Finally the decision has been made to cancel the New York City Marathon. It is very unfortunate that they waited so long to make this decision. Many people will now be out money now that had already made arrangements and flew into the city. It was very apparent early this week that the race would be very difficult to still prepare for this race.
https://www.facebook.com/BoycottThe2012NycMarathon
My wife and I were given the opportunity to run in it his year and had decided not to 2 weeks ago. We made the right decision.
More than two years ago, I made a shift in my practice. People told me that I would lose patients, that my colleagues would be taking care of all the stress fractures that I would create, and that I should lose my license because I was violating the Hippocratic Oath of doing no harm.
I had made a decision to introduce a philosophy into my practice that was not only against podiatric teachings but also against the norm in the field of podiatry. The decision came after experiencing a life-altering choice to avoid shoe gear as we used to know it. Not only did I abandon my traditional running shoes, I also stopped wearing anything with a heel or any arch support.
The naysayers refer to the minimalist shoe as a fad. Many in the field of podiatry still have a hard time accepting the change but it is happening. We have seen a rise in the number of shoe companies that offer minimalist footwear from only six in 2010 to more than 60 currently.1
In a lecture on barefoot running and minimalist shoes at the APMA annual conference earlier this year, Paul Langer, DPM, noted the positive effects of improving form.2 He notes that discussing running form changes with patients is part of his treatment toolbox that includes shoe gear changes and/or arch supports.
Why I Shifted Toward The Minimalist Philosophy
Initially, I saw an influx of patients who wanted verification that they could run with minimalist gear. They inquired about the proper guidelines of transitioning to minimalist footwear. To ensure they were receiving adequate information on proper running form, my practice partnered with the Physical Therapy Center of Akron, Ohio. Here I spent ample hours educating them on this philosophy so everyone was on the same page. Fortunately, they were excited to help runners. They even had a staff member who was an elite runner and already capable of explaining and teaching proper form.
During this initial period, we saw no stress fractures in any of the runners who were transitioning to minimalist footwear. Throughout these two years, we have yet to see a fracture directly related to minimalist shoes or barefoot running. Interestingly enough, I have had three cases of stress fractures in runners who were wearing traditional running shoes.
We tell patients to support the arch, wear thick-cushioned, motion-controlled running shoes and avoid going barefoot. Does it work? Yes, when you add anti-inflammatories, stretching exercises, cortisone injections, night splints, controlled ankle motion walkers, six to 12 months of recovery and more than $1,000 of patient fees.
Instead of asking what is resolving the pain, I like to think of what is actually causing the pain. Studies demonstrated that the tissue we remove during surgery to release the plantar fascia has no inflammatory changes associated with it.3 What may be inflamed are muscular structures — the abductor hallucis, flexor digitorum brevis and abductor digiti minimi. These muscles all originate from the same point on the heel bone as the plantar fascia. They all work in conjunction to help stabilize and support the arch by controlling the flexion capability of the toes. In other words, through the action of flexing or curling the toes against the ground, the arch acquires support or strength in order to function and stabilize the foot during standing, walking and running.
Functioning in rigid or stable shoes lessens the actions of these muscles. This leads to atrophy and the muscles’ job of supporting the arch becomes compromised. With time, the muscles eventually become overused and develop a tendonitis-like situation. Tendonitis usually presents with pain when activity begins. It subsequently improves as the structures warm up only to return later in the day. This explains why patients with plantar fasciitis have pain early in the morning upon rising from bed and immediately upon standing from periods of rest. It is the muscular structures, not the plantar fascia itself, that are inflamed.
Irene Davis, PhD, PT, the Director of the Spaulding National Running Center at the Harvard Medical School, has conducted extensive research on the biomechanics and use of orthotic devices in the lower extremity. She has now changed her mindset on using orthotics as a permanent treatment for overuse lower extremity musculoskeletal injuries.4 This comes after many years of research and significant grant funding.
As Dr. Davis notes, the evolution of her thought process was a culmination of a number of things over several years, including the research she was conducting on the impact forces known as impact transients and an understanding of how these impacts were related to injury. In her research, she noted how forefoot strikers do not have impact transients and how barefoot runners naturally do not typically land on their heels. This led Dr. Davis to believe that barefoot running was a great way to encourage a natural foot strike pattern, promoting strong feet.
Along the same lines, consider flip-flops. Are flip-flops bad for our feet? Not necessarily. What is bad is functioning in them with weak foot and leg musculature. As a person functions all winter in a supportive shoe, albeit with an arch and/or heel, these muscles weaken or atrophy. An abrupt change to a flip-flop then causes these muscles to become rapidly overused. When do people make a gradual adaptation to flip-flops? Rarely. They put them on and typically wear them for a period of hours or sometimes up to an entire day. It would be comparable to not running for six months or more, and then running for several hours straight.
How I Advise Patients On Running Barefoot
I noticed a common response from runners and even patients with chronic plantar fasciitis when I introduced the minimalist concept.
“Everyone else is telling me I should be wearing arch supports, running shoes, and not to go barefoot!”
My reply: “Is it working?”
Obviously, it was not or they would not have been here for help.
How do I treat these patients with acute plantar fasciitis? I instruct them to rest the foot until the pain becomes tolerable. Then they can begin exercises for strengthening the muscle and realigning the muscle fibers. They can accomplish this by decreasing activity, wearing a cushioned running shoe temporarily and possibly an over-the-counter orthotic if necessary. The key is stressing the word temporary. Obviously, non-steroidal anti-inflammatories (NSAIDs), icing and stretching play a vital role in healing. However, the key is educating patients on what caused the condition and getting them to strengthen their feet.
If the situation is chronic in nature (greater than six months) and patients have failed other treatment with orthotics and motion control shoes, my approach differs. I will make the suggestion to begin going barefoot 20 minutes a day and gradually progressing each week. Of course, patients respond by saying all of the other physicians have advised not going barefoot. My response is to question if wearing shoes and orthotics worked for them. A more regimented program of physical therapy also helps.
There is one caveat to this treatment regimen. For those who are required to be in rigid steel toed work boots for eight to 12 hours a day, sometimes an orthotic is the only option to treat these people as they need external control. They have no ability to function adequately in such a rigid shoe.
In Conclusion
Most of my progressive treatment thus far has been on runners. I have stopped implementing foot orthotics in all of my patients who are runners. I encourage transitioning to a midfoot or forefoot strike pattern. Of course, this is not the only solution as we also discuss training patterns and workouts that could lead to overuse. For those who are not suffering from chronic injury, the goal is to teach proper running form and not focus on a change in shoe gear. We do stress the importance of how we are no longer recommending shoes based on foot type and motion control.
As we continue to see more of a shift toward focusing on encouraging natural foot movement and strength as opposed to control, a reduction in plantar fasciitis and other chronic overuse injuries is likely to occur in my opinion.
References
1. Dicharry J. Anatomy for runners: unlocking your athletic potential for health, speed and injury prevention. Skyhorse Publishing, New York, 2012, p. 135.
2. Langer PR. Barefoot running/minimalist shoes: is there truly a controversy here? National APMA Annual Scientific Meeting, Marriott Wardman Park Hotel, Washington, D.C., August 2012.
3. Lemont H, Ammirati KM, Usen N. Plantar fasciitis: a degenerative process (fasciosis) without inflammation. J Am Podiatr Med Assoc. 2003; 93(3):234-7.
4. Personal communication with Irene Davis, PhD, PT.
Originally Appeared in Podiatry Today’s online Blog at
Great read below on the misconceptions of minimalist shoes by Jim Hixson of the Feet for Life Motion Center (http://www.motioncenterstl.com/)
by Jim Hixson.
1. There is no correct way to run.
There is no perfect way to hit a forehand in tennis, or to drive a golf ball, or to kick a soccer ball, but the degree of divergence from the accepted norm in each of these activities is relatively small. When you look at runners who have excellent form, the similarities are more numerous than the differences. Good biomechanical form leads to less initial shock, shorter ground contact time, increased stride frequency, greater power output, and quicker recovery. Fortunately it is not necessary to be a top runner to have excellent biomechanics, although the converse is not true. In short, proper movement in all sports increases the enjoyment of the activity, improves performance, and reduces injury rates.
2. The longer the stride, the faster the speed.
A long stride with a high cadence and proper biomechanics will result in faster speed, but a long stride that is the result of improper form will reduce speed and efficiency. When your foot touches the ground too far in front of your body, that is, when you over-stride, you land heavily on your heel, increasing the braking effect of your foot contacting the ground. When running properly your foot should make initial contact with the ground under your center of gravity. Concentrate on running with a quick and light stride. Running hill repeats is a good way to develop this ability.
3. Humans did not evolve to run on very hard surfaces.
In fact, humans did not evolve running on soft surfaces, and certainly not on golf courses! Take a trip out west, maybe to Colorado or New Mexico and run barefoot on a trail. The surface under your feet will be just as “soft” as the ground in Tanzania, the location of the Rift Valley, and the cradle of human evolution. In fact, it is much easier to run barefoot on a smooth asphalt road than on a natural trail because the surface of the road is extremely predictable. On the other hand, if you have the luxury of living on a golf course in a temperate climate, try to run barefoot on the grass whenever possible!
