Another YTF follower another dream: follow my progress to another half marathon and beyond!!
02-05-2016
, 07:45 PM
nice week!
do you use always the same shoes or do you rotate between different ones? if it's only one pair since the beginning of the log, it COULD be time to exchange them. (general guideline is 300-500 miles, i guess you ran ~500m so far in the log). but it's very individual how long shoes hold up.
but i have the slight impression that you're more often sore in the last few weeks than before, and that seems slightly unusual and COULD be a result of worn-out shoes. (many coulds and woulds, hehe)
also: as you run 5-6 times per week quite regularly, it would make sense to rotate between at least 2 pairs, so that each pair has enough time to "recover" (general guideline is 48hours between runs); personally, i don't really believe in the "shoe-recovery-idea" (or that it really matters), BUT if you keep up your volume, you need to (unfortunately) exchange shoes somewhat regularly anyway, and then it makes more sense to always rotate between a newer and an older pair, to avoid injuries (and to be able to slowly wear in new pairs).
also, those two are imho unanswered
do you use always the same shoes or do you rotate between different ones? if it's only one pair since the beginning of the log, it COULD be time to exchange them. (general guideline is 300-500 miles, i guess you ran ~500m so far in the log). but it's very individual how long shoes hold up.
but i have the slight impression that you're more often sore in the last few weeks than before, and that seems slightly unusual and COULD be a result of worn-out shoes. (many coulds and woulds, hehe)
also: as you run 5-6 times per week quite regularly, it would make sense to rotate between at least 2 pairs, so that each pair has enough time to "recover" (general guideline is 48hours between runs); personally, i don't really believe in the "shoe-recovery-idea" (or that it really matters), BUT if you keep up your volume, you need to (unfortunately) exchange shoes somewhat regularly anyway, and then it makes more sense to always rotate between a newer and an older pair, to avoid injuries (and to be able to slowly wear in new pairs).
also, those two are imho unanswered
02-06-2016
, 07:33 AM
I'm completely unconvinced by the 3-500 mile guideline for shoes thing. As far as I'm concerned it's just a myth that's pedalled by the shoe companies to get you buying more shoes. Pretty sure there's literally zero evidence that shows it to be genuine.
I don't know what the latest evidence regarding barefoot running is, but lots of people run in barefoot/minimalist shoes and afaik injury rates aren't any higher in this group of people, so why should having a worn-out cushioned shoe cause any problems?
I know this is lol-sample size, but fwiw these are my "road shoes". They're a ridiculously worn-out pair of fell shoes that have probably done something like 1000 miles. I'm using them for all my road running atm and am currently simultaneously going through the highest volume of training I've ever done and the longest injury-free period I've ever had.....
I don't know what the latest evidence regarding barefoot running is, but lots of people run in barefoot/minimalist shoes and afaik injury rates aren't any higher in this group of people, so why should having a worn-out cushioned shoe cause any problems?
I know this is lol-sample size, but fwiw these are my "road shoes". They're a ridiculously worn-out pair of fell shoes that have probably done something like 1000 miles. I'm using them for all my road running atm and am currently simultaneously going through the highest volume of training I've ever done and the longest injury-free period I've ever had.....
02-06-2016
, 12:10 PM
@OP: no, you can start with the strides now. they shouldn't have any downside (like longer recovery or injury risk). it's important to remember: it's NOT sprint training. you're NOT sprinting. the pace should always still feel relaxed (for the ~20-50m that you have "top speed"; of course you couldn't hold the pace "relaxed" for a long time).
and as always: start out slow.
@ron: yeah, i'm also not sold on the guidelines. i thought i had included a disclaimer in my post about it, but it seems i deleted it in the end...
BUT: if you look at http://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_re...thread=7012627 , many people replace them after a few hundred miles (others keep them for 2000 miles!). and those are all (or nearly all) very serious runners, and they at least feel that they need to exchange them that regularly. that's why i said it COULD be useful for OP. (but it's a good possibility that his shoes are completely fine; but i would still rotate at least 2 pairs)
i think it doesn't make sense to compare minimalist shoes with strongly cushioned shoes (what i assume OP wears). the shoe has a completely different function there. and it's a reality that EVA foam doesn't hold up really well over time / impact. it's also not that useful to use your anecdotal experience with OP. weight is the largest difference, but all your tendons and muscles should be much better adapted & robust. you also (probably) have better running economy and you probably have closer to a forefoot / midfoot strike because that's the natural running style when running up hills. (but that's a complete guess).
but still: damn, those shoes look terrible and my feet hurt by just looking at them!
and as always: start out slow.
