That is right. People forget that we have been minimalists for thousands of years. Even when we started wearing running shoes its only been the last 30 years that we have been running with an enormous hunk of shit under our heel.
That is right. People forget that we have been minimalists for thousands of years. Even when we started wearing running shoes its only been the last 30 years that we have been running with an enormous hunk of shit under our heel.
dam boy you showed him! i myself had no clue what he was talking about and then you corrected the one flaw in his post- you got him good! fag.
You people need to remember that Patrick Sweeny an ultramarathoner, who happens to have done the Badwater Ultra, 135 miles through death valley and finishing up a fuggin mountian. if i am not mistaken, he has also run the HURT ultramarathon several times- yes this regular marathon is a sprint for him. his long run is about 50 miles fags. this is like a 10k runner running in the 800m- or something of the like. Not one of you ppl who call him gay deserve to lick the bottoms of his VFFs or his shoes clean.
^^^ Sounds like someone wants to lick his balls clean.
I ran a 5K last week, and the winner, Fernando Guerrero, an undefeated pro boxer (NABO middleweight champion, WBO No. 6 ranking, WBC No. 14), wore Five Fingers. I saw a lot of people pointing at his feet while talking to him; I expect to see a few more VFFs on the local roads soon.
People forget that in the past 30years running times in every event have been improving. hmmmmm it's the shoes!
Mr. Wopsle wrote:
That is right. People forget that we have been minimalists for thousands of years. Even when we started wearing running shoes its only been the last 30 years that we have been running with an enormous hunk of shit under our heel.
Red Glare wrote:
Go back to RW.
NOW.
Heres another one wrote:See, that's the thing. The guy who "won" the marathon on the Biggest Loser ran 4:02, which is quite an accomplishment considering that he was an obese couch potato 6 months ago. While 4:02 is not "good" in an absolute context, it is actually a hell of a run when it is looked at subjectively.
I'm sorry, but a 2:37 is a good time, no matter what the losers on this site that think they're so good want to say. Kudos to you at an OT qualifier to recognize that.
Oooh. A big tough guy pulls out the "go back to RW" B.S.
Were you at the Olympic Trials? It's obviously a rhetorical question because the answer is "no."
If you really had accomplished anything in this sport you wouldn't be here trashing on others.
Loser.
I don't hate the shoe, I hate the fact that people try to say the are the best and only thing that works. Are they really better then running shoes? How are they the safest shoe to run in? I keep hearing all this and more but it is not proven. Just because some runners are able to run in them without injuries means nothing, look how many can run in cross trainers does that mean cross trainer are the best and safest shoes?
Do you equally hate the fact that people say these same things about motion control shoes, which also have not been proven to work. In fact motion control shoes have been shown to increase pronation. Do you hate the fact that runners world has been saying just about every runner should be in a motion control shoe despite their being no evidence for this?
Are motion control shoes really better than a minimal shoe?
Do you hate the fact that runners world has been saying motion control shoes are the only thing that helps correct pronation, when in fact they cause more pronation?
Or do you just hate it when people say these things about five fingers?
ffgdf` wrote:
Letsrun needs more posters like you.
________________________
There's a poster of him?
Where?
The funny thing is that people are hyping this mediocre time because he ran it while wearing VFFs. Well guess what, no bonus credit there because he could wear any shoes that he wants and it should be obvious that he went with the shoes he thought would give him his best performance. If he didn't then he's dumb. It'd be no different if he wore Brooks Beasts or Nike Frees or Asics DS Trainers because he thought he could run his best in them.
Stupid Liberals wrote:
The funny thing is that people are hyping this mediocre time because he ran it while wearing VFFs. Well guess what, no bonus credit there because he could wear any shoes that he wants and it should be obvious that he went with the shoes he thought would give him his best performance. If he didn't then he's dumb. It'd be no different if he wore Brooks Beasts or Nike Frees or Asics DS Trainers because he thought he could run his best in them.
There is another thing to consider and not just the time itself. It's been established by other runners of this race that his time is impressive, but, in addition to that, he wore the Vibrams and won against other runners who were wearing Brooks Beasts or Nike Frees or Asics DS Trainers. When you compare him to other runners in the race it becomes less about the time and more about his performance over different shoe wearers. Everyone else picked shoes that they felt would work best for them, and one wonders how well they picked if his choice was the better one.
yes, but... wrote:
When you compare him to other runners in the race it becomes less about the time and more about his performance over different shoe wearers.
