My Problem With the adidas Boost Marketing Approach

Time for a bit of a rant, hold on tight.

My Wednesday mornings are typically reserved for Daddy-dates with my 2-year-old son. Sometimes we hang out and play trucks, sometimes we go out on an adventure. Today we decided to hit what he likes to call “the gym” (it’s a gymnastics training center that doubles as a kid playground in the morning). One of my favorite pieces of equipment at the gym is the tumble-track. If you’re not familiar with a tumble-track, it’s basically a long, narrow trampoline that you can run down and leap off of onto a big mat to practice flips (something that I wouldn’t dare try…).

Today I was running down the tumble track and was wondering to myself how it would feel to run a longer distance on the bouncy surface. That got me to thinking about the adidas Boost midsole material, which has been described as “bouncy” and is being touted as providing enhanced energy return over traditional EVA foam. As I ran down the tumble-track I focused intently on what my legs were doing. It feels great to bound down the track, but my legs were behaving very differently than they do when I run out on the road or trail, and it was happening without any need for conscious control. My ankle was locked in extreme dorsiflexion, essentially removing it as a shock absorber, and my knee was locked as well. Basically, my leg joints were locked in place, and I was bouncing along on two very stiff limbs.

That got me to thinking, why didn’t I adopt my usual running form? So, I consciously tried to run as if I were on a road, and it felt horrible! I obviously did not have a respiratory gas analyzer handy (I would have been the coolest, or dorkiest, dad there if I did), but running normally felt terribly inefficient on the extremely soft and bouncy surface of the tumble track.

What does this have to do with the adidas Boost midsole? The lesson from the tumble track is that the human body responds very differently when running on surfaces of different properties. We adapt on the fly based upon sensory feedback coming in from our feet and legs, and we adjust joint angles, limb stiffness, muscle activation, and so on (you can read more on this topic here).

Now watch the adidas Boost teaser video:

Why does this bother me so much? Well, the human body is not a rigid metal ball, and a video showing a metal ball being dropped onto cushioning tells us very little about how the human body will react to such cushioning.

I was invited by adidas to attend their release event today in New York City for the Boost midsole, but was not able to attend due to other commitments. I instead watched the video of the event on-line, and I was rather disappointed by the entire thing.

Frankly, I’m tired. I’m tired of marketing trumping science. Adidas is making some bold claims about the energy returning properties of Boost, but all I have seen so far is this steel ball video and some references to mechanical testing results. Bold claims require strong evidence – the human body is not a steel ball, and mechanical testing cannot reveal exactly how the human body will respond to a given type of cushioning material. We have muscles, joints, tendons, and ligaments that all work together as we run. I want to know how this cushioning works with this incredible system that is the human body. After all, the shoe is meant to be worn on human feet.

It may be the case that Boost does work, that it does allow runners to shave seconds or perhaps minutes off their marathon time (as an aside, is it even a good thing if the improvement is due to a shoe and not due to hard work?). After all, we do know that tuning surfaces can lead to performance gains and reduction of injury risk (read about the Harvard Track for example).

But where’s the evidence that shelling out $150 for this shoe is worth the risk that it might not work? It wouldn’t be that hard to do a study comparing a Boost shoe to a similar EVA cushioned shoe – get a bunch of runners, and test their oxygen consumption at steady speed in one vs. the other (here’s a post about a study that did exactly this comparing barefoot running to running in racing flats). There are lots of labs out there that can do this. Without this information, buying this shoe is taking a risk – we’re hoping that the energy return provided by the midsole will enhance our performance. However, it’s entirely possible that the response will be much like my experience on the tumble track – my legs may want to stiffen up in order to take advantage of the bouncy surface below. How do legs stiffen? Simple, muscles contract. And when muscles contract it requires ATP, and ATP is the energetic currency of the human body. So I want to know how muscle activation changes in this shoe vs. an EVA shoe, how limb stiffness changes, and whether we actually are more economical when running in it. Without that data all we have is a flashy marketing story.

