Modifying the Norwegian approach to lower mileage

shoe geek wrote:

sad for me to wrote:

Yesterday he did a workout and 20 min average is over 300w. For 60-61kg guy this is no joke.

Are you sure? Over 300w for 20 mins indicates very close to a 5w/kg FTP. I find that highly unlikely, if not impossible given he's only been injured for about 6 weeks? And there's no sign of him riding in close to a decade before this, just almost 4 years running and 4+ years of notging. And some of that last 6 weeks has been elliptical.

5w/kg is cat 1/ low elite. This would be more remarkable than anything else potentially in the thread in my opinion and needs further investigation. It just sounds impossible to me.

Maybe I'm underestimating how much sport specific fitness is. In which case, it's depressing for me as I have wasted 20 years focusing on the sport specific going between 2-3 sports when I probably could have enjoyed a bit of everything all the time.

lazy research Mr greek wrote:

Greek Ultra Singles wrote:

Please link the studies.

If we’re doing anecdata, I’ve run just over 3000 miles in the past 12 months in a mix of shoes, and have never noticed a change in recovery from one pair to the other.

The only noticeable change from shoe to shoe is that high stack shoes tend to make my calves tired if I haven’t been training in them.

This is really lazy posting. Two things, anyone with a brain who has compared apples and apples clearly can just feel that super foams aid recovery, the caveat to that is they can also help you run more to get to the same point as you did with rubbish shoes. It's very rare you meet anyone who does significant mileage that hasn't adapted to super foams. I'm not talking plates here. You seem to be totally confusing the two things.

Secondly, there's plenty of studies. The original vaporfly studies for instance in 2019 showed aided recovery. Kirby is one of a few that pop into my head.

Rodrigo did a study last year in the Scandinavian sports journal. Users did I think 500km, RE was reduced in the super shoes by up to 4%, sometimes even higher for workouts. Muscle fatigue was also reduced. Obviously you have gate theory here of pain inhibition from lower impacts, but it's very hard to disagree with.

Burns study last year, reported 15-25% in fatigue reduction on long runs using a visual scale in super foam versus EVA.

They'll obviously be more. The tech is way ahead of the research. That's sports science. Takes the research guys years for mass studies. But I think anyone with a brain who understands the technology of the foams and has ran tests themselves, would find it almost ridiculous to suggest the new foams in shoes don't aid recovery. By aiding recovery, that's why people are obviously managing to then put in more mileage for less injury risk. It all comes full circle.

non-believer wrote:

I am running for 20 years already, and even when I started, or maybe a few years later, when I first started paying some slightcu attention to running shoes, EVA foam was considered obsolete. Even then (we are talking early 2010s) you had many data showing foams of Nike, Adidas, Mizuno, etc. being far superior to EVA. So comparing to EVA is not relevant anymore.

Obviously foams got lighter and keep the same cushioning. This is why you see people performing better at marathons. Before the "super shoes" you had a very strange logic. Train in heavy trainers, then put your marathon shoes on, and you will gain N s/km. Those marathon shoes were light and thin, and they surely made you faster. For about 10 km that is, afterwards your legs were destroyed, and you started loosing time after half marathon certainly. Now you race in the same cushioning, which is obviously much better for long distances. As for carbon, it is more or less a marketing buzzword. This is now evident when comparing shoes with the same foam with or without the plate - such as Adios pro 3 and EVO SL. I bet 99% of runners wouldn't be able to guess which of the shoes they have, if they got them randomly.

At 35, I wish the super shoes with super foams (another marketing buzzword) would have the magical properties some people believe they do. I am still a sucker, and I bought VF 1-3, AF 2-3, AP 2-4, Mizuno Wave Rebellion pro 3, etc. But the recovery is still far from the one I had at 25, and it decreased gradually, even when I first tried Vaporflys in 2019. My results also didn't get any significant bump, although I ran my HM record with super shoes. But it was a consistent, smooth, year-to-year improvement. While for marathon, my record still stands from the pre super-shoe era, and I didn't notice any improved leg fatigue resistance whatsoever with any of the aforementioned super shoes. It is closer to the contrary. Did my PB marathon of 2:38 in Mizuno Wave Rider, those were totally awesome shoes, before they screwed them up sometime before 2020.