@ron: yeah, i'm also not sold on the guidelines. i thought i had included a disclaimer in my post about it, but it seems i deleted it in the end...
BUT: if you look at http://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_re...thread=7012627 , many people replace them after a few hundred miles (others keep them for 2000 miles!). and those are all (or nearly all) very serious runners, and they at least feel that they need to exchange them that regularly. that's why i said it COULD be useful for OP. (but it's a good possibility that his shoes are completely fine; but i would still rotate at least 2 pairs)
i think it doesn't make sense to compare minimalist shoes with strongly cushioned shoes (what i assume OP wears). the shoe has a completely different function there. and it's a reality that EVA foam doesn't hold up really well over time / impact. it's also not that useful to use your anecdotal experience with OP. weight is the largest difference, but all your tendons and muscles should be much better adapted & robust. you also (probably) have better running economy and you probably have closer to a forefoot / midfoot strike because that's the natural running style when running up hills. (but that's a complete guess).
but still: damn, those shoes look terrible and my feet hurt by just looking at them!
02-06-2016
, 02:24 PM
Tron,
Went back and looked and it was September 12th when I got my shoes so I've got just under 500 miles on them. They're Nike FS Lite Run 2's...compared to my previous pair they have much less support. I picked them mainly because the weight felt so much lighter.
[IMG]
[/IMG]
Went back and looked and it was September 12th when I got my shoes so I've got just under 500 miles on them. They're Nike FS Lite Run 2's...compared to my previous pair they have much less support. I picked them mainly because the weight felt so much lighter.
[IMG]
[/IMG]
02-08-2016
, 06:23 PM
i looked the race profile up on strava and had to lol a little. total elevation is ~50m , the first bridge "hump" is ~10m elevation and the 2nd one ~20m elevation. i don't mean this in a belittling way, but in a "lol florida flat" way. i expected like 200-300m elevation based on your description.
i think those hills are not big enough to warant a special race plan. just go out at your goal pace (*more about that below) and then while going up the bridge you reduce the pace (so that intensity stays around the same or A LITTLE BIT higher than before. don't blow up on the uphill, walk parts of it if needed). then at the top you accelerate and let gravity help you down the hill (while staying relaxed and recovering slightly). then just continue on the flat parts as before. repeat for rest of the race.
*goal pace: you ran 58.51 in a 10k 3 weeks ago. weight loss // training progress since then will be minimal. and i assume the 10k was completely flat? iirc, you didn't taper much in january, so there's some some potential for improvement. but realistically, you will be more or less exactly as fast of a runner now than you were in january. and iirc, the january race went very well, so you probably came close to your max potential then. if anything, you will run into endurance-limitations in a 15k that didn't "appear" in a 10k (even though it shouldn't play any role in reality)
http://www.runningforfitness.org/cal...bmit=Calculate gives you a 1:30:14 15k time (9:41 pace). so i would go out at a 9:40 pace and just run the hills at a pace that seems sustainable and see if you end up with sub 1h30 or not. starting out faster than that seems too optimistic imho.
i think those hills are not big enough to warant a special race plan. just go out at your goal pace (*more about that below) and then while going up the bridge you reduce the pace (so that intensity stays around the same or A LITTLE BIT higher than before. don't blow up on the uphill, walk parts of it if needed). then at the top you accelerate and let gravity help you down the hill (while staying relaxed and recovering slightly). then just continue on the flat parts as before. repeat for rest of the race.
*goal pace: you ran 58.51 in a 10k 3 weeks ago. weight loss // training progress since then will be minimal. and i assume the 10k was completely flat? iirc, you didn't taper much in january, so there's some some potential for improvement. but realistically, you will be more or less exactly as fast of a runner now than you were in january. and iirc, the january race went very well, so you probably came close to your max potential then. if anything, you will run into endurance-limitations in a 15k that didn't "appear" in a 10k (even though it shouldn't play any role in reality)
http://www.runningforfitness.org/cal...bmit=Calculate gives you a 1:30:14 15k time (9:41 pace). so i would go out at a 9:40 pace and just run the hills at a pace that seems sustainable and see if you end up with sub 1h30 or not. starting out faster than that seems too optimistic imho.
02-09-2016
, 05:44 AM
02-12-2016
, 04:51 PM