Lightweight racers update

Quoted message said:

Will let you know when they arrive and I try them out.

They'll likely be "pre-worn out" for you too.

At 6.7 oz, that is
not particularly light,
_

....a statement like that suggest you're quite the speedster larry. how
fast are you going to be running in these not particularly light shoes?

I sa Baby! the other other white meat.
I a little fat! :.00 see you soon......:>😉

I could beat you on my bike. :>😉
the cup.........Now that's a prise worst running from........
He fast other wise he would not of said the weight of the shoes.
could be for hiking?

On Wed, 28 Sep 2005 09:20:26 -0400, [email hidden] (Tom

Wheeler) said:

I could beat you on my bike

I can beat you in my car.

Quoted message said:

larry said:

At 6.7 oz, that is not particularly light,

...a statement like that suggest you're quite the speedster larry. how
fast are you going to be running in these not particularly light shoes?

OK, it *is* kinda provocative of Larry to describe what must be about
the third lightest racing flats sold today as if they were Asics boat
anchors.

But a serious point: why can't someone with merely pretty good speed,
or average speed, or even someone who "runs" at TBR's pace, have a
strong preference for vanishingly light shoes? Or a strong preference
for no shoes at all, but a grudging acceptance that *something* between
feet and road is needed for some of the week's miles?

I don't see where "I want really freaking light shoes" is equivalent to
a claim "I am really freaking fast". Would that mean only world
caliber runners should consider running a mile or two barefoot? And at
the other end of the spectrum, as DR points out re Deena Kastor nee
Drossin and her Asics, it's not as if only Gallowalkers wear heavy
clunkers.

In fact, didn't someone here (Bob Grumbine maybe?) mention that shoe
weight actually becomes a lesser factor at faster paces? Pretty sure I
first heard that in this ng. It makes sense once you get past kneejerk
disbelief: as you run faster, your mechanics change to shorten the
pendulum that is your leg. Your feet kick up higher behind you and
stay closer to your hip as your leg swings forward. Just as this
minimizes the energy required to move your foot and lower leg through
its cycle, it minimizes the cost of moving your shoe.

OTOH if you're shuffling along slowly, barely lifting your feet, the
weight of your shoes is at the end of the longest pendulum possible.
Yeah, since you're not striving for speed here, it's not like heavier
shoes are limiting your performance; but they *are* making you expend
more energhy than lighter shoes, and furthermore the difference is more
than it would be at higher speed.

And that's just considering the mass. Lighter vs. heavier shoes
generally implies a few other things, most notably heel height but also
e.g. flexibility. The heel height factor - lighter implies lower - is
also interesting vs. pace. Slower pace means much less strain on the
Achilles tendon, allowing you to more easily get away with a lower heel
without risking injury. Just to complicate it further: for some,
slower pace might mean heel strike where faster = midfoot or forefoot,
but surely this doesn't include Larry. Nor me. Most days I end up
jogging a hundred meters or so in Birkenstock sandals with no
backstrap, on pavement, and you can't very well heel strike in those.

Thinking along some of these lines in recent months, I no longer
reflexively think "wear big heavy shoes for slow runs, and the lightest
flats I own for racing". I enjoy some slower runs in very light flats
which I won't wear for, say, a road half marathon - that distance at
race pace is too punishing for my muscles, and I need more cushion
(though I still think my old, very light Ekidens might've been up to
even a full marathon when newer). But at a slower pace and/or shorter
distance, the lightest shoes are fine.

Runner's weight: huge factor, surely more important in choosing shoes
than the runner's speed. A 120 pound experienced runner with
reasonable mechanics can probably run nearly any distance on nearly any
surface at nearly any pace in nearly any shoe; a newbie of twice that
weight needs a lot more help from his shoes.

Quoted message said:

larry said:

At 6.7 oz, that is not particularly light,

...a statement like that suggest you're quite the speedster larry. how
fast are you going to be running in these not particularly light shoes?

OK, it *is* kinda provocative of Larry to describe what must be about
the third lightest racing flats sold today as if they were Asics boat
anchors.

