Hacker News Reader

Comment by js2 | Hacker News Reader

In an amateur context, I've paced about a half dozen races, half marathon and marathon distance. I've also served as a pacer for runners in the second half of a 100 mile race a couple times.

The purpose of a pacer for amateur runners is to set a consistent pace and provide encouragement to runners who may be running their first race at that distance. Or maybe someone trying to set a new PR. Since most courses are not flat, I actually try to run even effort, and explain that is the plan to the runners I'm pacing. So we slow down on the uphills and speed up a bit on the downhills.

Yes, runners can use a variety of electronic devices (GPS watches, heart rate monitors, accelerometers on your shoe) to try to set their own pace but none of these are perfect. They also require constant attention. And they don't provide moral support.

Even though I'm a fairly experienced runner (25+ marathons), I'll join a pace group myself when running a new course sometimes. A marathon can be mentally exhausting and it's sort of like being able to run on cruise control if you can just fall in next to someone else and rely on them to set pace.

Running in a pack is also just easier, not even considering the wind breaking potential depending upon speed and prevailing breeze.

On the 100 mile races, runners may have been on their feet for 12+ hours by the midway point and are starting to run into the night. Pacing those runners is really just about moral support and encouragement. Typically they are allowed to pickup a pacer after the 50 mile mark and I'll keep a single runner company for say a 12.5 mile lap and then they can switch to another fresh pacer. So they may get the company of 3-4 pacers in the second half of the race.

Another example is that large marathons have guide runners to help those who need assistance. Visually impaired runners. Maybe runners with prosthetics who are concerned about being tripped. Etc. I've never been a guide runner but I'd like to some day.

Pacing the 1:50 group in a half marathon:

https://i.ibb.co/4gRTjjT/FCC9720-D-4-E4-E-4-F74-91-EF-2-FCB2...

View on HN

> Running in a pack is also just easier, not even considering the wind breaking potential depending upon speed and prevailing breeze.

It is worth noting that for mid-d races it's not just about countering wind, but also air resistance. There is a significant performance impact even if it's not windy. See for instance https://www.runnersworld.com/training/a20823445/does-draftin...: "Pugh runs some calculations to determine that at 4:30 mile pace, drafting one meter behind another runner on a still day saves about 80% of the energy you'd otherwise spend fighting air resistance. That corresponds to about 1 second per 400 meters at that pace, and more on windy days." (Highly recommend Hutchinson's other work on the running and sports science, btw.)

(I am sure you know this. I'm mentioning it for others, because it's applicable to Sowinski's work, far more so than your own pacing for the longer races.)

4:30/mile pace is faster than all but the fastest amateur runners, and the effect would I assume be less at a slower pace. 1s/400m is less than 2 minutes over a marathon, so something, but not a huge amount.

1m behind is also pretty close to be directly behind someone, you'd be liable to kick each other.

Track races are often won in photo finishes. Everything matters.

And that 2 minutes over the marathon is currently more than the difference between a sub-2 hour marathon (1:59:40) and not (2:01:09):

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eliud_Kipchoge

Nobody but 'the fastest amateurs' is even doing track.

And Kipchoge is both the fastest and not an amateur.

> 4:30/mile pace is faster than all but the fastest amateur runners

The article is talking about middle distance running, typically 800m-3000m, not long-distance running. 1s/400m is actually pretty huge in competition.

> you'd be liable to kick each other.

Front-to-back contact happens sometimes, even in professional races.

But the parent comment is talking about long distance.

I addressed this above: "... because it's applicable to Sowinski's work [meaning middle-distance pacing], far more so than your own pacing for the longer races."

4:30 is not an elite mile pace at any level of male competition except races above 8k. For mid-distance races (typically considered 800m and 1500m, or 1000m indoors or 1600m in Europe outdoors) it would be quite slow. A typical elite (D1 college) 800m time is 1:50, and champions are around 1:40. An above average high schooler recruitable to D3 can run 2:00.

D1 recruits typically have mile time of 4:15 or faster. Most high school distance/mid-distance runners compete in 5k in the fall and 1500 or 3k in the spring. D1 recruitable times for those are 15:00-15:30 for 5k (mile pace of 4:50), 3:50-4:00 for 1500 (equivalent of about 4:07 - 4:20 mile time), and 8:30-8:45 for 3k (mile pace of about 4:30).

