Barefoot/Minimalist Running
Replies
-
OldAssDude wrote: »i'm old (60) and have been adding running to my workouts for going on a year now. Started only being able to run for about 30 seconds, and worked my way up to being able to run 5 miles at a slow pace.
During this time I feel like my joints (knees, hips, etc...) have gotten stronger, but I have always felt a lot of stress on them. Not injury type stress, but I am concerned about the effects of long term stress.
I wanted to start working on improving my pace, and started doing intervals. I run for 30 to 60 seconds at a fast pace, then power walk for 3 to 4 minutes at about a 4 mph pace. My mile time was about 13 to 14 minutes, but since I've been doing these intervals (a few months now), I ran a mile the other week in 11:28.
Recently I have been reading up on running form and different types of running shoes, and I started reading about barefoot running. It made sense to me so I wanted to give it a try. It definitely showed me how bad my form is, and now that I am trying to develop a mid-foot strike, I don't feel any of the stress on my joints that I used to feel.
I probably am doing too much too fast, and that is probably why my feet and Achilles tendons are killing me, but I can't push hard enough to get a good cardio and I don't want to wind up injured. So I figure now that I know what i need to work on with my form, I can still do that wearing my Altra Escalante's as they are basically minimalist shoes with cushioning.
I found out I am a hard heel striker (especially power walking), and that is causing a lot of braking action, and that is causing me to exert more energy at even a slower paces. If I can improve my form with less breaking action, I think I should be able to improve my pace and use the same amount of energy.
At least that is what I am thinking.
Do let me know if I am on the right track (or not).
thanks,
Not sure if you stated your normal weekly mileage, but pace/interval work will probably be much less helpful to you than slow easy volume until you regularly run upwards of 15-20ish miles per week.
Rather than shift to intervals too soon, you might be better served to build a very solid cardio & physical base by focusing on easy volume. Something like 2-3 weekly sessions of easy medium mileage, 1 weekly session of shorter tempo miles, and 1 weekly session of long slow distance is kind of a 'cookie cutter' training agenda for most of us in the advanced beginner camp. This focus on long slow mileage will give you plenty of time to physically adjust to distance running and will naturally increase your pace for shorter distances.
Braking action is not really caused by heel striking by itself. Braking action is really caused by your foot landing too far out in front of your body. You can actually play around with your stride length while walking to see this in action. If you focus on shorter strides that land underneath your center of gravity, then even without consciously changing your foot strike, you'll find the shorter strides are much much easier on your knees.
I put in 20 to 30 miles per week between power walking, steady state runs, and intervals. I like to mix it up, but the longest steady state run I do is 5 miles (most of the time it's 3 to 3.5 miles). I'm pretty sure I could do a 10k run, but I only do this to improve and maintain my fitness level.
I just added the intervals not too long ago to see if I could increase my mile time (which it seemed to help). I have read that one way to run faster is to run faster. In addition I try to come close to my MHR on the run interval, so I get a good anaerobic training effect.
I just don't wanna be one of those people who's fallen and can't get up... hahaha
1 -
@AnvilHead & @OldAssDude regarding the Altra's.
2 yrs ago when I checked none of the running stores had them, and they already other minimalist stuff for many years, so just a matter of not carrying that brand. So no ability to physically check.
You mentioned wider, than standard shoes? Or just not as narrow as some?
I do need tad wider than normal, the narrow ones, or the curve of the last on some of them, just was terrible.
The Saucony Kinvara 5 I got in on and liked, read reviews the 6 changed thing in bad way, and bought several more of the 5's.
But I'd like the 0 drop like the Sketchers I got, but with actual tread to last awhile.
Also, the Kinvara had enough foot space height to slip a full length lift for unequal leg, others were too tight already.
Just curious, think I want to order some.
Thanks for any info, already gave alot.
If you're looking for something wider than your typical running shoe, but not as wide as Altras, check out Topo shoes. Not a big stack like some of the Hokas, if that's a concern.0 -
@AnvilHead & @OldAssDude regarding the Altra's.