Let’s look at this from one other angle. Suppose our limbs do stiffen up when we run in Boost. What does this do to force application? What if running economy does improve, but it does so via adoption of a form that causes greater wear and tear on our joints. This is where science is important. This is why we need people looking at how footwear influences injury risk. This is why we need science to back up marketing claims made about shoes. Either that, or stop making marketing claims that don’t tell the whole story (with the key piece of that story being how the shoe affects us when it’s on our feet). If adidas had simply come out and said they have a cool new midsole material that feels really different and let word of mouth do its thing, I would never have written this post. But specific claims about energy returning properties of the midsole material have been made, and I want more answers, especially for a shoe with a $150 price tag.

Boost may be great. Adidas may have created a revolutionary product. I even asked one of my contacts at adidas several weeks ago about trying it to evaluate for myself. My beef is not with the shoe per se, it’s with the marketing. I want evidence to come along with the marketing claims, and I didn’t see any of that today. Perhaps evidence of benefit exists, perhaps not, but I remain a skeptic without it.

Running Warehouse: Great prices on closeout shoes! View men's and women's selections.
Amazon.com: 25% or more off clearance running shoes - click here to view current selection.
Trivllage: Save 18% on run, swim, and cycle gear. Use Code: RBTri18.

Recent Posts By Category: Running Shoe Reviews | Running Gear Reviews | Running Science

About Peter Larson

This post was authored by Peter Larson. Pete is a recovering academic who currently works as an exercise physiologist, running coach, and writer. He's also a father of three and a fanatical runner with a bit of a shoe obsession. In addition to writing and editing this site, he is co-author of the book Tread Lightly, and writes a personal blog called The Blogologist. Follow Pete on Twitter, Facebook, Google+, and via email.

Comments

  1. If we wanted hard to give Adidas some merit and “absolution” for the apparently a little flawed experiment we might look at it from a 180-degree reversed perspective. Let’s imagine a well-trained runner (good elastic recoil, strong, “springy” body etc.) running on a hard surface. We have an interaction of a “springy” object (the body AND the shoes – if s/he has them on, of course) with a hard object (the surface). Adidas is showing more or less the same… but in the reversed position: now the springy object is lying still, and the hard object is moving. But the springy-hard interaction is present, isn’t it?

    Are there any physicists or engineers here to comment?

    Also, we should remember that, as was the case in the “classical” perspective (the runner on a hard surface), in this “reverse angle approach” the slab of foam (Adi or EVA) also cumulatively represents the runner’s body AND his/her shoes (no place for barefoot runners here since they’d “kill” the marketing message, right?). So we still wouldn’t know what can be attributed to the marvel sole and what to the marvel body :)

    In this respect, the previous NB test mentioned by one of the posters seems to have been even more flawed as it allegedly showed interaction of two hard objects – and that is hardly the case in running.

    • Pete Larson says:

      The problem is that springy leg on springy shoe on hard surface may be too much spring. To take another example, I hate running on cushioned tracks in a soft shoe. Too much cushion. Springy leg on springy shoe on springy track is too much. So the question is how much is too much springy material? And, we can also adjust our springy leg by making them stiffer they become very non-springy. My head now hurts…

      —-
      Pete Larson’s Web Links:
      -My book: Tread Lightly: link to ow.ly
      -Blog: http://www.runblogger.com
      -Twitter: link to twitter.com
      -Facebook Page: link to facebook.com
      -Discussion Forum: http://www.runblogger.com/forum

      • Sure, too many springy variables make things complicated. That’s why I tried to bring some simplification. We have an overall springy object: a springy ball, cumulatively representing the human body with shoes on, falling on a hard surface (just plain hard and solid, no “springiness” to make things simpler). Let’s say the ball bounces up 2 feet. Since many elements/variables combined attribute to the ball’s “springiness”, we have no idea what is the role and share and importance of any of these variables – we see a cumulative effect. Bringing the ball to the human body context, we don’t know to what extent it’s the runner who was able to jump 2 feet up, or to what extent (if any) it’s the soles of his/her shoes :)