Regarding air resistance and "drafting" off a pacer, this is definitely a real effect, although it's a much bigger deal outdoors especially with wind. Often in mid-distance races, there are multiple rounds and you need to qualify for the next by placing highly (not necessarily the same as "fast") in the prelims - it's common for early rounds to have slow times because of "tactical" races where every runner stays in the pack at a slow pace for 3/4 of the race, and then the "real race" happens on the final lap.

source: used to be sort of fast.

In the real world the entirety of college athletics sits inside 'fastest amateurs'. Anything shorter than a 5K is a blip on the landscape of amateur running.

nitpick: 800m world record is 1:40.91

... the 800 is also not a race where the WR time is challenged on a regular basis. Championship 800m racing is a wait and kick affair which never lends itself to ultrafast times because the first 400 is loafed.

The scary thing about David Rudisha's WR set at the 2012 Oly was that it was a solo wire-to-wire: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YKEOjWEzVGs

That DOES NOT HAPPEN in championship middle distance racing. Does not happen.

Almost all middle distance records are set with precisely controlled tracks, weather, pacers, and racers to provide best conditions and drafting and temperature for the best times.

Rudisha showed up a the Olympic Final, threw down a gauntlet to the field, and blew them away.

You can see at the 500m mark of the video there were four or five runners who perfectly paced and tactically positioned themselves, where 999/1000 times the leader will fall off and get blown away by the chasers. What happens as a chaser is that instictive additional adrenaline surges as you chase down your quarry, and you're running through a draft for additional momentym.

At 500m, Rudisha accelerates and leaves these other runners, who perfectly placed themselves for the usual chasedown, and just leaves them in the dust.

Now consider he is losing 1 second a 400m without a draft/rabbit....

Also, I'd like to point out that the 800m is probably the most painful race of the track events. Typically you'll be well into anaerobic debt as you complete the first lap, and the second lap is allllllll pain. A typical 800m racer will hit 500m or so, his body is saying "HOLY SHIT STOP WHAT ARE YOU DOING" and that's when the racer ... has to kick and exert maximal effort for the next 200-300m.

Rudisha as I understand wasn't a rift valley tribesman, the usual source of Kenyan elite distance runners who have genetic adaptations to altitude and efficient oxygen use / high VO2. He was a Maasai from the central lowlands.

Just an amazing race.

Now, I'm also a cynic of Olympic level performance, but that's for another day.

RE: D1 recruits at 15:00/5k: the NUTS part of that is that 15:00/5k is barely competitive pace for elite MARATHONs these days (under good conditions like Rotterdam, Chicago, or London). So you get recruited for D1 for running a speed for 3 miles that an elite racer keeps up for 26 miles.

Kind of along those lines, a lot of people don't realize how elite rabbits have to be just to run the proper pace for 1/2 to 1/3 the distance. They can't really go under the top 50 in the world to rabbit, otherwise they won't have the reliable talent to run the pace even on a so-so day.

> At 500m, Rudisha accelerates and leaves these other runners

In his 2012 Olympic 1:40.91 win (and WR) his splits were 49.28, 51.63, so he didn't accelerate. He slowed down less than the rest of the field.

In his prior 2010 WR of 1:41.01 his splits were 48.9, 52.1.

So in 2012 he went out slightly slower and then faded less in the second lap. Which is interesting because it's typical of the 800M to run positive splits, but he improved his time by running a bit closer to an even split.

From https://www.runnersworld.com/races-places/a20800858/800-mete...

> In 2007, [exercise physiologist and Science of Sport blogger Ross] Tucker analyzed the 26 men’s world records set for 800 meters in the modern era. He found that 24 of the 26 were set with positive splits. In fact, the last time a world record was set with a negative split was in 1972, when Dave Wottle ran 1:44.3 to bring gold home to the United States. His last lap of 51.4 is also the fastest ever in a world-record race, despite the fact that record has fallen more than 3 seconds in the last four decades.

1:44.3 was at the US Olympic trials. Here's the 1972 Olympics 800 final (one of my favorites):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5LHid-nC45k

Wottle wins in 1:45.86 with a slight negative split of ~53.3, ~52.56. Here you could legitimately claim Wottle accelerated on his competitors (he's in last place at 500m), though mostly they went out much too fast and faded badly.

