Would we be running faster times if...

Woddle

Mcmillan and heart rate monitors didn't exist.
Maybe the above are indirectly causing us to put limits on ourselves.

You plug in your 5 mile time to see what pace you should set out at for your next 10km pace when maybe you could go faster.

Regarding heart rate monitors, you're racing a 5km and you see your HR creeping up to an all time high, what do you do. Slow down most likely.

Compare our times to our uncles, grandads or even mammy and we're slower, could the above be some of the reason as they didn't have these calculators or heart rate monitors to slow them down.

Just some thoughts

ecoli

Woddle wrote: »

Mcmillan and heart rate monitors didn't exist.
Maybe the above are indirectly causing us to put limits on ourselves.

You plug in your 5 mile time to see what pace you should set out at for your next 10km pace when maybe you could go faster.

Regarding heart rate monitors, you're racing a 5km and you see your HR creeping up to an all time high, what do you do. Slow down most likely.

Compare our times to our uncles, grandads or even mammy and we're slower, could the above be some of the reason as they didn't have these calculators or heart rate monitors to slow them down.

Just some thoughts

Biggest flaw with McMillan is people's interpretation of it. You run a 5k and plug in your time get a set of targets for your next race (say a 10k).

Mcmillans calculators race times are times you would be hitting if specifically training for that event therefore running a 5k race will not translate to a HM. It becomes close when the distances are closer only because the training is more suited to spefic training of each event.

Training should be done off percieved effort and feel but many have become so reliant on these gauges that they are unable to process what their body is telling them effectively

Think the 90s quality over quantity revolution is also a factor as peoples idea of high mileage has changed and only starting to come back to the high mileage way of thinking and realising if done correctly injury increase risk is not inevitable.

As Lydiard says "miles make champions"

menoscemo

I used to be like you with regards the Heart Rate. Now I wear the HR monitor but turn off the HR field on the watch. It is nice to get the HR stats after the race/run, but can only serve to worry you during it.

RacoonQueen

They'd probably be faster if we stopped wearing those ridiclously heavy shoes.

tunney

RacoonQueen wrote: »

They'd probably be faster if we stopped wearing those ridiclously heavy shoes.

And accepted that just because we look skinny compared to "non runners" doesn't mean we are lean. Just means the non runners are getting fatter.

Also could help if we were a little more critical and a little less tony the tiger.

ecoli

tunney wrote: »

Also could help if we were a little more critical and a little less tony the tiger.

Only problem with that given the mind set of the general public these days where fitness is a "lifestyle choice" rather than a part of life need to get them involved before you can go all Army drill sergeant on them.

People are like fish you need to reel them in with the "nice" bait. Once you have them in the boat then you can beat them:D

tunney

ecoli wrote: »

Only problem with that given the mind set of the general public these days where fitness is a "lifestyle choice" rather than a part of life need to get them involved before you can go all Army drill sergeant on them.

People are like fish you need to reel them in with the "nice" bait. Once you have them in the boat then you can beat them:D

This is a discussion on "running faster times". Assumption being that people involved are already running.......

ecoli

tunney wrote: »

This is a discussion on "running faster times". Assumption being that people involved are already running.......

True but given we are talking about declining standards at entry to middle pack runners I think the attitude still applies. Person running 30 miles a week (just an example) will be more likely to up their mileage to competitive levels if they are encouraged at first rather than a barrage of criticism.

Top level standards are improving and I would say for these there is no problem in terms of them taking criticism however think different approach needs to be taken for people who do it as a "hobby". We need to encourage people to a higher level of training rather than demotivate them with criticism to bridge the gap between mass particpation running and competitive running

SnappyDresser

ecoli wrote: »

Top level standards are improving and I would say for these there is no problem in terms of them taking criticism however think different approach needs to be taken for people who do it as a "hobby". We need to encourage people to a higher level of training rather than demotivate them with criticism to bridge the gap between mass particpation running and competitive running

I would not agree that top level standards are improving. They are going backwards at an alarming rate. The top guys in the 80's in say marathon running are far better than what we have now. I mean they would hammer the top guys around now.

ecoli

i008787 wrote: »

I would not agree that top level standards are improving. They are going backwards at an alarming rate. The top guys in the 80's in say marathon running are far better than what we have now. I mean they would hammer the top guys around now.

Overall yes but in the last few years we have seen a significant improvement compared to the 15 years previously

When you look at the likes of Robinson,Rooney,O Lionaird, McCarthy,Cragg, Christie,Connolly, Kenneally.

We might not be back to them levels yet but there is a steady progression over the last 3 or so years

Referring back to the quality over quantity revolution which kicked in the start of the 90s

tunney

Just wondering where you got your sunglasses ecoli?

I used to have a lovely pair of Rudy's just like them. Cannot get the same lenses for Oakleys though, lots of lenses available but none of the same hue of pink around.

Hard Worker

ecoli wrote: »

True but given we are talking about declining standards at entry to middle pack runners I think the attitude still applies. Person running 30 miles a week (just an example) will be more likely to up their mileage to competitive levels if they are encouraged at first rather than a barrage of criticism.

Top level standards are improving and I would say for these there is no problem in terms of them taking criticism however think different approach needs to be taken for people who do it as a "hobby". We need to encourage people to a higher level of training rather than demotivate them with criticism to bridge the gap between mass particpation running and competitive running

The middle distance, cross country and road racers of 30 years ago were far better than the crop we have now. The depth was also far greater.

DULLAHAN2

Hard Worker wrote: »

The middle distance, cross country and road racers of 30 years ago were far better than the crop we have now. The depth was also far greater.