4.Humans were meant to run heel-to-toe.
Watch an adult who has grown up without shoes run barefoot. He or she will make initial contact on the ground with the forefoot/midfoot, not the heel. Even when an adult who is accustomed to running heel-to-toe in conventional running shoes runs barefoot on a hard surface, they usually switch to forefoot/midfoot striking immediately. Running heel first is just not an efficient way to absorb shock or store elastic energy. Your body’s ideal initial contact with the ground is actually slightly toward the outside edge of your foot, just behind your fourth and fifth metatarsals. The foot then naturally rolls slightly inward along the transverse arch as the heel descends to touch the ground under the control of the medial and lateral arches of the foot (plantar fascia) and the posterior muscles of the lower leg (gastrocnemius, soleus, and Achilles tendon).
5. Anecdotal reports indicate that most people do strike heel first when running.
That’s true, but almost all of the reports have focused on runners wearing “traditional” running shoes. The first major study that considered runners wearing traditional shoes, minimal shoes, and going barefoot, was done by Daniel Lieberman and his team at Harvard’s Skeletal Biology Lab. As reported in Nature magazine (“Biomechanics of Foot Strike”, January 28, 2010), the study showed that running with a forefoot/midfoot strike diffuses the shock of initial contact and appears to be a more natural way to run. Two years later, Adam Daoud, along with Daniel Lieberman and four other authors from the same lab, published an article in Medicine and Science in Sports Exercise that gave the results of a longitudinal study of runners and injuries. The study clearly showed a significantly higher incidence in the frequency and severity of injuries associated with heel striking, as opposed to forefoot/midfoot striking (“Foot Strikes and Injury Rates in Runners: a Retrospective Study”, July 2012)
6. Major shoe companies have spent millions of dollars developing running shoes that improve human biomechanics.
The modern running shoe didn’t exist until the early to mid-1970s. Before that time running shoes were light and flexible and had a much lower profile than today’s shoes. The change in the shape of these shoes can be traced to Bill Bowerman, the founder of Nike, who believed that a more cushioned heel would allow a runner to run faster by lengthening his/her natural stride and contacting the ground heel first, rather than forefoot/midfoot. Unfortunately, lengthening your stride in this way alters a natural pattern of movement and reduces your speed and running efficiency. In addition to slowing a runner down, contacting the ground heel first also excessively stresses the bones, joints, muscles and tendons from the toes through the spine. While running with a proper stride, you should land quickly and lightly on your forefoot/midfoot closer under your center of gravity. Unfortunately all major shoe companies eventually copied Bowerman’s design and, until very recently, improvements to running shoes have been limited to attempts to alter a defective original design.
7. But don’t most athletic shoes have elevated heels to avoid the shock of landing?
The extra cushioning under the heel of a traditional running shoe is actually evidence that contacting the heel first in the running gait cycle is unnatural. Basketball, volleyball and tennis shoes do not have this feature; and neither do football or baseball cleats. Try running heel first while playing basketball or soccer. Running as a sport is not qualitatively different from running in a sport. Another form of running shoe is the track spike. Running heel first in a spike feels awkward, but running with a forefoot/midfoot strike in the same shoe feels natural. Supposedly spikes “make you faster”, but in reality, these shoes simply allow you to run more naturally because they’re light, flexible and have a low pitch (drop) from heel to forefoot. These features in a running shoe will always allow you to move more freely and freedom of movement enables you to run faster and more efficiently.
8.The foot and lower leg are not designed for the high impact of running.
The multiple joints of the foot along with strong flexible arches, a powerful Achilles tendon and calf muscles, and strong muscles and ligaments supporting the knee are perfect for both suspension and propulsion. Running has been an important component of human evolution, allowing us to escape immediate danger and pursue prey over long distances. Along with walking, running is a natural form of locomotion.
9.The foot needs extra support during running.
Supporting the arch leads to weakness and imbalance of the surrounding musculature. The muscles, ligaments, tendons, and fascia of the foot are no different from the same types of tissue in other parts of the body. Think of a supportive shoe as you would a splint or cast. If you remove a cast from an arm after a broken bone has healed, the muscles will be weaker and there will be a diminished range of motion in the area of the nearest joint. A stable/stiff shoe will have a similar effect on the muscles of the foot. Feet that are supported by shoes will be weaker, muscularly imbalanced and less responsive than the feet of people who are barefoot or wear minimal shoes.
10. Pronation is harmful.
Pronation is the natural inward roll of the foot as some of the impact associated with contacting the ground when you run is absorbed. Excessive pronation, which can originate from a heel-strike is harmful, but running heel first is not natural. Many so-called stability and motion control shoes have a dual density midsole, with the higher density portion on the medial side designed to prevent “over-pronation”. This feature makes the shoe more rigid than it already is and, as a result, further reduces the range of motion of the foot. Stability of shoes also leads to weakness of the muscles in the foot and ankle, creating a situation where excessive pronation is more likely.
11.Cushioned shoes are necessary in order to run without injury.
There are no studies that show that running in cushioned shoes reduces the incidence of injury. In fact, extra cushioning prevents the body from receiving essential information about the ground from the tens of thousands of sense receptors on the sole of the foot. This afferent feedback is necessary to move correctly. The information that is received arrives slower and less completely, reducing responsiveness and proprioception. Excessively padded shoes also prevent the body from experiencing the discomfort caused by bad biomechanics that would naturally encourage the body to automatically correct its movements. In addition, studies clearly show that runners who wear cushioned shoes strike the ground much harder than when they run barefoot because the cushioning prevents the body from accurately anticipating the impact of the landing. There is a direct correlation between the amount of cushioning in shoes and your ability to moderate shock. Finally, cushioning is inherently unstable, a characteristic that further reduces the amount of accurate information the body would normally receive.
12. Although shoes are supportive and cushioned, they still allow the foot to move naturally.
This statement is self-contradictory. Imagine trying to work with your hands while wearing a stiff, thick oven mitt. You would protect yourself from cuts and bruises, although these could probably have been avoided by being more attentive, but you would have less responsiveness, stability, flexibility, and strength in your hands and the movements or your entire arm would be affected.
13.Shoes should be avoided.
As a rule extremist arguments are weak. Some say shoes are always bad and others say runners should always wear shoes. The minimalist argument would be: when the opportunity is present, run barefoot to move most naturally, otherwise wear minimal shoes so your feet are allowed to receive as much information as possible and move without restriction while being protected from sharp objects and inclement weather.
14. Since running in minimalist shoes is natural, no transition from traditional shoes to minimal shoes is necessary.
As a result of wearing traditional running shoes many of us have de-conditioned feet: weak fascia, muscles, ligaments, tendons and bones. Also the strength and range of motion of the Achilles tendon and calf muscles will be reduced. Changing from wearing traditional shoes to minimal shoes is similar to an office worker suddenly switching to manual labor. A transition is necessary to improve strength, flexibility and range of motion or an early injury is likely. Wear minimal shoes as often as possible for a couple weeks and eventually a complete transition to minimal shoes will be possible. Once the body has made this adaptation, the next stage involves running for short periods of time, beginning on soft surfaces
15. Only shoes for running should be minimalist.
Much of the attention by the press has been on minimal shoes for running, but it is always advantageous to restrict the movement of the foot as little as possible. It makes no more sense to have a rigid, padded shoe with a higher heel for walking or work than it does for running and other sports.
Originally Appeared at http://naturalrunningcenter.com/2012/10/29/10-misconceptions-minimalist-shoes-natural-running/
The debate continues as to what we should be wearing on our feet when we run. The article that follows below mentions the opinions of Iain Hunter, a biomechanics researcher at Brigham Young University, and another biomechanics researcher, Rodger Kram of the University of Colorado.
Hunter used high speed photography and video to analyze the foot strike patterns of runners in the 2012 Olympic trials. According to the article, the results were “all over the place.” I examined them myself as the photos and videos are posted on line. Photos are pretty much worthless because we can get a still image of anyone with their heel striking or forefoot striking at any given point and say that they are “heel striker” or “forefoot striker”. Now on to the video. Of the 23 runners that I reviewed on the video (click to view) only four of the 23 are truly “heel striking”. Of those four, only one of them is landing on an out stretched leg with the heel striking abruptly. The other three are engaging the spring mechanism by landing with their knee bent and foot below their center of gravity. In other words, they aren’t heel striking the way a typical recreational runner would in a traditional motion control running shoe. The other 19 runners are landing with various forms of foot strikes but definitely not a heel strike by any means.
And now Dr. Hunter’s study has found that the very fastest distance runners are often heel strikers (per author Gina Kolata) Is often 17% of runners? Definition: often |ˈôf(t)ən, ˈäf-| adverb frequently; many times. I wouldn’t classify 4 runners out of 23 as frequently or many times.
