Your Workout Today

[iacas 10,717]

Originally Posted by jamo

Ran 1.5 miles at a pace of around 7-8 min/mile. WAY too fast (I honestly didn't know I could go that fast, bad idea), especially since I was going up and down hills. Boy am I out of shape, even for me. It feels like I jumped off a building, ripped out my lungs, and used them to cushion my fall.

Baby steps.

I used RunKeeper on my iPhone today. My average pace when running was 8:15 or so. My average pace walking was about 13:00.

7-8 is pretty fast. Baby steps is right.

[stealthduffer 16]

Nice 4.5 mile run today.  Not fast - 8:52 pace according to the Garmin.  Push ups, dips and abs afterward.  Weather was supposed to be rainy and cold this morning - but was nice and actually pretty warm (55*).  So felt like I got a little break which made the run feel better.

[TN94z 146]

My pace is way slower than you guys. I feel good if I'm doing a 10min mile

[iacas 10,717]

Originally Posted by TN94z

My pace is way slower than you guys. I feel good if I'm doing a 10min mile

I don't think pace matters. What matters is that you're out there doing something to get better, stay healthier, etc.

Though, if you want to feel bad about yourself, consider that women have run 100 mile races in a little over 14 hours. Including their stops at aid stations, etc. That's a sub-9:00 mile for 100 miles. :-P

[jamo 1,085]

My pace is way slower than you guys. I feel good if I'm doing a 10min mile

That's what I'm doing next time. Keeping it at 10 min/mile or over.

[TN94z 146]

Originally Posted by iacas

I don't think pace matters. What matters is that you're out there doing something to get better, stay healthier, etc.

Though, if you want to feel bad about yourself, consider that women have run 100 mile races in a little over 14 hours. Including their stops at aid stations, etc. That's a sub-9:00 mile for 100 miles. :-P

Oh yeah.... and the 85-90 year old men and women that compete (and even qualify for) the triathlons while I'm sitting on the couch with my chips watching them on tv. There is plenty to feel bad about...haha.

Originally Posted by jamo

That's what I'm doing next time. Keeping it at 10 min/mile or over.

I could probably run faster but I just don't.  Of course, I just started running a few months ago so it's not like I'm a seasoned veteran or anything.  It will get faster I'm sure. I just run at this pace because it feels more comfortable to train at that pace.

[secondary 3]

Feeling sluggish today.  Don't know if it is all the shoveling or the depression about Cutler and the Bears?

Today:

Rowed 1000 meters at a 2min/500 pace, pretty slow, but a good warm up.

4 rounds, move from one to the other switching on the minute, with a 2 min break at the end of each round.

53 lbs kettle bell

Russian swings Left hand :30 sec

Russian swings Right hand : 30 sec

Swing catch to Strict Press

American Swings

Jumping Lunges

Burpees

It was only 20 minutes of work, but really kicked my butt.  Hard to keep it up thru the Holidays but I am going to try and not miss a day.

[iacas 10,717]

Week 3, Day 1 of #C25K. This was 90 seconds running, 90 seconds walking, 180/180, and then repeating both again. I added a 65 second run at the end at a little faster pace in the first minute of the cool-down. This pacing includes my 5 minutes of walking warm-up, so the pace isn't great. Runs seemed to average about 8:15 again. Walking was slower than the 13:00 I did before.

Natalie accompanied me and rode her bike. It was nice to have some company.

Wore shorts and my two layers on top. Little knit cap. Was fine. 40 degrees.

RunKeeper: http://runkeeper.com/user/iacas/activity/60694298

Daily Mile: http://www.dailymile.com/people/iacas/entries/11100488

[k14 3]

On Sunday I tried running my 7km loop which before my knee injury I was doing in 35-38 mins. But 4km in my knee started playing up again and I had to walk home. Still did it in 45 mins though. Back to the physio! At least I can walk 18 without it hurting now though.

[glock35ipsc 44]

It's cold enough outside in the evening now that the outdoor gym is officially closed.  So for a few months I will be back to my favorite push/pull/legs gig:

Monday - Pull
Deadlifts - 5x5 + rest/pause
Rows (barbell, dumbbell, or t-bar) - 5x5 + rest/pause
Weighted pull ups or chins - 5x5 + rest/pause

Grip, neck, rotator cuff, core - 15-20 minutes

Wednesday - Push
Flat, incline or decline barbell bench, or dumbbells - 5x5 + rest/pause
Barbell overhaed press- 5x5 + rest/pause
Bar dips - 5x5 + rest/pause

Friday - Legs
Back squats - 4x6 + rest/pause
Leg Press - 4x6 + rest/pause
Standing or seated calf raises - 3x15-20

Grip, neck, rotator cuff, core - 15-20 minutes

[secondary 3]

This workout has several names, I go with BFT

Double Kb for all the following.  Timed event.  6 rounds with 6 reps per movment.  2 35lb kb is rx

Russian swings

Thrusters

Snatches

Squats

Sumo Dead Lift High Pulls

6 Renegade rows (62lbs on these)

Not very fast, but I finished pretty strong.  13:28

Not going to hold back on Turkey day, I earned it!

