50+ Masters Training and Racing Open Forum

KCgeezer wrote:

Hey cush, could you elaborate on what you look for in a long tempo versus short and recovery run pair of shoes?

Also, can I just say I envy anyone who gets to exercise with an elliptigo??

long tempo (usually around 8 miles at a bit slower than half marathon pace) in the middle of my longer runs) may be higher platform/heel drop--i used to like the lunar tempo (7.4oz, 8mm drop), but haven't settled on anything since they've discontinued this and i just used up my last pair. i have a pair of asics roadhawks (8.1oz/8mm) that i haven't tried yet--they're on the heavier side, but we'll see...

short tempos (4 miles at half marathon pace or faster) may be closer to racing flats--i used to use adidas takume sens (7.4oz/6mm) but they're also discontinued--they were among the heavier i've worn, but they always felt lighter and were so responsive. i also used those for longer races recently (15k/half marathon) about 3 years ago. i've more recently used asics gel 451 (6.8oz/6mm).

recovery runs: i still like lighter shoes even for recovery--i'm a pretty extreme supinator, so i want shoes that'll still let me get on my forefoot naturally. i still wear hoka clifton 2s and 3s (8.8oz/5mm) as well as the hupana 2 (8.2oz/5mm), but my go-to has been the asics dynaflyte 2 or 3 (9.2oz/8mm)--although a little heavier than the hokas, they're more responsive and feel lighter. i can't remember the last time i wore a shoe over 10 oz.

i'll race in asics piranhas (3.9oz/4.5mm) for 5ks or less, but i'm finding in longer races as i've gotten older i need more shoe than these flimsy flats have to offer...

hope this helps,

cush

Allen1959 wrote:

When I was racing well at 58, my weight was as low as 160. You're right, it does make a difference. My wife didn't like the emaciated look, though!

This guy is 5-11 and 152. I wouldn't call him emaciated.

Here is my week.

M: off.

T-SA: 7 miles.

SU: 12 miles.

Two weeks to go before my next half race. So I have shortened the "long" run on Sunday a little bit.

Allen1959 wrote:

Question for folks here. I was chatting with the M60-64 winner after Friday's 5K. He had worn brand new Nike Vaporflies, and said they were unbelievable. He felt they made a 20-second difference. Particularly for older runners who really feel the impact of each footfall, he thinks the benefit of the cushioned ride was huge. A couple others cited the same 15-20 second improvement with the Vapor flies in the same race. Anyone experience the same?

Allen, what size do you wear I have an extra unworn pair of size 10s new in the box. I have on ebay with free ship at $211. (easy search)

I would be happy to discount the another $30 to you of anyone here in the group.

To those who think they should be 'banned' ;

I am not an argumentative fellow by nature, but I really don't understand why folks are up in arms over these. They are perfectly fine and legal 1) they available to the general public 2) the "Zoom" foam is used in an number of other Nike models that folks don't seem to have a problem with 3)carbon plates are in an number shoes and isn't even new technology. Heck 1/2 my spikes from the 1980s had solid plates.

Is it the price?? Yes, they are expensive, but in the big picture if I can save my calves from screaming after a race (a real issue for me, then they are just the cost of enjoying my spot) Also I pick up a fair of $.10 Michigan returnable cans to help take the ouch out of the sticker shock and have always bought my pairs under retail. That is how I wound up with my extra pair of size 10s.

Technology advances - do some of you remember when the first EVA (ethyl vinyl acetate) midsoles were introduced? They were like manna from above. People moaned and groaned back then and that was the 1970s. Last IMO all well constructed shoes provide an advantage. Unless we want to go pure , like Abebe Bikila did in the Rome marathon and run barefoot, then by some standard all shoes should be banned.

Whatever you wear we are all just lucky at our age to 'get out the door'.

who says they should be banned?

I don't use them because I don't want to. My opinion doesn't mean squat because, because well, justhobby jogger here taking up some space, but happy with a < role. Hope you're okay with that! And good luck with your races.

RF - ha! I doubt my wife would complain if 155 looked like that on me! Maybe I'll look for a "similar" photo of me and do a side-by-side ... not a pretty comparison!

Not Done -- thanks! Unfortunately, I may never race again, unless I solve these knee issues. And usually size 11 in nikes ...

CM -- I don't think anyone here has called for a ban on the 4% shoes, but there have been other LRC threads where folks have called them "cheater shoes" and the like.

The Ageless Male supplement commercial was on the other evening. My wife remarked “maybe you need some of that.” Humm. ?

I’ve run lots of miles in the now discontinued Zoom Fly SP, and these are my choice for 5k. These are almost shockingly firm compared to the Next%, but no other shoe is as efficient for me for shorter distances. To get the most benefit you should be a forefoot striker. That’s what they are designed for. Nothing pops my feet off the pavement faster.

On the opposite end of the spectrum, the recently special reissue of the Hoka Bondi B will absolutely save your legs a lot of pounding in training. Theses were the best and still the best Hoka shoe ever made IMO. Yes they are large and a bit heavy, but they take an incredible amount of force off your legs. They help me run more mileage with less pounding than any other shoe no comparison. I currently do about 60 mpw. I’m 54 and have a busy life but very happy to still be able to run hard and feel ready to go again the next morning.