        Now my head also hurts – too much bouncing :)

  2. My problem is that those who criticize the claims of Adidas come mostly from the minimalist runners spectre. Brands like Newton or Altra are doing similar claims (“Run better”, remember?). My biomechanics might be so messed up that I end up injuring myself running in a pair of NB Minimus. Marketing is almost always lacking moral sense. The shoes might be ok-ish or not for different kind of runners – amongst them, some very good & fast. I hear the same mantras – “it does not promote mid-foot strike” and so on. Shoes over form, shoes over strength, shoes over mobility bla, bla – I think that this kind of biased perspectives represent the greatest possible example of how marketing is influencing us.

    • Pete Larson says:

      There is a lot of published science showing how running barefoot or in a minimal shoes affects form and forces applied during running, big difference there.
      Sent from my iPad

      • I absolutely don’t contest that, Pete. Running barefoot or in minimalist shoes is a great way to train good posture and strengthen lower leg muscles, tendons and joints. I just believe that being a sound runner (including here, amongst others, being able to land below your center of mass) is a function of your mobility, balance, muscle coordination and core strength and good form is primarily determined rather by these attributes than what shoes you wear. Shoes alone won’t improve your running technique. Improving your technique is a much deeper process than just slipping on or off a pair of shoes. If your technique is broken (due to weak core strength, muscle imbalances etc.), no shoes won’t fix that, even if this seems a seductive thought. Not to be understand that I plead here for big, bulky, heavily cushioned shoes.

        • Pete Larson says:

          I think all of those things are important, but what is most important varies from individual to individual. In some cases I think a change in footwear might be all it takes, in others it may take a lot more. It’s a big puzzle with lots of pieces, and the pieces may vary from case to case.

          —-
          Pete Larson’s Web Links:
          -My book: Tread Lightly: link to ow.ly
          -Blog: http://www.runblogger.com
          -Twitter: link to twitter.com
          -Facebook Page: link to facebook.com
          -Discussion Forum: http://www.runblogger.com/forum

        • if your form is “messed up” then you obviously need some form work to not injure yourself, all it takes is some work to strengthen yourself, that’s basically an excuse that you’re “broken” and many people are told that, and aren’t, like you

          just work at it and the transition will be easy, well, easier

          • Cody, my form might need some fine tuning and improvement, but I was not
            speaking about myself when referring to messed-up form. :) It was rather a
            general comment.

          • little late, it was directed at you, but could be for everyone with the same excuse, people are super lazy with formwork it’s ridiculous lol

  3. loved the rant
    and the trampoline comparison is interesting, didn’t think about that

    still no idea why stuff isn’t tested by people yet…as you’ve said, we’re not a steel ball

  4. I’ve also been going through my mind what this does to your body. Seems to me this is killing for your body over long runs.

  5. kamilothoris says:

    The shoe companies have been doing this schtick for years on end. They have a million always new and always exciting technologies that make us better runners. Every shoe company has them and they are all unproven and maybe untrue.

    This has nothing to do with Adidas but more with us. Even if Adidas has some evidence how suspect will it be when said evidence comes from the company who is trying to sell their product to us?

  6. I tend to agree that using a metal ball to simulate the human body is kind of silly…though it’s not that much different than a certain video that was embraced by minimalists not that long ago: link to youtube.com;-)
    Obviously, neither video is meant to be scientific. One is a tech demo used for advertisement purposes, the other is a minimalist dude having a little bit of fun. Both do a pretty terrible job of simulating real world conditions, but both are meant to provoke an emotional response more than anything (like any good advertisement). Don’t get me wrong though, I’d like to see the numbers too.