Technically you are correct on splits, but you need to consider what is going on in terms of speed vs effort. The first 100-200m of the first lap involves phosphate energy systems and anaerobic expenditures without debt. Essentially, that is "free speed".

The 800 begins as a race at 150-200m. There anaerobic debt starts to rise in the next 100m, and by 400m we are officially in substantial anaerobic debt.

By "acceleration" I suppose I mean a more nebulous "increase in effort / selling out". At 500m in Rudisha's race, you can see the change in the leaders as everyone begins to try to exert effort above and beyond what their mounting anaerobic debt would sanely allow. I think what happens is that racers try to use the last mental and physical reserves at this point to gain momentum and transition to a sprinters stride in order to gain more RELATIVE speed over the last 300m.

The massive amounts of anaerobic debt in the last 300m, relative to the phosphate and no-debt first 300m of the race, will invariably be slow by the clock. But the speed produced relative to pain and physiological debt, it is much more stark.

Every runner will perceive "kicking" at the end in this manner. The sense of acceleration, real or otherwise, is in relation to an inability many runners don't have in these moments. Physiologically middle distance "kickers" have some sort of hybrid fast twitch muscles they can employ in situations like this that produce higher speeds under extremely high anaerobic debt than other runners. Whether this is also related to higher pain tolerance or other physiological aspects (reduced "lactic acid" release like they claimed Armstrong and Phelps had, etc).

Dave Wottle's victory, which I recall vividly described by Jeff Galloway in one of his books, was a fluke. Wottle was injured, and basically was limited to that speed for the first 400. It was almost as big a fluke as Rudisha's race. He was trying to simply not embarrass himself in the race. So he ran a careful first lap just to try to finish.

The 800m is such a painful event that relies so much on anaerobic tolerance and anaerobic energy stores, that essentially it is a crapshoot under most circumstances. You can't know whether or not that moment of truth: whether you still have kick/speed at 500-600m when everyone else starts also goes "all in" to try to win, whether you'll have the speed that day.

Wottle that day got lucky: all the people in front of him didn't have the stuff, Wottle was able to survive the first 400m and then adrenaline the last 400m. And perhaps the wind that day was particularly graceful towards someone running through the pack, since wind resistance is a factor where you are running 17-20 mph.

A 4:30 mile is a respectable mile time for a high school boy.

It's good enough to be competitive at a state level (4:28 placed 7th in CT this year) but won't have D1 coaches salivating at the mouth.

By "wind breaking potential" I meant both that from air resistance as well as that from a breeze, but I appreciate the clarification.

Even at the marathon distance it matters as we saw with Kipchoge’s Nike sponsored sub-2 run a few years back. Of course, Kipchoge ran that thing at 4:34/mi pace, not far off middle distance race pace!

I can't remember the source anymore, but I've heard that air resistance becomes a significant factor above roughly 16kph (~6min/mile).

Thanks for this explanation. I'm a newbie runner -- been running for a year-and-a-half.

I'm aiming to break the 2hr mark in my 3rd half-marathon next month. My last half-m in Oct 2022 took 2hr9min. I know, 9 minutes is a lot to shave off :-). I'll first aim to finish healthily.

Your message encourages me to join a pacer. (The last 5KM of a half-m feel endless.)

Stop eating carbs about 2 months before. I did this and went from a 2:06 to 1:58 with minimal training. My body carried several kg less weight and felt like it could consume its own fat energy more efficiently and I didn’t get the 2/3 slump.

I also started last, ran down the 2hr pace guy, then tried to stay 100m ahead of him. It felt primal being chased down by somebody and kept the mind sharp.

Uh, "stop eating carbs 2 months before" sounds like bad advice that needs a lot of heavy caveats. As you know, carbs are precisely we need when going the distance. I know long-time runners who even eat pasta for breakfast before a half-marathon!

I'm ~64KG and 180cm tall. And I feel light when running; I have almost zero excess fat. If I reduce more weight, it would be unhealthy. As it is, I could be called (healthy) "skinny". This is one thing that's unmissable with marathon and longer runners (including the "elites"): many of them look unhealthily thin. I want to avoid going that route.

