I remember Koskei winning a race and then putting on shoes from his sponsor for the victory lap. Classic.
I remember Koskei winning a race and then putting on shoes from his sponsor for the victory lap. Classic.
In the late 70s or early 80s there was a little piece in "Running" magazine by a guy called N.C. Frederick (I think I have the correct initials, maybe it's J.C.) Frederick was doing biomechanical research for Nike and found that research subjects were using less energy in some heavier shoes than in lighter shoes.
He found this puzzling for the same reason you're mentioning. Eventually he concluded that shock absorption uses a certain amount of energy so the subjects in the lighter shoes were using energy to absorb or deflect shock that subjects in weightier shoes with more cushion didn't need to use.
Some years after that I wrote an article for "Marathon & Beyond" suggesting that people might want to try running in lighter, less cushioned shoes. It was one of the earlier peices I've seen that advocates minimalism. One of the people I quoted was Jack Foster who was well known for "running daily in shoes that most people consider too flimsy even for racing."
Jack told me that he'd begun running in light canvas shoes that had almost no cushioning. This forced him to learn "proper foot placement." In other words, Jack learned to land in a way that deflected shock and didn't need shoes to do it for him. Jack and I were alike in that regard as most of my early running was done in pre-1980 shoes which provided very little in terms of shock absorption.
So I think there are some runners who will just do better and better as their footwear gets lighter. But I also think there are some, probably many, who've been running in shoes that are supposed to absorb shock for them and may be like the subects in Frederick's study, i.e, a lighter, less cushioned shoe will make them less efficient.
I do know that for my part my footfall feels lightest in light, thin shoes. In traditional shoes I feel as if my legs are crashing into the ground and are unstable. In barefeet I don't feel any instability but still feel as if my legs are crashing.
It's no coincidence at all. Most records are also set by people wearing singlets and shorts. Nearly everyone runs in shoes so it's inevitable that records will be set wearing shoes.
Lower weight is going to translate to faster times as long as the runner is comfortable with the shoe. A reverse of your question is why people don't race in a heavy, sushioned trainer and tha naswer is that they recognize that the added weight will slow them.
I think most elites use spikes and race flats as a device for improving traction and keep cushioning and weight to a minimal. When racing, you want more grip to provide more force; so I think there is an advantage to spikes and some race flats for the road. I think that when the shoes try to correct biomechanics (not the athlete), injuries occur.
It's kind on like the super suits in swimming. They do make you faster, but if your not doing it perfectly to begin with, it won't make you win. It will help the best break records (as it has).
Sebcoe7 wrote:
Is it coincidence that all records are set with shoes? Even sprint shoes have reinforced spike plates that add weight. Why doesn't Geb or Hall use the lightest shoes made by Adi or Asics? If minimal or weight were central to speed why don't they take advantage of lighter shoes made by sponsor? Surely they have every interest in running as fast as possible so why not use the lightest shoe at their disposal.
I could be much more productive if my employer would let me work from home, and yet here I am.
HankC wrote:
I think most elites use spikes and race flats as a device for improving traction and keep cushioning and weight to a minimal. When racing, you want more grip to provide more force; so I think there is an advantage to spikes and some race flats for the road. I think that when the shoes try to correct biomechanics (not the athlete), injuries occur.
It's kind on like the super suits in swimming. They do make you faster, but if your not doing it perfectly to begin with, it won't make you win. It will help the best break records (as it has).
I think the notion of using spikes for more traction is a myth. It was probably true in the days before the all weather track, but your feet don't need extra grip on a synthetic track, they get plenty without spikes.
Yes, here you are, on Lets Run while at work.
When Oregon State had a mens team and could actually compete with Oregon, Dale Story won the 1961 National XC Race running barefoot. Don't know how much he trained bare foot though.
Here Here!!! Better yet, if my employer would let me work while I'm out running, I would be even more productive.... yet here I am.[quote]King Author wrote:
The part about barefoot running that gets me is that all the proponents say that you feel more free and connected and that leads to better running mechanics and less injuries. They also say that 50% of runners who train in shoes are injured. Well, let me just say that if life was all about feelings of connection, the divorce rate would be a LOT lower. Physical activity causes injuries, if your transmission goes out, you don't blame it on the tires.