The other point is that they are moving with forward momentum so they are not truly heel striking as the traditional runner does (Click to see Pete Larson’s example of a heel striker from over striding). As we can see it’s more then just how the foot strikes. Also, these runners are in minimalist shoes/racing flats so they are not relying on the thick cushioned heel as traditional running shoes utilize to absorb shock.
Lets move on to Dr. Krams study. They compared the metabolic cost of running barefoot to running in Nike Free 3.0 shoes as well as to barefoot on a cushioned treadmill with 10 and 20 mm of EVA. There findings demonstrated that there was no reduction of metabolic cost between running barefoot and running in the Nike Free shoes. Running barefoot on the 10mm EVA demonstrated a 1.91% reduction in metabolic cost while running barefoot on the 20mm EVA resulted in a 1.70% reduction. The 1.91% was considered statistically significant while the 1.70 was not. A mere 0.21% of metabolic expenditure was used to classify running in a cushioned as more metabolically efficient. They implied that given the mass of the shoe is greater then barefoot, it is more efficient metabolically due to the added weight. Even though they demonstrated no differences when compared side by side. They also had only 10 subjects. So ten subjects, 0.21%, and proper wording gives us proof that running in a cushioned shoe is more efficient. Hardly.
A second study by Kram (click for abstract) found that by running barefoot and in Nike MayFly lightweight shoes that there was no difference in VO2 max. However when adding weight to the barefoot subject to simulate the weight of the Nike MayFly the VO2 max increased proportionally. I can’t believe this can actually be published! The VO2 max is the same with shoes and barefoot, but if we simulate the weight of a shoe by strapping weights to our legs, VO2 max increases.
Despite the added mass, we predict that running in ultralightweight but cushioned shoes should be more economical than running barefoot. But it’s not, remember? You did compare it and found no change in the VO2 max!
To summarize my thoughts, the article offers no proof for the benefit of running in cushioned running shoes and in my opinion was uniquely crafted favor the naysayers of barefoot or minimalist running. There is a big difference in running barefoot and running in minimalist shoes. The goal of barefoot running is to use it as a tool to develop proper form. Traditional cushioned running shoes inhibit the ability to run with natural or proper form. And yes, one most likely can run faster in a minimalist shoe. Lace up a pair of roller blades and you’ll probably go even faster. The point is to develop proper form and utilize a minimalist shoe to assist this. Cushion, motion control, stability, and arch support are not necessary.
Myths of Running: Forefoot, Barefoot and Otherwise
By GINA KOLATA
Alex di Suvero for The New York Times- Google+
- Share
Personal Best
Gina Kolata on exercise.
It’s a topic of endless debate among runners. Is there a best way to run, so that you use the least energy and go the fastest? And does it help to run barefoot or in minimalist shoes?
Most of the scientific research is just inadequate to answer these questions, said Iain Hunter, a biomechanics researcher at Brigham Young University. Some studies have indicated that the fastest middle-distance runners — those racing between about half a mile and a mile — land on the midfoot or forefoot. But for these runners, economy — using the least amount of energy — is not an issue, because the race is so short.
When people sprint or run very fast for short distances, they naturally change stride, landing more toward the front of the foot. But that does not mean running that way is better for longer distances.
Last spring, Dr. Hunter saw an opportunity to get some data on elite distance runners and to determine if there is a particular style they favor. Do they hit the ground with the heel, midfoot or forefoot?
Because he works with USA Track & Field, Dr. Hunter was able to get onto the field during the 10,000-meter Olympic trials. He photographed the runners’ feet with a camera that records 240 images a second. These were the fastest long-distance runners in the nation; if there is a secret to their success, he hoped the camera might show it.
The results, for both the male and female athletes, were all over the place. Some landed heel first. Some landed on the midfoot. A few landed on the forefoot. Some twisted their feet inward as they struck the ground, while others kept their feet straight.
“None of these things were connected with performance, nor with running economy,” Dr. Hunter said. That is good news in a way, because studies have repeatedly shown that when people try to change their natural running style, they tend to use more energy to cover the same distance.
Another biomechanics researcher, Rodger Kram of the University of Colorado, recently tackled the second question bedeviling runners. What about barefoot running or running in minimalist shoes?
Most recreational runners strike the ground with the heel first — even many who think they are midfoot strikers. But heel striking is just too uncomfortable when people run barefoot, so they change from heel strike to midfoot strike.
Proponents say barefoot running is more natural — humans evolved to run without shoes — and economical. When you lift a shod foot, you have to lift the weight of the shoe, and that requires energy. Added to that effort is the cushioning in shoes, which absorbs energy that should go into propelling you forward.
If you must wear shoes, the argument goes, the next best thing to barefoot running is to strike the ground with the midfoot and not the heel.
But the argument that midfoot or forefoot running is most efficient for nonelite runners has not held up, Dr. Kram said. “Those who extol it overlook three studies showing it is not more efficient,” he said. Those studies showed striking midfoot or forefoot was no better and no worse than heel striking.
And now Dr. Hunter’s study has found that the very fastest distance runners are often heel strikers.
That still leaves questions about the importance of the weight of a runner’s shoes and their cushioning. In a study published this year, Dr. Kram and his students found that runners who wore very lightweight shoes were more efficient than those who ran barefoot. (The barefoot runners wore weights on their feet to mimic the weight of the shoes, so that this would not be a factor in the results.)
Runners wearing shoes used 3 to 4 percent less energy to go the same speed and distance as those running barefoot with weights on their feet. Dr. Kram wondered why — could it be the effect of the cushioning? The challenge was to separate the effect of cushioning from every other factor.
Dr. Kram figured out a way. In his next experiment, there was only one variable: the amount of cushioning for runners’ feet. All of his study subjects ran the same way, striking the ground with the midfoot. And all were experienced barefoot runners, which was important because none wore shoes for the study, to eliminate the issue of the weight of the shoe.
The subjects ran on three different surfaces while Dr. Kram and his associates measured how much energy their effort required: an old-fashioned treadmill that, unlike the modern squishy ones, had a rigid surface; the same treadmill covered with cushioning material about 10 millimeters —thick (about 3/8 inch), exactly like that used in shoes; and then covered with 20-millimeter-thick shoe-cushioning material.
It turned out that 10 millimeters of cushioning was best: The average subject used about 2 percent less energy to run at the same speed for the same distance with that cushioning, compared with running with no cushioning. There was a metabolic cost to running barefoot, and there was a cost to having too much cushioning.
Ten millimeters of cushioning is about the amount in many lightweight running shoes, Dr. Kram said.
He wants to try the experiment with heel strikers. But for now, he said, the message is clear. There is no best way to run for longer distances. And although many people think that lighter shoes are better and that it’s best to have no shoes at all, he said, “without cushioning it is not better.”
A version of this article appeared in print on 10/16/2012, on page D5 of the NewYork edition with the headline: Myths of Running: Forefoot, Barefoot and Otherwise.
When you run with proper form it makes very little difference what we have on our feet. See how Kevin ran a sub 3 hour marathon in flip flops.
Originally Appeared at: http://www.thepostgame.com/blog/pulse/201210/man-runs-246-marathon-flip-flops-runners-world
By Scott Douglas
Keith Levasseur ran Saturday’s Baltimore Marathon in 2:46:58 while wearing flip flops. Levasseur will file paperwork with the Guinness Book of World Records to have the feat acknowledged as a world record for a marathon in flip flops.
Levasseur, a member of Maryland’s Howard County Striders, ran his marathon PR of 2:38 at last year’s Marine Corps Marathon. Before the Baltimore Marathon, he said his goal was to go sub-3:00 in flip flops.
“I had every intention of sticking to the race plan of finishing a little under 3:00, so my initial pace starting out was 6:40-6:50 [per mile],” Levasseur told Runner’s World Newswire. “After a few miles, I decided I go with whatever pace I could comfortably run, even if it was faster than my target pace. I know there are some decent hills later in the race and I didn’t know how I would be doing from a time perspective at that point, so I gave myself some wiggle room by letting go on the downhills and cruising in the low 6:00’s.”
Levasseur, who placed 29th overall among 3,024 finishers, said that fellow racers as well as spectators noticed his footwear. Runners, he said, “were supportive of the effort and after a ‘you’re crazy’ comment or two, they wished me luck. I heard a number of spectators saying, ‘Hey, that’s the flip flop guy!’ as I passed.”
A little past halfway, Levasseur started to get a hot spot on the top of his right foot. (The farthest he had gone in training in flip flops was 14 miles.) “I knew that what would normally result in a blister wasn’t happening because there wasn’t any room due to the snugness of the strap,” Levasseur said. “Instead I figured it would just rub away the skin, which is what it essentially did.” (Learn how to deal with the unexpected in Top Race-Day Disasters to Avoid.)
Levasseur said that focusing on his form was key.
