feet of elite road runners.

Then, in 2019, similar super-shoe technology hit the athletics track. A slew of Nike-sponsored athletes, wearing Nike’s prototype track spikes, began running some astonishingly fast times.

The performance enhancement afforded by both types of super-shoe – the trainer and the track spike – is generated by enhancing athletes’ running economy, which means reducing the energetic cost of running at a given speed.

The original Vaporfly improved the running economy of highly trained runners by around 4% when compared to a control marathon shoe – hence the 4% moniker. In practice, this equates to a rough improvement in running performance of between 2% and 3%.
The shoes have delivered on this claim. In the years since the 2016 advent of the Vaporfly, the times of the top 50 male marathon runners have improved by about 2% on average. For the top 50 female marathon runners, that figure was closer to 2.6%. Nike’s track spikes are considered to be delivering significant running economy boosts to athletes, too.

Fancy footwork
Several footwear features are behind this performance boost. They include the shoe’s weight, its material composition, the thickness of its heel, and what’s called its “longitudinal bending stiffness”, which in simple terms is how flexible the shoe is from heel to toe.

The inclusion of a carbon fibre plate, running from heel to toe within the Vaporfly’s foam sole, has been the headline-grabbing innovation. These plates aren’t actually a new concept but their specific scoop shape is being credited for the latest performance enhancement. It causes a “teeter-totter” effect, which effectively helps return energy to the runner each time their foot strikes the ground.
The Vaporfly also uses PEBA foam, which stores far more energy from foot strikes, and returns more energy to the runner, than the TPU and EVA materials that are traditionally used in trainers. PEBA foam is also lighter: the Vaporfly weighs around 50g less than previous competitors.

Finally, the shoe’s heel thickness of up to 40mm is around 10mm thicker than that of other racing shoes. That’s partially to accommodate the other technology in the shoe, and partially to increase the wearer’s leg length, which contributes to their energy saving. The above features have likely formed the basis for Nike’s new track spikes, too.

22/11/2021

What’s behind the spate of super-fast sprints at the Tokyo Olympics? Technology plays a role, but the real answer is training
The Tokyo Olympic Games have seen incredible performances in the short-distance track events. We have seen two major world records fall: the men’s and women’s 400-metre hurdles - and numerous personal best times.

In the women’s 400-metre hurdles, five of the eight competitors in the final ran personal bests. Jamaica’s Elaine Thompson-Herah set an Olympic record to win the women’s 100-metre event. A European record was set in the men’s 100-metre event, and all medallists in the race were slightly faster than the respective medal-winning times at the 2016 Rio Olympics.

What’s behind these super-fast times? Some have suggested the composition of the track, new “super spike” running shoes, or hot weather are responsible. While these almost certainly contributed to the results, another reason is likely to be more uninterrupted training through reduced international travel and competition in the months leading into the Tokyo Olympic Games.

This better preparation in turn is due to two things: first, the COVID-19 pandemic has meant less competition and more time for training; and second, steady improvements in sports science and applied research are maximising the extremes of human performance. `
Bouncy tracks, super spikes and heat
The track surface at the Tokyo Olympic stadium, installed by an Italian company called Mondo, is designed to allow runners to better grip the surface while also providing better shock absorption. The surface contains hexagonal air chambers that can compress and bounce back with each step.

Many athletes are also wearing relatively new spikes containing a stiff and lightweight plate made from carbon fibre. The Nike version of these so-called “super spikes” also features a foam layer under the carbon fibre to provide additional spring.

Read more: Super shoes: Explaining athletics’ new technological arms race

These Nike shoes in particular have been criticised as providing an unreasonable advantage, including by 400m hurdles champion Karsten Warholm. Warholm wore Puma carbon-fibre spikes without the additional foam in his world record-setting win, while silver medallist Rai Benjamin wore Nike’s version.

The weather in Tokyo, with temperatures in the 30s and humidity sometimes over 80%, may have also contributed to the fast times in sprint events. Hot conditions means warmer muscles, which can produce force more quickly, making for faster sprinting.

Heat and humidity also put greater strain on athletes over longer distances, which is the main reason we have seen fewer records fall in the track endurance events.

Uninterrupted training and competition
However, suggesting these personal best performances and record times in sprint events can be fully attributed to environmental conditions, new shoe technology and the track surface is a little disrespectful to the athletes. Both Warholm and Sydney McLaughlin, who respectively set the new men’s and women’s records for 400m hurdles, broke previous records they had recently set themselves.

On Tuesday Warholm smashed the record he had claimed in July, and on Wednesday McLaughlin beat the time she set in June. Both athletes were in career-best form heading into Tokyo.
All the athletes were aiming to achieve peak performance at Tokyo by precisely timing their training and recovery cycles. This gives them the best chance of maximal performance: personal best times, and for some Olympic or world records.

In addition to manipulating their training programs to peak at Tokyo, at the Olympics the best are racing against the best. This high level of competition raises the standard of each round compared with other international races, and this too contributes to the number of world-class performances in Tokyo.

For example, McLaughlin and her US teammate Dalilah Muhammad have both previously set the 400m hurdles world record when competing against each other. There is no doubt competition with other world-class athletes creates a favourable scenario for achieving more fast times.

22/11/2021

How your genes influence whether a certain type of exercise works for you – new research
Genetics have a significant influence on many aspects of our life – from our height and eye colour, our weight, and even whether we develop certain health conditions. And now, our recent review has shown that our genetics even influence whether or not we’re suited to a certain type of exercise.

To understand how our genetics impact the way we exercise, it’s important first to understand why we adapt to exercise in the first place. “Adaptation” refers to the body’s ability to make subtle improvements that help it better cope with a new exercise or challenge. One example of this would be increased muscle mass from exercise. These changes in our body help us to be better prepared to do this activity the next time we need to. While we all adapt to exercise, we improve and adapt differently and at different rates, even when we do the exact same exercise.

There are many reasons why this is the case. Various factors, such as diet, sleep, age and whether we leave time to recover between workouts, are all important in how we adapt to exercise. But recently, studies have also shown that the reason we all adapt differently to exercise is largely related to genetics. In fact, research has shown that there are hundreds or even thousands of genes which influence the way our body responds and adapts to exercise.

Take the ACE gene for example, of which there are two types: ACE I and ACE D. This gene has been shown to be linked to cardiorespiratory and aerobic fitness due to its role in helping deliver oxygen to our body’s tissues, as well as regulating blood pressure. It’s thought that if you have the ACE I gene, you’re better suited to endurance – whereas those with the ACE D gene are thought to be better suited to strength and power, as they aren’t as good at regulating blood pressure and oxygen.
Adaptation
To better understand how our genes are related to different types of exercise – and whether they affect the way we adapt to exercise – we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis. This allowed us to assess all the current evidence which has linked certain genes to different key measures of fitness – including cardiorespiratory fitness, muscular strength and explosive power (how quickly we can go from a standstill to a sprint, for example) – in the average person. We looked at a total of 24 studies which included 3,012 participants altogether.

A group of people running together outside.

22/11/2021

22/11/2021