Science vs. Self (an interesting running word problem)

Shoes can make the difference between 13:01.65 and 12:58.78

For you, it doesn't matter.

European. wrote:

Shoes can make the difference between 13:01.65 and 12:58.78

For you, it doesn't matter.

I see.

While the snark factor is interesting for this room, it does not exactly address the issue. Runners, as you well, know, come in all shapes, sizes and speeds. I am certainly not going to feel bad about my 5K time. I also know this. Having been able to see and meet elite runners at a couple of races including this recent one, I can tell you that your comment already makes it clear that you are not them. They are unassuming, nice people, especially people like Lagat.

The question was about science vs. self, not about judgment.

Please try again.

How dare you criticize my trolling skills!

Are you implying that all these years of training did not pay off?

Ecstatic X wrote:

European. wrote:

Shoes can make the difference between 13:01.65 and 12:58.78

For you, it doesn't matter.

I see.

While the snark factor is interesting for this room, it does not exactly address the issue. Runners, as you well, know, come in all shapes, sizes and speeds. I am certainly not going to feel bad about my 5K time. I also know this. Having been able to see and meet elite runners at a couple of races including this recent one, I can tell you that your comment already makes it clear that you are not them. They are unassuming, nice people, especially people like Lagat.

The question was about science vs. self, not about judgment.

Please try again.

Why you upset? You pretty much just got a short answer version. Scientific advances in training, nutrition, footwear, etc. can add that additional 1% to elite athletes that make the difference between a world class ranking and being an also ran. Not to make elite ranks out of hobby joggers.

Also in 1954 the world record for the mile was just under 4:00. Now it is at 3:43. Pretty better shoes, training, etc. had something to do with it. Bannister raced in kangaroo leather if I'm not mistaken.

Ecstatic X wrote:

The question is this. If so much money is put into science and engineering of new shoes, new formulas and newfangled training methodology, then why is it that the self can transcend all of that when it comes to race times?

What is it? Is it really science, or is science just bunk?

Mostly yes.

Ecstatic X wrote:

I see.

While the snark factor is interesting for this room, it does not exactly address the issue. Runners, as you well, know, come in all shapes, sizes and speeds. I am certainly not going to feel bad about my 5K time. I also know this. Having been able to see and meet elite runners at a couple of races including this recent one, I can tell you that your comment already makes it clear that you are not them. They are unassuming, nice people, especially people like Lagat.

The question was about science vs. self, not about judgment.

Please try again.

Lower the shields, we don't care how fast you are or aren't. The fact is there are a lot of variables that determine your race results. Fitness being the biggest one, shoes being one of many other smaller ones. While it may sound snarky, at your level fitness changes far far overshadow the other smaller variables.

What do you mean by the "self" that can "transcend" the new training methodology? I don't quite understand that part.

I will assume you are wondering why you ran faster than in HS at 41 with cheap shoes and a few lbs extra. The assumption most would make is that you didn't train much more than 25mpw in hs. And years upon years of running (even moderate amounts without structured training) has increased your aerobic capacity and efficiency (fitness) resulting in a better time despite age, weight and shoes.

Even a random willy-nilly training stimulus can produce results and is explainable by science (aka crossfit). But new training methods, developed mostly by 100 years of trial and error but refined by science, will produce better results.

I will say science is usually lagging behind training methods by 10 years or more, and is just trying to explain what we've already figured out through trial and error. Shoe science is bogus. Weight does matter some as proven by physics, but most is marketing pseudo science. Wear what is comfortable, race in whatever compromise of comfort and weight is right for you.

"then why is it that the self can transcend all of that when it comes to race times?"

There are so many explanations. Obviously equipment probably played no role.

Just to be devil's advocate, maybe as an adult you would have even run faster with better equipment.

Maybe you just underperformed as a teenager (Some of them are lazy, were you lazy?)

Charlie Sheen's tiger blood wrote:

"then why is it that the self can transcend all of that when it comes to race times?"

There are so many explanations. Obviously equipment probably played no role.

Just to be devil's advocate, maybe as an adult you would have even run faster with better equipment.

Maybe you just underperformed as a teenager (Some of them are lazy, were you lazy?)

This still does not answer the question in the science versus self argument. If performance shoes and supplements were so much better, then theoretically I should show less improvement without them.

But let's do the math...

I do not use supplements.

I do not ingest L-Carnitine, Coenzyme-Q, or any of these fad chemicals that pharmaceutical companies want to sell as if they are magic.

Furthermore, in quoting me Sammy Kipketeresque statistics like a 12:58 5K when I could not achieve that even in my dreams, it shows that the argument is taken out of scope.

Why?

Training and shoe companies like to solicit the fact that their methods are proven and work. But, they want people who are the "also rans" to buy them as if we can become Eliud Kipchoge or Meseret Defar just in the usage of their product.

This is where the self comes in. If I relied on science to do the training for me and bought fitbits, $140 shoes and all this fancy compression wear, I can guarantee that there is no way that gear could give me the willpower and persistence to put in the 220-250 miles per month that I do between running and walking (almost a 50/50 split).

And yes, I have not paid more than $20 for a pair of running shoes in over 3 years.

No knee surgeries, no injuries, no long layoffs.

I would still claim self wins over science.

Thread should of ended here. Simple answer really.

I don't even understand you're question.

You say you ran a 5k a bit faster now slightly heavier than you did in HS?

First off, that's meaningless because lord only knows what could have been different between those two races: fitness, weather, nutrition, sleep, hormone levels, and just general "on" day vs "off" days. There is no way you can accurately attribute the difference in 5k times to any particular factor.

As for the shoe thing, you're acting like people have this belief that shoes can somehow dramatically impact your running times. I don't think anybody believes this, and the only place I've ever seen it even lightly implied is in shoe ads. Which are clearly just that...ads.

Could a nice light shoe shave a few seconds off of a 5k time? Probably. Is it going to tranform your fitness? Of course not. Bottom line, obviously shoes don't make any significant performance difference in comparison to actual training, motivation, and fitness of the runner.

Now if they came up with a shoe that could act like an alter G and reduce your weight by 50%.....

Should have, not should of.

Where's the word problem? I came here expecting a word problem.

You are very boring. Do you know that. Yes you don't need expensive shoes, you can buy very light well made shoes cheaply.

The only way shoes can make you run a faster time is by adding wheels and a little rocket to them.