“I knew it was all about maintaining a very efficient and balanced stride,” he said. “There were times when my feet and ankles would get tired from maintaining a more rigid stride than I might otherwise have and I would start landing more on the outside of the my foot and cause my heel to slip off the sandal. It only happened a few times and when it did, it would refocus my concentration on my stride and posture.”
More From Runner’s World: Should You Ditch Your Running Shoes?
Levasseur said other challenges were cobblestones and railroad tracks, as well as uphills “since all the uphills were run more like stair stepping instead of fluid running.”
The rules Levasseur had worked out with Guinness for record purposes required that he cover the entire course in flip flops; if one came off, Levasseur was to go back to it, put it back on, and then resume running. “They never fell off,” Levasseur said. “There were times I would have to drive the front of my foot into the ground to re-secure the fit if they started to slide off. There were also a few times my heel would slip to the side, though they never touched the ground.”
More From Runner’s World: The Best New Running Shoes You Should Try
By the following day, Levasseur said, the balls of his feet were “quite sore,” in part because “with the minimal padding and inability to place my foot like I normally do, I had to slap the front of my foot quite a bit, especially on the downhills.” Levasseur said his ankles and quadriceps were also more sore than usual because of his altered gait.
“Many friends have asked if I’ll do it again and my answer has been a resounding ‘no,'” Levasseur said. “If someone breaks the record, I will simply congratulate them.”
Originally appeared at : http://www.markallenonline.com/maoArticles.aspx?AID=2
 Use your heart rate monitor |
During my 15 years of racing in the sport of triathlons I searched for those few golden tools that would allow me to maximize my training time and come up with the race results I envisioned. At the top of that list was heart rate training. It was and still is the single most potent tool an endurance athlete can use to set the intensity levels of workouts in a way that will allow for long-term athletic performance. Yes, there are other options like lactate testing, power output and pace, but all of these have certain shortcomings that make them less universally applicable than heart rate.
In our sport there are three key areas of fitness that you will be developing. These are speed, strength and endurance. Strength is fairly straightforward to do. Two days per week in the gym focusing on an overall body-strengthening program is what will do the trick. More time for a triathlete usually ends up giving diminished returns on any additional strength workout. These two key days are the ones that will give you the strength in your races to push a high power output on the bike, to accelerate when needed on the run and to sustain a high speed in the water.
Next are the focused workouts that will give you raw speed. This is perhaps the most well known part to anyone’s training. These are your interval or speed sessions where you focus on a approaching a maximal output or your top speed at some point in each of these key sessions. But again, developing speed in and of itself is a fairly simple process. It just requires putting the pain sensors in neutral and going for it for short periods of time. A total of 15-20 minutes each week in each sport of high intensity work is all it takes.
Now for the tougher part…the endurance. This is where heart rate training becomes king. Endurance is THE most important piece of a triathlete’s fitness. Why is it tough to develop? Simply put, it is challenging because it usually means an athlete will have to slow things down from their normal group training pace to effectively develop their aerobic engine and being guided by what is going on with your heart rate rather than your will to the champion of the daily training sessions with your training partners! It means swimming, cycling and running with the ego checked at the door. But for those patient enough to do just that, once the aerobic engine is built the speedwork will have a profound positive effect their fitness and allow for a longer-lasting improvement in performance than for those who blast away from the first day of training each year.
What is the solution to maximizing your endurance engine? It’s called a heart rate monitor.
Whether your goal is to win a race or just live a long healthy life, using a heart rate monitor is the single most valuable tool you can have in your training equipment arsenal. And using one in the way I am going to describe will not only help you shed those last few pounds, but will enable you to do it without either killing yourself in training or starving yourself at the dinner table.
I came from a swimming background, which in the 70’s and 80’s when I competed was a sport that lived by the “No Pain, No Gain” motto. My coach would give us workouts that were designed to push us to our limit every single day. I would go home dead, sleep as much as I could, then come back the next day for another round of punishing interval sets.
It was all I knew. So, when I entered the sport of triathlon in the early 1980’s, my mentality was to go as hard as I could at some point in every single workout I did. And to gauge how fast that might have to be, I looked at how fast the best triathletes were running at the end of the short distance races. Guys like Dave Scott, Scott Tinley and Scott Molina were able to hold close to 5 minute miles for their 10ks after swimming and biking!
So that’s what I did. Every run, even the slow ones, for at least one mile, I would try to get close to 5 minute pace. And it worked…sort of. I had some good races the first year or two, but I also suffered from minor injuries and was always feeling one run away from being too burned out to want to continue with my training.
Then came the heart rate monitor. A man named Phil Maffetone, who had done a lot of research with the monitors, contacted me. He had me try one out according to a very specific protocol. Phil said that I was doing too much anaerobic training, too much speed work, too many high end/high heart rate sessions. I was forcing my body into a chemistry that only burns carbohydrates for fuel by elevating my heart rate so high each time I went out and ran.
So he told me to go to the track, strap on the heart rate monitor, and keep my heart rate below 155 beats per minute. Maffetone told me that below this number that my body would be able to take in enough oxygen to burn fat as the main source of fuel for my muscle to move. I was going to develop my aerobic/fat burning system. What I discovered was a shock.
To keep my heart rate below 155 beats/minute, I had to slow my pace down to an 8:15 mile. That’s three minutes/mile SLOWER than I had been trying to hit in every single workout I did! My body just couldn’t utilize fat for fuel.
So, for the next four months, I did exclusively aerobic training keeping my heart rate at or below my maximum aerobic heart rate, using the monitor every single workout. And at the end of that period, my pace at the same heart rate of 155 beats/minute had improved by over a minute. And after nearly a year of doing mostly aerobic training, which by the way was much more comfortable and less taxing than the anaerobic style that I was used to, my pace at 155 beats/minute had improved to a blistering 5:20 mile.
That means that I was now able to burn fat for fuel efficiently enough to hold a pace that a year before was redlining my effort at a maximum heart rate of about 190. I had become an aerobic machine! On top of the speed benefit at lower heart rates, I was no longer feeling like I was ready for an injury the next run I went on, and I was feeling fresh after my workouts instead of being totally wasted from them.
So let’s figure out what heart rate will give you this kind of benefit and improvement. There is a formula that will determine your Maximum Aerobic Heart Rate, which is the maximum heart rate you can go and still burn fat as the main source of energy in your muscles. It is the heart rate that will enable you to recover day to day from your training. It’s the maximum heart rate that will help you burn those last few pounds of fat. It is the heart that will build the size of your internal engine so that you have more power to give when you do want to maximize your heart rate in a race situation.
Here is the formula:
1. Take 180
2. Subtract your age
3. Take this number and correct it by the following:
-If you do not workout, subtract another 5 beats.
-If you workout only 1-2 days a week, only subtract 2 or 3 beats.
-If you workout 3-4 times a week keep the number where it is.
-If you workout 5-6 times a week keep the number where it is.
-If you workout 7 or more times a week and have done so for over a year, add 5 beats to the number.
-If you are over about 55 years old or younger than about 25 years old, add another 5 beats to whatever number you now have.
-If you are about 20 years old or younger, add an additional 5 beats to the corrected number you now have.
You now have your maximum aerobic heart rate, which again is the maximum heart rate that you can workout at and still burn mostly fat for fuel. Now go out and do ALL of your cardiovascular training at or below this heart rate and see how your pace improves. After just a few weeks you should start to see a dramatic improvement in the speed you can go at these lower heart rates.
Over time, however, you will get the maximum benefit possible from doing just aerobic training. At that point, after several months of seeing your pace get faster at your maximum aerobic heart rate, you will begin to slow down. This is the sign that if you want to continue to improve on your speed, it is time to go back to the high end interval anaerobic training one or two days/week. So, you will have to go back to the “NO Pain, NO Gain” credo once again. But this time your body will be able to handle it. Keep at the intervals and you will see your pace improve once again for a period. But just like the aerobic training, there is a limit to the benefit you will receive from anaerobic/carbohydrate training. At that point, you will see your speed start to slow down again. And that is the signal that it is time to switch back to a strict diet of aerobic/fat burning training.
At the point of the year you are in right now, probably most of you are ready for this phase of speed work. Keep your interval sessions to around 15-30 minutes of hard high heart rate effort total. This means that if you are going to the track to do intervals do about 5k worth of speed during the entire workout. Less than that and the physiological effect is not as great. More than that and you just can’t maintain a high enough effort during the workout to maximize our benefit. You want to push your intervals, making each one a higher level of intensity and effort than the previous one. If you reach a point where you cannot maintain your form any longer, back off the effort or even call it a day. That is all your body has to give.
This is what I did to keep improving for nearly 15 years as a triathlete and it is the basis for the coaching methodology at my coaching web site markallenonline.com where since 2001 Luis Vargas and I have coached hundred of triathletes to great results. It is certainly a challenging methodology for many but the rewards are huge. I invite you to become one of our athletes. Luis and I will personally answer any questions you may have about this methodology and how to overcome many of its challenges. See you at the races.
