41–50 of 126 posts
Earlier 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.
There's stronger evidence (among serious-ish runners) that it doesn't really matter, and you should wear what feels good.
There's some science behind it too. Google "Benno Nigg" and "comfort filter".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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
what article? all i see are comments ... nice juicy comments
I don't think there's anything wrong with reading comments first, and in some select cases commenting yourself. Comments are why I'm here. That said, it's worth keeping in mind whether you've read the article though and how that affects your interpretation of what you're reading, and what you want to say. Be signal, not noise (I think that's a perfect motto for HN and summarizes the rules fairly well).
Speaking as someone who has run a lot of marathons and half marathons, it would be more honest to describe this project as attempting to have a human run 26.2 miles in under 2 hours in perfect, laboratory like conditions. It's a little insulting to marathon runners to claim this is a 'marathon' IMO. Long but fascinating article though...
What if it was an official marathon where they run with very strong winds at their back. Would you consider that achievement worse than perfect lab like conditions?
It's a certain distance, by foot. That's it. I also see snobbishness and even anger toward run-walkers. Even if they do the same distance in the same conditions.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 wi…
Earlier 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…
It certainly has its place, but I've heard of too many people trying to make a switch to it only to get injured. The biggest arguments behind it are that 'it's a more natural way to run' and that 'a lot of Kenyans and Ethiopians do it and they're the best in the world'.
The truth is, they've been running that way pretty much their entire life. You (most likely) have not. Your feet will not be able to handle the beating that their feet can. I have never met a professional runner that identified as a 'barefoot' runner. A lot of runners will work in some sort of 'barefoot' training, but it's minimal and used to build up stabilizing muscles. When a single run can take you over gravel, onto a sidewalk, and through a trail in the forest, it's next to impossible to run barefoot or even with a 'barefoot' running shoe.
You are certainly free to do as you wish, but barefoot running should most likely be used as a tool at best. If you really want to make a complete transition, you would likely need to approach it with the same rigor and dedication someone would use when training for a marathon.
But by then, he had won four major marathons and the Olympic gold medal, and what he lacked in raw physical potential he made up for with … something. It seems like the next frontier in distance running optimization is the mind. Given the analysis on the runners' physiology, the only thing that really separated them was mentality. This seems obvious, given the nature of distance running, but the article never mention…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
How do you deal with blisters? I tried barefoot running, made it about 1/10th of a mile, and had to walk back on my heels because my feet were raw and bleeding. I had large blisters for a few days after.
Speaking as someone who has run a lot of marathons and half marathons, it would be more honest to describe this project as attempting to have a human run 26.2 miles in under 2 hours in perfect, laboratory like conditions. It's a little insulting to marathon runners to claim this is a 'marathon' IMO. Long but fascinating article though...
I don't know why runners are so snobby when it comes things like this. What if it was an official marathon where they run with very strong winds at their back. Would you consider that achievement worse than perfect lab like conditions? It's a certain distance, by foot. That's it. I also see snobbishness and even anger toward run-walkers. Even if they do the same distance in the same conditions.
The courses need to follow certain rules to mitigate the effect of tailwinds, slopes and things like that. That's why Boston isn't eligible for world records.
Here's the rule: "The start and finish points of a course, measured along a theoretical straight line between them, shall not be further apart than 50% of the race distance." (http://www.aims-worldrunning.org/world-records.html)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's totally a marathon! Sure, the conditions are lab perfect -- but these are also some of the best runners in the world.
The original definition of a marathon involves running from Athens to Marathon in Greece, and when your average person thinks of a marathon, they think of the street races that happen all around the world. Marathon running isn't necessarily a track and field sport in the way the 100 meter sprint is.
The story takes place after Athenian Hoplites pushes back a Persian army into their ships at the Marathon shores, after which this ship sails to Athens to wreak havoc. Hoplites make the run from Marathon to Athens just in time to defend against Persians and successfully discourage them against further attacks.
After the Battle of Marathon, hoplites who were in the war referred it to as "the run", "we ran", or had "he ran" carved in their tombstones etc. So Marathon became synonymous with running.