    Is it a good thing if technology helps us run faster? This whole thing does tend to remind me of Spiras banned at Boston (to this day, I still don’t know if they were actually banned) and of Flex-Foot Cheetah blades (while Pistorius’s career is no doubt finished, if they truly gave the advantage many scientists seem to believe, we WILL see another amputee at the Olympics, possibly someone like Oliveira, sooner rather than later, and next time may very well be the world beater). Should we ban them like certain swimming bodysuits, or let them revolutionize the sport like speed skates with detachable blades? And if we ban them, where do we draw the line of “this is okay and this is not?” As time goes on, athletes get faster as they learn to train better, have access to better training resources, and yes, use better equipment. Let’s face it, the same athlete will run faster in a pair of Zoom Vics on a banked track than they would in leather spikes from 1910 on a cinder track. Sure, you can say that that’s more natural than a super responsive midsole, but my plantar fascia isn’t made of stiff carbon fiber, and my feet don’t have metal spikes jutting out of them for traction.

  7. Jeff Dengate says:

    Some valid questions to be sure. When I first heard the same, I was skeptical. But I have a biomechanics lab at my disposal. So we set about trying to debunk four claims: increased energy return, improved durability, doesn’t bottom out, and resistance to temperature changes.

    I’ll point you to the March issue of Runner’s World for a summary of the results, but those claims did hold up. We found that in this case it wasn’t just marketing.

    That said, and in the case of energy return, it’s not difficult to build a system with great return. It’s called a spring. Or trampoline, as you ran on. Problem with that is that at some point that very spring gets in the way of running, it’s hard to control. Which is why we didn’t just rely on the lab tests which showed the Boost had the greatest energy return of any shoe we’d tested. We also put it on a lot of real runners–big, small, fast, slow–and had them log miles for a month. Time and again they told us that it worked for them. They noticed its bounciness, but found the shoe ran well.

    • Pete Larson says:

      Jeff,

      I appreciate what RW does, but a lot of shoes run well and what needs to be done here is physiological testing, not mechanical testing to show if there is actually a genuine performance benefit. The implicit assumption here, whether adidas states it outright or not, is that increased energy return from the midsole will enhance running economy. That can be tested, and just putting the shoe on runners and asking their opinion doesn’t do that. I could run in the shoe and say it feels bouncy and that I really like it, but I’d never make the claim that it enhances energy return while I run thereby making me more economical unless I had some actual data to back that up.

      Pete

  8. As I understand it, the durability of the Boost midsole is supposed to be super high. It was explained to me that the little energy balls are EVA and when formed in that way, tend to break down much slower. So you’ll get the same feel in the shoe after 300 miles or whatever. Talking this morning to someone wearing them, it was described as “cushy” when running easy, but when the tempo hotted up, the feel was much more responsive. That made me salivate just a bit.

    Most running shoe marketing is bordering on just plain silly these days. There’s always some good stuff–Brooks mag ads are my favorite–but most of it gives me hives.

    • Pete Larson says:

      I agree on Brooks, they usually do marketing well by focusing on fun and running happy. That’s what it’s all about. Your description of Boost sounds a lot like Brooks DNA and their whole “non-Newtonian” thing.
      Sent from my iPad

  9. Ashwyn Gray says:

    I’m so glad I wasn’t the only one pondering the claims about this shoe at odd hours. ;)
    I lost interest in the promo video as soon as I watched that ball-drop demonstration, because, as you pointed out, we run with legs and feet made of muscles and stuff. Running is not just the act of letting our limbs fall flat. I’m glad you’re the one to have posted these thoughts Pete.

  10. it reminds me of asics when they promoted Gel. I remember the demonstration with an egg falling on a plate of gel. I was like “wow, but my feet is not an egg, will it stay stuck on the gel like that ? how about energy return? “. impressive, but was it that pertinent?

  11. Benjamin Wan says:

    This post turns up 4th on my Google search for “Adidas Boost”. Good SEO Pete!

  12. Robert Osfield says:

    I really don’t see how the Addias over zealous hyped up marking is any different than all the rest of the BS that the majority of she companies. The actual technology behind using a slightly better mid-sole material is not really novel a concept, it’s what engineers are supposed to do, day in day out. It’s the over-blown marketing that this epidemic in running shoe industry is what is the problem. If the marketing works then it’ll just get perpetuated shoe release after shoe release.