    • • •

I'm thinking of trying gels. In my last half-m, I broke the "golden rule" of not trying anything new on race day, and paid a small price. Here's my embarrassing story, if you want to have a laugh:

I only trained once with an "isotonic gel" during a training run, and that time I took the gel right before the run. The gel is supposed to provide a small dose of carbohydrates as fuel. Now, during the (half-m) race, I put the gel in my back pocket (which I didn't try out in training). At around 15KM mark, when I reached for it, I felt the goddamned gel slowly leaking in my back pocket! I managed to fish it out and down the gel, but jeez, my hands were incredibly sticky for the rest of the 5KM. (Plus: the backpocket side of my running shorts was so sticky from the fricking gel-leak that whenever I sat down after the run, I had to forcefully detach my shorts from my skin!)

Now, I'm not even sure if the damn gel helped me. I suspect it even slowed me down a bit! (I'm judging this based on the pace of my last 5KM.) Luckily it wasn't a disaster, but an annoying distraction for about 5 KM. To be fair on the gel, my body was just not sufficiently used to it. I need to experiment more on how my body reacts to it. Some runners don't ... gel well with gels.

> As you know, carbs are precisely we need when going the distance.

This is completely false. You deplete your carb stores after a few hours (depending on pace etc), and then YOU ARE RUNNING ON KETONES, whether you like it or not. You physically cannot eat and digest enough carbs to sustain your pace for any longer period of time.

Carb depletion can be a real shock for the first time. What happens is that your body is not accustomed to burning fat for energy, and so it just doesn't know what to do.

But if you prepare it will learn how to do it, and do it rather efficiently. Unless you are a pro athlete (in which case you have your own dietician anyway) you will benefit from going keto for long distance endurance sports. Yes, your sprints will be slower, but in exchange you will simply not be hungry, or feel loss of energy (actually, a marathon is not really that long distance, if you are fast enough you won't even deplete your carb stores!).

It takes a few days, maybe a week or two to switch to keto. You can speed up the process by fasting, it will not leave your body any doubt about what is going to happen :) You will feel very weak at first, but this will pass, and then you are in long distance nirvana. You just need to watch out for proper hydration (not too much, not too little) and mineral replenishment. You can even do your sport fasted, it won't make any difference! Highly recommended for those having digestive issues.

As a matter of fact, I'd rather say it is highly irresponsible of anyone doing endurance sports NOT on keto. But as many other things, this is not taught at school, and people have to experiment for themselves to find out what works for them.

> This is completely false

No it isn't. The comment to stop eating carbs was aimed at someone who is trying to do a half marathon in less that 2 hours. Like you say yourself this is way to short to deplete your carbs, so to just stop eating carbs seems like exactly the "bad advice that needs a lot of heavy caveats" that the parent poster was talking about.

There are other reasons for going keto even for a half-marathon - and who knows, maybe the full distance is next.

You don't have to worry about timing your meals, or "carb-loading" which is misunderstood and yet done by so many beginners just because they read about it and they disrupt / overload their digestive system, and causes more problems than has benefits (if any - guess how I know that).

I cannot really explain the feeling of not feeling exhausted after a few hours of "exercise" to someone who has not experienced it. Yes, your muscles are sore, yes you are thirsty (an unwanted side-effect of keto - you need to manage hydration!), yet your head is clear, your mind is fresh and you are ready to pounce. You feel like Duracell Bunny.

Is your experience different? I'd be happy to hear about it - maybe it doesn't work so well for everyone?

You can't even explain your position to me and I ran 23km on Saturday without feeling depleted at all. I regularly bike over 100km without being depleted. I race middle distance triathlons and the only time I run out of energy is when I stop eating carbs.

You're talking absolute nonsense.