I think the overall the Hoka is just as valuable as the Nike as it allows me higher quality training so I’m more fit when I’m ready to race.

Life in Zone 2 continues - 4.6 today - 7:32, 7:25; 7:37; 7:22 and last 0.6 at 7:02 pace. Average HR 128, but it was enough effort to nudge the Garmin into the 'Improving' Zone.

HR did get up to 147 in the last minute or so. Assuming that I can still get it into the 160s, the Garmin, with it's warped sense of humor is now predicting a 17:01 5k, something I haven't seen for about 15 years, and maybe 4 minutes faster than I could race at the moment.

I'm not where I can actually start properly training at the moment - the left foot still 'slaps' where the ankle is weak and I don't have much push off at faster paces, so I'm a forefoot striker on my right and a heel striker on my left - but I think I can see a point in the next two or three weeks where I might be able to add some time or speed.

Going to be interesting what physiological effect virtually all training being 4-5 miles at an average of 75-80% max HR is going to be. Don't think I've lost a lot of fitness, but don't have a whole lot of 'gears' faster than 7:00 (2 years ago I was doing 200s in 32-43 range, so that's all gone). Still, can't complain since posterior tibial tendonitis, should have sidelined completely for a few weeks.

Been watching the 4% conversation with interest. I initially bought a pair as I thought the rigid plate would help me get off the toes on the weak side (as did my physio, who is kinesiologist), as it stops the foot flexing at the toes (I don't have enough strength in the left calf and ankle to get up on my toes on that side) and rolls you forward and gives a push off the front of the foot.

I didn't have to change form for them to work, and I was definitely running quicker. I haven't worn them off late, as I don't what to go that quick and aggravate the ankle (they didn't cause the posterior tendonitis problem - I had a 'sore ankle' which I had been ignoring before that).

Philosophically, I've pondered racing in them when get back to that point. I have no doubt that they are an advantage over a competitor that doesn't have them. I going to assume that once you get to a certain level, anyone who wanted them would probably do what they needed to get a pair, so I don't think they are so exclusive that are you are taking an advantage which anyone else can't also avail themselves of. I guess I'd see it in the same way as an advance in a bicycle part, a golf club, a tennis racquet, or a more springy pole for vaulting for example. Some of those tools might function best with a change in form or technique, so I don't see that as disqualifying. Obviously if those form changes cause injuries, that practical problem, more than a moral dilemma. To a less dramatic degree spikes v flats in middle-distance track races are somewhat similar. I'm sure I'd run a faster 1500m/3000m in spikes, but I'm also fairly sure that the gait and force alterations will injure a hamstring.

I guess I've come down to, if something is freely available, legal and not injurious to health, it's fair game. On the other hand would have no arguments if a way of restricting hyper-advanced shoes was done away with. I see the problem if it gets to the stage where an arms race gets to the stage where only some of us can run in an advance shoe, leaving the rest with 'wooden racquets'

Ghost of Igloi wrote:

The Ageless Male supplement commercial was on the other evening. My wife remarked “maybe you need some of that.” Humm. ?

I wonder if it would worth trying it? There's got to be an effective dietary supplement out there for us old bucks to help improve strength, muscle mass/definition, energy, etc. ?

I have been taking a protein powder supplement with milk (Trader Joe’s). I do think it has assisted my recovery from cancer treatments. I have also consciously increased my protein intake at the same time. Of course always hard to examine the cost benefit, but certainly can’t hurt.

Enjoying all the different topics this week!

Rotating shoes? I currently have four pair. All Nike Pegasus. Track, tempos, long runs, everything. I tried on a pair of Hoka Carbon X last week but they felt too damn weird. I wanted to like them but couldn't do it.

Logged 38.5 miles last week of just running. Ran everyday but mostly untimed 5-6 mile runs . Got in some hilly runs during our long weekend in Northern MI.

No real plans...just striving for consistency and getting my miles back up.

Have a good run,

Dave

I am enjoying the shoe discussion. It is interesting to read about the different strategies and philosophies that people use.

I find it especially interesting to read about the group’s takes on cushioning. In my circle (mostly minimalists), the feeling is that more cushioning is detrimental. Rather than absorbing shock, it tends to move the shock absorption up the chain to the knees and hips, and away from the feet and ankles where it belongs. This is believed to be a significant driver of knee injuries in runners. I am primarily referring to heel cushioning here (higher heel = bad, lower heel = good).

I would love to hear about each of your personal feelings regarding shoe cushioning. Is it generally good or bad? How much is too much, or too little? Does the need for cushioning change with age? Should the amount of cushioning depend on the length of run, speed of run, running surface, etc.?

Thanks in advance for your thoughts.

Ghost of Igloi wrote:

I have been taking a protein powder supplement with milk (Trader Joe’s). I do think it has assisted my recovery from cancer treatments. I have also consciously increased my protein intake at the same time. Of course always hard to examine the cost benefit, but certainly can’t hurt.