2 yrs ago when I checked none of the running stores had them, and they already other minimalist stuff for many years, so just a matter of not carrying that brand. So no ability to physically check.
You mentioned wider, than standard shoes? Or just not as narrow as some?
I do need tad wider than normal, the narrow ones, or the curve of the last on some of them, just was terrible.
The Saucony Kinvara 5 I got in on and liked, read reviews the 6 changed thing in bad way, and bought several more of the 5's.
But I'd like the 0 drop like the Sketchers I got, but with actual tread to last awhile.
Also, the Kinvara had enough foot space height to slip a full length lift for unequal leg, others were too tight already.
Just curious, think I want to order some.
Thanks for any info, already gave alot.
I don't think the Altra's are all around wider. They just have a wider toe box that are shaped more like a foot. This allows room for your toes to spread out.0 -
The Altras have a wide toe box, which some don't like the look of. I personally don't mind it and I like having the room for my forefoot, as I feel pinched across the forefoot in a lot of running shoes. Read the review from fellrnr.com here, taking into consideration he's a runner who advocates cutting open the toe box on almost every running shoe that has ever existed.@AnvilHead & @OldAssDude regarding the Altra's.
2 yrs ago when I checked none of the running stores had them, and they already other minimalist stuff for many years, so just a matter of not carrying that brand. So no ability to physically check.
You mentioned wider, than standard shoes? Or just not as narrow as some?
I do need tad wider than normal, the narrow ones, or the curve of the last on some of them, just was terrible.
The Saucony Kinvara 5 I got in on and liked, read reviews the 6 changed thing in bad way, and bought several more of the 5's.
But I'd like the 0 drop like the Sketchers I got, but with actual tread to last awhile.
Also, the Kinvara had enough foot space height to slip a full length lift for unequal leg, others were too tight already.
Just curious, think I want to order some.
Thanks for any info, already gave alot.
With the knit upper, it should be plenty flexible enough to use an insert - although I'll admit I've never tried it myself.
I couldn't find them anywhere in local stores either, so I took a chance in the blind and ordered them online. I've had my gait analyzed and know I'm a good fit for neutral shoes, so it was a safe enough bet and paid off, as I'm real happy with them.
The Altra Escalante is definitely not a stability shoe. The sole is thin and flexible and the knit upper is very pliant and minimalist. Super comfortable, but if you're looking for a stability shoe, this isn't it.Tacklewasher wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »Tacklewasher wrote: »
Altra Escalante is my current favorite running shoe. Before them I was wearing Asics, then Hoka One Ones. I loved the rockered sole on the Hokas which made running feel effortless and they were so cushioned that it was like running on a cloud, but they're too narrow for my feet and started getting painful after a couple miles. I also wasn't crazy about how thick the soles were - it felt like wearing platform shoes.OldAssDude wrote: »...I am rethinking this whole thing now. I have a pair of Altra Escalante's, and they are zero drop, flexible, flat with no real arch support, but they have some cushioning. I put them on yesterday and within a matter of hours my feet felt fine again, and my Achilles tendon is hardly sore at all now...
When I first switched to Altras, the zero drop made it feel like I was running with the brakes on in comparison to the Hokas. After a little adaptation period, the Altras just feel like....nothing....to me (in a good way). I don't notice anything about them when I'm running - they're cushioned enough without being too cushioned, roomy enough without being sloppy, and almost as flexible as running barefoot while still offering protection. Basically, they just get out of the way and let you run.
I'm a mid/forefoot striker regardless of what shoes I'm running in, so that didn't require any adaptation for me. I've run in barefoot/minimalist zero drop shoes before (Merrells and Five Fingers), so I knew to take it easy for a few runs to minimize the calf/achilles pain as I adapted back to the zero drop. To me, the Altras are the best of both worlds - minimalist enough without being too minimalist, and cushioned enough without feeling like I have couches strapped to my feet.
I find this interesting.
