How did older runners run so fast with such primitive shoes/gear?

Nike's best shoes were the waffle trainers in the mid 70's. From then to now has all been successful marketing hype to promote and sell a product that has lessened in quality.

There wasn't a bunch of crap on the internet saying you

couldn't do things.

So there was no preconceived barrier to exploring your potential.

If shorter said 150 miles a week with 2 speed and a long run,people were willing to try that.

nn wrote:

Nike's best shoes were the waffle trainers in the mid 70's. From then to now has all been successful marketing hype to promote and sell a product that has lessened in quality.

Their retro waffle trainers now cost $100.

Running was for the over weight masses back then. The shoes were designed for people who should be running long distances. Someone with good form and mechanics today would do fine in a pair of Tigers or Waffles from the 70s.

I've got a pair of the Adidas SL72 Karhuuu refers to. They feel fantastic and I'd happily race up to 5k in them. Light, low and very responsive. I'm a forefoot striker and truly believe that 30 years of constant injuries have been caused by all the cushioned shoes I've worn since a great pair of Reebok Aztec (the shoe Steve Jones trained in). Ever since I started wearing minimalist shoes a few years back I haven't had an injury. I don't see much difference between minimalist shoes and the shoes in the early seventies.

Positive Contribution wrote:

Running was for the over weight masses back then. The shoes were designed for people who should be running long distances. Someone with good form and mechanics today would do fine in a pair of Tigers or Waffles from the 70s.

Should read wasn't for the.....

They didn't Jim Ryun could have run 1:39 with the right kit

Ive got 35 yrs of running in the bank. Of all the advances in technology I can probably count on one had the stuff that I'm really glad to have now over what I used to use.

1. technical fabric. Older runners my identify, but I would cling to certain t-shirts that were thin and somewhat fitted to use as "running shirts" all others were for after the run. Thanks to technical fabric this is no longer an issue

2. headlamps- They make running in the dark much safer and easier.

3. running tights- 1000x better than cotton sweats or those baggy nylon shells.

4. chip timing- Often it was hit or miss that the race you attended was going to get the results right. chip timing takes away so much of that.

That's it really. I could say garmin, but that's a nice to have, you can easily accomplish the same with a casio chronograph.

The obvious answer is other than weight shoes are over-rated. Seems like we've almost come full circle from Tiger Marathons and now the minimalist movement is taking over. If we could stay off pavement it wouldn't matter what we wear.

you were sort of right the first time. "Jogging" i.e. running at a slower pace (something less than an 7 min mile) was exactly for the overweight masses. Bowerman picked it up from Lydiard and made that mainstream in the USA via pamphlets and other things. So the more cushioned trainers WERE meant for people wanting to lose weight or get in shape.

Girls weren't as hawt. Left plenty of time for mileage.

Most of the shoes I used in the 70's are better than the ones they make today, excluding the spikes which are pretty much the same. The whole 'minimalist' movement, in my opinion, was begun by people looking at the shoes of the 60's and 70's and realizing that the shoes of today in comparison are garbage.

As an analogy, you can compare wearing shoes on the feet, to gloves on the hands. Sure, you can fist-fight bare-knuckled, but there is a purpose for boxing gloves. Or with ditch digging; sure, you can build callouses on your hands to the point gloves aren't necessary, but even doing so, gloves can still relieve fatigue and extend endurance. and capacity. Similarly, the nice cushy shoes, like NB foam, etc. can do the same for the feet, but they bring in their own issues, such being dependent on that support and cushion and the consequences of their breakdown.

naia champ wrote:

now the minimalist movement is taking over.

What rock have you been living under the last year? The big trend right now is maximalist. More and more shoe brands have Hoka-like models.

imim wrote:

Also, I believe most of the runners then were much better all-around athletes which was/is a big plus.

Hear, hear! Early specialization in a particular sport, along with the demise of vigorous daily phys ed, has resulted in many fewer all-around athletes in our sport.

As a result, people tend to bust up.

In addition, (some of) the old-time guys busted their asses in training:

Most of them were doing this training before and after real jobs.

not sure what you mean about maximalist but certainly modern runners (and includes all the way up to the elites) benefit from the "energy return" of modern shoe materials. You don't see a single race nowadays where the top runners are not wearing nearly brand new shoes for this very reason. The newer they are the better the bounce.

Derek Clayton might have run 2:06 and avoided years of injuries had he been so blessed.

showguy90 wrote:

We're they just naive and "went for it" so to speak, without preconceived notions?

Were we(people under 35) raised soft?

What are you talking about?

Of the top 10 fastest American male marathoners, not even half (4) ran the time prior to 1990. And only 1 time was run in the '70s. Shorter isn't even on the list.

1. Kannouchi 2:05:38 (2002)

2. Hall 2:06:17 (2008)

3. Ritz 2:07:47 (2012)

4. Kempainen 2:08:47 (1994)

5. Salazar 2:08:52 (1982)*

6: Beardsley 2:08:54 (1982)*

7. Abdi 2:08:56 (2006)

8. Meyer 2:09:00 (1983)*

9. Meb 2:09:15 (2009)

10. Rodgers 2:09:28 (1979)

If you ran a 2:09 now in a major marathon you'd be lucky to crack the top 10. Imagine Salazar and Shorter going into a marathon thinking they'd need to pr by a minute just to make 8th (if they're lucky). The plan of just "going for it" wouldn't work out too well in this day and age I'm afraid.

Edward Teach wrote:

Better lifestyle. Back then, kids played outside all day and developed their core muscles. TV back then sucked. The only good thing to watch was probably the news and star trek, which wouldn't interest a kid. There were no video games. Inside fun was board games and books. Most the books back then were average at best, and there wasn't even a way to know what the good ones were. There were no 4000+ page epics like harry potter or game of thrones. Reverse all these and you have kids today with massively underdeveloped core muscles and cardiovascular systems, which carry on to adulthood. 4 years of HS xc and track are not enough to reverse the first 14 years of this trend.

This just isn't true. "massively underdeveloped core muscles"!? What are you talking about?

Yes, there are more kids playing video games than there were 40 years ago because, get this, there are more kids and more video games. But, if you think kids aren't getting out and doing stuff you're not looking. Go to any park and you'll see every kind of sport practice going on for every type of age group. I've recently taken up skateboarding local skateparks (yes it's silly, but so is running) and I have to go in the early morning to avoid the crowd.

American runners are faster now than ever before. Last year at Arcadia, 18 HS runners broke 9 minutes. Was there ever a meet in the '60s,'70s, or '80s where 18 HS runners broke 9 minutes!?

OP

Don't you think runners 20 years from now will be saying the same thing about us?

In other words, we runners from the 70's and 80's didn't know any thing better existed, because it didn't.

We ran in what was sold as the best or good quality running shoe. And the 500 miles per pair theory didn't come out until the 1990's.

How did they run so fast? They trained hard! It was not unusual to hear of someone running 6-9 miles to work, and then running the same distance home. Sponsored runners making enough to not work back then, were but 5 or 6 guys.