Uh, everyone has equal access to these shoes. So it's not really about him choosing shoes that everyone he beat would be better off using. And it's absolutely about time when he was a quarter of an hour off the CR.
I have no opinion about the Vibram Five Fingers shoes, but I do have quite a few about the PV Marathon course.
PV Marathon is about 5 to 7 minutes slower than a flat course such as Berlin, London or Chicago for a guy running 2:40 and more as one runs slower. I ran PV this year. The weather was mid-50's at the start, overcast and no wind.
On the way back, I think there was a slight tailwind, especially in the last two miles.
I also ran PV back in 1977. That course was faster than the current course and more forgiving if you ran stupid (like I often did and still do), i.e. too fast at the start. It was about three to five minutes slower than a Berlin or Chicago type course for a 2:30 guy. That is a lot.
I know this pretty well because I ran 2:43 at Marine Corps (which I consider a flat course) and 2:46 at PV when I was in pretty much the same shape. That was 1986 or 1987. That was a different course than now.
In 2002, I ran 2:57 at PV. There is no way I was in 2:42 shape as previous posters suggest if there is a 15 minute time differential. I was in maybe 2:51 or 2:52 shape for a flat course.
My feeling is that when the weather is hot at PV, or it is windy, the hills basically slow you down more, so the time differential between PV and a Berlin or Chicago in a hot year or windy year increases as the weather worsens at PV.
For someone like Sweeney, the winner, if he is in ultra-marathon shape, I'd venture to say his 2:37 is really only about a 2:32 or 2:33 on a Berlin/Chicago course, even in ideal weather conditions such as PV enjoyed this year.
I don't know what runners world shoe guide you read but I have never seen any claim that everyone needs mc shoes. I never hear a runner in a mc shoe or a stability shoe come out and say eveyone should wear them because it will stop all their injuries and make them faster but some of these runners that wear them think it will and without knowing tell others to wear them. Yes I know some can run in them and they may help but have some facts before just spouting off that that everyone should wear them. Or maybe I just hate when people jump on bandwagon willy nilly. And yes mc shoes are better shoes for some runners over a minimal shoe.
Greg Hill wrote:
I ran PV this year. The weather was mid-50's at the start, overcast and no wind.
I also ran PV back in 1977. That course was faster than the current course
The race in 1977 was hot and was 95 degrees at the finish. The course this year must be MUCH more difficult if, at 50 degrees, it was several minutes slower in comparison. If I recall, you were about 11 years old in '77, so perhaps that clouded your perspective. I did not run the race this year, but the amount of climbing sounds similar, at 900 feet, though the '77 course had steep downhills cantered switchbacks that didn't contribute much to time but were hard on the legs. Perhaps the course did this year too.
However I know of several sub 2:30 marathoners who had a hard time breaking 2:40 on the '77 course. One runner who I beat routinely ran 2:29 several times around the PV race, and ran 2:40:xx there in '77. Another one ran 2:29 at Ave of the Giants, which has a lot of rolling hills and is not easy at all. He did not break 2:40 at PV '77 despite it being his most important race every year. From what I recall, Chuck Smead ran 2:10 pace at the trials for around 20 miles, not sure what his fastest marathon was, but only ran 2:23 at PV. I have timed top runners on the hills, including Smead, and they've all had a noticable slowdown going up. Also I knew of many top runners in that era, who could not handle PV at all, much less get within 5 minutes of flat times. I seriously doubt that the course this year was harder than '77.
The other thing is that some runners take to the hills quite well, like I did at the time, and some runners are not able to handle a course like that at all. I do think it is possible to be in the type of condition where one can PR on a course like that and not be able to run much faster on the flat, and also in the type of condition (weaker on hills) to be able to run much faster on the flat. Interestingly, even some top runners are comparatively lousy on hilly courses like PV.
My observation is that for hilly courses, every 1000' of gain = 1 mile added in terms of time. Your assessment agrees with that estimate for PVM.