I think OP is referring to people with poor metabolic flexibility. If not fat adapted, then you have enough glycogen for roughly 1600 calories worth of running at which point you bonk and can’t continue. If you are metabolically flexible then you substantially reduce the amount of glycogen you use at the same effort as someone who is not fat adapted. If you are very fat adapted then you can basically continue indefinitely at sub aerobic threshold pace as long as your muscles are strong enough to support you. I also have a low carb diet. It works very well for me. I was metabolically tested and burn roughly 2g of fat per minute at aerobic threshold which is pretty insane. It gets lower as you increase pace as body switches over to glycogen and then anaerobic respiration. People on high carb diets won’t get anywhere near close to that. My Aerobic threshold is >85% of VO2max (anaerobic 95%) and I can keep that up for hours even when apparently glycogen depleted (as restricted carbs in the preceding days). My running has improved immensely since going low carb - run faster with less effort and recover much faster.

Obvs if I’m racing then I use carbs.

I think that’s different. There are people who can do what you say, eating less carbs, but mostly they’ve been doing that their entire lives. It’s not something you can build a training and fuelling strategy from.

Dylan Johnson does a great dive into fasted training on YouTube, which I’d highly recommend.

Thanks for the recommendation - will have a listen today.

I might add that if I’m racing or doing high intensity work, then clearly I take carbs like everyone else.

> You deplete your carb stores after a few hours (depending on pace etc), and then YOU ARE RUNNING ON KETONES, whether you like it or not. You physically cannot eat and digest enough carbs to sustain your pace for any longer period of time.

What do you mean, this is precisely why all professional runners and cyclists consume gels. Not only is it possible to not deplete your carb stores, it's actually pretty easy to keep them from depleting.

> What happens is that your body is not accustomed to burning fat for energy, and so it just doesn't know what to do.

Vast majority of professional cyclists and runners spend majority of their time training in low-instensity zones, where fats are the main source of energy. How then, would they not be accustomed to burning fat for energy?

That's not what happens anyway, the "bonk" is because your body was relying on turning carbs into energy, but the carb stores have depleted. If you try to keep the same effort, your body will be unable to provide sufficient energy to keep you going and you will "bonk". If you were to lower your effort enough for fats to be able to provide sufficient energy, you'd be fine. Anyway, the solution is to consume more carbs, to keep the stores from depleting and no to remove that fuel source entirely.

> Yes, your sprints will be slower, but in exchange you will simply not be hungry, or feel loss of energy.

Sure you won't feel a loss of energy, because you've never had that energy in the first place. I don't understand why you would remove a major fuel source entirely, is there any science behind this?

Pros are pros, but you are not one (are you?), you don't have the experience, the time, the regeneration, the genes, the attitude, the money. So you might as well ignore most of what they do, because you are not one of them.

> Sure you won't feel a loss of energy, because you've never had that energy in the first place. I don't understand why you would remove a major fuel source entirely.

That's a bold statement. Have you ever tried it? Did you have energy?

Imagine that you don't bonk, no matter if you eat or not, and you can still keep roughly the same level of intensity for the entirety of your session, however long it might be. As a matter of fact, you feel just as fresh mentally at the end as at the start. That's why.

Which part do you think applies exclusively to the pros though, I think it applies to everybody. I only used the pros as an example, since they are incentivised to perform at their best and therefore are most likely to apply the best fueling strategies.

> Have you ever tried it?

I have not tried it. Can you provide some sources explaining how it gives any more energy than metabolizing fat does?

> Imagine that you don't bonk, no matter if you eat or not, and you can still keep roughly the same level of intensity for the entirety of your session, however long it might be. As a matter of fact, you feel just as fresh mentally at the end as at the start. That's why.

You don't need to be ketogenic for that though, you just gotta keep it slow. One of my very last outdoor rides last year was like that. 100km ride where I kept it strictly in zone 2. It felt easy and I had a blast. Can't say I felt just as fresh as at the start though.

To paraphrase a basketball player:

As a trained amateur, I'm much closer to a pro athlete than an untrained person is to me.

And yes, I don't bonk during long runs/rides/etc. because I do the same thing pros do and eat carbs.

There is so much misleading "advice" in the above comment that it's not even worth refuting. I just want to warn to others lurking here to be cautious with it.

From the little I know (which is nothing!), going the "keto" route needs a specialist advice[1]. Diet is a charged topic; it would do us good to stay grounded. It's tempting to dole out uninformed advice on the internet. Please resist.

The point you raised at the end is more sensible: people might want to (responsibly and carefully!) try things and see what works for their bodies.

PS: In the past, I wrote here[2] the training routine that worked for me. It also has a link to a "retro" of my previous half-m.