I've just switched from Asics GT-1000 to Hoka One One. My take is that they made more cushioning in the front as opposed to dropping the heel. Whether that is true or not, I don't know but I get the "platform shoe" feeling as well. But so far I'm liking them. I've got about 50KM on them. are the Altras similar for providing support? I still feel that I would need that, but they sound interesting.
My understanding is that the lift or platform on the altras isn't as extreme as the Hokas.
Looking online, they may not offer the stability I'm wearing now. The Hoka and Asics are a 3 whereas the Altra are 2. Looking at the running room site for this.0 -
The whole "heel striking" thing is very misleading.
They take photos of the millisecond a person is landing and say, "Bad!" and then photos of the next millisecond when the foot is flat, and say, "Good!"
Everyone heel strikes at some point in their stride.
I certainly haven't bought into the racist mythologising in "Born to Run".
2 -
OldAssDude wrote: »I just added the intervals not too long ago to see if I could increase my mile time (which it seemed to help). I have read that one way to run faster is to run faster.
That's not untrue but speedwork also introduces a ton of stress to your joints and muscles and unless you have an established cardio base the help it provides will be limited.
It seems counter-intuitive but the most effective, easiest, and safest way to get faster at a shorter distance is to run easy miles over a longer distance. Regularly running ~20 miles per week at ~4-5 easy miles per session did wonders for my 5K and mile times. Much more effective than short intervals given my relatively low mileage base.
1 -
The whole "heel striking" thing is very misleading.
They take photos of the millisecond a person is landing and say, "Bad!" and then photos of the next millisecond when the foot is flat, and say, "Good!"
Everyone heel strikes at some point in their stride.
I certainly haven't bought into the racist mythologising in "Born to Run".
I assume there is a significant difference between the heel contacting the road while allowing the leg/foot to naturally absorb the impact and the heel striking the road with a rigid/semi-rigid leg/knee and passing a high degree of impact/stress up through the leg.
If that makes any sense.
Heel striking while allowing the feet/legs to act as suspension probably isn't the evil it's made out to be. Heel striking while NOT allowing the feet/legs to act as suspension is probably a recipe for problems over the long term.5 -
The whole "heel striking" thing is very misleading.
They take photos of the millisecond a person is landing and say, "Bad!" and then photos of the next millisecond when the foot is flat, and say, "Good!"
Everyone heel strikes at some point in their stride.
I certainly haven't bought into the racist mythologising in "Born to Run".
I assume there is a significant difference between the heel contacting the road while allowing the leg/foot to naturally absorb the impact and the heel striking the road with a rigid/semi-rigid leg/knee and passing a high degree of impact/stress up through the leg.
If that makes any sense.
Heel striking while allowing the feet/legs to act as suspension probably isn't the evil it's made out to be. Heel striking while NOT allowing the feet/legs to act as suspension is probably a recipe for problems over the long term.
There is no way someone can "not allow" the feet/legs to act as suspension, unless you have powers of anti-gravity.
I don't buy the big fear that the barefoot cult spreads that has most runners living in fear that "I'm doing it wrong".2 -
The whole "heel striking" thing is very misleading.
They take photos of the millisecond a person is landing and say, "Bad!" and then photos of the next millisecond when the foot is flat, and say, "Good!"
Everyone heel strikes at some point in their stride.
I certainly haven't bought into the racist mythologising in "Born to Run".
I assume there is a significant difference between the heel contacting the road while allowing the leg/foot to naturally absorb the impact and the heel striking the road with a rigid/semi-rigid leg/knee and passing a high degree of impact/stress up through the leg.
If that makes any sense.
Heel striking while allowing the feet/legs to act as suspension probably isn't the evil it's made out to be. Heel striking while NOT allowing the feet/legs to act as suspension is probably a recipe for problems over the long term.
There is no way someone can "not allow" the feet/legs to act as suspension, unless you have powers of anti-gravity.
I don't buy the big fear that the barefoot cult spreads that has most runners living in fear that "I'm doing it wrong".
I think part of this is that the debate conflates heel strike with overreaching. It's the latter that's the problem for most, not the former. As we can see here maximal shoes may be a good solution, rather than minimal.