    Debunking and ridiculing the marketing is well deserved. If runners mock the marketing more than the buy a shoe then slowly the marketing in the industry might change.

    I think it’s pretty likely the that engineers behind the new mid-sole will be cringing at the outlandish claims made by the marketing folks.

    As for the actual differences in behaviour of the mid-sole on the effect on the runner, I expect the difference to be pretty small. The effect of an more efficient mid-sole will simply be that when after mid-stance the force upwards from the sole will be slightly higher for a given sole thickness change, so you’ll slightly more vertical speed back once it’s fully uploaded. We are talking very small differences here. The human foot is pretty darn amazing at detecting differences in behaviour of what’s under out feet so we’ll feel this as a more bouncy feeling, but the actual difference in the reduction in energy losses will be still be small – i.e. feel great but actual effect is rather small in comparison.

    The adjustments the runner would make with a slightly more efficient mid-sole will simply be to be to ever-so slightly reducing the angles and range of motions required to generate the vertical forces, i.e. we’ll likely be able to run a little stiffer. I’d like to stress the difference is going to be pretty small, there is huge difference in range of motion of a trampoline vs a inch thick mid-sole so while we might see a some similarities in adaption of gait it’s likely to be much much much smaller.

    When testing out the material a good thing to do would be to run tests on a treadmill with the mid-sole material attached and the runner barefoot, then compare their running economy to that of when they run with no cushioning or conventional EVA on the treadmill. This test would probably need to be done with a decent period of acclimatization to each of the conditions so that any adjustments in gait due to the changes can be factored in. This test would be about testing the effect of the cushioning in isolation.

    Another crucial test would be testing the running economy with the shoe. I think we can safely say, that due to the weight of the shoe we’ll probably would have a good laugh, at Addidas expense, when comparing the economy seen with the barefoot treadmill test above.

    With reports that the shoe isn’t light, then we can pretty confident that while it’s bouncy feel might suggest efficiency in real life it’s weight is going hold it be substantially. To me the design of the shoe looks to be very much fashion orientated, not a cut down racing flat designed to maximize efficiency.

    Now if Addidas can get their head out their butts and design a decent ultra-lightweight, shoe with a decent mid-sole material, low drop, anatomical last, then I think we’ll have something really interesting to talk about. Since they fail on most counts with this shoe they I think all they deserve ridicule for dumb marketing and poor overall shoe design.

    • Pete Larson says:

      I’d like to see this shoe compared to even a 4-6oz flat, my guess is any positive benefit of cushioning is negated by the additional weight. We have established pretty well that every 3oz reduction in shoe weight leads to a 1% increase in economy. I also wonder how thick the midsole needs to be to provide a benefit. Good example is to compare the Brooks Flow to the Brooks Drift sans insole. The Flow has a bouncy feel, the Drift just feels hard. I’d assume it’s the same cushioning material, just thinner in the Drift so not as much deformation and rebound.
      Sent from my iPad

  13. Sebastian Herold says:

    I had the same considerations when I first saw the advertisement. Good thoughts on that.

  14. Soekawan Holip says:

    I am waiting to try the Boost with anticipation, and almost pre-ordered a pair (for Southeast Asia, Adidas will make 475 pairs available for pre-order. It’s been 2 weeks since the Boost-noise started blaring, and I saw that, as of today, there are 375 pairs “left”).

    I did talk with someone who has extensive knowledge about outsole materials. The conclusion is, like many have discussed here, is that “our body is way different than a marble.”

    Does anyone know the heel-to-toe (HTT) of the Boost? They seem to be quite “well-boosted” in the heel area. I usually do well with 6mm to less HTT. This brings up another “gorilla in the room” = heel-striking, which seems to be what the Boost technology is for. Nothing bad about heel striking, as articles I’ve read seem to say majority of runners (perhaps myself included) still heel-strike most of the time, regardless of how we think we are midfoot or forefoot striking “already.”

    I’m gonna throw in a serious question; would it be easier to adopt forefoot or midfoot strides, if we run barefoot IN minimalist shoes (because it would still allow our toes to “splash and splay,” within the confines of the shoes)?

    So many theories. So many possibilities. I guess that’s part of what keeps running interesting.

    http://shoesgadget.blogspot.co

  15. Melanie Poloff says:

    Excellent post! And, even if energy is returned (which makes no logical sense to me), why is that necessarily a good thing, especially if form is compromised?

  16. We have to see yet how it works on the ground,on the feet,till then it is just a half-empty hype.

  17. Nathan Matthews says:

    Great post Pete! I read the Harvard track link and have to say you are spot on. Did Adidas engineer “Boost” to be perfectly in tune with the rise and fall of the center of mass of the running person as the Harvard indoor track does? Did they actually put the right amount of “Boost” in the shoes? Not too much or too little? It seems to me that the shoe is not zero drop and I think this technology will be very dangerous to people who heel strike with their leg extended in front of their center of mass. I can see this technology working well with a zero drop shoe and a running method like Pose or another forward leaning running style.

    • Pete Larson says:

      I think that keeping in mind individual responses is very important – how this shoe works will likely depend on things like body weight, form, etc. It may have different effects on Haile than it would have on me for example.

      —-
      Pete Larson’s Web Links:
      -My book: Tread Lightly: link to ow.ly
      -Blog: http://www.runblogger.com
      -Twitter: link to twitter.com
      -Facebook Page: link to facebook.com
      -Discussion Forum: http://www.runblogger.com/forum

    • Robert Osfield says:

      A slightly different mid-sole won’t present any danger to a heel striker, all it’ll do is return slightly more energy late on stance, it won’t effect the forces on first half of stance. As a heel-striker is normally throwing away energy on landing a more efficiency mid-sole it’ll probably help them more than someone with mid-foot or forefoot gait who is already taking advantage of a gait with better energy return. The differences are still tiny though.

      As for “running method like Pose or another forward leaning running style”, we’ll I’m afraid you’ve been suckered into similar type of marketing BS as the shoe manufactures continue to spout. The ideas behind forward leaning gait are completely bogus and lead to a deterioration in running form. One should run relaxed and balanced, and adjust your lean to whatever is required to achieve balanced posture. How much and direction of lean you’ll have at any time will depend upon whether you a running into or downwind, accelerating or decelerating or just at a steady state.

      Sadly all sides of the running industry has saturated runners with so much pseudo-science, seeing what are actual facts and good advice is hard.

  18. link to ftc.gov

    Adidas next to get busted by the FTC?

  19. I am not a scientist, but can a shoe without a coil spring even make you bounce? Isn’t the foot on the ground too long for any actual bouncing to occur? I have never understood the idea that a shoe could return energy to your stride. BTW google bouncing shoes and get a good laugh.

  20. You make a great point! I tried the shoe on yesterday and whether or not it lives up to the science, it feels just like every other “premium” cushioned shoe. I hear the material will make its way to other shoes currently in their line up over the next couple of years. The upper is nice. The obviously used similar design and materials from the adiPure shoes.

  21. Dave Sabol says:

    Great post Pete! I work in marketing and the general consensus is that the only time that it matters that you don’t have facts/data to back up a claim is when you’re called on the bluff. That said, I think your post is “spot-on”. False, or at the very least misleading and possibly quite damaging to those that fall for the “marketing angle”. I hope your voice of reason (science) will, at the very least, cause Adidas to take pause and substantiate their claims or admit they can’t and rectify the issue through some real testing on the short/long-term physiological effects of the Boost.

  22. David Henry says:

    Great post. Was thinking the same thing as you with the trampoline example. More energy return is not necessarily a good thing if the body can’t absorb it and safely transfer to the running motion. Will be interesting to see what the reception is though.

  23. It seems to me there´s a trick in the video… why the boost plaque is much thicker than EVA plaque? What would happen in the video if the EVA plaque was of same thickness? I guess the result would be almost the same ;-)

    • We have also explored this issue with Pete and some other posters in the other Pete’s article on these shoes. There is a possibility that the boost plaque LOOKS thicker because it is reflected in the shiny surface underneath much better than the EVA plaque (having dark front edge etc.). So our eyes are fooled to see it twice as thick as in reality. If we look closer we may see that the boost and EVA seem similar in thickness.