[1] https://www.health.harvard.edu/staying-healthy/should-you-tr...

[2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33607869

> It's tempting to dole out uninformed advice on the internet.

...says he, and then links to a page of advice on the internet. The "Keto Diet Risks" section on that page is such an epic, "that it's not even worth refuting".

>> Fuzzy thinking and mood swings. "The brain needs sugar from healthy carbohydrates to function. Low-carb diets may cause confusion and irritability,"

This shows that whoever wrote this has never even tried proper keto. Because the brain does not need sugar (otherwise you would die after a few days of fasting), and fuzzy thinking is only for the first couple of days until your body adjusts and your brain gets enough fuel again.

It is in fact quite evil, because if someone starts keto or fasting and feels "confused and irritated" at first, they might just stop doing it out of fear of the unknown. Luckily in our modern society were are past such diseases as type-2 diabetes, right? So nobody should bother checking out something that might actually help with that.

But let me ask about your personal experience with keto or fasting. Did you try either? Did it work for you? I could link a hundred web posts about the benefits of keto, and another hundred about the dangers of it. In fact, anybody could google this for themselves, so I don't find this "I read this and that about something" contributing much to any discussion.

[Hi, I am not trying to be confrontational.]

> [...] and then links to a page of advice on the internet [...]

There's a world of difference between an armchair internet-dietitian (no, I'm not implying you are one) and a registered dietitian that is the "director of the Department of Nutrition at Harvard-affiliated Brigham and Women's Hospital" (the author of the said article). It's not appeal to authority—we have to start somewhere. That doesn't mean the said page is 100% accurate.

> But let me ask about your personal experience with keto or fasting [...]

No, I did not try Keto. Yes, I've done fasting before; and yes, it was beneficial. Personally, I'm disciplined with food; almost like a machine, I can happily maintain a healthy diet, without having to "negotiate with myself".

Please note, I'm not denying there are no benefits to Keto or fasting at all. I even recently listened to an episode on Keto on Huberman Lab Podcast to educate myself on it. I don't have personal experience of it, so I refrain to talk about it. Much less use data-points-of-one as a generalization.

> Unless you are a pro athlete (in which case you have your own dietician anyway)

Why not train like a professional athlete and just eat a balanced diet, like their dieticians recommend? My partner has represented my country in the Olympics in a long distance track event and none of her support staff have ever advocated for keto as a responsible diet for her training needs.

I mean, the science says fat is less energy-available than a simple source of carbohydrates. It seems like a pretty easy choice if you want to hit target speeds during your workouts and become faster over time.

> Why not train like a professional athlete and just eat a balanced diet...

Because professional athletes are anything but "balanced". Professional sport is about abusing your body as much as you can possibly get away with, and then some more. For a normal person following a pro's training plans or diet could be the worst thing they could do to their body.

> science says fat is less energy-available than a simple source of carbohydrates

Yes, keto is not a panacea. If you do keto, you will most probably not be the fastest you can be. But you will be unstoppable. If you do carbs, your peak performance should be higher, but for a shorter time. Choose one.

I think what pros (eg. pro cyclists) do is that they try to find the best of both worlds - they train a LOT in lower intensity zones so they get very good at fat burning without actually reaching keto, but they then supplement it with the right type and amount of carbs during races so that they don't lose sprint power. But this is only my theory, I have never been a pro, and never been close to these circles.

> Because professional athletes are anything but "balanced"

I'm sorry, how much money do you think professional runners make that it affords them some crazy diet that the general public can't tolerate? Not even professional runners for that matter-- college runners, or even high schoolers. My partner and all of her colleagues that compete at the international level in Canada have part-time jobs. My partner is in grad school full-time at the moment, too. They aren't "abusing their body" as much as possible, they just do a lot of base mileage, two key workouts a week, and recover and eat properly-- and they've done that for years. That's the secret.

I eat with, and cook for my girlfriend, and I am a brutally normal guy in the military. We just use standard ingredients and try to cook things from scratch. We have pizza and/or go out to eat about once every two weeks or so. This isn't purely anecdotal, it's completely reasonable to run a 120km/wk and maintain a normal life-- that's most elite runners on the field, and I make that assessment as a guy who has been in these circles through my partner.

