Jump to content
Slate Blackcurrant Watermelon Strawberry Orange Banana Apple Emerald Chocolate Marble
Slate Blackcurrant Watermelon Strawberry Orange Banana Apple Emerald Chocolate Marble

Leaderboard


Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation on 04/21/17 in all areas

  1. 1 point
    I rotate between a Mako 2 and a Mako M8. At first I found the Mako 2 a little harder to break in because of the poofy tongue. But now that the tongue is broken in, I think the Mako 2 is slightly more comfortable than the M8. Other than the tongue, there isn't a huge difference between the two models to me.
  2. 1 point
    Look at that bro on the left @IW Team - Chase
  3. 1 point
    I will let it go, but you should probably stop citing me. The point about using running as the point of reference is because it is actually the "best case scenario" on this issue. In other words, if it costs 1% more energy per 100 gram of shoe for running, it will be worse in hockey due to dynamic nature of the activity and the anaerobic nature of the metabolism involved. It may not be perceivable, but the effect will be there, and more evident in the 3rd rather than the 1st period since glycogen is exponentially depleted and the primary fuel source for the activity. SVH didn't cite his original research. Saying something is inconsequential doesn't make it so without evidence. Further, if SVH wants to comment on his original research, that is fine, but I suspect he didn't model the effects of increased weight over the course of a full hockey game. All the aforementioned being said, don't get me wrong, I have Makos and will not go back to my Tones because of the superior fit regardless of the weight. At the same time, with comparable fit, reduced weight, especially on the skate (compared to relatively static equipment on other parts of the body) will make a difference. I will also be interested in the VH skates when they are available and despite the fact I like my Makos will likely still want to give them a try. The fit on the Makos will be difficult to beat though, so, other things like weight and "comfort" will likely be important factors to consider.
  4. 1 point
    Not to belabor this point too much, but without doing any extensive calculations, we know from the running literature that for constant speed running, an additional 100 g to the weight (mass) of shoes adds approximately 1% to the Oxygen cost (O2 cost). At constant, steady state efforts, O2 cost is a good proxy and directly related to the metabolic expenditure. So, if maintaining constant speed, simply moving the boot through space would likely cost an extra 1% per 100 grams (likely more since there isn't a spring-mass component to skating like there is in running). The thing is, hockey ain't a constant, steady state effort. Hockey relies much more on anaerobic energy sources and non-constant speeds. Since anaerobic metabolism is much more costly and less efficient than aerobic metabolism, then the cost of 100 grams would be exponentially greater and impacts glycogen stores substantially more than for constant speed running. How much greater? It would take a bit of hand waving in addition to calculations. Regardless, at the top level of any sport, we know that 2 % is quite a costly difference in performance, and it is likely more than that. The difference may not be perceptible, but it is there. Anyway, I'll leave it at that at the risk of going too far afield.



×
×
  • Create New...