[iacas 10,717]

Week 3 Day 2 of C25k.

Went pretty well. At first the TM was going fast 25:00 required waaaay more than a slow walk) but them it seemed to even out. Turned it off a few times so the distance (~2 miles) is a guess.

http://www.dailymile.com/people/iacas/entries/11139751

http://runkeeper.com/user/iacas/activity/60929171

[glock35ipsc 44]

Today's workout..... forklifts!

[iacas 10,717]

2 miles, week 3 day 3 of Couch to 5K. Blah.

Includes the five minutes warming up and about four minutes of walking at the end after the last run and the cool-down phase. Focused on form at least half of the time, since feel isn't real and I was still a slight heel striker, and to shift to a forefoot strike (which may be overdoing it), I can definitely feel it in my calves. They were never worked in any of the skating I did and certainly aren't worked walking much - landing with your foot more plantar flexed and your calf muscle more contracted (and then immediately stretching as you go into dorsiflexion) works different parts of your lower leg for sure. On the bright side, not even the hint of a shin splint type feeling.

I plan to do some 100-Up exercises on my off days. I'll start with the Minor and move to Major when I feel that I can do it well enough.

C25K is a bit odd. This week, I ran 90 seconds, walked 90, ran 3:00, walked 3:00. So nine minutes of running, nine walking, and five each to warm up and cool down. Next week: Warmup 5:00, run 3:00, walk 90, run 5:00, walk 2:30, run 3:00, walk 1:30, run 5:00, cool down 5:00. That's 15:30 walking and 16:00 running. It's almost a 200% jump. That doesn't seem right, but, I guess the thing is I don't have to run at a super fast pace during that time. I'm doing it, but it seems odd to me and a bit intimidating. :-)

http://runkeeper.com/user/iacas/activity/61089786

http://www.dailymile.com/people/iacas/entries/11162046

[TN94z 146]

Originally Posted by iacas

2 miles, week 3 day 3 of Couch to 5K. Blah.

Includes the five minutes warming up and about four minutes of walking at the end after the last run and the cool-down phase. Focused on form at least half of the time, since feel isn't real and I was still a slight heel striker, and to shift to a forefoot strike (which may be overdoing it), I can definitely feel it in my calves. They were never worked in any of the skating I did and certainly aren't worked walking much - landing with your foot more plantar flexed and your calf muscle more contracted (and then immediately stretching as you go into dorsiflexion) works different parts of your lower leg for sure. On the bright side, not even the hint of a shin splint type feeling.

I plan to do some 100-Up exercises on my off days. I'll start with the Minor and move to Major when I feel that I can do it well enough.

C25K is a bit odd. This week, I ran 90 seconds, walked 90, ran 3:00, walked 3:00. So nine minutes of running, nine walking, and five each to warm up and cool down. Next week: Warmup 5:00, run 3:00, walk 90, run 5:00, walk 2:30, run 3:00, walk 1:30, run 5:00, cool down 5:00. That's 15:30 walking and 16:00 running. It's almost a 200% jump. That doesn't seem right, but, I guess the thing is I don't have to run at a super fast pace during that time. I'm doing it, but it seems odd to me and a bit intimidating. :-)

http://runkeeper.com/user/iacas/activity/61089786

http://www.dailymile.com/people/iacas/entries/11162046

I talked with a runner at my shoe store and we started talking about forefoot striking.  I asked him if that was something I should start concentrating on and he said it was the latest fad and that he wouldn't worry about it.  He said that they have had more local runners coming in with injuries because they started working on this.  We talked for about 30 minutes on this subject and he was very knowledgeable about the subject.  His point was that it wasn't worth worrying about.  He told me that if I just wanted to run like that, to take it easy on a treadmill and do it very little at a time. He didn't buy into the forefoot striking and minimalistic craze that is going on right now.

The c25k is set up a bit weird but it works.  I have looked at others and they all seemed to be along the same lines. The jumps seem intimidating when you are looking at the next week's program but then when you run it, you end up doing it just as easy and could go much longer....or at least that was the case with me and my wife.

I have had a chest cold for 3 weeks and haven't had a chance to run with the exception of 1-8 minute run.  The bad part is I have a 5k this saturday.