Why is this? I imagine that 30 years ago there wasnt as much distractions as there is these days, When people took up running at an earlier age they kept it up. Would i be far off?

heffsarmy

I think science can make a difference when your an elite runner, with the advent off the Internet and the like, too many recreational runners get caught up in the science of running and will never push themselves to there limits, they like to run in there zones. I take alot of this information with a pinch of salt, if I had of if ran my last marathon according to McMillan I would have been 5minutes slower.

ecoli

As I said in my most recent post my reference was moreso to the last 15-20 years no doubt we are still off the standards of the 80s but we are not the only ones in terms of this. During the 90s there was a decline in running standards across most of the likes of Ireland/US/Aus/GB.
We are starting to improve though in comparison to 90s (maybe not so in middle distance but the longer definitely)

Just look to the last few years:

• 2 men under Treacy's HM record
• More sub 14 5k runs this year than in the last 10
• 2 new 4 min milers in past 12 months
• 2 sub 2.18 marathon debuts this year

Again yes it is not the 80s (admittedly too young to remember thank god:D) but it is a step in the right direction towards getting back to "the good aul days"

RacoonQueen

Hard Worker wrote: »

The middle distance, cross country and road racers of 30 years ago were far better than the crop we have now. The depth was also far greater.

DULLAHAN2 wrote: »

Why is this? I imagine that 30 years ago there wasnt as much distractions as there is these days, When people took up running at an earlier age they kept it up. Would i be far off?

I think it's the same across all sports though isn't it? When you think of 'soccer' players today, they are not the same quality as they were back in the 60's and 70's. Kids don't train the same way now that they did way back when and don't stick at it, many aren't encouraged to stick at it either because of the cost involved for their parents...

tunney

RacoonQueen wrote: »

I think it's the same across all sports though isn't it? When you think of 'soccer' players today, they are not the same quality as they were back in the 60's and 70's. Kids don't train the same way now that they did way back when and don't stick at it, many aren't encouraged to stick at it either because of the cost involved for their parents...

Very hard to have hard evidence to back to the "soccer players these days" claims. Easier with running.

Hard Worker

RacoonQueen wrote: »

I think it's the same across all sports though isn't it? When you think of 'soccer' players today, they are not the same quality as they were back in the 60's and 70's. Kids don't train the same way now that they did way back when and don't stick at it, many aren't encouraged to stick at it either because of the cost involved for their parents...

Very difficult to compare quality in football these days to 20 or 30 years ago. It would be very much a persons individual opinion. However, League of Ireland players are far fitter nowadays.
When it comes to running, just get on with it. Can't understand why anyone would wear a heart monitor while racing. In my day , when the gun went, we just raced to our limits, just trying to hang on to people or to break people.
A certain sporting body ( not athletics ) did a survey about 15 years ago to see why there was such a decline in their sport. The reason for the decline became very quickly apparent to them - the school bus. Again, in my day , when you finished school, you played in the school yard or field for a couple of hours before heading home. Nowadays, when the school bell goes, you get the hell off the school property in case you trip up while messing in the yard, and end up sueing them.

Nwm2

Woddle wrote: »

Mcmillan and heart rate monitors didn't exist.
Maybe the above are indirectly causing us to put limits on ourselves.

You plug in your 5 mile time to see what pace you should set out at for your next 10km pace when maybe you could go faster.

Regarding heart rate monitors, you're racing a 5km and you see your HR creeping up to an all time high, what do you do. Slow down most likely.

Compare our times to our uncles, grandads or even mammy and we're slower, could the above be some of the reason as they didn't have these calculators or heart rate monitors to slow them down.

Just some thoughts

Different sport, but same topic. I got a PB the one and only time I didn't watch my power meter at my local cycling time trial. Guess I was holding myself back.

PhoenixParker

I think the argument about whether Irish standards are improving or falling is a bit moot. We're not the only people with access to heart rate monitors and McMillan's running calculator and world records are tumbling all the time.

That said the Irish record books make for depressing reading in terms of dates, particularly if you look at the juniors. The presence and absence of heart rate monitors and coaching tools isn't the problem there though.

In the middle of the results tables, are people not pushing themselves enough? No idea, but there's one pattern I've been wondering about. It goes something like this - someone is about to start on an 18week training program, so they take their PB for their most recent 10k, 10M or half, look it up and base their training plan on what McMillan tells them they can do a marathon in, i.e. pick the LSR pace, the easy run pace etc. accordingly.

Now if you're training for 18 weeks, then surely you should be anticipating at least a little bit of an increase in fitness and speed over that time, especially right at the start of your training program? If you went out and did all your training runs at the suggested paces for say 15mins* quicker, shouldn't you be able to keep up with the training plan?

Or is that just a recipe for injury?

*obviously the amount faster you'd choose to go would depend on how fast you already are.

airscotty

I dont really think its got anything to do with HR monitors/internet plans etc. I'd say its just that athletics is not glamerous in Ireland. People look up2 footballers more than top runners so thats what kids wanna do.

ecoli

PhoenixParker wrote: »

That said the Irish record books make for depressing reading in terms of dates, particularly if you look at the juniors. The presence and absence of heart rate monitors and coaching tools isn't the problem there though.

Dont think this tells the full story as compare the juniors to youths which have been almost constantly re written over the past few years but I take your point we should have some even coming close to these records

PhoenixParker wrote: »

In the middle of the results tables, are people not pushing themselves enough? No idea, but there's one pattern I've been wondering about. It goes something like this - someone is about to start on an 18week training program, so they take their PB for their most recent 10k, 10M or half, look it up and base their training plan on what McMillan tells them they can do a marathon in, i.e. pick the LSR pace, the easy run pace etc. accordingly.

Now if you're training for 18 weeks, then surely you should be anticipating at least a little bit of an increase in fitness and speed over that time, especially right at the start of your training program? If you went out and did all your training runs at the suggested paces for say 15mins* quicker, shouldn't you be able to keep up with the training plan?

Or is that just a recipe for injury?

*obviously the amount faster you'd choose to go would depend on how fast you already are.

Think this is one of the contributing factors however. People see training as a seasonal thing. 18 weeks is not enough time to train for a marathon. Also the notion of "generic plans" is a newer concept while good starting point could in fact be hindering many people. Most are designed to get an athlete safely to the start line in reasonable fitness rather than getting the best fitness out of people perhaps this is one of the biggest contributing factors to the decline in standards rather than just the calculators and HRMs

In terms of your question of faster I would opt for more rather than faster most would see more benefit from this and less of an increased injury risk than increased intensity

heffsarmy

The way I see it, people are lazy and like an easy way out, we have forget what hard work is all about and are relying on a magic formula...but the only magic formula that does work, is hard training. Look at the Africans they run there ass off and that's why there dominant.

ecoli

airscotty wrote: »

I dont really think its got anything to do with HR monitors/internet plans etc. I'd say its just that athletics is not glamerous in Ireland. People look up2 footballers more than top runners so thats what kids wanna do.

Doesnt really account for continued youth records. Its more juniors and senior standards where we seem to lack these days. Youth participation and standards are not in decline so i doubt it is the media role in relation to other sports that can account for the decline in Junior and Senior standards

thirtyfoot

Heffsarmy speaks sense. Its all about the easy option. There is only one way to get faster and that is hardwork. No fancy gizmos or gadgets that can be used as an excuse. I'd say yes people would be running faster. There is a place for science of course but the only way to succeed I believe is to work hard, find out what the mistakes are and what the good parts are and then ensure you continue to do the good parts and don't make the mistakes again.

As for the less glamour theory, maybe thats the problem, maybe we have too many kids interested in kissy lips, fancy trainers and less on really getting what a sport is about.

thirstywork2

I don't think heart rate monitors or gadgets are to blame.
Alot stems from the schools spoting system,kids with sick notes and the kids would prefer to play nintendos or computers and eat rubbish.

I don't think the coaching standards are high enough,too many coaches think they know best without knocking their heads together.
More runners afraid to train in groups and alot of athletes training ont hir own which can't be good all the time.

Look at the likes of the americans now(alot based in colarado and oregon)
They are using anti gravity treadmills,ice rooms,heart rate and anything they can get their hands on and times are getting faster.

regarding road time I find most athletes running track don't want to do road and when they are doing cross country the same.
Some of the best road races aren't around anymore while more and more crap races form run by people who don't give a sh1t about the sport but want to make a few quid.

Ecoli while you are trying to put a positive spin on the currnet crop of athletes the truth is the standards aren't nearly as high.

I think Martin Fagan will break the Irish marathon record in Berlin this September.
Cragg broke the half marathon and ran one of the fastest Irish times for 5k lately.
Im also sure we can win European Junior medals this year.
On a positive note I think our sprinters are getting faster.

Pisco Sour

I have to say I find this whole 80s thing a bit of codswallop at times. Mark Carroll has run 13:03 for 5000m and 7:30 (unreal running) for 3000m, but is barely known to the Irish public. Had Carroll been around 15-20 years earlier he'd be seen as one of the greatest Irish distance runners of all time. Bit hard for the new crop of talent when they have to compete against a train of East Africans, something the guys of the 80s didnt have to worry about too much.

It was a bit like Coghlan and Kiernan criticizing Cragg in Beijing. Cragg has ran significantly faster than the legends of the 80s, but has to contend with Kenyans, Ethiopians, Tanzanians, Erithreans, and all of the above competing for Bahrain, Azerbaijan, Qatar and any other country that likes to buy success. In the 80s there were very few Africans competing.

Yes the standard overall of Irish middle and long distance running was much higher in the 80s, but people should keep the above points in mind. The competition at the top level is tougher these days.

Pisco Sour

heffsarmy wrote: »

The way I see it, people are lazy and like an easy way out, we have forget what hard work is all about and are relying on a magic formula...but the only magic formula that does work, is hard training. Look at the Africans they run there ass off and that's why there dominant.

It's part of the reason.

Living their entire lives at altitude has a lot to do with their dominance.

RacoonQueen

Hard Worker wrote: »

Very difficult to compare quality in football these days to 20 or 30 years ago. It would be very much a persons individual opinion. However, League of Ireland players are far fitter nowadays.
When it comes to running, just get on with it. Can't understand why anyone would wear a heart monitor while racing. In my day , when the gun went, we just raced to our limits, just trying to hang on to people or to break people.
A certain sporting body ( not athletics ) did a survey about 15 years ago to see why there was such a decline in their sport. The reason for the decline became very quickly apparent to them - the school bus. Again, in my day , when you finished school, you played in the school yard or field for a couple of hours before heading home. Nowadays, when the school bell goes, you get the hell off the school property in case you trip up while messing in the yard, and end up sueing them.

Well thats my point really. There is seemingly a decline in the volume of quality athletes coming through across a lot of sports, I use football as an example because I'm more familiar with it. Back in t'day (your day like I'm only a nipper :pac: ) kids would be out playing football until the sun went down, they'd play with any sort of ball, be it a tennis ball or something they made themselves out of rags. They'd always have a ball at their feet, even en route to school. Now, as you say kids aren't out playing anymore. Has athletics suffered from this as well? Are kids doing less training now in our sport than what they did then?

There's so much science behind sport now and how much kids (In fact this doesn't only apply to, young athletes but adults too) should be doing, does this contribute to the development or lack of development of young athletes? Have coaches pulled back on the amount/intensity of training they allow the younger athletes to do now that 'science' possibly says they shouldn't be training that much?

Long distance wise, is there the same emphasis now on running a 100 - 140 mile week as there was 30 years or so ago?

gerard65

RacoonQueen wrote: »

Back in t'day (your day like I'm only a nipper :pac: ) kids would be out playing football until the sun went down, they'd play with any sort of ball, be it a tennis ball or something they made themselves out of rags. They'd always have a ball at their feet, even en route to school. Now, as you say kids aren't out playing anymore. Has athletics suffered from this as well? Are kids doing less training now in our sport than what they did then?

Very true. We did'nt have playstations, computers, multichannel, 24 hr TV. We did'nt have small enclosed playgrounds, the world was a playground. During the summer we'd be out from morning till mammy called us in. We played everything, races around the block, football, tennis, you never saw a fat kid, mammy cooked all our meals, we had very little money for junk foods. Compare that to todays kids. Ever been to a shopping centre on a Saturday or Sunday afternoon, some kids can hardly walk their so fat and out of shape, one look at their parents and you'll know why.
Kids are way too mollycoddled, don't run in the playground - if they fall their parents will sue. Don't slap, just shove a burger in their mouths to shut them up.
Kids are been brought up soft, HTFU is an alien concept.

Raighne

04072511 wrote: »

It's part of the reason.

Living their entire lives at altitude has a lot to do with their dominance.

There seems to be a myriad of advantages that they hold compared to us. Another is they still grow up as children running barefoot and keep running barefoot until they get a good contract from a shoe sponsor. By this time it doesn't matter much as their running style is already ingrained.

The recent landmark study by Nick Hanson, showed that running barefoot compared to shod reduced oxygen consumption by 5.7%, lowered heart rate by 2%, reduced RPE by 7.5%. Add to this the already known studies showing that shock impact is reduced by 50%, or more, there's another substantial competitive advantage for the Africans here. This differential was less pronounced in the 50-70s because A) there were less African runners and most runners still had experience with running barefoot in their early years and several runners such as Ron Hill, Herb Elliott and Percy Cerrutty's disciples trained substantially barefoot (Elliott almost every day) even when racing in spikes and minimalist footwear subsequently. When they used shoes, they were very unforgiving ones, that would not have encouraged poor form to the degree which the shoes the later generations have grown up with have.

This is undoubtedly one of a few reasons why fewer runners today can survive the high mileage weeks of good quality aerobic running necessary to excel at the highet level before breaking down.

Pisco Sour

In middle and long distance running our performances are worse now than in the 80s. In sprinting it's the complete opposite. What goes around comes around. Maybe less people are interested in taking up distance running these days and are more drawn to the sprint events?

Lots of people here giving out about the drop in standard of middle and long distance running but very few mentioning the huge increase in depth of Irish sprinting. You cant have it every way, especially considering athletics is a minority sport in Ireland.

Does anybody have statistics of how many AAI registered athletes there are now and how many BLE registered athletes there were in the 80s?

ecoli

04072511 wrote: »

Does anybody have statistics of how many AAI registered athletes there are now and how many BLE registered athletes there were in the 80s?

Here is the recent figures:

http://www.athleticsireland.ie/content/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/month-end-registrations-per-county-31052011.pdf

Cant find anything on the BLE

Regarding the African physiological advantages i think motivation is one of the greatest factors. Many kenyans see running as a way to secure their financial future. The money in marathon running, sponsorship deals, appearances fees etc is much greater than any other avenue they can pursue

This means that unlike Western children running is not a "hobby" and one aspect of their lives - it is their lively hood, there bread winner. This sort of single mindedness is lost on youth of today with so many distractions - part time jobs, discos, tv, computers, drink,drugs etc

thirstywork2

Raighne wrote: »

There seems to be a myriad of advantages that they hold compared to us. Another is they still grow up as children running barefoot and keep running barefoot until they get a good contract from a shoe sponsor. By this time it doesn't matter much as their running style is already ingrained.

The recent landmark study by Nick Hanson, showed that running barefoot compared to shod reduced oxygen consumption by 5.7%, lowered heart rate by 2%, reduced RPE by 7.5%. Add to this the already known studies showing that shock impact is reduced by 50%, or more, there's another substantial competitive advantage for the Africans here. This differential was less pronounced in the 50-70s because A) there were less African runners and most runners still had experience with running barefoot in their early years and several runners such as Ron Hill, Herb Elliott and Percy Cerrutty's disciples trained substantially barefoot (Elliott almost every day) even when racing in spikes and minimalist footwear subsequently. When they used shoes, they were very unforgiving ones, that would not have encouraged poor form to the degree which the shoes the later generations have grown up with have.

This is undoubtedly one of a few reasons why fewer runners today can survive the high mileage weeks of good quality aerobic running necessary to excel at the highet level before breaking down.

Never read so much rubbish in my life.The difference is they train harder.Altitude is an advantage.Lets take Paul tergat for example,he didnt run barefoot or didnt run too school and home,took up running in the army.Tergat realized his talent after graduating high school.
He has such a great running form.

So what you are saying is running shoes are the reason why Irish athletes aren't running as fast as the 80's???

mark Carroll Irish record holder didnt run barefoot
Sonia didnt either and im sure john treacy didnt.....

RayCun

ecoli wrote: »

Regarding the African physiological advantages i think motivation is one of the greatest factors. Many kenyans see running as a way to secure their financial future. The money in marathon running, sponsorship deals, appearances fees etc is much greater than any other avenue they can pursue

I'd guess the training camps play a part too - training with large number of other runners, all of the same standard as you (or better), competing all the time to be picked up by agents... it's go to bring you on.

Which ties into it being their livelihood. If you tried to bring the best runners from Ireland and the UK to a single location for training... few would want to do it. The rewards offered by running are, proportionately, not as great for an Irish runner as they are for a Kenyan. There are other careers to choose, with their own rewards.

ecoli

RayCun wrote: »

I'd guess the training camps play a part too - training with large number of other runners, all of the same standard as you (or better), competing all the time to be picked up by agents... it's go to bring you on.

The training camps tie in to the lively hood thing alright. Kenyan runners mind set at these training camp "I have to be one of the best here if not I will never make a living from this" They have to run well in these camps to secure agents etc.
Compare that to people here who need to bang out fast time when they are feel they are ready. This will get them their funding etc it doesnt matter what the other runners are running as long as they hit the time needed they dont need to face off against anyone. This lack of competitive nature means our athletes become less hungry.

One observation I will make though is this year we have seen a hell of alot more people facing off in races as opposed to 'ducking and diving' each other in races and as a result lower profile races at the top level have seen an improvement compared to recent years (again not the 80s before i get my head chewed off)

Raighne

thirstywork2 wrote: »

Never read so much rubbish in my life.The difference is they train harder.Altitude is an advantage.Lets take Paul tergat for example,he didnt run barefoot or didnt run too school and home,took up running in the army.Tergat realized his talent after graduating high school.
He has such a great running form.

So what you are saying is running shoes are the reason why Irish athletes aren't running as fast as the 80's???

mark Carroll Irish record holder didnt run barefoot
Sonia didnt either and im sure john treacy didnt.....

Thanks for the eloquent reply, it matches the attention that was clearly paid to reading the post. I imagined the starting sentence of "there seems to be a myriad of factors" would have set the tone and not led to the simple conclusion that I am saying "
So what you are saying is running shoes are the reason why Irish athletes aren't running as fast as the 80's???"."

There is a variety of points being made on this thread, all more or less valid explanations to why we are a) not competing at the level we used to and b) why African athletes are moving the standard up further than we ever set the bar at, even in our hey-day. Both are problems that needs to be addressed in turn, and in that order, but that is a different debate. My post merely chipped in with one of these many factors that had not previously been mentioned in an attempt to contribute to the breadth of the discussion. Incidentally, the altitude argument stands on weaker scientific ground here than barefoot running, which again is another debate.

However, as with everything else in running, those looking for a single answer are likely to be disappointed. Aerobic development is undoubtedly the largest contributor to overall performance with everything else supplementary. But in a game of small percentages, "you have to consider everything," as Lydiard would have said. Correct training, proper nutrition, an active lifestyle, perfect biomechanics, proper peaking, and so on need to be brought together.

On the specific question of Irish athletes (which I was not trying to address) it is very possible they never ran barefoot (we could ask, but the answer wouldn't tell us anything useful). I would wager, however, that the average boy growing up in the 50s-60s walked and ran more in barefeet during their formative years than the generations that followed. This combined with other factors such as perhaps a better understanding of the training required for aerobic development, a more active lifestyle (at least in childhood) along with societal factors likely conspired to account for the difference. But eventually, it's idle speculation. We know what works and what doesn't. Science has largely confirmed what the great coaches of the 50s and 60s already knew. But not everyone applies it correctly, mainly, in my personal view, because there is too much noise out there to listen too.

As a Lydiard coach, and spend all my time working with the Lydiard Foundation and reading material from the coaches of the time, listening to old videos and reconstructing their techniques for my athletes here in the "modern era". For those who know the system, they will know that "hard work" is at the core although it is different from the way many modern Western athletes train. But although this may give most athletes 95% of what they need, all other factors need to be considered. I see that many athletes struggle with the demands of high aerobic mileage simply because of the level of deconditioning and poor form having been acquired (I myself, am the prime example among anyone I work with). As we speak I am testing and evaluating methodologies to deal with this.

It is attention to all details combined with the right hard work (to my mind the Lydiard system) that will return Western athletics to its heyday. This proved itself a hundred times over the last 40 years and will again.

thirstywork2

ok maybe i jumped down your throat a little but I don't think shoes are to blame for standards dropping.
Maybe one of the big probelms is we are spending too much time on the internet researching all the ways we can improve ourselves when its simply getting a proper structure and training programme and training hard and sensible.

Raighne

thirstywork2 wrote: »

ok maybe i jumped down your throat a little but I don't think shoes are to blame for standards dropping.
Maybe one of the big probelms is we are spending too much time on the internet researching all the ways we can improve ourselves when its simply getting a proper structure and training programme and training hard and sensible.

I'll echo that sentiment although I feel a little bit less guilty today as the DOMS for from yesterday's half-marathon has me limping around the house like a ninety-year old!

woodchopper

Maybe if all our national marathons were short then we could relive the "glory" days of the 1980s. I hear Wexford has a very fast course if anyone is interested in producing a quick time.

Hard Worker

woodchopper wrote: »

Maybe if all our national marathons were short then we could relive the "glory" days of the 1980s. I hear Wexford has a very fast course if anyone is interested in producing a quick time.

There was one suspect marathon in the 80's. The athletes taking part ran about 1 minute quicker than their usual.
Your above paragraph is giving an impression that the glory days of the 80's were because courses were short. Nothing could be further from the truth. A number of our National Champions and sub 2.16 marathon runners all ran similar times when they won races abroad. Jim McGlynn and Eamon Tierney won Glasgow Marathons. I think Tommy Hughes won Marrakesh and Dick Hooper and Roy Dooney also won marathons abroad. They are just a few. We also had John Griffin, Johnny Bolger, Kingston Mills, John O'Toole running great times. Not forgetting John Treacy and Jerry Kiernan in Los Angeles.
The above runners regularly raced against each other.
Have a look at the times from early Ballycotton 10's. I suppose they were short as well.

thirtyfoot

thirstywork2 wrote: »

Maybe one of the big probelms is we are spending too much time on the internet researching all the ways we can improve ourselves when its simply getting a proper structure and training programme and training hard and sensible.

Yes, good point. Hit the nail on the head.

T runner

Raighne wrote: »

The recent landmark study by Nick Hanson, showed that running barefoot compared to shod reduced oxygen consumption by 5.7%, lowered heart rate by 2%, reduced RPE by 7.5%..............
This is undoubtedly one of a few reasons why fewer runners today can survive the high mileage weeks of good quality aerobic running necessary to excel at the highet level before breaking down.

Hi Raighne.

Although I read your reply to thirstywork i have to take exception to the above. I cannot accept that running barefoot compared to shod reduces oxygen consumption by 5.7%. That would imply that many runners who have been running shod all their lives would smash the world marathon record if they had been brought up barefoot.

Describing such a study as landmark seems to be a little dubious too.