I realize it is a N=1, but I will never accept the shoe revolution to be as big, as some companies want you to believe. You can also plot top 1, 5, 10, 50, 100 or 500 times in the marathon or the half marathon for years 2001-2024 (data available on world athletics site). You will see a steady progress of all those times, without a sudden drop in 2017-2020. This is the most relevant and most independent research you can get.

Bottom line. Shoes are better, but it is a steady and slow improvement, not a revolution. Thinking about how different shoes will affect your subthreshold intervals is redundant.

lazy research Mr greek wrote:

Greek Ultra Singles wrote:

Please link the studies.

If we’re doing anecdata, I’ve run just over 3000 miles in the past 12 months in a mix of shoes, and have never noticed a change in recovery from one pair to the other.

The only noticeable change from shoe to shoe is that high stack shoes tend to make my calves tired if I haven’t been training in them.

This is really lazy posting. Two things, anyone with a brain who has compared apples and apples clearly can just feel that super foams aid recovery, the caveat to that is they can also help you run more to get to the same point as you did with rubbish shoes. It's very rare you meet anyone who does significant mileage that hasn't adapted to super foams. I'm not talking plates here. You seem to be totally confusing the two things.

Secondly, there's plenty of studies. The original vaporfly studies for instance in 2019 showed aided recovery. Kirby is one of a few that pop into my head.

Rodrigo did a study last year in the Scandinavian sports journal. Users did I think 500km, RE was reduced in the super shoes by up to 4%, sometimes even higher for workouts. Muscle fatigue was also reduced. Obviously you have gate theory here of pain inhibition from lower impacts, but it's very hard to disagree with.

Burns study last year, reported 15-25% in fatigue reduction on long runs using a visual scale in super foam versus EVA.

They'll obviously be more. The tech is way ahead of the research. That's sports science. Takes the research guys years for mass studies. But I think anyone with a brain who understands the technology of the foams and has ran tests themselves, would find it almost ridiculous to suggest the new foams in shoes don't aid recovery. By aiding recovery, that's why people are obviously managing to then put in more mileage for less injury risk. It all comes full circle.

ludicrous statement wrote:

non-believer wrote:

I am running for 20 years already, and even when I started, or maybe a few years later, when I first started paying some slightcu attention to running shoes, EVA foam was considered obsolete. Even then (we are talking early 2010s) you had many data showing foams of Nike, Adidas, Mizuno, etc. being far superior to EVA. So comparing to EVA is not relevant anymore.

Obviously foams got lighter and keep the same cushioning. This is why you see people performing better at marathons. Before the "super shoes" you had a very strange logic. Train in heavy trainers, then put your marathon shoes on, and you will gain N s/km. Those marathon shoes were light and thin, and they surely made you faster. For about 10 km that is, afterwards your legs were destroyed, and you started loosing time after half marathon certainly. Now you race in the same cushioning, which is obviously much better for long distances. As for carbon, it is more or less a marketing buzzword. This is now evident when comparing shoes with the same foam with or without the plate - such as Adios pro 3 and EVO SL. I bet 99% of runners wouldn't be able to guess which of the shoes they have, if they got them randomly.

At 35, I wish the super shoes with super foams (another marketing buzzword) would have the magical properties some people believe they do. I am still a sucker, and I bought VF 1-3, AF 2-3, AP 2-4, Mizuno Wave Rebellion pro 3, etc. But the recovery is still far from the one I had at 25, and it decreased gradually, even when I first tried Vaporflys in 2019. My results also didn't get any significant bump, although I ran my HM record with super shoes. But it was a consistent, smooth, year-to-year improvement. While for marathon, my record still stands from the pre super-shoe era, and I didn't notice any improved leg fatigue resistance whatsoever with any of the aforementioned super shoes. It is closer to the contrary. Did my PB marathon of 2:38 in Mizuno Wave Rider, those were totally awesome shoes, before they screwed them up sometime before 2020.