That said I'm also not a big advocate of gait analysis by default. Gait analysis would have me in motion control, but I tend to run in neutral, low protection shoes.0 -
The whole "heel striking" thing is very misleading.
They take photos of the millisecond a person is landing and say, "Bad!" and then photos of the next millisecond when the foot is flat, and say, "Good!"
Everyone heel strikes at some point in their stride.
I certainly haven't bought into the racist mythologising in "Born to Run".
Just my quick n=1, but I don't heel strike. My natural (running) gait is to run as though I'm running upstairs - the ball of my foot contacts first, then my heel comes down to just touch the floor before the next step.
I've tried coming down heel first (as an experiment), and it feels like I'm putting the brakes on with every landing - it's completely exhausting to me.
I do run barefoot on the treadmill, but that's mostly because my natural gait is perfect for it, and it means I don't have to keep buying shoes!
1 -
MeanderingMammal wrote: »The whole "heel striking" thing is very misleading.
They take photos of the millisecond a person is landing and say, "Bad!" and then photos of the next millisecond when the foot is flat, and say, "Good!"
Everyone heel strikes at some point in their stride.
I certainly haven't bought into the racist mythologising in "Born to Run".
I assume there is a significant difference between the heel contacting the road while allowing the leg/foot to naturally absorb the impact and the heel striking the road with a rigid/semi-rigid leg/knee and passing a high degree of impact/stress up through the leg.
If that makes any sense.
Heel striking while allowing the feet/legs to act as suspension probably isn't the evil it's made out to be. Heel striking while NOT allowing the feet/legs to act as suspension is probably a recipe for problems over the long term.
There is no way someone can "not allow" the feet/legs to act as suspension, unless you have powers of anti-gravity.
I don't buy the big fear that the barefoot cult spreads that has most runners living in fear that "I'm doing it wrong".
I think part of this is that the debate conflates heel strike with overreaching. It's the latter that's the problem for most, not the former.
Thank you. That's more what I was trying to get at, but you said it much better.
1 -
There is no way someone can "not allow" the feet/legs to act as suspension, unless you have powers of anti-gravity.
I don't buy the big fear that the barefoot cult spreads that has most runners living in fear that "I'm doing it wrong".
I absolutely don't believe that barefoot/minimalist running is the universal answer, nor that heel striking is one of the seven deadly sins but it is absolutely possible for somebody to limit the suspension action of their feet/legs during their stride regardless of footwear choice or foot strike position.
Overstriders will limit the suspension action simply because it's impossible for them not to given the position of the knee/leg relative to the direction of motion when landing. This is what causes a braking effect...the knee actually resists the landing force instead of bending into it.1 -
There is no way someone can "not allow" the feet/legs to act as suspension, unless you have powers of anti-gravity.
I don't buy the big fear that the barefoot cult spreads that has most runners living in fear that "I'm doing it wrong".
I absolutely don't believe that barefoot/minimalist running is the universal answer, nor that heel striking is one of the seven deadly sins but it is absolutely possible for somebody to limit the suspension action of their feet/legs during their stride regardless of footwear choice or foot strike position.
Overstriders will limit the suspension action simply because it's impossible for them not to given the position of the knee/leg relative to the direction of motion when landing. This is what causes a braking effect...the knee actually resists the landing force instead of bending into it.
I have still gone out to places and while sitting in car watched the people on the track or path or whatever - and there are plenty that still overstride with that straight knee.
Most are not going fast, so it doesn't look like a huge overstride, but for the pace they are, it's a heel land with straight knee, no way around it.
Much like I've seen people that I'm guessing are attempting power walking doing the same thing, and those that land what I'd consider safer with slight bent knee and I'm guessing actually learned how to do it properly.
I think it's just a problem of very cushioned shoes and lack of experience have caused many to have no natural feel for a better way to land for safety.
And the idea of going out barefoot on grass like when a kid may bring it back again correctly.1 -
I want to thank every one who responded to this thread. A lot of great advice, and I am learning a great deal from it.
