Monday started the first and only recovery week of my 12-week marathon training plan. It came after running 170 miles in the month of August. I don't think that I've ever run that much in one month. Already having 16 weeks of marathon-specific training under my belt certainly helped me get through it.
I ran 8 miles yesterday as a follow-up to a 20-miler on Sunday. I felt fine through the first half of the run but then started to drag. However, my legs were plenty strong to get me through it on pace. This is the difference between this training and last training.
I developed a pretty nasty blister on my left, big toe (on the inside) on Sunday. It's pretty painful and looks infected. I haven't popped it, but it's tempting. I think that I'm going to leave it be and pray that it heals. For yesterday's run, I covered it with an adhesive bandage. That seemed to keep it from getting worse. On my left, second biggest toe (on the outside), I have the remnants of a blood blister. This is the kind of foot/feet I had dreamed of. Without these blisters, I didn't have anything tangible to show for all the miles I've been running. So, the blisters are a good and (potentially) bad thing.
I've got about 750 miles on my current pair of running shoes. I have two other brand-new, identical pairs, but I'm reluctant to break them out and retire my current pair. I think I'm going to use my current pair until they fall apart. They feel fine and don't cause any new or unusual aches/pains in my feet/legs. But aren't they supposed to? Aren't we supposed to replace our running shoes after every three- to four-hundred miles, so that we won't develop injuries? That's what mainstream running literature prescribes. Can we trust it? For years, I had been buying up shoes pretty regularly in order to ward off the most preventable running injuries (supposed)--those sustained from using old running shoes. I'm not convinced that that's necessary anymore.
Think about the money that mainstream running literature makes for running companies. I suspect that it's usually the novice runner who has never run three-hundred miles, much less using one pair of shoes, that buys the notion that shoes must be replaced pretty regularly. Or, maybe it's all runners who run in a traditional running shoe with a midsole the breaks down relatively quickly, thereby no longer providing optimal cushioning for a foot that has become accustomed to it.
It's one thing if replacing your running shoes every three- to four-hundred miles works and you stay injury-free, but if you don't, you owe it to yourself to make a change. That could mean not replacing your running shoes at all, using less shoe, etc. Prior to the advent of the over-engineered, traditional running shoe, today's most common running injuries did not exist. That should tell you something. The rule of thumb goes like this: If you have flat feet (low arch), then you require a motion-control/stability shoe; if you have a medium arch, then you require equal parts stability and cushioning; if you have a high arch, then you require a neutral shoe with maximum cushioning. But why? Especially given the fact that these requirements are based on the assumption that these foot types cause varying levels of pronation? People with flat feet can have good biomechanics. People with high arches can have bad biomechanics. Some say that, with very few exceptions--usually owing to some congential structural problem, your feet are perfect for you. If that's the case, then why would anyone need any one of the hundreds of different kind of running shoes currently on the market? If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
8 comments:
Shit, Ryan! You have 750 miles on your shoes?! Yeah, I'd say it's time to retire them. I don't buy into "mainstream literature" ... or whatever, and yes, my body tends to let me know when I need to replace my shoes. Have you looked closely at your shoes to see if they have sign of wear? (I'm betting they do) Maybe you have a really light stride and can get a lot more miles out of your shoe than the "average" 500 miles or so (average has to come from somewhere, right?). But definitely don't wear them til they fall apart.
Haha. I've run about 900 miles this year so far and, yes, about 750 of them have been in my current pair. I keep track, of course. :-) I bought a second and third pair of the same kind of shoe, because I love it so much, but then when I went running in a new pair, my feet didn't feel at home. Yes, there is substantial wear to the outer soles of my current pair, but I think that's the key, actually. They're worn in such a way to allow my foot to move naturally. When I put my feet in a shoe that isn't worn to allow this, I run into problems. I think minimalism is based on this idea. One of the new, identical pair of running shoes that I've run in seem to be forcing my feet into an unnatural position. Perhaps after a few hundred miles and some discomfort later, I'll have a pair much like my current pair.
I say wear them until they fall apart! That's what I'm doing. I've probably got over a 1000 miles on some of the shoes I'm still using. Unfortunately my foot is starting to come through the sole.
The way I see it is I can either buy a pair of these Nike Frees, Five-Fingers, etc., or I can just wear my shoes into nothing so there little to no support left. What's the difference? Saving hundreds of dollars I say.
