Training in Flats - Give Your Testimonies

I've spent a couple months in the 790s, from mid May through early August. I really love them- I love how responsive they are, and my stride feels a good deal more fluid when they're on vs. my other shoes, which are NB 900s with about 2000 miles on them, maybe more.

Unfortunately, the 790s hurt my foot. I get pain in the area near my second met, although I believe it to be a soft tissue problem as it has responded very well to icing. I've also transitioned back to the 900s.

It's possible that I switched too quickly from the 900s to the 790s. I haven't given up on flats by a long shot, since the 790s seemed to ease a 4 year old achilles problem, but I've got to do some experimenting and right now that's a bit tough on the budget.

In any event, I suppose that means I give the 790s a mixed report.

Peter

Thank you for the response, jaguar1. The non-easy easy days were what did me in to begin with (along with the female athlete triad). I was overtraining simply because of those "easy" runs up until my first stress fracture. I never allowed myself to run slower than 7-7:30 pace and I know my PRs much were slower than yours right now. Even after coming back from that stress fracture (2 years ago), I was never able to get back healthy because I hadn't figured it out. So I ran too fast, too much, too soon, and kept getting hurt. Now I've wasted a lot of time and energy, but at least I'm learning from it. This is going to be a long 6-8 weeks, but I know I will be smarter this time when I come back.

jaguar1 wrote: This is a large problem with younger runners. Running too much in the 'gray zone'.... running without a purpose. Jack Daniel's calls this "no man's land".

Drifting off topic here, but I gotta say I've done a season of Daniels training, and enjoyed radically greater improvement the next season doing the vast majority of my workouts in his "no man's land" - MP and a little quicker, mostly not even HMP (which was my 83 minute pace, not my hour pace).

I also believe, and my limited experience seems to support, the Lydiardites whose base phase does not seem to respect a "no man's land" but rather seems to encourage aerobic running across a spectrum of efforts. And I think is generally more open to "let's pick it up" if feeling good and no half-recovered injury waiting to re-erupt or whatever.

Where I'll agree is: if your current training includes a couple or three tough workouts each week, then you'd better really recover on your in-between days. And that means slow.

But it's also valid not to be on such a schedule, and I don't think real-world experience of zillions of runners gives us reason to be so reverent about staying inside sharply defined zones.

Anyhow I agree with the rest of your post, the shoe stuff and all. It's just this "no man's land" thing has become a pet peeve for me.

txRUNNERgirl wrote:

Now I've wasted a lot of time and energy, but at least I'm learning from it. This is going to be a long 6-8 weeks, but I know I will be smarter this time when I come back.

Excellent! You're learning!:o) You will reflect back on this 3 years from now and say "what was I thinkin'?"

:) jag

Actually, in high school I had a lot of success running at a 'medium pace' (~25-35 mpw). However, when I started increasing the mileage (late high school/college), was when the medium paced running didn't fair so well and led to injuries/overtraining. Now, at 100+ mpw, week after week, I can't imagine running at a medium pace (6-7 min./mi.) on easy days. Progression runs and long runs with marathon pacing (~every other week) are the exception.

I agree. It's easier to run 'steady', or at the higher end of the easy/long run pace, when you're in base training and not having to recover from a harder session. I think it becomes more of a problem when you're habitually pushing the higher aerobic end, such as when you're coming back from an injury and you're trying to keep up with people who are more fit. At that point (~when you're coming back) is when it's critical to focus on yourself, developing your aerobic fitness.

Thank you. This is more of what I'm thinking about in general. But I think the painstakingly slow pace (or modified training) holds true when you're coming back from an injury or transitioning to a contrasting condition (~different shoes, new environment, different surface). Having the common sense to adapt you're training to the new 'stressor(s)' (even outside of running such as with school, job, family).

I'm in agreement with Garmin about the gray zone. I think that high end aerobic training has made a huge difference for me. For a while, I was really taking my easy days too easy (running them all with my dog). When I started training seriously again, I reached new heights off of primarily steady running in the 6:15-6:45 range.

Of course, I can't run like that now that I'm doing tempos at under 5:30 and mile repeats at around 5:05. Recovery, as Jaguar mentioned, has become essential. I think this doesn't negate the importance of those gray zone miles, but as Daniels has pointed out, it's much easier to maintain than to build. After 4 months of high end aerobic training, one can switch to a training system focused more on workouts and recovery, without losing the benefits gained during the gray zone period.

Actually, this had kind of become my training philosophy: try a system for 4-6 months until the returns start diminishing, then switch to a new system. I try to keep working on different limiting factors, while consolidating the previous gains.

Jaguar1 one has made more single-source sense in this thread than I have read and heard in several years of running. Much, much appreciated.

I used to run in clunky Kayanos, did marathon after marathon in them. Been running since 1979.

In 2005 I blew out my meniscus and F**'d up the cushioning for heel strike running. Couldn't run more than 1/2 mile without serious knee pain in the joint later.

7 months later in beginning of 2006 I started to learn to forefoot strike. Over 12 months I worked up from 1/2 mile intervals to continuous 7 mile runs.

In December 2006 I got a stress fracture in the femoral neck (actually lesser trochanter). 2 months earlier I had switched from Kayanos (12.9 oz, big heel) to Brooks Racer ST2's (9.7 oz, much less built up heel).