Remember Lydiard himself was a cobbler and developed runners with rubber under the sole for his athletes to train on asphalt. Bowerman from Nike copied this idea and the modern training shoe was born.

Lydiard also reckoned he could correct a runners form given a few weeks training with them which pours more cold water on the barefoot stats.

Raighne

T runner wrote: »

Hi Raighne.

Although I read your reply to thirstywork i have to take exception to the above. I cannot accept that running barefoot compared to shod reduces oxygen consumption by 5.7%. That would imply that many runners who have been running shod all their lives would smash the world marathon record if they had been brought up barefoot.

Describing such a study as landmark seems to be a little dubious too.

Remember Lydiard himself was a cobbler and developed runners with rubber under the sole for his athletes to train on asphalt. Bowerman from Nike copied this idea and the modern training shoe was born.

Lydiard also reckoned he could correct a runners form given a few weeks training with them which pours more cold water on the barefoot stats.

I am simply reporting the data, the study is not currently under dispute. Would it always be true? No, there's likely to be some variance from the data, as there would be in all studies of this sort, but the overall indication is clear. It must be remembered that 5.7% reduction in oxygen consumption does not equate directly to 5.7% performance improvement as there may be other constraining factors (muscular fatigue may still cause failure earlier than oxygen consumption for instance).

Also, many world class marathoners undoubtedly have running styles closer to the ideal, as Abshire points out: "Any top level runner you can name - from Deena Kastor, Ryan Hall and Kara Goucher to Paul Radcliffe, Meb Keflezighi and Haile Gebrselassie - works on drills and strength exercises to maximise their ability to run efficiently and overcome minor mechanical flaws...the point is, despite some recurring form flaws, those elite athletes have probably already done plenty to improve their mechanics to get to where they are, but to be fair, their incredible cardiovascular abilities help overcome any minor form flaws. However, for every top-tier elite runner, there are thousands of near-elite runners who don't have the cardiovascular system or mechanical efficiency to run with the lead pack" (Abshire 2010)

Other studies such as Patti Christie's (2009) showed 100% of study groups performing faster intervals in with forefoot training shoes compared to EVA foam-midsole running shoes and there are plenty more pointing in the same direction.

Remember too that both Lydiard and Bowerman started out designing shoes that were essentially as minimalist as they come Lydiard had a tendency to employ very brash statements, as many of his own proteges will confess. It was not that any were untrue, simply that the message was oftentimes simplified a bit to get the point across strongly. The Lydiard Hill Circuit emphasises a lot of drills that will help forefoot runners (as they strengthen the calf and increases achilles flexibilty) and this may well be what he referred to. He also often talked about "American Sprint Drills" such as those pioneered by Bud Winters. These would all be useful for correction and are similar to the more specific drills for Natural Running are. The Functional Movement Systems employed by many of Ireland's leading physiotherapists today is likewise very similar in objective.

Frank Shorter describes the shoes of the day: "The blown rubber was tough. You tended to wear a couple of insoles back then. You'd put an extra insole in the shoe and were careful about surfaces you ran on to some extent, but the other point is when you weigh 136 pounds, like I did, you don't need that much. It was being light on the feet that really mattered." (Shorter 2010)

In Lydiard's day heelstriking would have been a fairly small issue given the flimsiness of the shoes then. It should be noted that a close connection exists between Danny Abshire's Natural Running organisation and the Lydiard Foundation and that Lorraine Moller, the main driver, with Nobby, behind Master Run Coach, has long been a proponent of this methodology. They go hand in hand and Danny proposes an 8-week transition program in his book before you start your Lydiard schedule. I would support this for anyone with concerns about their technique or injury rate.

It was described as "landmark" in "Barefoot Running - Step by Step" so the source is obviously biased yet they are entitled to this wording given the magnitude of the improvement. Should someone manage to poke holes in the study, this would not be valid, yet no review has yet done so.

Bowerman largely become a peripheral figure in Nike product development after the 70s. This is well covered in "Bowerman and the Men of Oregon" which I recommend to anyone without hesitation.

Instead of listening to me, I'd recommend this balanced review by Science of Sport which really covers every angle:http://www.sportsscientists.com/search?updated-max=2011-06-12T18%3A34%3A00%2B02%3A00&max-results=2

..and conclude with Danny Abshire's summary which highlights why this is merits attention regardless of what the magnitude of improvement is:

"Running economy is important because it is the ultimate factor in deciding how fast you run for your relative fitness and how quickly you recover. For example, if two different people of similar physical makeup and training run for 10 minutes around a track, the runner with the better running economy -the more efficient runner-will run farther than the runner with less efficiency...it's the ultimate reason any runner should try to transition to a more natural running style." (Abshire 2010)

T runner

Raighne wrote: »

I am simply reporting the data, the study is not currently under dispute

That does not mean that the study is correct Raighne. You are using this data to claim that lack of barefoot barefoot running is a significant contributor to current poor levels of performance. You are using the data to substantiate your argumnent which is a different thing to merely "reporting" it.

No, there's likely to be some variance from the data, as there would be in all studies of this sort, but the overall indication is clear. It must be remembered that 5.7% reduction in oxygen consumption does not equate directly to 5.7% performance improvement as there may be other constraining factors (muscular fatigue may still cause failure earlier than oxygen consumption for instance).

But a 5.7% reduction in oxygen consumtion implies an inverse proportinate increase in running economy.

If Ryan Hall trained for Boston with a running economy 6% higher than it was then he would have won the race setting a World best very close to the 2 hour mark. Muscular fatigue would not be a significant limiting factor as this would be developed in tandem with being able to train faster at race pace. Anyway there would be plenty of extra oxygen the power the stronger contractions.