I am thinking now that I should be more concerned about my form in regards to my strike being under me instead of ahead of me regardless if I heel strike or not to minimize breaking action. And using shorter stride and higher cadence to minimize impact.
Also for the advice on speed work. I will start doing more slow paced steady state to build my distance more.
As far as the shoes go, I'm going to stick to neutral shoes that are flexible, have very little arch support, and have some cushioning. I have the Altra Escalane's which are becoming my current favorites for pounding the asphalt, and for trail running I have the Altra Lone Peak 3.0's.
I still may wear the barefoot shoes for just regular wear.
Thanks again,
Bob3 -
I like the VFF now for very rough trail walking, where I wouldn't attempt jogging.
Since it's mainly forefoot landing and perhaps nothing more due to sharp rocks - it's a real workout for short distance. Especially if you count jumping out of way of mountain bikers whipping around a corner.0 -
OldAssDude wrote: »I want to thank every one who responded to this thread. A lot of great advice, and I am learning a great deal from it.
I am thinking now that I should be more concerned about my form in regards to my strike being under me instead of ahead of me regardless if I heel strike or not to minimize breaking action. And using shorter stride and higher cadence to minimize impact.
It's been suggested to me to work towards 180 bpm minimum, but not try to do it all at once. Normal for me is around 165, so I've got a bit to go but am working on it slowly. I've tried finding music at 180 to run to but haven't quite hit the mix I want yet.
0 -
At This Moment
Maneater
Kyrie
All Around the World
Heart And Soul
Tenderness
Get Out of London
Africa
Examples of 90 bpm with 5 spread
Probably sensing a theme there, but I haven't gotten more of my CD's ripped to MP3's.
And yes, both things just dated me!
And yes, hard to find many in that range - I used them also for solo long spin bike workouts during the winter, at least then I'd vary to slow hills, fast downs, slow/fast flats all at different bpm, but still hard to find many of those 90-95 range.
You have something to read MP3's and give bpm?0 -
I do walk barefoot quite a bit. But the trails that I run on wouldn't be the best place to go barefoot. Some of the ground is soft enough, but mostly there's a lot of leaping over boulders and running through rock shards. I'd be a bloody mess. No thanks. I'm guessing the people trail-running barefoot must be running on soft dirt trails?0
-
OldAssDude wrote: »...to see if I could increase my mile time (which it seemed to help). I have read that one way to run faster is to run faster. In addition I try to come close to my MHR on the run interval, so I get a good anaerobic training effect.
I just don't wanna be one of those people who's fallen and can't get up... hahaha
I used to be the slowest runner ever, even after running for decades. I could run forever, but I just didn't have the "power" to sustain a fast pace. Several years ago, I started strength training - heavy. Since then, I've been able to improve my pace and prevent virtually all my old injuries from returning. I guess stronger muscles = more power and stability. I haven't had a running injury since, and I'm running at my fastest pace ever, even though I'm getting older.
I'm still not that fast by many people's standards (I think I was born slow) but I'm faster than ever before, and I'm no longer the slowest person at the races anymore. (I went from a 13 minute mile - don't laugh, I said I was slow - to a 10 minute mile.) Huge improvement for me. I still stay closer to an 11 minute mile pace for long distances so I don't crash and burn over the long haul, though.
So I highly recommend incorporating some strength training to improve pace and prevent injury.
1 -
Tacklewasher wrote: »OldAssDude wrote: »I want to thank every one who responded to this thread. A lot of great advice, and I am learning a great deal from it.
I am thinking now that I should be more concerned about my form in regards to my strike being under me instead of ahead of me regardless if I heel strike or not to minimize breaking action. And using shorter stride and higher cadence to minimize impact.
It's been suggested to me to work towards 180 bpm minimum, but not try to do it all at once. Normal for me is around 165, so I've got a bit to go but am working on it slowly. I've tried finding music at 180 to run to but haven't quite hit the mix I want yet.
