Zoom Streak 6 issues.. .like everyone I've sold one too...
Zoom Streak 6 issues.. .like everyone I've sold one too...
Jimmy21 wrote:
lolllzz wrote:Agreed, but I still love Bekele. Wasn't there a scene in the movie "Prefontaine" where his feet were bloody after racing in brand new shoes?
It happened in both "prefontaine" and "without limits." In both movies, it was from injuring had foot and then racing on it. In one without limits, it was from a sex accident and in prefontaine, it was from hitting it while jumping in to the pool. He then got stitches and then raced on it. In neither movie did they attribute it to new shoes. I have no idea what the real story is.
I believe the real story is that he hurt his foot sparing with Chuck Norris
Obvious Reason wrote:
Footstrike wrote:His foot strike isn't exactly the same as it was on the track, and even different from the great north run 2013 where his foot strike was similar to the track. He does look like landing more dorsiflexed on the heels. I don't understand why.
Because of the heel lifts in the road racing shoes.
Good track shoes don't have heel lifts.
Almost all road racing shoes have heel lifts, which destroy speed and cause injuries.
I partially agree with you (though I'm not fully on the zero drop bandwagon). I read an article about the fancy new Nike shoes, and I was surprised at the heel to toe drop. I forget the exact measure, but I know it was considerably more that 4 mm (which is the usual drop of the Sauconys that I use for training). For myself, I have found that when running anything near 5 minute pace, a heel lift of anything greater than 4 mm starts to feel like it inhibits the natural way my foot wants to hit the ground. This, along with shoe weight, is why runners usually change out of their trainers and into their flats when they plan on doing speed work. One of the little pleasures of running, is that feeling you get when you change into your "fast" shoes after you are warmed up and ready to race. For the elite athletes that are going to run a marathon at 5 pace or faster, they have little need for heel lift IMO. Some padding, yes. But substantial heel lift, I think not.
Back to Bekele and the Nike shoes. In a related video about the Nike shoes, there was a world renowned biomechanics expert who talked about how difficult it is to tweak the carbon fiber plate in the shoe to optimize its position for each athlete. You can't just take slow-mo footage on a treadmill, because a treadmill can't perfectly mimic the road. This would have to be a process of trial and error. Maybe Nike, working with Bekele, didn't take the proper time to get his shoes right. That might explain this shoe snafu.
Anyway, I think the Nike shoes might be good for certain people with certain biomechanics. But for someone like Bekele, whose foot strike is already so efficient, I think Nike's efforts are more likely to screw up an already good thing, than to help.
ukathleticcoach wrote:
Rubbish he was still landing on balls of feet just cadence slower. The commentators even mentioned this.
What is anacondarunner smoking, from what I saw Bekele was landing on his forefoot, the shoes gave a distorted picture. He certainty wasn't landing heel first.
celery wrote:
Obvious Reason wrote:Because of the heel lifts in the road racing shoes.
Good track shoes don't have heel lifts.
Almost all road racing shoes have heel lifts, which destroy speed and cause injuries.
I partially agree with you (though I'm not fully on the zero drop bandwagon). I read an article about the fancy new Nike shoes, and I was surprised at the heel to toe drop. I forget the exact measure, but I know it was considerably more that 4 mm (which is the usual drop of the Sauconys that I use for training). For myself, I have found that when running anything near 5 minute pace, a heel lift of anything greater than 4 mm starts to feel like it inhibits the natural way my foot wants to hit the ground. This, along with shoe weight, is why runners usually change out of their trainers and into their flats when they plan on doing speed work. One of the little pleasures of running, is that feeling you get when you change into your "fast" shoes after you are warmed up and ready to race. For the elite athletes that are going to run a marathon at 5 pace or faster, they have little need for heel lift IMO. Some padding, yes. But substantial heel lift, I think not.
Back to Bekele and the Nike shoes. In a related video about the Nike shoes, there was a world renowned biomechanics expert who talked about how difficult it is to tweak the carbon fiber plate in the shoe to optimize its position for each athlete. You can't just take slow-mo footage on a treadmill, because a treadmill can't perfectly mimic the road. This would have to be a process of trial and error. Maybe Nike, working with Bekele, didn't take the proper time to get his shoes right. That might explain this shoe snafu.
Anyway, I think the Nike shoes might be good for certain people with certain biomechanics. But for someone like Bekele, whose foot strike is already so efficient, I think Nike's efforts are more likely to screw up an already good thing, than to help.
Then there's Rupp who has been injury free his entire life suddenly has PF. Shalane breaks her back. If something happens to Kipchoge, how do you not Spike Lee the whole thing? "It's gotta be the shoes."
There's been two amazing performances this year. Wilson Kipsang in Tokyo (race record), and Kietany today. The worst you can say is that they weren't inhibited by their shoe sponsor.
celery wrote:
Obvious Reason wrote:Because of the heel lifts in the road racing shoes.
Good track shoes don't have heel lifts.
Almost all road racing shoes have heel lifts, which destroy speed and cause injuries.
I partially agree with you (though I'm not fully on the zero drop bandwagon). I read an article about the fancy new Nike shoes, and I was surprised at the heel to toe drop. I forget the exact measure, but I know it was considerably more that 4 mm (which is the usual drop of the Sauconys that I use for training). For myself, I have found that when running anything near 5 minute pace, a heel lift of anything greater than 4 mm starts to feel like it inhibits the natural way my foot wants to hit the ground. This, along with shoe weight, is why runners usually change out of their trainers and into their flats when they plan on doing speed work. One of the little pleasures of running, is that feeling you get when you change into your "fast" shoes after you are warmed up and ready to race. For the elite athletes that are going to run a marathon at 5 pace or faster, they have little need for heel lift IMO. Some padding, yes. But substantial heel lift, I think not.
Back to Bekele and the Nike shoes. In a related video about the Nike shoes, there was a world renowned biomechanics expert who talked about how difficult it is to tweak the carbon fiber plate in the shoe to optimize its position for each athlete. You can't just take slow-mo footage on a treadmill, because a treadmill can't perfectly mimic the road. This would have to be a process of trial and error. Maybe Nike, working with Bekele, didn't take the proper time to get his shoes right. That might explain this shoe snafu.
Anyway, I think the Nike shoes might be good for certain people with certain biomechanics. But for someone like Bekele, whose foot strike is already so efficient, I think Nike's efforts are more likely to screw up an already good thing, than to help.
When I first saw these 4%s I thought they were more of a trainer than a flat. I don't athletes growing up on the track are going to benefit from these shoes, it might take a generation to get used to these types of shoes.
Subway Surfers Addiction wrote:
celery wrote:I partially agree with you (though I'm not fully on the zero drop bandwagon). I read an article about the fancy new Nike shoes, and I was surprised at the heel to toe drop. I forget the exact measure, but I know it was considerably more that 4 mm (which is the usual drop of the Sauconys that I use for training). For myself, I have found that when running anything near 5 minute pace, a heel lift of anything greater than 4 mm starts to feel like it inhibits the natural way my foot wants to hit the ground. This, along with shoe weight, is why runners usually change out of their trainers and into their flats when they plan on doing speed work. One of the little pleasures of running, is that feeling you get when you change into your "fast" shoes after you are warmed up and ready to race. For the elite athletes that are going to run a marathon at 5 pace or faster, they have little need for heel lift IMO. Some padding, yes. But substantial heel lift, I think not.
Back to Bekele and the Nike shoes. In a related video about the Nike shoes, there was a world renowned biomechanics expert who talked about how difficult it is to tweak the carbon fiber plate in the shoe to optimize its position for each athlete. You can't just take slow-mo footage on a treadmill, because a treadmill can't perfectly mimic the road. This would have to be a process of trial and error. Maybe Nike, working with Bekele, didn't take the proper time to get his shoes right. That might explain this shoe snafu.
Anyway, I think the Nike shoes might be good for certain people with certain biomechanics. But for someone like Bekele, whose foot strike is already so efficient, I think Nike's efforts are more likely to screw up an already good thing, than to help.
When I first saw these 4%s I thought they were more of a trainer than a flat. I don't athletes growing up on the track are going to benefit from these shoes, it might take a generation to get used to these types of shoes.
Let's just hope these shoes go away like all gimmicks, and we don't have to get used to them.
Obvious Reason wrote:
Almost all road racing shoes have heel lifts, which destroy speed and cause injuries.
Prove that road racing shoes destroy speed and cause injuries. Prove it.
This guy is a world class excuse maker.
He is channeling his inner Prefontaine.
C'mon Kenny, c'mon man....
Kenny my Foot wrote:
This guy is a world class excuse maker.
He is channeling his inner Prefontaine.
C'mon Kenny, c'mon man....
What's wrong with you?
Did you watch the race?
He was 2nd! He ran a great race.
He's not going to win or break records all the time... that's why they have races.
Why are so many people on this forum so stupid?
Benenisa Kekele wrote:
midfoot striker.
This thread almost got through an entire page without anyone trotting out the "midfoot striker" baloney. You ruined it.
The midfoot is the arch and doesn't touch the ground. Even if the middle of a shoe touches first, there is no weight on it. Only when the forefoot or heel hits is there a "strike."
Very rarely do both heel and forefoot strike at the exact same time. Even a few milliseconds difference is mechanically significant.
Bad Wigins wrote:
Benenisa Kekele wrote:midfoot striker.
This thread almost got through an entire page without anyone trotting out the "midfoot striker" baloney. You ruined it.
The midfoot is the arch and doesn't touch the ground. Even if the middle of a shoe touches first, there is no weight on it. Only when the forefoot or heel hits is there a "strike."
Very rarely do both heel and forefoot strike at the exact same time. Even a few milliseconds difference is mechanically significant.
There is an outside to your mid foot?
Joachim Cruz once said at coaching clinic that the Kenyans had the flatest he had seen.
What about when you plod for your first mile (or when you are sore)? The entire foot lands at the same time roughly.
It's funny how people compare 5k-10k speed of elites to themselves.
We are talking about 4 minute mile pace on a track at almost vo2 max... they are freaking almost sprinting.
There is no way out on the road for 26.2 miles you are going to foot strike the same going almost 1
Minute per mile slower.
I've run a few pretty fast marathons and a few 5ks and how I run each is totally differnt. You can't bounce around like a gazzle for 26 miles...your calves will explode.
I want every "mid foot striker" out there to go to the track and and run a 5k at 13:00 minutes...please upload video... then head out to your next marathon and run a 2:05-2:08 and please send me some video of you in your track spikes or racing flats... I can't wait to see you midfoot striking for 26.2 miles.
Subway Surfers Addiction wrote:
There is an outside to your mid foot?
Which collapses if you land on it first, rather than bearing your weight, which both forefoot and heel are capable of doing alone prior to them both being in contact and the arch flattening.
Bad Wigins wrote:
Subway Surfers Addiction wrote:There is an outside to your mid foot?
Which collapses if you land on it first, rather than bearing your weight, which both forefoot and heel are capable of doing alone prior to them both being in contact and the arch flattening.
What about orthotics? The arch and outside can land insinc.
Subway Surfers Addiction wrote:
Bad Wigins wrote:This thread almost got through an entire page without anyone trotting out the "midfoot striker" baloney. You ruined it.
The midfoot is the arch and doesn't touch the ground. Even if the middle of a shoe touches first, there is no weight on it. Only when the forefoot or heel hits is there a "strike."
Very rarely do both heel and forefoot strike at the exact same time. Even a few milliseconds difference is mechanically significant.
There is an outside to your mid foot?
Joachim Cruz once said at coaching clinic that the Kenyans had the flatest he had seen.
What about when you plod for your first mile (or when you are sore)? The entire foot lands at the same time roughly.
True.
No such thing as midfoot strike. You either land on the ball of the foot or on the heel. Try landing on both with equal impact and you will have such a shock to the bones because there is no absorption.
However, what can differ from one runner to another is where exactly on the ball of the foot he lands or where on the heel. On some runners it looks more prominent from others. Rupp for example land extremely forefoot also because he runs on the same line, feet go inwards. Also T Dibaba lands very forefoot. But the principle is the same. Weight goes either on the ball of the foot or on the heel. No such thing as midfoot or as flat. Sometimes also the forefoot strike looks with cushioned shoes very flat but inside the shoe it is the ball of the foot that takes weight.
In my opinion forefoot runners don't need heel cushioning at all, it needs to flat like in spikes, and cushioning should be only on the forefoot of the sole. I have an old pair of road running shoes that I intend to cut the heel cushioning and check how it feels.
Wrong!
The technique stays the same and the footstrike stays the same. A runner shouldn't change his technique when moving from track to road. Also it doesn't matter what speed you cruise. A forefoot striker even when jogging very slowly would strike forefoot. Look here at Kipchoge on the track and on the road running a marathon. Same footstrike, same technique.
https://media.aws.iaaf.org/media/LargeL/cd9ae910-d7c5-4854-9ea8-e5fe2e49e1b7.png?v=-606188367
https://media.aws.iaaf.org/media/LargeL/cd9ae910-d7c5-4854-9ea8-e5fe2e49e1b7.png?v=-606188367
What might be different between a 5k-10k and a marathon is maybe the amount of relaxation that affects maybe the upper body and a little bit of the hand swing often looking more relaxed and closer to the chest. I don't know why but many elite women run the marathon with arms very close to the chest.
A "hobbyjogger" who runs 2:05, that is
RIP: D3 All-American Frank Csorba - who ran 13:56 in March - dead
RENATO can you talk about the preparation of Emile Cairess 2:06
Great interview with Steve Cram - says Jakob has no chance of WRs this year
Running for Bowerman Track Club used to be cool now its embarrassing
Hats off to my dad. He just ran a 1:42 Half Marathon and turns 75 in 2 months!
2024 College Track & Field Open Coaching Positions Discussion