But a serious point: why can't someone with merely pretty good speed,
or average speed, or even someone who "runs" at TBR's pace, have a
strong preference for vanishingly light shoes? Or a strong preference
for no shoes at all, but a grudging acceptance that *something* between
feet and road is needed for some of the week's miles?

I don't see where "I want really freaking light shoes" is equivalent to
a claim "I am really freaking fast". Would that mean only world
caliber runners should consider running a mile or two barefoot? And at
the other end of the spectrum, as DR points out re Deena Kastor nee
Drossin and her Asics, it's not as if only Gallowalkers wear heavy
clunkers.

In fact, didn't someone here (Bob Grumbine maybe?) mention that shoe
weight actually becomes a lesser factor at faster paces? Pretty sure I
first heard that in this ng. It makes sense once you get past kneejerk
disbelief: as you run faster, your mechanics change to shorten the
pendulum that is your leg. Your feet kick up higher behind you and
stay closer to your hip as your leg swings forward. Just as this
minimizes the energy required to move your foot and lower leg through
its cycle, it minimizes the cost of moving your shoe.

OTOH if you're shuffling along slowly, barely lifting your feet, the
weight of your shoes is at the end of the longest pendulum possible.
Yeah, since you're not striving for speed here, it's not like heavier
shoes are limiting your performance; but they *are* making you expend
more energhy than lighter shoes, and furthermore the difference is more
than it would be at higher speed.

And that's just considering the mass. Lighter vs. heavier shoes
generally implies a few other things, most notably heel height but also
e.g. flexibility. The heel height factor - lighter implies lower - is
also interesting vs. pace. Slower pace means much less strain on the
Achilles tendon, allowing you to more easily get away with a lower heel
without risking injury. Just to complicate it further: for some,
slower pace might mean heel strike where faster = midfoot or forefoot,
but surely this doesn't include Larry. Nor me. Most days I end up
jogging a hundred meters or so in Birkenstock sandals with no
backstrap, on pavement, and you can't very well heel strike in those.

Thinking along some of these lines in recent months, I no longer
reflexively think "wear big heavy shoes for slow runs, and the lightest
flats I own for racing". I enjoy some slower runs in very light flats
which I won't wear for, say, a road half marathon - that distance at
race pace is too punishing for my muscles, and I need more cushion
(though I still think my old, very light Ekidens might've been up to
even a full marathon when newer). But at a slower pace and/or shorter
distance, the lightest shoes are fine.

Runner's weight: huge factor, surely more important in choosing shoes
than the runner's speed. A 120 pound experienced runner with
reasonable mechanics can probably run nearly any distance on nearly any
surface at nearly any pace in nearly any shoe; a newbie of twice that
weight needs a lot more help from his shoes.

Charlie Pendejo <[email hidden]> writes:

:> I am 58 and weight 160 with a BMI of 22.5.

: Making you 5'11"?

Making you either precient or good at math!

Larry

Charlie Pendejo <[email hidden]> writes:

:> I am 58 and weight 160 with a BMI of 22.5.

: Making you 5'11"?

Making you either precient or good at math!

Larry

" At 6.7 oz, that is
not particularly light"
__

Pendejo...aka defense attorney for "light shoes larry". after
reviewing your points Pendejo....you're right. The above statement is
perfectly valid, reasonable, appropriate in context,.perfectly valid
and rightly stated. Yup...it's a legit point...just like how FEMA did
a bang up job in New Orleans, it's not about "oil", and OJ is innocent.

lance said:

Pendejo...aka defense attorney for "light shoes larry".

You ever see the old-timey classic film "Witness For The Prosecution"?
Consider me a "champion of the lost cause".

And by the same token, I'll be cheering for you at mile 23 of NYCM -
from about 30 metres behind you. ;-)

"Charlie Pendejo" <[email hidden]> wrote

Quoted message said:

OK, it *is* kinda provocative of Larry to describe what must be about
the third lightest racing flats sold today as if they were Asics boat
anchors.

If you want to hear some insane over-thinking about weight, just talk to a
biker who's shaved 2 oz by getting titanium brakes for a mere $400.