[jamo 1,085]

He said that they have had more local runners coming in with injuries because they started working on this.

I wonder if that is caused by forefoot striking being inherently dangerous/injury-inducing, or if it's just because most people have been running by landing on their heels their whole lives?

[iacas 10,717]

Originally Posted by TN94z

I talked with a runner at my shoe store and we started talking about forefoot striking. I asked him if that was something I should start concentrating on and he said it was the latest fad and that he wouldn't worry about it. He said that they have had more local runners coming in with injuries because they started working on this. We talked for about 30 minutes on this subject and he was very knowledgeable about the subject. His point was that it wasn't worth worrying about. He told me that if I just wanted to run like that, to take it easy on a treadmill and do it very little at a time. He didn't buy into the forefoot striking and minimalistic craze that is going on right now.

I'm not surprised. The shoe industry has, for decades, been adding cushioning and doing more to prevent the way the feet work naturally (I'll get back to that) and some people are resistant to change.

I think we can all agree that prior to the 1960s, shoes were either awfully "minimalist" (as in sandals or very thin pieces of leather). In the 1960s, they added rubber to shoes and they were still very very thin. Barefoot running + some padding. Then in the 80s through to today we started to put a bunch of cushioning in, particularly in the heel. They built in tons of support for people who "over-pronate" their feet and spent a lot of time trying to account for the faults in the way people ran. Why do I call them faults? Because the best runners tend to do these things very little. What are they? The beginner or amateur runner tends to over-stride and they tend to land on their heels to greater degrees than the best runners (most of whom land on their midfoot, but some land on their heels just not as much).

If you consider the forces at play, there are two main ones to worry about. The first is a force that actually slows us down. It's called a braking force and it's very simple to picture: if you extend your heel out and thrust your foot forward, the ground will resist that with friction. That force is small but it's there and every little bit helps. Why actively apply friction in the reverse of the direction you wish to run? I've illustrated these forces in this image, showing "bad" form on the left and "better" (albeit perhaps overdone - a bit too far on the forefoot perhaps) on the right:

I've drawn two arrows on the left. The red shows the friction opposing the green arrow moving to the right. Heel strikers are still pushing their foot forward, just a little, and the friction opposes this. It makes it tougher to run. And I should say this, too: the rest of my form helps to mask this particular issue - many heel strikers have the leg extended well too far in front of them. For example, this fella (not me):

In this runner we see a straight left knee common in people who: a) overstride, and b) heel strike. His foot is still being pushed forward and thus friction will resist it.

Second, there's impact force and it's transmitted up the legs. Here's a heel striker's impact force:

The vertical "ground reaction sources" measured as a percentage of your body weight spike suddenly, taper down as the forefoot comes down, and then rise again when your hips, and torso are directly over your foot. As you can see in this heel striker's graph the initial peak is two things: sudden and severe. Here's a midfoot striker's graph:

What you'll see here is a gently application of force and no impact peak as noted. The total force is still the same, but it's applied in one gradual curve and not in a sudden and severe spike.

Graphs come from these two articles, which I encourage you to read:

http://www.runblogger.com/2011/02/vertical-impact-loading-rate-in-running.html

http://www.runblogger.com/2011/02/vertical-impact-loading-rate-in-running_08.html

Anyway, by landing on the midfoot (I might agree that the forefoot is difficult and may be too much), we can reduce or eliminate forces which can a) slow us down, and b) cause injury.

The shoe industry has, for decades, built shoes opposed to this. Nike was perhaps most responsible for this, and yet, they developed the Nike Free a decade ago to get back to a more "minimalist" style. Shoes with all kinds of cushioning in them have only really been around for 30-40 years. It goes to the process of evolution, and the simple way to put it is this: our feet are "designed" to strike mid-foot or fore-foot. If you run barefooted, as we have for the previous few thousand years prior to the last 30-40, you're going to quickly learn not to strike the ground on your heel. It'll hurt. There's no padding there, and your arch can't work like it's supposed to. Da Vinci called the foot and specifically the arch a modern wonder or something, an unrivaled feat (no pun intended) of engineering.

And people who don't wear shoes (African runners, for example) or kids typically run very much on their mid- to fore-foot. Here are some videos. You'll see some heel strikers, but not many. Pay attention to which direction their feet are moving at impact relative to the ground:

Compare all of those videos to this:

It might surprise you to know that there are almost no studies out there which show that a motion control shoe or one with a big heel does anything to reduce injuries. In fact, though they've only been studying this recently, there are about as many studies that show that a minimalist style shoe and a mid-foot strike reduces injuries and that a big heel and the heel strike they "allow" increases injuries.