Originally appeared at: http://therunningbug.co.uk/training/food-and-weight-loss/b/weblog/archive/2012/10/12/is-there-a-perfect-weight-for-running-fast.aspx#.UHgKHqKFY6w.twitter
There’s no escaping it, you won’t see many overweight elite runners. We knowrunning helps you lose weight, but how much weight, and what sort of weight, do you need to lose in order to run faster? And is there a perfect weight for the best running performance? Fiona Bugler finds out.
The more you train, the more likely you are to lose weight, and if you train with a plan, and an eye on your goal (ie to be a better runner) you can boost your lean muscle mass, and your VO2 max (the less weight you carry around, the more miles per gallon you get from your oxygen supplies). This means you are more efficient and can become what Rory Coleman, a Running Performance Coach, ultra runner and extreme marathoner, calls “a lean, mean, running machine.”
However, if you lose weight quickly and without getting strong, you also run the risk of lowering your muscle mass, reducing your immunity, lowering your glycogen stores and your levels of hydration – all of which will have a negative affect on your running.
Read our article on running with eating disorders to find out more.
Unfortunately, amongst runners, eating disorders such as anorexia nervosa are more common than in the general population, as they often walk a tightrope between healthy and unhealthy in the quest for faster times. Read Julie’s honest and open blog about her eating disorder.
Theories and formulas on this subject are as varied as there are runners.
Here’s just five tips on what makes the perfect running weight:
1. Serpentine coach, Frank Horwill, lists the weights of successful runners and suggests that an elite runner should be between 10 and 15 per cent lighter than the median. For a 6ft man this would be under 11 stone.
2. According to Joe Henderson, for every pound you lose you will gain around two seconds a mile. So if you lose 10lb you’ll gain 20 seconds. Running a marathon with 10lb off could take nine minutes off your time!
3. For a handy online resource where you can check out how losing weight will make you faster, have a look at the Flyer Handicap Calculator, devised by a runner and physiologist from the university of Ohio.
4. Rory Coleman runs the Marathon Des Sables (MDS) with a back-pack carrying 6.5kg extra, and so has made analyzing excess weight a fine art. “Every extra kilo (2.2lb) will add on 25 minutes to your marathon time,” he claims.
5. The perfect running weight is one that fluctuates according to your training and racing season. Many elites have a race weight and a normal weight. Coleman says his body weight varies between 78 and 84 kilos. “I allow my weight to drop enough to take into account the 6.5kilos I’ll be carrying in races such as the MDS,” he says.
Need to get in shape? Here’s how to do it safely for your best running performance:
- Include resistance training. Fat is dead weight but if you create more lean muscle you can be slim enough to run, and more efficient, too. Running-specific resistance training will boost lean muscle mass. “Try box jumps, walking lunges with weights, and core work,” suggests The Running Bug’s Personal Trainer, Matt Shore.
- Choose a diet that’s tailored for runners.
- Join a Running Bug Weightloss Group for support.
THE DAY BEFORE YOUR MARATHON:
Training: If you run at all, jog for no more than 30 minutes. Many runners like to run the day before a marathon to get any kinks out. Just take it easy, no matter how good you feel.
Mental preparation: Visualize the finish. You have made it, and you’re exhausted but triumphant as you run the final few hundred yards feeling strong and steady. See yourself raising your hands as you cross the line to the cheers of thousands of spectators.
Diet: Try to make one of today’s meals a special event with family and friends who will relax with you and share your excitement. Contrary to popular belief, what you eat today will have little effect on your marathon as long as you stick to the usual — plenty of carbohydrates and beverages. Eat dinner early so that you can get a good night’s sleep.
Equipment: Lay out everything that you plan to wear or bring to the start: racing singlet and shorts, tights and a short-or long-sleeved shirt if appropriate, mittens or gloves, hat, headband, bandanna, sweats, rainsuit, whatever you will need. Pack a separate set of warm, dry clothes for the finish. Your equipment should include your bag, running number, extra shoelaces and safety pins, bus ticket to the start, car key, beverages, containers, food for before and after, money, petroleum jelly (to prevent chafing and protect exposed areas from wind and cold), sunscreen, music tapes, a headset, and a plastic garbage bag if it’s raining.
Sleep: Marathon-related anxiety dreams such as missing the start, losing your shoes, or running the wrong course are a common occurrence. So don’t worry if you don’t sleep well. If you’re generally well-rested, one night’s poor sleep won’t hurt you.
MARATHON DAY
Diet: Wake up at least 2 hours before the start. Give yourself enough time to eat something light but high in carbohydrates. Drink water or a sports drink, stretch, and get to the starting line with time to spare.
Mental preparation: Mentally, you want to achieve a state of optimal arousal. That means that you want to be eager and excited but not crippled by nervousness. Think back to other races to recall this feeling. If you feel too keyed up, sit or lie down, close your eyes, and breathe deeply. Visualize the race or simply think peaceful, happy thoughts. On the other hand, if you’re not “up” enough, walk or jog and talk to other runners, but don’t tire yourself.
Equipment: Keep warm and comfortable until the last possible minute before the race. Many runners wear old sweats to the start and discard them just before the gun. Otherwise, standing around in the cold can cramp your muscles. Make sure to apply petroleum jelly to areas likely to chafe, such as underarms, nipples, and inner thighs. Mark your bag so that you can find it easily at the finish. During the race, lose layers if you feel too warm, or you’ll lose precious fluids through perspiration. Keep extremities covered if it’s cold.
Warmup: It’s not necessary to warm up extensively prior to a marathon, but do try to do some walking and a few minutes of jogging to loosen your legs and raise your body temperature, otherwise you could be caught cold.
Racing: Running a successful marathon is an exercise in holding back. Ideally, the hard work shouldn’t begin until 20 miles. Then your training and willpower will get you to the finish. During the race, remain calm and focused. Note your splits, and take encouragement from a steady pace early on, even if others are passing you. Break the race into segments, and work through each part rather than attack the full 26.2 miles.
Other details: Don’t eat or drink anything on the course that you haven’t tried previously in training. If you do, you may suffer digestive woes. Take water early and often. If you feel cramps or stomach upset en route, walk until the problem lessens.
Finish: When you come through the finish line, keep walking around and take on some fluids right away. Pat yourself on the back — you made it. Find your friends or family, and go celebrate.
Originally appeared at: http://innovationforendurance.msn.com/articles/detail/running/252329031
Below is an article written by Camille Herron discussing how she became an elite marathoner as she transitioned into minimalist running shoes. Camille is a 2008 and 2012 Olympic Trials qualifier and 6 time marathon winner (Dallas White Rock, Mercedes, Napa Valley, Fargo, The Woodlands, OKC Memorial).
You can read more about Camille at http://camilleherron.com
JUNE 8, 2011 BY RUNCAMILLE 16 COMMENTS
While I had already posted under my Training tab about my experience as a longtime “minimalist”, I had a few requests to do a separate blog post about it. Those who know my story, know it’s a big reason for how I went from being a 19 min. 5K, 50 mpw “hobby jogger”…. to becoming a 2:38 marathoner and putting in 120-140+ mpw the past 4-5 years. I often see people ask, “Do elites train in flats or barefoot?” Definitely, I do, and I hear of more and more of my elite running friends gravitating towards lighter shoes and some barefoot running as well. I doubt we’ll see elites racing barefoot any time soon, given their shoe sponsorships. I believe people wear what works for them, and more people of all ages and abilities are finding they like training in less shoe.
I’ve been a “minimalist” since December 2003, long before Born to Run, Nike Frees, Vibram Five Fingers, the mass media explosion, and marketing push by shoe companies. By minimalist, I’m referring to training exclusively in road flats/XC flats or barefoot. Of course, minimalism isn’t really a fad, being around for as long as humans have been on the Earth (vs. the 35-40 years for modern tennis shoes). There’s even been quite a bit of peer-reviewed research on shod vs. barefoot running (in support of going barefoot and the health benefits)– shod meaning “wearing shoes”. Going back even 10+ years, the shoe companies chose to ignore the research, stick to their pseudo-science (~this is that shoe for this or that foot type), and not contradict themselves (see: A thorn in Nikes side ).
Back when I made the decision to “go minimal”, I figured I had nothing to lose, considering I’d already seen the bottom of the barrel with so many injuries (including 7 stress fractures, 3 in my left foot). I was tired of being told I needed this or that shoe or orthotics for my supposed flat, weak feet– none of it did anything to help me stay healthy! I had never trained more than 3-4 months continuously and had pretty much given up on striving to be a competitive runner (cause I didn’t think my body could handle it). I just wanted to be able to run continuously and be pain-free.
I had read about the Africans growing up barefoot and how they have strong feet/legs and less incidence of injuries compared to shod populations (see one of the first articles I read back in 2003 ). Their domination of our sport speaks for itself! I had also noticed how the great marathoners from the 70s and 80s training in thin “plimsoles”, putting in mega-mileage and running faster than American marathoners of today.