Curious: Is it Whey protein that you take? How much do you take?

I've been researching creatine and may actually gives this a try (anybody here have any experience with it?). Some of the studies involving seniors/older adults looks promising.

Anecdotally, I know a few middle-aged cats at the gym that use it and say it's helps with strength and increases in lean muscle mass. However, neither are endurance athletes nor do any running. I have a 62 yr old friend who is an avid cyclist and says creatine has provided significant improvement in strength & endurance (he does a lot of training during the summer in the high mountains of the Rockies).

Syracuse...I'm with you. I'm feeling the need for cushioning but wearing highly cushioned shoes makes things worse. Same with a number of my contemporaries. I haven't used trainers since the late 80's.

I think this how Charlie came to his barefoot running on nicely groomed sand. It's the best of both worlds.

I've opted for staying with racing flats and incorporating more softer surfaces...trails, grass, turf athletic fields, rubberized tracks. Still looking for sandy venues.

The first real hint that I was having problems with shock absorption was when I started noticing a significant improvement in pace vs effort (perceived) when I hopped onto a rubberized track for a few miles after being on the road...or noticed a significant worsening of pace vs effort when I went from the track to the roads...when hills were not a factor.

M62 -- 5'10" 161 lbs

Open PRs ---- 5K- 14:40, 10K- 30:40(age 21)

Open Marathon - 2:37 (age 37)

Masters PRs -- 15:59, 2:49:03 (age 41)

M55-59 PRs --- 18:40, 3:26:23 (age 58)

I'm right at the 21:15 mark for 5K. Probably could get the weight down to 158 but no lower. What was your weight when you ran the 19:13 last year?

I was curious as to your knee issues. Is it the meniscus?

Keep up the good work and times!

BeLikePre wrote:

Open PRs ---- 5K- 14:40, 10K- 30:40 (age 21)

Open Marathon - 2:37 (age 37)

Masters PRs -- 15:59, 2:49:03 (age 41)

M55-59 PRs --- 18:40, 3:26:23 (age 58)

Wow, those are impressive stats. I'm guessing we had similar career trajectories -- competed in college, then inconsistent training from early 20s to late 30s, then more serious again in the early 40s?

I was about 162 last year when I ran 19:13.

At age 58, when I ran the 3:07:23 marathon, I was maybe 158. Racing in my early 40s, I was doing more upper-body work and heavier at about 170 (17:10, 2:46:03). Way back in high school (4:45 mile, low 17's 5K) I was 155. I don't recall ever stepping on the scales during my PR days (early 20s). I've maxed out at about 185 a few times over the years (including age 18 and earlier this year!).

No meniscus or cartilage problems with my knees. The Xray showed a bone spur at the top of my patella, where the quadriceps tendon attaches. It looks like a sharp-pointed horn, and apparently causes constant irritation to the tendon, resulting in inflammation and pain. I also have calcification of the quadriceps tendon. On the Xray, this appeared as little chunks of bone imbedded in the tendon.

The Xray was only the right leg, but I have the same symptoms in the left knees, so I assume the same conditions in both.

A protocal of stretching and strengthening seemed to help, but I struggle with the patience to maintain the exercise routines.

RE: Shoes -- I train in low drop, minimal shoes, the least expensive I can find (Nike Flex-Run) . When they're showing wear, I pick up a new pair, but keep the old ones in the rotation. Currently, I rotate one pair of 3-year-old, two pairs of 2-year-old and 1-year old shoes, in addition to Sketchers GoMeb Speed 4 racing flats.

I've tried a couple pairs of more-cushioned, higher-drop shoes, but they really seemed to worsen my knee pain. I run almost exclusively on soft crushed-stone/sand/dirt road shoulders and canal towpath, but still feel the impact with each footfall. I'd like to try a more cushioned shoe.

Is there such a thing as a cushioned LOW-DROP running shoe?

Syracuse,

Re Shoes: I like to feel the ground, so generally use lighter weight shoes, not necessarily minimalist. I will use Adidas Boston racing flats for track work and tempos. I do occasionally use a beefy Hoka for easy asphalt and concrete running.

Igy

Soy protein powder from Trader Joe’s. Approximately 23g of protein which is 46% of 2,000 calorie diet. I have been taking it most work days an hour before lunch, then cut back a bit on lunch calories.

I had anterior meniscus surgery in 2010 and knee is still holding up. Most runs are on asphalt and when I go off road I head to the golf course, sometimes twice a week, if the marshal doesn't kick me off.

Weekly mileage right now is 40 miles with 10-12 miler road run and track session doing 800's or 1000's. I have 27 marathons under me right now and wonder if those have slowed me down.

Do you take any supplements to deal with your knee issues?

You mentioned Skechers, I use to run only in Hokas awhile back and made the switch to Skecher's Go Run Ride 7's and they are working out great. I tried low drop back in early 2018 and I just couldn't do it.

Just happy now that hot/humid summer here in NJ is over and can concentrate on better training.