1961 NCAA XC Champ Dale Story
Good article on him:
http://thevig.portlandtribune.com/sports/story.php?story_id=7858
I'm not a world-class athlete, but I recently ran a 3:15 at San Francisco marathon and I think I'll be good for sub 3 at Boston 2011. Two of my friends regularly run sub 3's barefoot, and one of them has run a 2:38. That's not elite but it's faster than most people.
http://therunningbarefoot.com/?s=efrem\&lang=en
Personally, I like the challenge to see what I can do barefoot. The achievement feels more real to me. I might be able to run a few minutes faster using shoes but I don't care. I also could probably run a few minutes faster if I doped, but I don't care for that either.
Michelle Dekkers was a pretty fast barefoot runner. Running for Indiana University, she won the NCAA Cross Country Championships in 1988. She led from start to finish in that race, without shoes, in 28-degree (F) weather!
john walker (former WR in mile from NZ) had a flotrack interview a few years back where he talked about running barefoot all the time as a youth and doing 5 mile road races shoeless.
also you have to remember that many of the top kenyans and ethiopians train barefoot throughout their early careers.
tires are not shoes, poor analogy. padding and structure in shoes make it easier to have a lazy and inefficient stride and don't build up stabilizing muscles/memory that prevent injury. if you gradually introduce lots of barefoot you can correct these problems.
some people argue that you should only barefoot on a soft surface but then you still have the padding that allows you to get away with heel striking. once you have done enough barefoot on a softer surface you should try running barefoot on packed dirt or a track. there is almost no padding in spikes so if you learn to run only with trainers you are disadvantaging yourself on race day.
Do you really think it is this simple? If so, you are assuming that shoes have no function aside from adding ballast to the feet.To extend your brilliance, I will recommend that all runners lose weight until they are under 75 pounds (for men) or 50 pounds (for women). I mean, it doesn't take a genius to see that if 200 lbs is heavier than 130 pounds, 130 pounds is heavier than 75 pounds!!Let's find something which has a trend, and assume that the trend extends all the way to infinity! -Running 50 miles a week makes you faster than running 5, so to run your fastest you should run 500 miles a week.-Sleeping more helps you recover, so you should sleep 20 hours per day.-It is better to drink some water than none after a run to stay hydrated, so it must be better to drink several gallons.You could be a leading scientist...
J.R. wrote:
I've already done that. Whoops! Who's the idiot now.
Anyway it doesn't take a genius to see that it 14 ounces is heavier than 0 ounces, or maybe it does, besides all the material of the shoe getting in the way of the feet.
NotARocketScientist wrote:
it doesn't take a genius to see that if 200 lbs is heavier than 130 pounds, 130 pounds is heavier than 75 pounds!!
You've missed the plot for the trees.
J.R. wrote:
NotARocketScientist wrote:it doesn't take a genius to see that if 200 lbs is heavier than 130 pounds, 130 pounds is heavier than 75 pounds!!
You've missed the plot for the trees.
I believe you've missed his, as well as a couple of others.
It follows your logic that is lighter is always better, then it is the same for 8 hour marathoners as it is for the Pros up front. If a professional, top of the heap runner is ALWAYS better served by lighter shoes solely because they're lighter, then why does Geb wear the Adios (~7 oz) for his marathons and not the Pro (~5 oz)? Why do many of Nike's Kenyans wear the Streak III, which is almost 2 oz heavier than the Streak XC II? Surely, with their entire profession riding on their performance, they wouldn't be so stupid as to diminish their performances with heavier shoes, would they?
If heavier and more built up is always worse, why do so many pro athletes not choose the lightest option possible in every circumstance?
I saw a couple of Kenyan girls at this year's World Juniors.
Here's one of them
Oldtimefan wrote:
Yes he did. For his second gold medal he wore shoes and... actually ran FASTER with shoes. How is that even possible? I mean with all the barefoot folks saying that shoes are a gimic.
Barefoot running doesn't claim to make you faster it claims to make you less likely to get injured. Also, they claim to improve your form, efficiency and biomechanics. However on the world stage this doesn't give you an edge since if you're that good it is likely that you have near perfect form, efficiency and biomechanics.
Also, are you surprised that these runners get faster with time (unless they are getting older and should be getting slower)