Cadence is something I really struggle with. From looking at my Garmin Connect stats, my average cadence is right around 150. I really have to focus hard and continuously to even get it around 165, and as soon as I quit focusing on it, it falls right back down to the 150'ish range. I'm very tall (6'6") and long-legged (38" inseam), and when I try to get anywhere near 180 it feels more like I'm breakdancing or doing prancercise than running.2 -
Tacklewasher wrote: »OldAssDude wrote: »I want to thank every one who responded to this thread. A lot of great advice, and I am learning a great deal from it.
I am thinking now that I should be more concerned about my form in regards to my strike being under me instead of ahead of me regardless if I heel strike or not to minimize breaking action. And using shorter stride and higher cadence to minimize impact.
It's been suggested to me to work towards 180 bpm minimum, but not try to do it all at once. Normal for me is around 165, so I've got a bit to go but am working on it slowly. I've tried finding music at 180 to run to but haven't quite hit the mix I want yet.
The 180spm figure was originally established at the 1984 Olympics, and sudsequently corroborated. Other than the knowledge that elite athletes typically run at between 180 and 200 spm is not clear if there is solid benefit. It is known that an increased cadence leads lower stresses on footstrike, and that's likely to lead to lower fatigue and increased injury resilience, but it's not yet clear if there is any disbenefit for recreational runners. It seems that recreational runners typically run between 150 and 170 spm.
Personally, similar to Anvilhead, I find it uncomfortable to get too high for more than short distances. For a 10mi session I'll probably average 160spm, for a short run I'll get to 170 but it does feel like nightingale wings at that point.0 -
OldAssDude wrote: »...to see if I could increase my mile time (which it seemed to help). I have read that one way to run faster is to run faster. In addition I try to come close to my MHR on the run interval, so I get a good anaerobic training effect.
I just don't wanna be one of those people who's fallen and can't get up... hahaha
I used to be the slowest runner ever, even after running for decades. I could run forever, but I just didn't have the "power" to sustain a fast pace. Several years ago, I started strength training - heavy. Since then, I've been able to improve my pace and prevent virtually all my old injuries from returning. I guess stronger muscles = more power and stability. I haven't had a running injury since, and I'm running at my fastest pace ever, even though I'm getting older.
I'm still not that fast by many people's standards (I think I was born slow) but I'm faster than ever before, and I'm no longer the slowest person at the races anymore. (I went from a 13 minute mile - don't laugh, I said I was slow - to a 10 minute mile.) Huge improvement for me. I still stay closer to an 11 minute mile pace for long distances so I don't crash and burn over the long haul, though.
So I highly recommend incorporating some strength training to improve pace and prevent injury.
Any particular exercise and targetted muscle group? I'd like to improve my time as well and keep injuries at bay.0 -
tirowow12385 wrote: »OldAssDude wrote: »...to see if I could increase my mile time (which it seemed to help). I have read that one way to run faster is to run faster. In addition I try to come close to my MHR on the run interval, so I get a good anaerobic training effect.
I just don't wanna be one of those people who's fallen and can't get up... hahaha
I used to be the slowest runner ever, even after running for decades. I could run forever, but I just didn't have the "power" to sustain a fast pace. Several years ago, I started strength training - heavy. Since then, I've been able to improve my pace and prevent virtually all my old injuries from returning. I guess stronger muscles = more power and stability. I haven't had a running injury since, and I'm running at my fastest pace ever, even though I'm getting older.
I'm still not that fast by many people's standards (I think I was born slow) but I'm faster than ever before, and I'm no longer the slowest person at the races anymore. (I went from a 13 minute mile - don't laugh, I said I was slow - to a 10 minute mile.) Huge improvement for me. I still stay closer to an 11 minute mile pace for long distances so I don't crash and burn over the long haul, though.
So I highly recommend incorporating some strength training to improve pace and prevent injury.
Any particular exercise and targetted muscle group? I'd like to improve my time as well and keep injuries at bay.
Squat, deadlift, bench press, military press and barbell row,.