Also, many world class marathoners undoubtedly have running styles closer to the ideal, as Abshire points out: "Any top level runner you can name - from Deena Kastor, Ryan Hall and Kara Goucher to Paul Radcliffe, Meb Keflezighi and Haile Gebrselassie - works on drills and strength exercises to maximise their ability to run efficiently and overcome minor mechanical flaws...the point is, despite some recurring form flaws, those elite athletes have probably already done plenty to improve their mechanics to get to where they are, but to be fair, their incredible cardiovascular abilities help overcome any minor form flaws. However, for every top-tier elite runner, there are thousands of near-elite runners who don't have the cardiovascular system or mechanical efficiency to run with the lead pack" (Abshire 2010)

But your argument was that elite runners could not sustain high volumes of training due to inefiiciencies in running style from shod running. Your point above seems to prove that elite runners tend to have naturally efficient styles and can use drills to iron them out. Which implies that with drills (which all elite and near elite perform) alleged poor biomechanics due to lifelong shod running, should not be an obstacle to achieving high mileage in training without breaking down as you argue.

Other studies such as Patti Christie's (2009) showed 100% of study groups performing faster intervals in with forefoot training shoes compared to EVA foam-midsole running shoes and there are plenty more pointing in the same direction.

That makes sense as you run on your forefoot when you run at fast paces.
Racing shoes have always accounted for this i believe.

Remember too that both Lydiard and Bowerman started out designing shoes that were essentially as minimalist as they come Lydiard had a tendency to employ very brash statements, as many of his own proteges will confess. It was not that any were untrue, simply that the message was oftentimes simplified a bit to get the point across strongly. The Lydiard Hill Circuit emphasises a lot of drills that will help forefoot runners (as they strengthen the calf and increases achilles flexibilty) and this may well be what he referred to.

Lydiard referred to the fact that he stuck rubber on the bottom of his athletes trainers for asphalt training to protect them from injury. He is making the shoes less minamilist. No brash statements there.

He also often talked about "American Sprint Drills" such as those pioneered by Bud Winters. These would all be useful for correction and are similar to the more specific drills for Natural Running are. The Functional Movement Systems employed by many of Ireland's leading physiotherapists today is likewise very similar in objective.

"The recent landmark study by Nick Hanson, showed that running barefoot compared to shod reduced oxygen consumption by 5.7%, lowered heart rate by 2%, reduced RPE by 7.5%. "

I think you need to elaborate on this: Who were the test group? Were the test group elite or sub-elite. Were they runners at all? Were they allowed to perform form drills? Were the lielong abre runner group allowed to perform test drills?

Frank Shorter describes the shoes of the day: "The blown rubber was tough. You tended to wear a couple of insoles back then. You'd put an extra insole in the shoe and were careful about surfaces you ran on to some extent, but the other point is when you weigh 136 pounds, like I did, you don't need that much. It was being light on the feet that really mattered." (Shorter 2010)

He added insoles to protect his feet from the jarring of miles on asphalt training. Running light is always good. Running without protection in hard surfaces is not.

It was described as "landmark" in "Barefoot Running - Step by Step" so the source is obviously biased yet they are entitled to this wording given the magnitude of the improvement. Should someone manage to poke holes in the study, this would not be valid, yet no review has yet done so.

If you describe the study more precisely im sure youll find one or two here to poke holes in it. Again just because nobody ahs bothered to refute a study yet does not prove its correctness. You again accept the "magnitude" (5.7% reduction in areobic capacity) as fact.

..and conclude with Danny Abshire's summary which highlights why this is merits attention regardless of what the magnitude of improvement is:

"Running economy is important because it is the ultimate factor in deciding how fast you run for your relative fitness and how quickly you recover. For example, if two different people of similar physical makeup and training run for 10 minutes around a track, the runner with the better running economy -the more efficient runner-will run farther than the runner with less efficiency...it's the ultimate reason any runner should try to transition to a more natural running style." (Abshire 2010)

I think the importance of running economy is not being argued. The proposition that

The recent landmark study by Nick Hanson, showed that running barefoot compared to shod reduced oxygen consumption by 5.7%,.....

and thereby increasing running economy by around 6% is.

dna_leri

Raighne wrote: »

It was described as "landmark" in "Barefoot Running - Step by Step" so the source is obviously biased yet they are entitled to this wording given the magnitude of the improvement. Should someone manage to poke holes in the study, this would not be valid, yet no review has yet done so.

I don't doubt that there are benefits to some in running barefoot, but I do doubt if this is a "landmark study". I am not an expert in this type of study but this study consisted of 5 males and 5 females, 4 of which had previously run barefoot.

In my world this would not be statistically valid to extrapolate across the whole running population.

robinph

Woddle wrote: »

Regarding heart rate monitors, you're racing a 5km and you see your HR creeping up to an all time high, what do you do. Slow down most likely.

If your running a 5km and have the time and brain power left to look at your watch and think about changing pace then you are not running fast enough. For a marathon then yep, I'd probably be changing pace based on a combination of what the watch tells me and other things.

For a 5km it's basically a sprint though so no time for worrying about anything else.

Raighne

T runner wrote: »

That does not mean that the study is correct Raighne. You are using this data to claim that lack of barefoot barefoot running is a significant contributor to current poor levels of performance. You are using the data to substantiate your argumnent which is a different thing to merely "reporting" it.




But a 5.7% reduction in oxygen consumtion implies an inverse proportinate increase in running economy.

If Ryan Hall trained for Boston with a running economy 6% higher than it was then he would have won the race setting a World best very close to the 2 hour mark. Muscular fatigue would not be a significant limiting factor as this would be developed in tandem with being able to train faster at race pace. Anyway there would be plenty of extra oxygen the power the stronger contractions.




But your argument was that elite runners could not sustain high volumes of training due to inefiiciencies in running style from shod running. Your point above seems to prove that elite runners tend to have naturally efficient styles and can use drills to iron them out. Which implies that with drills (which all elite and near elite perform) alleged poor biomechanics due to lifelong shod running, should not be an obstacle to achieving high mileage in training without breaking down as you argue.