I was taking Physics and Biomechanics around 2002-2003, and it made perfect sense that we are evolutionarily adapted to walk and run barefoot, regardless of our foot type, anatomical or biomechanical makeup, and surface. I believed our dynamic, resilient, and adaptable body is far superior to a synthetic shoe. Everything fits together, works together perfectly, and is in “equilibrium”. Shoes throw off that balance and can maladaptively change the distribution of stress (read about one of many studies here ). Even if you’ve worn shoes over a lifetime, the body is adaptable and capable of being strengthened with less or no shoe (just like what happens with training, or strength training). We really only need shoes to protect us from “modern hazards”, ~puncture wounds/infections, rather than to cushion and support (which our body innately does, much better than any shoe!). Knowing and understanding all of this, I was willing to take the risk and be my own “guinea pig”– as I called it, putting the faith back in my own body!
Back in 2003, everyone thought I was crazy to even do this, people told me I’d get hurt (really?! Worse than what I’d already been through?!), and no one wanted to listen to an average runner (despite being armed with a mass collection of PubMed research studies and anecdotal experience). I have to chuckle at how it took a mainstream book and a funkadelic shoe to finally get the shoe companies (and the public!) to change their tune! Of course, I’ve known it all along.
How I transitioned
In December 2003, I tossed out the orthotics (I’d been wearing for 4 years) and trainers and started from scratch by training in the only pair of racing flats I had at the time (Asics Tiger Paws). I eventually got some retro flats (Asics Onitsuka Ultimate 81s). My feet/ankles and lower legs were stiff and sore for the first 3 months, esp. getting out of bed in the morning. Then, one day that soreness disappeared.
When I first started, my feet would slap the ground (HARD!), overstriding with a heelstrike, and wear down the sole and midsole of the shoes quickly. I used to overpronate badly and wear down the medial side of the upper and midsole (~it would tilt inwards). I could only get around 300 miles out of a pair. Over time, my mechanics became lighter, more efficient, compact (landing more midfoot under my center of mass), and “controlled” (~strengthened the intrinsic foot and leg muscles, thus providing the “support”…. much better than any shoe!). I found I could get more mileage out of my shoes, upwards to 1500+ miles out of one pair (the limiting factor being the upper peeling off the midsole!). At the present, I change my shoes after 800-1000 miles (sole wear being the usual limiting factor, or little aches in the feet or legs). I believe flats last longer cause they force you to develop more efficient mechanics AND because there’s less material to break down and throw off your gait.
Mileage progression during the transition
I started from scratch on the mileage (was coming back from 7 weeks off with an IT band injury). I did ~10 miles per week the first month (~few miles every other day), 20 mpw the second month, and so on…. until I was up to 70 mpw after about 7 months (June-July). Not only was 70 mpw the most I’d ever run, but this was also the most consistent training I’d ever done! This consistency started to pay off in a big way, as within a year I had dropped my 5K road time from 19+ down to 17:20 and ran my first road 10K in 36:22 and 15K in 55:46. I hadn’t done quality workouts for a few years either, so once Conor started me on ~mile repeats, that helped a ton.
I’m guessing if you already have some established fitness, you could apply this concept as I did, doing “10 mpw” (of your total mileage) in flats, and over several months working up to exclusive training in flats.
Adding in the barefoot running
By March 2004 when it began to warm up, I added in barefoot running, starting with 5 min. and progressing up to 30 min. a few times a week by the summer. I would run on the smooth infield grass of a track, or go to parks with nice grass.
During this transition period, I had a severe ankle sprain training in flats (stepped in a hidden hole and “creaaaak”). If it wasn’t for the barefoot running, I wouldn’t have been able to run at all! I progressed to wearing Puma H Streets by the summer (a street version of the popular Puma Harambee track spikes), because the soft upper was compatible with my swollen ankle. I wore the Pumas for ~3 1/2 years, until I couldn’t get them anymore.
Ideally now, I would run barefoot 2-3 times a week for 20-30 min. each time (which I did when we lived near a nice grassy park in Oregon). However, this gets tricky during the wintertime in Indiana, so I only run barefoot now when the body feels like it needs it (~therapy!)– I generally do more barefoot running in the summer too. I like to do my strides and drills barefoot on grass as well, although I don’t always have this option available.
I tried running barefoot on smooth concrete one time (~4 miles)…. and developed some golf-ball-sized blisters on the balls of my feet! I’ve also run barefoot on woodchip trails– the key here was learning to relax, head to toe! I’ve walked barefoot on large gravel (can’t imagine running on that, but apparently it’s possible, see here ). It would probably take an adaptation period to thicken the skin. Being at the level I’m at right now, it’s not a risk worth taking (esp. the possibility of puncture wounds and infection). The worst things I’ve dealt with was bee stings and a puncture wound on my toe that caused me to tear my calf (and had to get an updated tetanus shot too!). I’ve stepped on all kinds of things (and even rutted ground, like when they aerate grass fields). It’s amazing cause the foot rolls over or lifts off any objects– you end up being nimble on your feet.
How long it took to fully adapt
I’d say it took about a year to fully adapt to training in flats and barefoot. The first 3 months was the toughest with the sore and stiff ankles (but never pain). The rest of my body felt good though and “in balance” (finally!). What I found was any time I felt a twinge any where (sometimes in my Achilles, or like my ankle sprain), I’d find some grass ASAP and do some barefoot running. I have cured many, many things with barefoot running– works like magic! One time I even cured a sore back from sleeping on a bad bed (for real– running barefoot seemed to align my back and make it feel better. Hallelujah!). It feels like the barefoot running shakes you out– all those little “quirks” you develop from wearing shoes.
Shoes progression over the years
I progressed to wearing Puma XC flats, then Saucony XC flats (qualified for the ’08 Olympic Trials in these, and wore them at the Trials), and eventually Brooks T5s/T6s. Although Brooks was my shoe/club sponsor for 2 1/2 years, I alternated with other company’s flats for variety and to stress the feet and legs differently. I am now sponsored by the “minimalist” shoe company, Inov-8, whom I loooooove (see the newly released Inov-8 155s to the side).
I think it’s important to rotate a variety of flats, as each shoe has it’s own idiosyncrasies. No shoe is as perfect as what exists while barefoot! This is why I think the barefoot running helps, as it shakes out those little muscle tweaks and keeps you balanced.
While I rotate a variety of flats, the shoes I wear for my main training runs is the same shoe I race in. I see this as a huge advantage, esp. the marathon, as my legs are fully adapted to my racers. It’s not a new stress to my legs and feet to go 26.2 miles in them cause that’s what I wear every day. This also helps with recovery. I like to get in a few hundred miles on my shoes before I race in them. This is kinda not good (bad Camille!), but I’ve run marathons (and won!) in a pair with 1000+ miles on them. Some shoes seem to get more comfortable the longer you wear them, and if they’re not giving you problems…. why change?! I think it’s extremely important to wear the most comfortable and broken-in pair you can for the marathon!
Surface
As I talk about under my Training tab, I prefer training on concrete. It’s predictable, has better energy returns, feels good to my legs/mechanics, and there’s less hazards to deal with than off-roads. I trained for years in trainers on grass and soft surfaces, and it didn’t help one iota with preventing injuries (esp. with all my stress fractures). Since I switched to flats 7 1/2 years ago, I’ve put in probably 80-90% of my mileage on concrete. I remember when I first did it, I was trying to run on soft surfaces, but I kept finding myself gravitating to concrete cause I noticed it felt better on my legs. I generally try to mix up the surfaces I run on to stress the legs differently, but my long runs and most of my mileage is on roads, sidewalks, and bike paths. I like hard-packed, smooth dirt and cinder too (like what you get in Colorado/Southwest USA). I don’t train on a track, but it feels good.
When we lived in Oregon and had tons of soft dirt trails at our discretion, I felt the trails made my legs sluggish, and I lost that poppiness in my legs. I don’t think one surface or another makes much difference with shoe wear either (although staying dry is a big factor for upper durability and midsole resilience). As I talked about in my post about stress fractures, there is no difference in impact force going from one surface to another, because we adjust our leg stiffness and “muscle tuning” to keep impact force the same (see FAQ on Harvard research study page ). My theory is there’s less “muscle tuning” when you’re on a flat, predictable surface, so it ends up feeling less stressful than ~off-road running.
Street Shoes
What you wear (or don’t wear) outside of running, is just as important as your running shoes. If you’re wearing high-heeled (even 1/2-1 inch), stiff dress shoes…. and then you try to train in flats…. that’s going to screw with your feet and legs (AND Achilles/calves)! Even wearing something like clogs/sandals/flipflops, with no heel support, is going to cause you to change your gait ever-so-slightly (maybe gripping toes and shifting weight forward to keep the shoes on). Thus, it’s important to be mindful of what you’re wearing, and how that compares and contrasts to your running shoes.