In other words, rather than our shoes conforming to how our feet should function and work, we've been training our feet - and doing a lousy job at it, since it violates nature to an extent - of trying to get our feet to "fit" the way our shoes are built.

As to why my calves "noticed," quite simply they were responsible for minimizing the heel striking the ground at all in my run. If I land on the fore-foot, the calf muscle must stay somewhat contracted as the weight is gradually applied to the heel.

The caption beneath that video:

"Delayed onset muscle soreness in the lower calf (soleus) muscle is very common among new barefoot and Vibram Fivefingers runners. This video clearly shows the tightening of this muscle and the Achilles tendon upon footstrike in the Vibrams. Given the lack of a heel, stretching and eccentric contraction of these muscles is likely greater while running in Vibrams than in typical running shoes, and this may be why they are suggested to be better at strengthening the lower legs in addition to the feet (though no studies have been done to confirm this)."

At any rate, I agree: people can't change their form overnight because they'll set themselves up for injury. Kind of like the same way you can't instantly change 60% of your golf swing and expect to instantly get better. The foot strike is a huge chunk of your running form. So I agree with the shoe store guy on that point. People shouldn't change things up whole-hog right away. Take it slow. Do the "100-Up" drill for awhile.

Quite frankly, the whole debate really reminds me of the one Mike and Andy faced in the world of golf instructors. There are people who, for whatever reason, have changed the way we run in the past 30-40 years, and though they had good intent, the science doesn't actually support their claims and may in fact be harming more people than it helps. The "minimalist" movement is an attempt by many people (and again, Nike's been in it for decades, and people have always run in something called "racing flats" which, as you can guess, are relatively flat shoes with minimal heel drop and a much more minimalist style).

Anyway, I really recommend reading a bunch of articles on runblogger.com, zero-drop.com, scienceofrunning.com.

Originally Posted by TN94z

The c25k is set up a bit weird but it works.  I have looked at others and they all seemed to be along the same lines. The jumps seem intimidating when you are looking at the next week's program but then when you run it, you end up doing it just as easy and could go much longer....or at least that was the case with me and my wife.

Yeah, I'm not as intimidated as I was at first. I mean, worst case, I can just run a little slower. :-)

Originally Posted by jamo

I wonder if that is caused by forefoot striking being inherently dangerous/injury-inducing, or if it's just because most people have been running by landing on their heels their whole lives?

Exactly.

I will say this: when I run on the forefoot, there's a lot less noise. I feel like I could silently sneak up on people that way. When I run on the heel (and mine's not as bad as the guy in the red shirt or many of the people in that video) it's noisier.

I guess if I had one question to ask you (TN94z, that is), it's this: if you're running barefoot (bearing in mind that we've evolved over x years and that the amount of time we've spent with shoes is a speck on that timeline), would you run striking the ground on your heel or your mid- to fore-foot?

That's not necessarily the entire argument, either. I could see how you might say "sure, but shoes enhance the performance of our naturally evolved feet." And that may very well be the case, except there are no studies proving that to be the case and there are studies which state the opposite . If you were injured regularly trying to run when that was a big part of catching food, you'd be left for dead. Injury rates have risen in the past 30-40 years, paralleling the rise in popularity of shoes with "motion control" and big padded heels that make it almost impossible to strike mid-foot let alone fore-foot.

[TN94z 146]

Originally Posted by jamo

I wonder if that is caused by forefoot striking being inherently dangerous/injury-inducing, or if it's just because most people have been running by landing on their heels their whole lives?

I personally believe it's because many runners that are trying to make this change are trying to make the change far too quickly and don't give it the time it takes to make such a change.  This, in turn, causes the injuries that he is seeing.  I would think that making such a drastic change would take months and months to get the leg and new stabilizer muscle strength to make it comfortable.  I think the people with injuries are trying to make it a "right now" kind of change.

For the record, I have read quite a bit on barefoot and minimalistic running and I'm not against it by any means. This is just a conversation I had with the runner at the store (who is a forefoot striker and does quite a bit of barefoot running and runs in a minimalic shoe....so it's not that he is against change, he just thinks that it's the latest fad that everyone is following and has seen more injuries than success stories because of it).

I follow a local holisitc doctor and he advocates minimalistic shoes because barefoot running is the more natural way for humans to run. He actually states that if you are experiencing knee issues wille running, then he thinks the minimalistic shoes will actually help get rid of the issues. That is great info you posted though. I am a midfoot striker so I am fairly close naturally.

So, while I did make that post, it's not necessarily something that I believe. I was just making conversation because this has been a hot topic fairly recently