Plus every time I put on a new pair of running shoes I start to get an ache some where and I want to go back to the ones that are worn out. Once my toes start sticking out of the ones I'm wearing I'm not buying anything new.
You should see Karolina's shoe of choice! They are practically sandals. I bought her a new pair last year, but she prefers the old ones.
I totally second what Dan says. I never kept track, but I've had my "good" shoes for over 4 years now and there must be a few thousand miles on them (mostly running, but also hiking). they're worn out but very evenly and don't give me any trouble. Super comfy, no support/cushioning whatsoever. now I'm slowly transitioning to different shoes (ones Dan got me a year ago... they're good for short runs and biking, and also the fivefingers). only because they're literally falling apart - and I'd still like to run the Vermont marathon in them!
However, Dan, don't talk smack about fivefingers, they're awesome. true, maybe not worth 85 bucks but hey, I haven't spent any money on shoes for five years! running in them feels really great and natural; I'm finally getting used to it and can run 5miles in them without any trouble and at a decent pace. so eventually they'll be my shoes of choice.
Don't succumb to the shoe industry's propaganda! I really doubt you need new shoes after 500 miles, unless you have some kind of a stride problem and wear them out unevenly or something like that.
Oh, and one last thing:
having said all that, what do I know, right? :D
You know what works for you, and that's all that really matters.
...And then this idea--which I forgot to mention in my original post--that one should alternate several different pairs of running shoes to ensure that all muscles of the foot are being worked. Why not wear a shoe that allows all muscles to be worked simultaneously, like they were meant to be?
As Tony Krupicka has said: ...running distills life down to it's basic elements...it's the most basic, primal, pure experience...there's something really compelling and sustaining about that.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=goZNN8h6M6E
I really like where this guy is coming from. Check out his blog at: http://antonkrupicka.blogspot.com/
He writes for running times and links up his articles to his blog. He writes very well and makes a lot of sense. He offers a completely different perspective on running than what we're used to from Runner's World and the like.
Here's an excerpt from his latest blog post:
"August is gone
First, the numbers.
Miles: 459
Hours: 88h 06min
Vertical: 66,400'
2010 Totals
Miles: 4365
Hours: 664h 32min
Vertical: 740,600'
A quick scan of these figures makes me think that nice, round year-end goals would be something like 6500 miles (a convenient average of 125 MPW), 1000 hours, and a million vertical feet of running. Or at least would be if I maintained roughly the same pace (in all three areas) that I have averaged for the first two-thirds of the year."
Ryan, thank you for the interesting topic. I usually don't get caught up in debates about the "best" running gear but I find this new fad to be particularly irksome. I've been running since about age 3 and I've tried many different styles and brands of shoes over the years. The one constant is that I have always been able to run further and faster with a nice new pair of shoes. I don't know how many miles I typically put on a pair of shoes but like Em my body lets me know when they need to be replaced (and recycled of course). I go through 2 or 3 pairs a year.
I personally feel like the barefoot or minimalist shoe fad is going to hurt alot more people than it is going to help. I actually know someone who recently developed a stress fracture in her ankle from using a pair of Five Fingers. I agree that shoe companies are in business to make money but they make money because their products work for most runners.
I agree with your point that less shoe will likely hurt more people than it will help, but that will be because of a lack of awareness. Transitioning from a support shoe to a shoe that merely protects the foot--the original purpose of a shoe--could take years, perhaps a lifetime. Most people don't realize this. We live in a culture that craves shortcuts, and shoe companies (industry as a whole, for that matter) capitalize on this. If Five-Fingers tells me that I will be injury-free if I run in their shoes, you bet I'm going to do it. Why would I take the time to develop the strength in my feet necessary to run as we were were meant to--barefoot or with a shoe that merely protects the foot (i.e., supportless)--when I can slap on a pair of Five-Fingers and be done with it? Americans love this kind of thing, and industry has figured that out.
In my opinion, the "running shoe" is the fad. Before the running shoe, we had been running barefoot for thousands of years. Thirty years of running shoes has nothing on that.
I'm not as interestesd in minimalism as I am in the idea that running shoes are not natural and not sustainable. Granted the minimalism movement sparked my interest in this, but it is not why I continue to move toward less and less shoe. The more I learn about early human beings, running, and sustainability, the more I want to get away from today's culture and back to what worked for thousands and thousands of years.
Post a Comment