That makes sense as you run on your forefoot when you run at fast paces.
Racing shoes have always accounted for this i believe.



Lydiard referred to the fact that he stuck rubber on the bottom of his athletes trainers for asphalt training to protect them from injury. He is making the shoes less minamilist. No brash statements there.






"The recent landmark study by Nick Hanson, showed that running barefoot compared to shod reduced oxygen consumption by 5.7%, lowered heart rate by 2%, reduced RPE by 7.5%. "

I think you need to elaborate on this: Who were the test group? Were the test group elite or sub-elite. Were they runners at all? Were they allowed to perform form drills? Were the lielong abre runner group allowed to perform test drills?



He added insoles to protect his feet from the jarring of miles on asphalt training. Running light is always good. Running without protection in hard surfaces is not.




If you describe the study more precisely im sure youll find one or two here to poke holes in it. Again just because nobody ahs bothered to refute a study yet does not prove its correctness. You again accept the "magnitude" (5.7% reduction in areobic capacity) as fact.




I think the importance of running economy is not being argued. The proposition that

The recent landmark study by Nick Hanson, showed that running barefoot compared to shod reduced oxygen consumption by 5.7%,.....

and thereby increasing running economy by around 6% is.

I never claimed it was a significant contributor, I claimed it was one of a myriad of factors involved. 5.7% reduction of oxygen consumption does not equate to 5.7% increase in aerobic capacity. This is only true if the athlete is trained to effectively utilise the additional oxygen he could potentially take in. This depend on capillary development in the muscles in question. Anyway, for the scientists out there, the study is here and your thoughts would be welcomed: http://www.therunningclinic.ca/medias/mailinglist/2010-hanson-o2-barefoot-vs-sho.pdf T_Runner you will have to go look for the answers to your questions here for yourself and draw your own conclusions.

I accept the "magnitude suggested by the study" not "the magnitude in general". As stated in my earlier post, the actual increase may well be lower, especially on different study groups, but the fact that this (and other) study has returned significant findings makes it important enough to warrant consideration. From my point of view as long as it is statistically significant it and the protocol is robust it warrants attention.

As the quote I provided suggests, Ryan Hall has very likely already derived most of the benefits he can from natural running style so he would not be able to gain the full 5.7% (in his book he states: "I do some occasional jogging barefoot on grass... to strengthen my feet but rarely for more than 20 minutes.". To further clarify, the top-elites may well have little to gain from this, depending on their background. They are not the only group relevant to look at in order to explain an overall drop in performance. The near-elite group below them, mentioned in Abshire's quote, and the group further behind them (competitive club runners) may contain several individuals who could potentially push into elite levels with improved running economy from a natural running stride. From a coaching point of view (including mine), this would need to be an individual assessment athlete-by-athlete. From this discussions point of view, I believe there is enough evidence to support adding this to the list of factors that could make us faster again (but I will reiterate AGAIN, that searching for one single reason is likely a fruitless pursuit and you need to look at multiple factors in combination to explain the drop in the median level of performance).

Btw, to further clarify Lydiard's stance on barefoot running this was his reply to an interview with the Washington Running Post in 2005 shortly before his death:

WRR: How should a runner choose a pair of training shoes?
Lydiard: We like flexible shoes, to let your foot function. Shoes that let your foot function like you're barefoot- -they're the shoes for me, as long as they have some rubber underneath to alleviate the jarring.

Raighne

dna_leri wrote: »

I don't doubt that there are benefits to some in running barefoot, but I do doubt if this is a "landmark study". I am not an expert in this type of study but this study consisted of 5 males and 5 females, 4 of which had previously run barefoot.

In my world this would not be statistically valid to extrapolate across the whole running population.

The study was described as "landmark" because it was the first study of its kind at the time it took place, not necessarily because of its magnitude, I should probably have clarified that in the first post.

It was designed the way it was on purpose: Traditional studies had only looked at comparison between people who were not traditional barefoot runners. The researcher saw this (correctly IMO) as invalid as it was quintessential to comparing "shod running" to "bad barefooting". He wanted to see how energy-efficient a trained barefoot runner was. Both Natural Running and Barefoot - Step by Step elaborate in some detail about how running barefoot untrained is worse (in all respects) than running in modern running shoes.

This study does not exist in isolation, I recommend reading through Danny Abshire's book to get a comprehensive picture as you will find several research studies confirming an increase in running economy listed in it. If you are not into books, check out all the links on Science of Sport or just do a Google search. There's a balanced and critical review of the book here: http://www.runblogger.com/2010/12/review-of-natural-running-by-danny.html

Again, if you are passionate for or against this issue, waste no more time debating with me but go out and read the research, make up your own mind, test your theories and implement in your training what makes sense to you. My coaching group and I live by those principles. Posterity will judge us fools or wise men. As previous posters put it nicely, we have probably all misspent our time on a largely semantic debate here.

Pisco Sour

robinph wrote: »

For a 5km it's basically a sprint though so no time for worrying about anything else.

17-20 minutes of sprinting??

Have heard the 800m and mile referred to as a sprint once or twice but this is the first time I have ever heard of 5000m being described as a sprint. Says it all about the focus of this forum when a long distance event in the Olympics is considered a sprint to us :rolleyes::)

Mind you, 12:38 for 5000m is basically operating at a speed faster than most people can do one lap of the track so in that regard you could call it a sprint

Back on topic, I've only used a Garmin once and I found it helped me hugely to run faster. I cant afford one though and now that I am doing more track stuff I don't really need it.

robinph

^ It's not a sprint, but it should be going too fast to be properly messing about with changing pace. The GPS that your wearing will give you semi-useful information of what you did for the last mile that you could then decide to slow down a touch for the next one, but by then there is only one left so what was the point.

It is useful to use for a marathon or longer where what it is telling you allows you to be more conservative early on so that you make the distance. If you find yourself going off too fast in a 5km and struggling to keep up that pace, we'll you may as well just carry on as it will be over soon enough.