Would we be running faster times if...

Pisco Sour · 27-06-2011 01:41PM

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 · 27-06-2011 02:22PM

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 · 27-06-2011 02:23PM

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 · 27-06-2011 02:43PM

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 · 27-06-2011 02:52PM

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 · 27-06-2011 03:45PM

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 · 27-06-2011 10:11PM

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 · 27-06-2011 10:31PM

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 · 27-06-2011 11:27PM

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 · 28-06-2011 12:27AM

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 · 28-06-2011 10:41AM

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 · 28-06-2011 11:43AM

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 · 28-06-2011 12:45PM

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 · 28-06-2011 01:44PM

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 · 28-06-2011 01:58PM

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 · 28-06-2011 02:02PM

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 · 28-06-2011 02:02PM

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 · 28-06-2011 02:11PM

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 · 28-06-2011 02:17PM

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 · 28-06-2011 02:26PM

^ 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.

Pisco Sour · 28-06-2011 02:29PM

robinph wrote: »

^ 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.

Can you set the garmin to pace per Km? Probably would make more sense in a 5k race than using the mile function.

RayCun · 28-06-2011 02:31PM

04072511 wrote: »

Can you set the garmin to pace per Km? Probably would make more sense in a 5k race than using the mile function.

Yeah, but the point remains. In a marathon, or another long distance race, if you find out in the first 10/20 minutes that you're going too fast/working too hard you can slow yourself down and benefit towards the end.
In a 5k, if you find out you're going too fast you might as well just plow on and blow up in style!:D

jeffontour · 28-06-2011 02:37PM

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.

I agree with this in that I think most people use Mcmillan in the way described. I've changed focus in the past year from running for the craic to running with more aggressive targets in mind. What I have used McMillan for is at the beginning of the year I stuck my target marathon time into the calculator and pinned the predicted times for runs to marathon distance up on my corner of hell here in work. I use the predicted times to estimate how I am against my marathon target. If I had put my previous best 10k time in and trained for a marathon based on that I'd be running a lot slower than I am at the mo.

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.

I also did pay too much attention to HR in races. Now that I have started racing to more aggressive targets I run on feel moreso and look at the HR figures after(and as in the case of after the Dunshaughlin 10K get a shock).

So I think yes, there is a lot of the technology/science that detracts from our pace now. I've come along a lot in the past 6 months purely by gradually increasing my mileage, training consistently and watching the booze intake. I will do this for another month or so and think I will then have done all I can with this approach before I have to move on to incorporating some speedwork(puke!) into my training.

As someone else has already said, less time looking online for a get quick in ten weeks plan and more time building a running base would improve the majority of the ART readers.

Oh and by the way I do love the sports science etc. as well, but I believe you need to be training consistently at a comfortable level before immersing yourself in that world.

shels4ever · 28-06-2011 02:38PM

RayCun wrote: »

Yeah, but the point remains. In a marathon, or another long distance race, if you find out in the first 10/20 minutes that you're going too fast/working too hard you can slow yourself down and benefit towards the end.
In a 5k, if you find out you're going too fast you might as well just plow on and blow up in style!:D

Thats why people who race 5k and shorter will do lots of reps over shorter distance to learn the effort level that they tend to race at, same for a marathon with longer marathon paced runs , garmin is a great aid but what happens if the signals go down on race day , would we all go of like the clappers in the wrong directions

ala monthy python we should able be capable of knowing your race pace/effort level without these tools.

dna_leri · 28-06-2011 03:43PM

Raighne wrote: »

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.

I do still have an open mind on the benefits of barefoot running both for myself and all runners. I agree that runblogger.com & scienceofsport.com (also scienceof running.com) are good neutral sources of information on this subject, however I would also recommend reading the original studies. I don't think its a matter of being passionate for or against this issue but dispassionately judging what is best for each individual and what is best for one may not be best for all.

In fact this is the biggest concern I have with the barefoot running industry, that like the shoe industry they assume their solution is also best for everyone. I see that same "one size fits all" approach in your comment.

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.

I also think you picked a poor study to quote from and in fact you misrepresented the writer. He did not "want to see how energy-efficient a trained barefoot runner was". In fact the writer makes the following comment in the summary discussion:

This study may have been limited because barefoot running was novel to 6 of the 10 runners in the study.

and

Future research on this topic could be done on runners who have habituated themselves to barefoot running.