The past 7 years I have gone to completely wearing flat, little-to-no-heel shoes– mostly retro running shoes, some old or new road flats, dressy/casual flats, a few pairs of sandals (with heel support), and a pair of mushy flipflops. I have worn high heels no more than 5 ocassions! I try to be barefoot as much as possible when I’m at home. Consequently, since I’ve stuck with the “flats/barefoot” mantra, I never have to deal with foot or leg soreness from wearing a minimal-support shoe cause that’s what I wear all the time and am most comfortable with. Obviously, I’m not going to force my feet to wear thick mushy shoes or dress shoes cause it hurts and feels like bricks on my feet!
My thoughts on Vibram Five Fingers
I first heard about Vibram Five Finger in 2006 when they came out and decided to get a pair in Fall 2007. Back when I got them, they had ~3 different types to choose from, so I got the Classics (cinches at the heel, no strap).
Ok, so the pair I have was NOT designed and tested for running. I don’t think they feel very good on concrete, being hard rubber and ’jarring’ the ground (too much vibration? Pods on sole not suited to running mechanics?). I really think that kind of beat up my legs and feet on concrete, despite my years of experience as a minimalist– I’d prefer to have a smooth sole that has greater surface-area contact to disperse the force. I think they’re “ok” on trails– actually, I kinda like the “squishy” feeling you have with them on trails (esp. on mud, ahhh!). I’m not so sure whether it’s mechanically ‘right’ to separate the toes. Knowing what I know, I think you could adapt, but these just don’t feel right (and not like the smoothness of barefoot running). I’ve also had problems with “pressure spots” because I have to cinch them tight to stay on my feet. No, I do not need to size down either cause I originally had gotten a size smaller, but they put too much pressure on the ends of my toes. I got some toe socks from Walmart, and they feel better with socks. I thought they’d be useful for shaking out the legs and getting that ‘barefoot feel’ in the wintertime here in Indiana, but I’d rather run barefoot on indoor turf or on the golf course when there’s no snow.
I may eventually get a pair of the latest model that’s been designed and tested for running (I’ve heard they are a lot better). However, seeing that my shoe sponsor, Inov-8, is coming out with the Evoskins, I think I will choose those over VFFs!
Winter Running
During the winter, I find myself running on mostly concrete, sometimes with lots of uneven snow and slick ice. I prefer to alternate pairs of more cushioned, durable road flats to handle the wet and sometimes tricky footing. I’ll put screws in my shoes too for added grip (hence the need for a thicker cushioned shoe…. I’ll do a blog post on screw shoes next winter!). I’ve worn XC flats through a few Indiana winters, although my new Inov-8s worked fantastic last winter.
At the present
I’ve been training in road flats for 7 1/2 years now, and this is the happiest and healthiest my feet and legs have been my whole career. It felt right at the beginning, and it still feels like the right thing to do. It’s allowed me to train consistently, not deal with so many overuse injuries, and develop my aerobic fitness to a high level. My only injuries have been acute, freak accidents. I AM NOT biomechanically perfect either– I’ve had lots and lots of people tell me my stride is hideous, with not very much hip flexion or extension (a lot of this being due to anatomical makeup that can’t be changed). Whether I end up crippled…. who knows (I doubt it!)– I have no regrets for doing it and am grateful for how far it’s allowed me to go with my running. The best advice I can give to others is to do what works for you, feels right, and most importantly keeps you healthy!
Below is a great read on Aerobic training that appeared at:
http://fitnessintuition.com/2009/08/09/five-arguments-for-aerobic-running/
In recent articles, I’ve talked about the training methods of Arthur Lydiard.
The cornerstone of Lydiard-style training is three long runs, typically 10 to 15-miles on Tuesday and Thursday and 22 miles on the weekend, to be run at a medium to high aerobic pace.
Because of my recent four-month layoff due to chronic bronchitis, I’ve been unable to start my Lydiard-style training program, so I can’t write about it from personal experience. But while rooting through some older writings on my computer, I found some stuff on earlier experiments with aerobic training that I think may be worth sharing. Here goes.
–
How important is aerobic training? In his wonderful book, Running With the Legends: Training and racing insights from 21 great runners, Michael Sandrock describes how world-class marathoner Priscilla Welch prepared.
(Welch set a world master’s marathon record of 2:26:51 at age 42, in the London Marathon. She won the New York City Marathon the same year.)
Heartrate monitors can help runners properly develop their aerobic base, which Welch [Dave Welch, Priscilla’s husband and coach] considers the most important part of a training program, because it helps the body develop the capacity to burn fats.
“Most runners don’t do that properly at all, and that’s why most of us stay at one level for years on end. One of the things you can do with a heartrate monitor is program the monitor to between 70 and 80 percent of your maximum heartrate, so that it beeps at you when you go out of the range. It’s like having a coach on your arm. The way to do this is to do all your running between 70 and 80 percent of your maximum heartrate, even if it means walking up a hill.”
Welch measures progress through what he calls a “maximum aerobic pace test.”
Calculate 80 percent of your maximum. For Priscilla, that is 145 beats per minute. She’ll go down to the track and run five miles with her heartrate at a steady 145 beats per minute. And we time each mile. What you’re going to notice if you do this test every week or every 10 days or every two weeks is that you’re going to progress if you stay within the zone all the time.
Colleen Cannon, the world’s best female short-course triathlete for several years, followed Dave’s system. One summer Dave gave her a maximum aerobic pace test, which she ran at 8:23 per mile. What that meant was that Cannon was not developed aerobically, even though she was running well at the shorter distances, said [Dave] Welch. “If she had trained to do a half-marathon, she would have bonked for sure. And within 8 weeks, she was down to under 6 minutes per mile from 8:23.”
Dave Welch was saying that by training at 70-80% of max heart rate, we can improve our speed and endurance. If we train, for example, at 75% of maximum during all of our weekday runs, and a little slower on weekend long runs, then we’ll get faster, and we’ll develop endurance at the same time.
Is that cool, or what? After reading Sandrock’s book, I put on the heart-rate monitor and began doing all my runs at 75% of maximum heart rate, except for a once-a-week, 20-minute tempo run at 85-92% of maximum. (I got this figure from Daniels’ Running Formula, by physiologist and coach Jack Daniels, Ph.D.).
Sure enough, my speed slowly but steadily improved as I trained at the same, consistent 75% heart rate. Also, I found that I felt better after my runs; less tired and with an uncann sense of satisfaction, as if the body were communicating its pleasure that I was – finally! – training in harmony with nature’s laws.
Of course, it wasn’t long before I screwed it up by reading books that offered conflicting advice. In Road Racing for Serious Runners: Multispeed Training: 5K to Marathon, Pete Pfitzinger, a well-known runner, coach, and sports physiologist, suggests an aerobic training zone of 60-85% of max. And yet another author, John L. Parker, Jr., in Heart Monitor Training for the Compleat Idiot, suggests doing most runs no faster than 70% of max heart rate by the “Karvonen formula,” which, for me, works out to 78% of MHR calculated as an absolute figure. I also read Phil Maffetone’s book, Training for Endurance, and followed its recommendations rigorously for eight months, without the slightest progress. I suspect Maffetone’s ideas work best for runners who’ve already achieved a very high level of fitness, and/or are overtrained.
I’ll spare you the frustrations of my training over the next two years. Suffice it to say that the concept of a zone raises questions. “Hey, I want to improve as quickly as possible. Exactly how fast should my long and easy runs be? If the “correct” aerobic training zone is 65-80% of MHR, why not do my recovery and long runs at 80%? Surely I’ll improve quicker by training at the fastest aerobic pace. IT’S LOGICAL! Aerobic running is ‘easy’ by actual, scientific definition, so there’s no way I’ll get overtrained.”
Well, okay, but the scientific answer to that is: “Ha-ha.” When reason comes striding confidently along, reality has a way of sticking out its foot. When I tried training at “max aerobic pace,” I quickly became overtrained, and all the joy went out of my running. But when I backed off and trained at 75% again, the feelings of harmony and “rightness” returned.
In the end, I had to concede that I couldn’t plan my training precisely by logic alone. I discovered that there were other “tools” I could turn to, and that they were surprisingly precise.
–
To judge by the happy feelings I experienced while running at about 75% of my maximum heart rate, I wondered if it might not be important to listen to the messages of the heart.
Last night, I was re-reading Covert Bailey’s excellent book, Smart Exercise: Burning Fat, Getting Fit. In the chapter titled “The Aerobic Zone,” Bailey discusses the puzzling question of precisely how fast we should run within the “aerobic training zone.”
When we talk about the aerobic zone, 65-80 percent of maximum heart rate, everybody asks, “Where in the zone should I exercise?” Or, “Should my pace be a little on the easy side or a little on the hard side?” As the last chapter showed, you’ll improve most quickly by exercising at the upper end of the zone, around 80 percent. But that doesn’t work for everybody. In recent years, more and more research shows that exercising at the lower level of the aerobic zone is far more beneficial than we used to think.