Greg Hill wrote:
I have no opinion about the Vibram Five Fingers shoes, but I do have quite a few about the PV Marathon course.
PV Marathon is about 5 to 7 minutes slower than a flat course such as Berlin, London or Chicago for a guy running 2:40 and more as one runs slower.
Palos Verdes '77:
Great points. I'll take the bait and debate.
Yes, I was 11 in 1977. I think I ran 3:04 that year, although earlier in the year I ran 2:55. Maybe it was the weather - I can't remember. I've run PV every year since '74, except one year, so I can't remember specific years except a few and the most recent ones.
This year at PV, with the kind weather conditions, probably made it faster than the '77 race. I agree with you.
I liked the old PV course and ran some decent times on it, but I lived in PV (and still do) and trained constantly on the course. I could hammer the downhills without almost any effect later on in the race on my quads. One year, I ran from 10 to 13 in 14:30 (and passed no one) and the effort felt like 19:30 on the flats. The uphills slowed me down just like everyone else. In fact, I am not a very good uphill runner at all.
Anyways, I agree - this year's conditions were such that times were comparable to the old course with hot temps and perhaps, as you suggest, minutes faster than in '77.
What a delight to see that Runner’s World got rid of the “Sports Doc” who made the embarrassing, fearmongering comments about running shoes, and replaced him with a guy who makes it his first order of business to pen one of the most poised, knowledgeable and honest appraisals of barefoot running I’ve ever read. Oddly, or maybe not so much, Dr. Roberts posted his column about 24 hours before HBO’s “Real Sports with Bryant Gumbel” is due to air a segment examining the myths and misinformation of the running shoe industry. I was seated next to the HBO producer who was researching the piece during a Runner’s World seminar on minimalist shoes at the Lehigh Valley Half-Marathon, and he was flabbergasted by what he was hearing. Even though Runner’s World calls the wet test “the most important factor for choosing the right kind of running shoe,” there was Amby Burfoot mocking it as “useless.” The US Army has invested more money and brainpower than anyone on the planet trying to figure out how to prevent running injuries, Amby said, and the Pentagon has concluded that the wet test is nonsense. Then Amby caused even my jaw to drop. “Back in the ’60s, we ran way more and way faster in the thinnest little shoes, and we never got hurt. I never even remember talking about injuries back then. So you’ve got to wonder,” Amby mused, “what’s changed…” Warren Greene, RW’s shoe expert, made an astonishing offhand revelation when the producer peppered him with questions about what, exactly, motion-control shoes do.
“Oh, those are being phased out,” Warren said.
Wait… what? One of the biggest segments of the entire running-shoe line, a corrective device that Runner’s World has recommended for years as necessary for many of its readers, is silently being pulled from the shelves? (A few nuggets from the RW archives: “You should wear motion-control shoes if you are a runner who overpronates moderately to severely… Motion-control shoes are also best suited for big or heavy runners who need plenty of support and durability. These runners often have low arches (flat feet)….If you weigh 160 to 180 pounds (140 to 160 pounds for women) and overpronate, then go with motion-control shoes…If your arch is normal or flat (see “The Wet Test“), look for shoes in the motion-control category…For your longer runs [you should] stick with motion control shoes…”).<<<<
it's all marketing bs
I like the argument that so many Kenyans and Ethiopians start out barefoot, and then when they finally run in shoes, never go back.
I think that says something about the effectiveness of wearing shoes.
I would guess that not wearing shoes your whole life would contribute to impressive foot, ankle, and calf strength. This probably doesn't go away by wearing shoes as a teenager or someone in their early 20s. So the time to not wear shoes is from the time your born til the time you're in hs.
If you do it the other way around (shoes into and through hs or beyond, and then no shoes) you're probably not going to get much of a benefit.
I know as I tried to go "minimalist" I suffered a severe case of plantar fasciitis. If I had run barefoot my whole life, had already developed early foot strength, maybe this wouldn't have been a problem. But I didn't and it was.
I have 2 very young kids. I put them in the least amount of shoe that is safe for walking around in today's world. They'll be at a distinct advantage as far as foot, ankle and calf strength then I was by the time they are 10 years old!
lots of debate on this thread about whether 2:37 is a good time or not. It's irrelevant - he looks like an absolute penis in that outfit