Comments on: My Problem With the adidas Boost Marketing Approach https://runblogger.com/2013/02/my-problem-with-adidas-boost-marketing.html Running Shoes, Gear Reviews, and Posts on the Science of the Sport Wed, 31 Jul 2019 22:37:01 +0000 hourly 1 https://wordpress.org/?v=5.7.11 By: Cloud Launch https://runblogger.com/2013/02/my-problem-with-adidas-boost-marketing.html#comment-1130986485 Wed, 31 Jul 2019 22:37:01 +0000 http://localhost/runblogger/wordpress/?p=130#comment-1130986485 I had the same considerations when I first saw the advertisement. but things got changed now as it is 2019

]]> By: adidas Adios Boost Review | stackreviews.com https://runblogger.com/2013/02/my-problem-with-adidas-boost-marketing.html#comment-1129573910 Thu, 10 Apr 2014 15:25:15 +0000 http://localhost/runblogger/wordpress/?p=130#comment-1129573910 […] was pretty hard on adidas when they first started marketing their Boost midsole material, and I still stand by what I wrote. […]

]]> By: Peter Larson https://runblogger.com/2013/02/my-problem-with-adidas-boost-marketing.html#comment-1129454200 Sat, 23 Nov 2013 21:47:00 +0000 http://localhost/runblogger/wordpress/?p=130#comment-1129454200 In reply to John.

Glad to hear it’s working for you! The Energy Boost was not a good match for me, but I’m liking the adios Boost so far.

]]> By: John https://runblogger.com/2013/02/my-problem-with-adidas-boost-marketing.html#comment-1129454166 Sat, 23 Nov 2013 17:01:55 +0000 http://localhost/runblogger/wordpress/?p=130#comment-1129454166 In reply to Pete Larson.

I have close to 500 miles on this shoe with no noticable breakdown of the midsole.I usually notice a difference about 200 to 250 miles in and quit running in a pair after about 300 miles depending on the shoe. Anything over 450 miles is paying me back on what I thought was an over priced gimic shoe. I do not notice a big difference in how my legs feel after a long run (15- 20 miles.) Other than worn tread, by todays standards I got my moneys worth!

]]> By: Pete Larson https://runblogger.com/2013/02/my-problem-with-adidas-boost-marketing.html#comment-802893569 Tue, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000 http://localhost/runblogger/wordpress/?p=130#comment-802893569 In reply to Robert Osfield.

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

]]> By: Peter M. https://runblogger.com/2013/02/my-problem-with-adidas-boost-marketing.html#comment-801261826 Tue, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000 http://localhost/runblogger/wordpress/?p=130#comment-801261826 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.

]]> By: Pete Larson https://runblogger.com/2013/02/my-problem-with-adidas-boost-marketing.html#comment-808306692 Tue, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000 http://localhost/runblogger/wordpress/?p=130#comment-808306692 In reply to Jim Moore.

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.

]]> By: Seb https://runblogger.com/2013/02/my-problem-with-adidas-boost-marketing.html#comment-799478533 Tue, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000 http://localhost/runblogger/wordpress/?p=130#comment-799478533 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.

]]> By: Pete Larson https://runblogger.com/2013/02/my-problem-with-adidas-boost-marketing.html#comment-807549191 Tue, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000 http://localhost/runblogger/wordpress/?p=130#comment-807549191 In reply to Paul D.

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.

]]> By: Pete Larson https://runblogger.com/2013/02/my-problem-with-adidas-boost-marketing.html#comment-804953358 Tue, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000 http://localhost/runblogger/wordpress/?p=130#comment-804953358 In reply to Paul D.

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

]]> By: Cody R. https://runblogger.com/2013/02/my-problem-with-adidas-boost-marketing.html#comment-799228956 Tue, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000 http://localhost/runblogger/wordpress/?p=130#comment-799228956 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

]]> By: Rayhzel https://runblogger.com/2013/02/my-problem-with-adidas-boost-marketing.html#comment-799108642 Tue, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000 http://localhost/runblogger/wordpress/?p=130#comment-799108642 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.

]]>