Or you can use bodyweight or suspension trainer equivalents.2 -
Tacklewasher wrote: »OldAssDude wrote: »I want to thank every one who responded to this thread. A lot of great advice, and I am learning a great deal from it.
I am thinking now that I should be more concerned about my form in regards to my strike being under me instead of ahead of me regardless if I heel strike or not to minimize breaking action. And using shorter stride and higher cadence to minimize impact.
It's been suggested to me to work towards 180 bpm minimum, but not try to do it all at once. Normal for me is around 165, so I've got a bit to go but am working on it slowly. I've tried finding music at 180 to run to but haven't quite hit the mix I want yet.
Not sure if it's in the Apple store, but you can download the "Music Speed Changer'' app by Single Minded Production, LLC in the Google Play Store to increase the tempo of your playlist to whatever you want. I've done that to all my music and even remastered some of it, there's an equalizer where you can adjust the bass, treble and voice loudness to your preference, It's free but it comes with ads.0 -
MeanderingMammal wrote: »Tacklewasher wrote: »OldAssDude wrote: »I want to thank every one who responded to this thread. A lot of great advice, and I am learning a great deal from it.
I am thinking now that I should be more concerned about my form in regards to my strike being under me instead of ahead of me regardless if I heel strike or not to minimize breaking action. And using shorter stride and higher cadence to minimize impact.
It's been suggested to me to work towards 180 bpm minimum, but not try to do it all at once. Normal for me is around 165, so I've got a bit to go but am working on it slowly. I've tried finding music at 180 to run to but haven't quite hit the mix I want yet.
The 180spm figure was originally established at the 1984 Olympics, and sudsequently corroborated. Other than the knowledge that elite athletes typically run at between 180 and 200 spm is not clear if there is solid benefit. It is known that an increased cadence leads lower stresses on footstrike, and that's likely to lead to lower fatigue and increased injury resilience, but it's not yet clear if there is any disbenefit for recreational runners. It seems that recreational runners typically run between 150 and 170 spm.
Personally, similar to Anvilhead, I find it uncomfortable to get too high for more than short distances. For a 10mi session I'll probably average 160spm, for a short run I'll get to 170 but it does feel like nightingale wings at that point.
Here is one of the interval runs that i do quite often...
https://connect.garmin.com/modern/activity/2564121624
I have my device set for 1 minute run / 4 minute walk. during the walk interval, I power walk. If you scroll down you can see my cadence, pace, HR, and a bunch of other metrics.
I'm only 5'8" and have pretty short legs, so I can get my cadence up pretty good on short intervals.
Here is another one that I do quite often that I do run intervals based on the terrain. It is quite hilly so I run on certain flat and/or downhill sections...
https://connect.garmin.com/modern/activity/2504250055
My running cadence is less, but I am running at an easier pace on the run parts because they are longer.
I just go based on how I feel and how fast I think I can go, but I'm just an OldAssDude trying to get in shape...:)0 -
OldAssDude wrote: »...to see if I could increase my mile time (which it seemed to help). I have read that one way to run faster is to run faster. In addition I try to come close to my MHR on the run interval, so I get a good anaerobic training effect.
I just don't wanna be one of those people who's fallen and can't get up... hahaha
I used to be the slowest runner ever, even after running for decades. I could run forever, but I just didn't have the "power" to sustain a fast pace. Several years ago, I started strength training - heavy. Since then, I've been able to improve my pace and prevent virtually all my old injuries from returning. I guess stronger muscles = more power and stability. I haven't had a running injury since, and I'm running at my fastest pace ever, even though I'm getting older.
I'm still not that fast by many people's standards (I think I was born slow) but I'm faster than ever before, and I'm no longer the slowest person at the races anymore. (I went from a 13 minute mile - don't laugh, I said I was slow - to a 10 minute mile.) Huge improvement for me. I still stay closer to an 11 minute mile pace for long distances so I don't crash and burn over the long haul, though.
So I highly recommend incorporating some strength training to improve pace and prevent injury.