Quoted message said:

But a serious point: why can't someone with merely pretty good speed,
or average speed, or even someone who "runs" at TBR's pace, have a
strong preference for vanishingly light shoes? Or a strong preference
for no shoes at all, but a grudging acceptance that *something* between
feet and road is needed for some of the week's miles?

I used to train and race in Nike Mariah's (light and a nice soft ride). I
even ran 40-50 mile ultras in them. Come to think of it, if I could find
some nicely cusioned racers, (I'm partial to the Nike Air feel) I'd give it
a try again.

Quoted message said:

I don't see where "I want really freaking light shoes" is equivalent to
a claim "I am really freaking fast". Would that mean only world
caliber runners should consider running a mile or two barefoot?

Agreed. Shaving a few seconds on the ol' PR is a big deal if you're
competitive, and by that I mean wanting to squeeze the last second out of
yourself, not world class.

Quoted message said:

In fact, didn't someone here (Bob Grumbine maybe?) mention that shoe
weight actually becomes a lesser factor at faster paces?

'Twas I. That was why I wore my lightest shoes at ultras, when a
mountainous 50 miler was done at a then-glacial 8:00 pace.

Quoted message said:

Pretty sure I
first heard that in this ng. It makes sense once you get past kneejerk
disbelief: as you run faster, your mechanics change to shorten the
pendulum that is your leg. Your feet kick up higher behind you and
stay closer to your hip as your leg swings forward. Just as this
minimizes the energy required to move your foot and lower leg through
its cycle, it minimizes the cost of moving your shoe.

My thought process echoes yours (shorter lever).

Quoted message said:

And that's just considering the mass. Lighter vs. heavier shoes
generally implies a few other things, most notably heel height but also
e.g. flexibility. The heel height factor - lighter implies lower - is
also interesting vs. pace. Slower pace means much less strain on the
Achilles tendon, allowing you to more easily get away with a lower heel
without risking injury.

Remember that running efficiency in humans is about the rubber-band stretchy
tendon effect. So a lower heel might stretch the Achilles a bit more and
give you a bit more oomph. As far as injury risk, could be that the lower
your bmi, the more you can stretch your Achilles without worry.

Quoted message said:

Runner's weight: huge factor, surely more important in choosing shoes
than the runner's speed.

And weight has a big effect on speed in general. I still wonder if it was
the extra miles I ran, or the 8 lbs I lost that took 5 1/2 minutes off my
marathon PR.

-- Dan

Dan Stumpus said:

Remember that running efficiency in humans is about the rubber-band stretchy
tendon effect. So a lower heel might stretch the Achilles a bit more and
give you a bit more oomph. As far as injury risk, could be that the lower
your bmi, the more you can stretch your Achilles without worry.

Seems to be consistent with my experience. My achilles tendon appears to have
gotten a bit better since I dropped weight, and it sure as hell isn't because
I'm training any easier. The last several weeks, I've either performed a workout
that involved bolting up a hill, run a hilly cross race, or raced the mile.

Quoted message said:

And weight has a big effect on speed in general. I still wonder if it was
the extra miles I ran, or the 8 lbs I lost that took 5 1/2 minutes off my
marathon PR.

At the moment, it looks like for the 5k, I have about 12 seconds per mile (3%
or so) from a 10% weight loss. But I was in the BMI = 21-high range and
reasonably lean (about 10.x% on Tanita in "standard" mode) pre-weight loss
(20-low now). People who are heavier and not as lean would probably get much
closer to the full 10%.

Cheers,
--
Donovan Rebbechi
http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/

Dan Stumpus said:

If you want to hear some insane over-thinking about weight, just talk to a
biker who's shaved 2 oz by getting titanium brakes for a mere $400.

Completely irrelevant to running.

TBR said:

Completely irrelevant to running.

I know you are, but what am I?

On 29 Sep 2005 10:53:44 -0700, "Charlie Pendejo" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

I know you are, but what am I?

A dumb greaseball.

Tom Wheeler said:

I sa Baby! the other other white meat.
I a little fat! :.00 see you soon......:>😉

Send naked picks.