People train months (and years) to take minutes off their time, especially as their times get lower and the returns diminish.
4% of 3 hours is more than 7 minutes! That could be equivalent to tens of hours on the road. $250 is a _great_ investment at that rate.
This is the "Why go to that expensive restaurant?" argument all over again. When it's your hobby, and it's important to you, the thought process behind the purchase is very different.
I have to say, running is a little more than a hobby to me, (obsession perhaps?). So I understand how runners think about running, and the gear they purchase for running.
There's literally NO WAY I'd buy a pair of shoes I can run in for 100 miles for $250. I wouldn't be able to NOT think about every mile just costing me $2.50.
Call me frugal, but that's two pairs of any other shoe, and I can run in those for most of the summer.
A $250 pair of shoe is nothing but a luxury item for an extremely simple pastime. It's absolutely marketed to make you first feel inferior, then offer a solution. You always lose out when you fall for marketing.
Even with these shoes (provided these shoes do what they say they do), there are literally hundreds of thousands of people who can run faster than me, even if they all wear flip flops. I would be embarrassed to even consider purchasing shoes that promise to make me faster like these are marketed to do.
> This is the "Why go to that expensive restaurant?" argument all over again.
I mean, I guess so: "expensive" doesn't mean, "best". It just means, "expensive". The food may be good, or people pay because of the exclusivity the price creates. I'm not really about that sort of classicism. I like good tasting food too, but you know what I learned to do?
Cook.
To be a better a runner, I decided to run. Running taught me a lot about keeping things simple, and to get rid of the b.s.
I think your justification for your opinion is sound, but I think the justification for the other side is sound as well. An elite runner may have only a handful of marathons in a year they really want to trim time off of, and another $250 on top of the many months (and dollars) that go into training for them seems reasonable. Perhaps the best argument for why this plan seems reasonable is that many ordinary people already seem to be doing it.
But surely the reason people value a 7 minute reduction so highly is because of what it represents -- a successful effort to get fitter and/or mentally tougher. If you're simply 'buying' that reduction, what is the point, unless you're at the level where other benefits (public glory, sponsorship) are within reach?
I don't run competitively, but in the gym I feel like spending on better shoes takes away a false limit due to inappropriate technology. Unless you are running barefoot, I can see how a runner might feel the slower number is just false due to an arbitrary limitation. There is a decent chance, if you can afford it, that these shoes might help you progress faster as well. In the end it's all about how effectively your effort is translated into movement.
> I don't run competitively, but in the gym I feel like spending on better shoes takes away a false limit due to inappropriate technology.
Explain to me how, in a gym setting there are, "better" shoes that "take away a false limit due to inappropriate technology" What does that mean?
Honestly, I thought the best shoes to use in the gym were just a pair of All Stars. I would use the weight room barefoot, but they yell at me too much.
Are you talking about Oly Shoes? 'cause those just counteract a mobility problem. Kinda better to solve that mobility problem. But thinking that's cutting edge technology is garbage. It's just a raised heal.
I agree, I don't spend more than you do it sounds like - but I do spend on a specific shoe because coming in a pair of cross trainers or running shoes is just counter productive. But the point was completely separate from arguing about what a good gym shoe is.
Good point, and I can understand that mindset in some cases. But even though the line between removing an obstacle and gaining artificial assistance is hard to draw sharply, the way these shoes are described makes me think they're clearly in the second category:
> Unlike most running shoes, they have a carbon-fiber plate in the midsole, which stores and releases energy with each stride and is meant to act as a kind of slingshot, or catapult, to propel runners forward.
> Unlike most running shoes, they have a carbon-fiber plate in the midsole, which stores and releases energy with each stride and is meant to act as a kind of slingshot, or catapult, to propel runners forward.
That's like literally every single midsole "technology" companies like Nike try to market their shoes with.
Your foot already has one of those catapult like things - it's called the Achilles. Just let it do it's job.
4% of 3 hours is more than 7 minutes! That could be equivalent to tens of hours on the road. $250 is a _great_ investment at that rate.
This is the "Why go to that expensive restaurant?" argument all over again. When it's your hobby, and it's important to you, the thought process behind the purchase is very different.