One of the most remarkable athletic accomplishments in human history happened a year ago in October when Eliud Kipchoge broke the 2-hour marathon. For years, people have debated whether this milestone was even humanly possible, and even today, people are questioning the authenticity of the record. Eliud was wearing Nike’s Alphafly Next%, the highest-tech running shoe on the market. According to Nike.com, the shoe is advertised to have two foam pads in the forefoot and an additional foam pad in the heal. The shoe looks bulky for a running shoe, and at first glance, it is difficult to understand how these massive foam pads could provide any competitive advantage. Astonishingly, research has proven that these gigantic foam pads are actually able to trap kinetic energy with every step, and translate the energy into the next stride, giving athletes an incredible advantage (Hoogkamer, Kipp, Kram, 2019).
Researchers performed a study just a year prior to the world record to test how big an advantage the shoe actually gave the athlete. The study aimed to test 3 different types of shoes on 18 professional endurance runners. The 3 types of shoes were a prototype model and two pre-existing marathon shoes on the market. By measuring oxygen intake and carbon dioxide production in a 5-minute run, researchers were able to calculate the key variable of energetic cost. The prototype shoe lowered the energetic cost of running by 4% on average (Hoogkamer, Kipp, Frank, et al., 2018). This revolutionized the world of endurance running and led to the creation of the Alphafly Next% that broke the world record the following year.
For a professional marathon runner, the 300$ sticker price for this shoe is not a problem, but what about amateur athletes trying to compete? With the principles of justice in mind, I cannot help but to think about a lower-class, high school endurance runner relying on a scholarship as their only financial path to attend college. Is it fair that a wealthier athlete is able to afford this high-tech shoe that undoubtedly gives them a competitive advantage over their fellow less-fortunate competitor? If justice means fairness for everyone, then the shoe should not be allowed in competition unless every athlete has the same opportunity to wear it. Eliud is surely the champion in long-distance running, but the world may never know if the Alphafly Next% is the true champion to the 2-hour marathon.
References
Alphafly NEXT%. (n.d.). Retrieved November 19, 2020, from https://www.nike.com/running/alphafly
Hoogkamer, W., Kipp, S., Frank, J. H., Farina, E. M., Luo, G., & Kram, R. (2018). A Comparison of the Energetic Cost of Running in Marathon Racing Shoes. Sports medicine (Auckland, N.Z.), 48(4), 1009–1019. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40279 017 0811-2
Hoogkamer, W., Kipp, S., & Kram, R. (2019). The Biomechanics of Competitive Male Runners in Three Marathon Racing Shoes: A Randomized Crossover Study. Sports medicine (Auckland, N.Z.), 49(1), 133 143. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40279-018-1024-z
This is such an insightful and great post Ben. I personally think that putting a limitation to someone's shoes during a competition is unethical because everyone has different feet. To make a competition fair, they would have to provide the same exact clothing from head to toe for all athletes and it would be unfair if a shoe hurt their feet and prevented them from performing their best. A research that was done talks about how no systematic review and meta-analysis has synthesized the available literature and the effect of footwear on running performance (Fuller et. Al, 2015). As the research concluded, I think it's challenging to study how footwear is the key to someone's athletic success.
ReplyDeleteThis was definitely an interesting read! For the question you asked about whether it is just for an athlete that can afford higher tech shoes and be in competition with another athlete that can not afford such shoes, I would agree with what you said. I also think in order to have fairness, the competition should be based on the actual physiology of the athlete that is gained from endurance training and not from how high tech their shoes are. I found an article that studied when it would be possible for a male to break a sub-2 hour marathon based on physiological components. Using a mathematical model, the study found that would be possible for a male to break the sub-2 hour barrier but, in the next decade (2025-2028)(Sousa et al., 2018). Given that Eluid did this in 2019 , it could be concluded that shoe technology allowed him to break the 2 hour barrier.
ReplyDeleteSousa, C., Sales, M., Nikolaidis, P., Rosemann, T., & Knechtle, B. (2018, July 31). How much further for the sub-2-hour marathon? Retrieved November 20, 2020, from https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6074803/
Thank you for the great post ben. I really enjoyed the concept of technological advantages that you brought up in you post. To think that you can improve you time by just wearing a different pair of shoes is quite incredible. It makes me bring up the idea of fairness and the fact that someone might be able to buy their way into a faster time. We see events like NASCAR where the racing federation applies a set of rules that each car has to follow in order to compete fairly in each race. Also another section of your post that I found interesting was the idea of running a marathon in under 2 hours. It reminds me of a study where they determined that you may be at a higher risk for a heart attack if you are a consistent marathon runner (Martines-Navarro et al., 2020). Nonetheless, I found this post fascinating and truly entertaining.
ReplyDelete