Had to take 8 months off running, I had one relapse trying to come back to 1/4 mile intervals and 2 mile walks in March 2007. In August I was cleared to run again.

After 6 weeks I am back to total of 3.5 miles per session, broken up into intervals of around 0.75 mile or 1.25 mile running, then 1/4 mile walking. Three days per week.

But I still don't have perfect biomechanics for the Pose Method, it still feels awkward from time to time. I'll be in synch for about a half mile, then feel lack of coordination.

1) After 36,000 miles of running the old heel strike method, should I just give up on forefoot running?

2) Did this method of running cause the stress fracture, since I never had one before my whole life?

Continuation of above post:

And the relevant question to this thread is,

3) Did the lighter shoes contribute to my stress fracture and what type of shoes should I use now after I am returning back to running?

In leiu of any other good advice, I had planned to stay in the ST2's, being afraid of going thinner after a stress fracture. There isn't any problem forefoot landing with these shoes. I also plan to avoid running in the dark because my coordination is better (try balancing on one foot in the dark and you will see why). I also plan on switching my shoes after 2.5 months.

Flats gave me PF. I am in the minority, but then again I am over 45 years old.

First of all, good luck with coming back. The one thing you ask here that I want to chime in on is whether you should give up trying to be a forefoot runner or not.

I know there are loads of people who think that forefoot running is the way we're "supposed" to run. One of the ideas at the heart of the "minimalist" movement is that less shoe will move you towards being a forefoot runner.

But I don't think we're all "supposed" to run in any particualr way, or even if we are, if you've spent a lifetime as a heel striker you're body has probably adapted to that and may give you some problems if you force yourself to switch.

I know there are people who have made such switch successfully but that doesn't mean that everyone can or should force such a change on themselves. I'm a heel striker and I run in low heeled shoes. I've made some adjustments that have gotten me more towards the midfoot, but I'm still landing on my heels and things start not feeling good if I get too far forward.

You know yourself and obviously I don't. But if I'd had your experience, I'd go back to the way I was running before the troubles hit.

HRE wrote: I don't think we're all "supposed" to run in any particualr way

I agree. My experience/philosophy/faith holds that the body is smart, sometimes smarter than the mind. For the most part, you run a lot of miles, most of 'em easy, some of 'em hard, your body will sort out how it wants to move and land and push off.

One specific that helped me and others, and I've yet to see testimonials to the contrary, is getting your stride rate up (to at least somewhere around 180 strides per minute). This will minimize impact forces vs. slower stride rate and, I reckon, minimize or eliminate overstriding. It may require some conscious attention. Perhaps this doesn't contradict "the body knows best" because the extreme cushion in modern shoes sabotages some of the feedback that would otherwise inform the body's natural choices.

Since learning to forefoot strike, I've been trying to keep a cadence of about 180 steps per minute ("one-two-three, two-two-three, three-two-three") at the tempo of "one-one-thousand, two-one-thousand"...

The problem is I get out of synch after a few minutes. One reason might be that my arms seem to swing slower than my leg cadence. Another might be that my neuromuscular firing patterns were set for 26 years to the slower rhythm of heel strike running and jogging.

One person suggested I bend the elbows to shorten the length of the arm pendulum.

Excellent post by HRE.

Totally agree about not striving towards some 'ideal'. There shouldn't be a 'conscious' effort to run a particular way-- you should run naturally and comfortably, regardless of what's on your feet. Not that it's impossible to radically change your form (a la forefoot running), but doing so is going to cause unusual stress in unusual places (hip?). You are going to adopt different mechanics, as is, in flats vs. trainers.... just run as feels most natural, and your body will strive towards a balance.

I don't know much about Brooks, but I do know that any degree of heel lift is going to place greater stress on the knee (vs. the ankle, which is naturally intended to be a shock absorber). Only you know what feels most comfortable and tolerable for you.

Since your knee injury, do you feel you compensate in any way or run differently than previously? That's always a possibility (sorry to say!).

Would anyone have a fave Saucony flat? Looking for suggestions, thanks.

Like the Killkenny. Really like the Bullet.

Yes, I can't overstride or land on my heel. That causes pain. I used to run like that in Kayanos for many, many years.

I am trying to follow Pose exactly as they tell you, which is night and day different.

Has anyone tried the Asics Gel Piranha? It looks pretty flat and even from heel to toe. Would this be a good shoe? I don't know about paying $110 for them though.

Much agree with HRE's caution and pondering.Would only add there should not be a "conscious" effort to run a particular way if that causes immediate damage.If you are trying to avoid being injured, you are going to have to do something quite consciously about it unless some sort of miracle "yo' healed!" happens...It's hard to imagine somebody experimenting something (including a new pair of shoes) without some level of self-consciousness about it.I think the whole way Jaguar1 narrated her experience shows an extremely gradual - and I imagine conscious approach to adapting to a new gait. And she was successful. Still it does not mean everybody will be successful. Going back to running 10mpw for somebody who was running 80mpw, maybe over injury, could just be so frustrating for some people, I would not know if a nervous breakdown would be better or worse than chondramalacia or PF...It's like the history of common sense, you write it and rewrite it as you go along. It's much more difficult than post mortems...