I hate muscular training because it makes me feel all rubbery, but yes. I should definitely do this too.0 -
Tacklewasher wrote: »OldAssDude wrote: »I want to thank every one who responded to this thread. A lot of great advice, and I am learning a great deal from it.
I am thinking now that I should be more concerned about my form in regards to my strike being under me instead of ahead of me regardless if I heel strike or not to minimize breaking action. And using shorter stride and higher cadence to minimize impact.
It's been suggested to me to work towards 180 bpm minimum, but not try to do it all at once. Normal for me is around 165, so I've got a bit to go but am working on it slowly. I've tried finding music at 180 to run to but haven't quite hit the mix I want yet.
While 180 spm is the 'standard' recommended cadence, I've heard that anything above 170 is reasonable enough. At that point, 180 spm is more a matter of pace than form.1 -
This is where treadmill session can help hone in on what may be most efficient for your fast pace on average.
I think wide range is perfectly able to be useful for not-so-fast pace.
But when pushing the edge on a fast pace, and watching the HRM, I could see that a difference of 6 turn-over (3 cadence) causing HR to go higher, both directions actually.
My sweet spot was 92/184.
The problem was if not watching, I tended to try to bound more and slower turn-over, which was much more jarring after a time and felt worse, so no wonder HR went up.
But that only mattered on tempo training at pace that could benefit.0 -
OldAssDude wrote: »OldAssDude wrote: »...to see if I could increase my mile time (which it seemed to help). I have read that one way to run faster is to run faster. In addition I try to come close to my MHR on the run interval, so I get a good anaerobic training effect.
I just don't wanna be one of those people who's fallen and can't get up... hahaha
I used to be the slowest runner ever, even after running for decades. I could run forever, but I just didn't have the "power" to sustain a fast pace. Several years ago, I started strength training - heavy. Since then, I've been able to improve my pace and prevent virtually all my old injuries from returning. I guess stronger muscles = more power and stability. I haven't had a running injury since, and I'm running at my fastest pace ever, even though I'm getting older.
I'm still not that fast by many people's standards (I think I was born slow) but I'm faster than ever before, and I'm no longer the slowest person at the races anymore. (I went from a 13 minute mile - don't laugh, I said I was slow - to a 10 minute mile.) Huge improvement for me. I still stay closer to an 11 minute mile pace for long distances so I don't crash and burn over the long haul, though.
So I highly recommend incorporating some strength training to improve pace and prevent injury.
I hate muscular training because it makes me feel all rubbery, but yes. I should definitely do this too.
I've started SL 5X5. Mostly because the person who was regularly using the squat rack at the Y when I go has not been there for a few weeks.0 -
MeanderingMammal wrote: »The whole "heel striking" thing is very misleading.
They take photos of the millisecond a person is landing and say, "Bad!" and then photos of the next millisecond when the foot is flat, and say, "Good!"
Everyone heel strikes at some point in their stride.
I certainly haven't bought into the racist mythologising in "Born to Run".
I assume there is a significant difference between the heel contacting the road while allowing the leg/foot to naturally absorb the impact and the heel striking the road with a rigid/semi-rigid leg/knee and passing a high degree of impact/stress up through the leg.
If that makes any sense.
Heel striking while allowing the feet/legs to act as suspension probably isn't the evil it's made out to be. Heel striking while NOT allowing the feet/legs to act as suspension is probably a recipe for problems over the long term.
There is no way someone can "not allow" the feet/legs to act as suspension, unless you have powers of anti-gravity.
I don't buy the big fear that the barefoot cult spreads that has most runners living in fear that "I'm doing it wrong".
I think part of this is that the debate conflates heel strike with overreaching. It's the latter that's the problem for most, not the former. As we can see here maximal shoes may be a good solution, rather than minimal.
@MeanderingMammal Well said. Insightful.MeanderingMammal wrote: »That said I'm also not a big advocate of gait analysis by default. Gait analysis would have me in motion control, but I tend to run in neutral, low protection shoes.
What do you mean by "in motion control"?1
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 426 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions