I believe everyone physically able to should try running 13.1 mph on a treadmill just to get an understanding of just how fast these athletes run for two hours. It is incredible.
Nike’s Two Hour Marathon Attempt
11–20 of 126 posts
Re: Nike’s Two Hour Marathon Attempt
#12I believe everyone physically able to should try running 13.1 mph on a treadmill just to get an understanding of just how fast these athletes run for two hours. It is incredible.
13.1 mph is a decent pace on a bike! That's the sort of pace you set for a commute to split minimizing your commute time with arriving at work not completely exhausted and sweaty.
Re: Nike’s Two Hour Marathon Attempt
#13Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm just one data point, but as a semi-serious runner I tried switching from ordinary Nike running shoes to the cushion-less, toe-heel-preferred style, and found it made no difference. I think all this business about "running shoes are bad for you" is an overblown fad, no different than all the other fitness fads that come and go.
Thankfully there are scientific data to prove you wrong. You just need to leave your prejudice and bubble behind, and we're talking about running mechanics here not Nike's competitors producing minimalist shoe wear. They you can have doubt about.
Your comment comes across as a little smug. Are you sure the scientific data conclusively proves the GP's comment "wrong"? You didn't link to what you had in mind, but this study seems to reinforce their comment...
https://www.runnersworld.com/running-shoes/study-zero-drop-c...
Re: Nike’s Two Hour Marathon Attempt
#14I believe everyone physically able to should try running 13.1 mph on a treadmill just to get an understanding of just how fast these athletes run for two hours. It is incredible.
Pretty sure I'd fly off.
Re: Nike’s Two Hour Marathon Attempt
#15Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm just one data point, but as a semi-serious runner I tried switching from ordinary Nike running shoes to the cushion-less, toe-heel-preferred style, and found it made no difference. I think all this business about "running shoes are bad for you" is an overblown fad, no different than all the other fitness fads that come and go.
Thankfully there are scientific data to prove you wrong. You just need to leave your prejudice and bubble behind, and we're talking about running mechanics here not Nike's competitors producing minimalist shoe wear. They you can have doubt about.
I would be very interested in seeing those data. If you're going to cite Lieberman, I would say that he is a lot more cautious and nuanced than most articles have make him sound. He doesn't make overly generalized bold claims.
Most of these papers I've come across makes a number of assumption and use various methods that are proxies for what they want to measure. For example, they will force plates to measure the amount of force generated against the ground. But that doesn't necessarily imply more injuries because of the number of different components involved in your feet and legs. In fact, the foot is extraordinarily complex and I think that's part of Lieberman's general idea. I don't think it's prudent to reduce it to a single set of number and say "yep, more injuries" because having shoes on or off and different design of shoes can all affect how your feet and legs respond to that force.
It's not that I necessarily disagree with your statement but as far as I know there is no scientific paper that simply states, "shoes are bad for running" or "minimal shoes are good", etc. Making claims like that are often unhelpful because there isn't one simple answer to running injuries. We have a huge number of supporting muscles and components that are involved in running. Your feet is only one part in that system and even those are complex systems in themselves.
Re: Nike’s Two Hour Marathon Attempt
#16Earlier quoted context omitted.
There is strong evidence of a need to wear shoes that don't pinch the toes (push them together) nor elevate the heel to much.
I'm just one data point, but as a semi-serious runner I tried switching from ordinary Nike running shoes to the cushion-less, toe-heel-preferred style, and found it made no difference. I think all this business about "running shoes are bad for you" is an overblown fad, no different than all the other fitness fads that come and go.
Came here to talk about that and see what people thought about barefoot running: either completely unshod or very minimal padding for protection only and not for landing cushion/support.
For better or worse, barefoot forces you to adopt a different gait. Stride length is reduced and landing is shifted more mid/fore-foot instead of heels. Now, can you do this in padded shoes? Sure. You just don't have much choice when barefooting: you will change your stride. If you view heel striking as a bad habit--maybe causing injury--this will prevent that at least.
Personal experience: old guy, unable to run much distance in regular shoes, and after a long conversion period changing technique, I can run a 5k comfortably without injury. Unshod. I'm trying to get up to a 10k. I do wonder if the technique will back-port to regular shoes or if the shod injuries will return.
Re: Nike’s Two Hour Marathon Attempt
#17Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm just one data point, but as a semi-serious runner I tried switching from ordinary Nike running shoes to the cushion-less, toe-heel-preferred style, and found it made no difference. I think all this business about "running shoes are bad for you" is an overblown fad, no different than all the other fitness fads that come and go.
Came here to talk about that and see what people thought about barefoot running: either completely unshod or very minimal padding for protection only and not for landing cushion/support. For better or worse, barefoot forces you to adopt a different gait. Stride length is reduced and landing is shifted more mid/fore-foot instead of heels. Now, can you do this in padded shoes? Sure. You just don't have much choice when…
My personal experience with this is that the real benefit for me with minimal shoes is that I forced myself to shorten my stride. I had to retrain myself by using a foot pod and a heart rate monitor that would beep if my cadence goes below 90 per minute. A high cadence forces my body to shorten its stride length and I think that has made a bigger difference for me in terms of injury than anything else. I've stayed with minimal shoes simply because it's easier to have a high cadence in light weight minimal shoes. Plus, the more padded shoes became unnecessary. Not sure if the technique works for you but could be worth trying.
Re: Nike’s Two Hour Marathon Attempt
#18A few week's ago I read a a paper entitled "Modeling: optimal marathon performance on the basis of physiological factors". I found the topic incredibly interesting. In this paper (from 1991) the author examines the limiting factors in human running and tries to build a model that gives you a bound on how fast a human could run a marathon. The results he got is 1:57:58. You can take a look at the paper here http://fer…
That paper is referenced in this story.
Amazing how people don't even open the article isn't it?
edit: opening it is the easy part, reading however proves challenging for some
Re: Nike’s Two Hour Marathon Attempt
#19Earlier quoted context omitted.
Something wrong with Nikes?
There is strong evidence of a need to wear shoes that don't pinch the toes (push them together) nor elevate the heel to much.
There's stronger evidence (among serious-ish runners) that it doesn't really matter, and you should wear what feels good.