    • Pete Larson says:

      Yes, the foam should have been similar in thickness. There’s also the issue that EVA can be made with varying firmness, so not all EVA is the same.

      • Samuel Hartpence says:

        I thought about this again, and they may have tested mats with similar weight instead of thickness… A decision that anyone would have to make, and I’m not sure that I’m astute enough to acertain which is more suitable for this test.

        • Similar weight could (due to potentially different DENSITY: weight per a given volume) translate into varying size – which seems irrelevant since the ball is hitting the plaqe in one small point. Therefore, equal density might possibly be of some use. As Pete mentioned: EVA comes in various types so at least this would make one parameter comparable.

  24. Pete, what is your take on Newton’s actuator lugs, which claim similar energy return “benefits”? (I’m not disparaging Newtons — I actually love running in them and have owned many, many pairs over the years, but I’ve always been a little skeptical of the claims of energy return).

    • Pete Larson says:

      I’d apply the same argument – if they market them as being able to improve performance, they need to do the appropriate testing to demonstrate the effect. If they simply market them as a different are on forefoot cushioning, I ave no problems there.

    • Angela Caprara-Kite says:

      Here is what I can say about the Adidas Energy Boost. I am running again for the first time in 4 years. I have tried every shoe is seems that claims this or that, but for me the Energy Boost is the best shoes for me and my very flat feet. And they are great for Zumba as well. I love them.

  25. Pete, have you tried them yet? I would love to see your view having run in them rather than a pointless rant when you couldn’t even be bothered to go to the launch.

    • Pete Larson says:

      Pointless?? Nice. Did you even read what I wrote? The rant was about marketing, not the shoes themselves.

      • Hi Pete, yes I did read everything you wrote. Have you tried them yet?

        • Pete Larson says:

          Nope, should have a pair soon. They are not for sale yet. And trying the shoes has no relevance to my criticism of the marketing. Also, I did not “bother” to show up to the launch be cause I don’t feel that a marketing event justifies canceling the classes I teach in order to attend.

          • As Becki Pierotti mentions below about the you tube clip. Marketing is meant to be an easy to read representation that can highlight feature of a product in a snap shot for the ‘lay man’ to understand. Not everyone has your Indepth bio mechanical insight to action and reactions of the human body. Without seeing it at the launch which is where you could have quenched your thirst for detail you made a comparison with the track which is irrelevant. A tumble track which can not compare an outsole as equally as a metal ball to the human joints. The rant about marketing and how it doesn’t represent actual science was counteracted by yourself with an equally non-scientific argument. Hence my comment. I hope you enjoy it when you get a pair.

          • Pete Larson says:

            The fact that you think the comparison to the tumble track is irrelevant tells me that you don’t understand why the marketing is a problem. Marketing is designed to sell products. Period. The ball drop video is intended to make people think that the shoe will enhance their performance. My point was that the human body is not a metal ball, and it adapts to surfaces underfoot, whether that be a tumble track or a shoe midsole. If you don’t close the loop by linking mechanical properties to actual human performance then you all you have is a fancy video that really says nothing about how the shoe will benefit human performance. I think the “layman” deserves a bit more credit than you are giving them. And science matters, I don’t like seeing it abused to sell products.
            So, I answered your question about if I have tried the shoes. I’ll ask you some. 1. Do you work for Adidas? 2. If so, do you have published data showing that the midsole improves human performance?
            Sent from my iPad

    • Pete Larson says:

      It appears you work for Adidas, hence your claim that the post was pointless…can you tell us if there is data showing a performance benefit in humans? If people are expected to pay $150 to try the shoe for themselves, they should have solid information upon which to make a purchasing decision.

Trackbacks

  1. […] was pretty hard on adidas when they first started marketing their Boost midsole material, and I still stand by what I wrote. […]

Speak Your Mind

*