I realize it is a N=1, but I will never accept the shoe revolution to be as big, as some companies want you to believe. You can also plot top 1, 5, 10, 50, 100 or 500 times in the marathon or the half marathon for years 2001-2024 (data available on world athletics site). You will see a steady progress of all those times, without a sudden drop in 2017-2020. This is the most relevant and most independent research you can get.

Bottom line. Shoes are better, but it is a steady and slow improvement, not a revolution. Thinking about how different shoes will affect your subthreshold intervals is redundant.

Ridiculous comment at the end. You run in super race shoes then say do your workouts in something like a Pegasus or Saucony ride and you think it doesn't affect your sub threshold intervals?

You at least need to adjust the paces. Whether you work on sirpoc system, Daniel's paces, whatever. You are not going to run remotely as fast in such awful shoes.

I do ridiculously high mileage and have since 1997. You are delusional if you don't think shoes are better now, aid recovery and are just all round better. Of course some of it is marketing. Running is still hard and you will still get injured at some point. But why on earth would you guys not just buy decent shoes? It's pure stubbornness and epidemic of how ridiculously stuck in the past a large proportion of runners are when it comes to anything new.

non-believer wrote:

ludicrous statement wrote:

Ridiculous comment at the end. You run in super race shoes then say do your workouts in something like a Pegasus or Saucony ride and you think it doesn't affect your sub threshold intervals?

You at least need to adjust the paces. Whether you work on sirpoc system, Daniel's paces, whatever. You are not going to run remotely as fast in such awful shoes.

I do ridiculously high mileage and have since 1997. You are delusional if you don't think shoes are better now, aid recovery and are just all round better. Of course some of it is marketing. Running is still hard and you will still get injured at some point. But why on earth would you guys not just buy decent shoes? It's pure stubbornness and epidemic of how ridiculously stuck in the past a large proportion of runners are when it comes to anything new.

Sure racing shoes give you a few seconds per km or per mile. But this was always the case, also before the super-shoe era. But we are talking a very small differences, which can easily be overshadowed by weather conditions or daily form. Unless you have some OCD, and stick to +/1 s/km on your intervals, which is opposite to the narratives of the NSA, then shoes really don't matter much.

That being said, I mostly run in super-shoes, even my slower runs. Maybe not the freshest ones, but those who have 300 km+ and loose some initial responsiveness, are perfectly good for another 300-1000 km, depending on brand or model. It is a bit of waste of money not to use them until they are fully gone. So I don't know if the second part of the comment was geared towards me or more generally, but it definitely does not apply to me or to anything I wrote on my earlier comment. I just wanted to emphasize the exaggeration of the impact of the shoes from some people. Especially for training. With races, 20 s over 10 km is very significant, but when training, completing 1 km intervals 2s faster or slower is not that big of a deal. Especially if you run at submaximal efforts.

Alfie wrote:

non-believer wrote:

Sure racing shoes give you a few seconds per km or per mile. But this was always the case, also before the super-shoe era. But we are talking a very small differences, which can easily be overshadowed by weather conditions or daily form. Unless you have some OCD, and stick to +/1 s/km on your intervals, which is opposite to the narratives of the NSA, then shoes really don't matter much.

That being said, I mostly run in super-shoes, even my slower runs. Maybe not the freshest ones, but those who have 300 km+ and loose some initial responsiveness, are perfectly good for another 300-1000 km, depending on brand or model. It is a bit of waste of money not to use them until they are fully gone. So I don't know if the second part of the comment was geared towards me or more generally, but it definitely does not apply to me or to anything I wrote on my earlier comment. I just wanted to emphasize the exaggeration of the impact of the shoes from some people. Especially for training. With races, 20 s over 10 km is very significant, but when training, completing 1 km intervals 2s faster or slower is not that big of a deal. Especially if you run at submaximal efforts.

Up to 1300 km from a pair of super shoes? What brand/model, and do you run on a track?

I run on the road, and super shoes are generally shredded after less than half this mileage. Many of the models have soles that are not particularly stable and not suited for gravel, tight turns etc. The wear on the soles make them even less stable, bordering on unsafe.