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'