The advantages of lower level exercise were first noted in older people. A study was done comparing two groups of men averaging seventy years of age. Half ran around a high school track every day at a speed that got their hearts up to 65 percent of maximum. The other half went around the track with their hearts going at about 80 percent of maximum. Both groups were tested periodically to see if they were getting fitter. Were their lungs getting better and their hearts stronger? Were the fatburning enzymes in their muscles increasing? Surprisingly, the researchers found that the men who exercised at 65 percent showed more improvement than the men who exercised at 80 percent. The reason is that at age seventy, your body doesn’t repair itself as fast as it did when you were twenty. When the men who exercised at 80 percent rested, their bodies said, “Do you want us to grow enzymes or repair tissue? We can’t do both.” They needed to rest more or to exercise at a lower level.
Wow, an Old Folks’ Zone. Well, I’m not 70, I’m only 67, and my optimal training pace appears to hover between 75% and 80%. Speaking for myself, I’d rather run at 80%, and rest more, instead of running every day at 65%, which I find is a boring, deadly slog.
How do I know the 75% to 80% range is the “best” pace? Once again, because my heart “tells” me so. At my age, these “optimal” runs must be carefully spaced, and it’s unlikely that I’ll be doing a Lydiard-style weekly 10, 15, and 22 anytime soon.
–
I think it’s uncanny, how often the “80%” figure pops up in training lore. Is it the ceiling on most people’s aerobic metabolism? I don’t know. Elite marathoners are able to run aerobically at a much higher percentage of MHR.
The 80% figure occurs in John L. Parker, Jr.’s book, mentioned above. His “70% Karvonen” aerobic training formula works out, for me, to around 78%. In practice, I find that if I’m fit and rested, that pace feels exactly right for most runs.
To calculate 70% MHR by the Karvonen formula, subtract your resting heart rate from your maximum heart rate, multiply the resulting figure by 0.7, then add your resting heart rate. For example, my max and resting heart rates are 175 and 50, so my aerobic ceiling is 175-50 = 125 X .7 = 87.5 + 50 = 137.5, or about 78.6% of my max heart rate, as a simple percentage of MHR.
Being a typical running maniac, I chose to train as close as possible to Parker’s maximum recommended “recovery pace” of 137 beats per minute, or about 78-79% of my MHR. After all, this is well under Pfitzinger’s 85% ceiling. As a 60-year-old, I was training just three days a week and hiking or weight training on three other days — so surely I’d be safe doing “moderate” aerobic running. Alas, the result of this logical, scientifically documented, slyly clever approach was that I stopped improving.
All I can say is: “Thank God for Covert Bailey.” Who is Covert Bailey? He’s yet another exercise physiologist. (They breed like rabbits.) In his books and lectures, Bailey speaks mainly to “ordinary” people, and he does a fine job of describing – and ridiculing – “serious” runners’ manic compulsion to overtrain. Best of all, he suggests common-sense ways to avoid the overtraining syndrome.
Bailey explains overtraining in simple terms. The body says: “I can burn or I can build, but I can’t do both at the same time.” In other words, if you train too hard, long, or often, the body gets behind in its “homework” of rebuilding, and you stop improving. Given the choice between health and fitness, the body always chooses health – every time.
When you train too hard, you feel crabby and the body expresses its discontent by giving you diarrhea, bone-deep weariness, sniffles, and insomnia. It’s telling you – loudly – to back off. Wise runners hear the message.
I had felt extremely good initially while running at 138 beats, and these feelings of well-being tempted me to increase my mileage too fast. Even after I began to feel less than good, I rationalized that I could “tough it out” while my body adapted to the new workload. I wanted to be a high-mileage runner and enjoy racing success! But in the end, I failed to improve, got injured, and became a low-mileage runner with no option to race.
Remembering my initial successes with the heart monitor, I recalled that I’d made excellent progress running at a steady 75% of max heart rate. I now decided to run at 75% max. Once again, I found myself finishing my runs with that uncanny feeling of rightness, as if my body were expressing its delight: “Yes! Now you’re training right!” My average training speed slowly began to rise.
The problem with making a fetish of scientific precision is that training simply isn’t precise. The best scientific training is the least precise. Take John L. Parker, Jr.’s recommendation to train no faster than 70% of MHR per Karvonen. It’s scientific because it simply works – Parker has the evidence of hundreds of success stories to prove it. Something that Parker’s followers routinely experienced is that as their aerobic metabolism developed, speedwork got much harder, because it took running much faster to raise their heart rate to the desired heart rate.
When I came to my senses and stopped letting logic (and emotion and machismo) lead me around by the nose, I realized – well, duh – that 75% to 80% was my best training pace.
–
I failed to improve by training near the theoretical maximum aerobic training pace, 80% of MHR. So I decided to do my 20-milers slower, at 75%. On these runs, I carefully monitored my heart rate and found that when I ran even a tiny bit faster than 75% (just 1-3 beats more), I felt a decrease in the uncanny sense of “rightness” and harmony, and I finished my runs feeling a sliver too tired.
The heart monitor tells me when my body is tired. When I’m overtrained or fatigued, my heart rate is faster at a given pace than when I’m fit and rested. When this happens, warning bells go off. The too-fast pace simply feels wrong.
These days, I monitor my heart rate and feelings during the first miles of a run. If running feels like dreary, joyless work, I pack it in or run slower or shorter. I’ve realized that nothing is ever gained by pushing a tired body.
Training is individual. Think about it. The ultimate sports training guidebook is You.
If sports teaches us anything, it’s that the mind and heart, when overheated, can be brutally wrong. “Hey, Peter Mundle ran a 2:35 marathon a week before he turned 40. I’m 39. If I train as hard as Peter did, I can run 2:35!” “Wow, Bob Deines swore by long, slow training. He set a US 50-mile record and finished sixth at Boston. If I run 115 miles per week at 8:00 pace, I can be a champion, too!”
Well. Peter Mundle ran a 4:26 mile at age 40. And Deines’s mile PR was 4:16.1. Both runners had excellent basic speed. Deines described his notion of a “long, slow training run” thus:
“Most of my [daily] runs are about 15 miles in two hours – 8-minute pace or a little under. We cover a fair amount of hills…. On Sunday, I like to get in a longer run, up to three hours, covering up to 24 miles.”
If you covet results like Deines’s, ask yourself: Can you run 15 miles a day, year in, year out, and 24 miles on Sundays, at a bit under 8-minute pace, and race 5Ks and 10Ks frequently? (In an ideal week, Deines ran 114 miles at sub-8:00 pace.)
There’s more than one flavor of aerobic training. If you do most running at just 65% of your maximum heart rate, a speed that most sports physiologists would call “recovery pace,” you’re unlikely to experience noticeable improvement in your racing speed, unless you’re running tremendous mileage and racing short distances often.
The racing results of runners like Deines prove that you can get faster by:
Doing the vast majority of your running at 75-80% of max heart rate
Running high mileage. If you can’t run high mileage, you may be able to improve by, at the very least, running 20 miles or longer at a medium to high aerobic pace once a week, or every other week.
Racing short distances frequently – e.g., a 5K or 10K 1-2 times per month.
Choosing your parents. It doesn’t hurt to have good basic speed.
I haven’t proved these ideas personally, and probably won’t in this life. But I may be able to improve my racing speed by training as Parker, Lydiard, and other aerobic-training gurus advised. By training at a high aerobic pace, I expect my speed will gradually rise at the same heart rate. Perhaps in three years, at 70, I’ll be zooming along at … gosh, 6 minutes per mile. I’ll let you know. Please, have respect – stop laughing.
There are two aerobic paces. First, there’s a slower aerobic training pace that doesn’t improve speed but aids recovery and endurance. Second, there’s a medium to high aerobic pace that improves aerobic systems metabolism, speed, and endurance. Lydiard recommended doing three runs per week at the high aerobic pace, and filling in on the other days at the low pace to build mileage.
–
The science of running—”the books”–can give us general guidelines, but they can’t give us precision. Precision comes by jumping off the pier and learning to swim – starting with a plan that calm reason and feeling tells us is worth exploring, and refining it as we find out what our bodies can handle. Lydiard believed that very talented runners could increase their mileage quickly by training as he recommended. But he insisted that they honor their individual differences. A hallmark of Lydiard-style training is that it aims at long-term results: years of gradual development, with two Lydiard-style training cycles per year.
In the end, we really are thrown back on “listening to our own bodies.” The question is: How can we best hear what the body is saying?
Have you ever had a run that felt “just right?” Did you wish that you could recreate that feeling every time? It’s possible, and aerobic metabolism holds the key.
Those “just-right” runs happen when we run “well within ourselves,” at a medium to high aerobic pace, and when we adjust our pace and distance to what our bodies can handle during each run.
There are excellent, scientific (that is, experiential) reasons why runners who develop their aerobic systems are (a) happier, and (b) more apt to achieve racing success. Throughout books by and about Arthur Lydiard, a constant theme is how much his Olympic and world champions enjoyed their training.
Dr. Nick's Running Blog 