Here a link to the actual study in case you want to read it instead of just a second hand review of it. There are studies that focus on habitually barefoot runners, in particular Lieberman et al (2010) but Hanson's is not one of them.

T runner · 28-06-2011 03:43PM

Raighne wrote: »

I never claimed it was a significant contributor, I claimed it was one of a myriad of factors involved.

Raighne wrote: »

There seems to be a myriad of advantages that they hold compared to us...............there's another substantial competitive advantage for the Africans here.

You did claim it was one of a myriad of advantages. However, you alos described this advantage as a "substantial competitive" advantage. We must assume that a substantial competitive advantage has significance.

Raighne wrote: »

5.7% reduction of oxygen consumption does not equate to 5.7% increase in aerobic capacity.

I never stated that it did. I stated that it equates to a proportional inverse increase in Running econmy which is extremely significant for the marathon.

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.

Athlete A with a 6% higher running economy will perform significantly faster than Athlete B after the same marathon training program. all other things being equal before the program.

One quote id agree with from Abshyre "Running economy is important because it is the ultimate factor in deciding how fast you run

T_Runner you will have to go look for the answers to your questions here for yourself and draw your own conclusions.

But Raighne Im questioning your assertion that barefoot runners consume 5.7% less oxygen than shod runners and im asking you to substantiate that. You ahve read the book so all you have to do is give a simple account of the particular study to back the assertion.

(I also couldnt find any reference to Abshyre in that study)

I accept the "magnitude suggested by the study" not "the magnitude in general".

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

Ane the study, or your interpretation of it above, seems to be quite unequivical in its generality.

As stated in my earlier post, the actual increase may well be lower, especially on different study groups,

So the study is inaccurate?

but the fact that this (and other) study has returned significant findings makes it important enough to warrant consideration.

If it is inaccurate its findings do not warrant any consideration.

From my point of view as long as it is statistically significant it and the protocol is robust it warrants attention.

With a sample of 9 people Raighne it is probably best not to bring statistical significance into it.

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.

They could certainly improve with increased economy if their economy was poor. Running economy can be developed in many ways. Drills, Reps at fast paces, very long runs, high overall volume or running all can help improve running economy.

Stating that some sub-elites may have non optimal running economy does not imply that any defects in their style is due to running shod and not barefoot all their lives and certainly does not imply that it accounts for 6% loss in runninge conomy as the study seems to suggest.

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

Raighnew you havent produced any evidence bar the below and this is disputed in this discussion:

"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%. "

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.

That is not Lydiards position on barefoot running, that is his position on training shoes. Most elite runners (those Lydiard coaches) would use shoes that are as flexible and light as possible.

The shoes that Lydiard created had a lot more rubber (to stop the jarring) than the plimsoles in use before that and are therefore less minimalist (as barefoot lobbyists might argue), using the rubber to deal with the jarring instead of adapting the running style to deal with it.

Raighne your initial argument was that one of the factors which affected elite excellence was a limiting of ability to run necessaty high mileage due to lifelong shod running.

This assertion has been shown to be dubious at best and you ahve also admitted that running form can be improved by drills etc which would effectively negate any running deficiencies from a lifetime not running barefoot even if these deficiencies existed.

I agree there are many factors affecting lower performance these days. Poor running form from a lifetime of shod running leading to breakdown when running very high mileages is ceratinly not one of them.

robinph · 28-06-2011 06:08PM

shels4ever wrote: »

Thats why people who race 5k and shorter will do lots of reps over shorter distance to learn the effort level that they tend to race at, same for a marathon with longer marathon paced runs , garmin is a great aid but what happens if the signals go down on race day , would we all go of like the clappers in the wrong directions ala monthy python we should able be capable of knowing your race pace/effort level without these tools.

Exactly. A GPS or HRM combination is the wrong tool for the job of pacing something as short as a 5km. You need to know yourself what to be doing, or be chasing someone else who is being paid to be your pacer.

Once you get into the 10km + distances then you can possibly use the info from such things for making in race adjustment to your pace so you last the distance.

Would we be running faster times if...

Comments