I would disagree with your assessment of "unstoppable" versus "fastest". You can certainly have both with carbohydrates. Moreover, given the parent comment wanted to get faster, I would probably not reach for keto under your recommendation.

> I think what pros (eg. pro cyclists) do is that they try to find the best of both worlds - they train a LOT in lower intensity zones so they get very good at fat burning without actually reaching keto, but they then supplement it with the right type and amount of carbs during races so that they don't lose sprint power. But this is only my theory, I have never been a pro, and never been close to these circles.

You couldn't be further from the truth, especially in a race scenario, not to mention a stage race or a grand tour. Professional (and most well versed) cyclist will pile on carbs in the days leading up to a race, eat a pile the morning of the race and then continue to eat and drink a massive quantity of carbs. It has everything with them being able to replenish what's lost during a race lasting several hours, it is not at all sprint specific. They'll easily aim at 100+ grams of carbs per hour.

I would consider myself a well versed and well trained amateur cyclist. Depending on length of training session and intensity of efforts, I'll aim for 50-100g/hr. In a race my goal is 80-100g/hr from the second the race starts. I've done well enough in multiple 6-9+ hour races and training sessions.

I want to back this up!

For a while I was carb-reliant, would bring fruit with me to my workouts, felt like I couldn't do more than 30 min of hard effort without fueling.

Made a conscious effort to "go keto", ate more protein and fat, was hungry for 1.5 weeks, but a switch flipped and I can pretty much go forever now. I'm not strict about it anymore, but it definitely unlocked something for me.

I think my sense of exhaustion was coupled with the amount of easy sugar from carbs in my body.. taking the carbs away for a bit broke that dependency.

This is kind of curious. Isn't that 2/3 energy slump usually associated with the marathon distance, as your body exhausts glycogen reserves? You shouldn't be bonking at 15k. Moreover, I would never recommend to stop eating carbohydrates as a distance runner. I think it's great you lost weight and hit a PB, but I would lean towards consistent training with key workouts and a balanced diet leading up to a race.

I’m 92kg +/-, 187cm. Run 2x a week 6.5km like clockwork, plus extra fitness 2-3x a week. So heavy guy. I do about one 1/2 marathon a year and train up to 15km. Heart sits at 180-185 by the end. The 18km is definitely a hump where it’s not aerobic fitness but feels like need to push through a mental wall. I don’t think I have the physique for a full marathon without proper preparation but may try next year.

Yes! On "diet" — as the saying goes, "you can't outrun a bad diet."

I want do some strength training besides the usual bicycling and running 3-4x a week. But I keep dragging my feet with it.

This is egregiously bad advice.

There is zero evidence that keto or low carb/high fat diets improve running performance. There's actually consistently reproduced evidence that it impairs performance at high intensities. Studies: https://physoc.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1113/JP278928, https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16357078/, https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26553488/, https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32497061/

Summary if you don't want to read all the studies: https://trainright.com/should-endurance-athletes-go-keto-ket...

Do you have any citations for your bro science?

Runners have been eating "gel" for years during races. You don't run out of carbs if you properly prepare for a marathon

> Stop eating carbs about 2 months before. I did this and went from a 2:06 to 1:58 with minimal training. My body carried several kg less weight and felt like it could consume its own fat energy more efficiently and I didn’t get the 2/3 slump.

You would likely get the same results and time drop just by running consistent training mileage for 2 months instead of a big diet change like this.

This program helped me to do 2hr half-marathon: https://www.halhigdon.com/training-programs/half-marathon-tr...

Running is a Great exercise to damage your knees.

This is technically true if you go out and start running a lot from zero if you are overweight or ignore your body and the warnings it gives in the run-up to injury. If you build up running gradually and treat it as a skill that you learn and improve on your technique and always listen to the feedback your body is giving you, then running is a great way to improve the health of the joints, muscles and bones in your legs and feet.

Most children happily run around all day and rarely develop any issues. Adults have an unfortunate habit of becoming quite sedentary, losing any conditioning they had and then going out and running distances their body isn't prepared for. Then people will blame their shoes or even the activity itself when the most significant factor is doing too much too soon.

This interview with Daniel Lieberman[1], an evolutionary biologist out of Harvard, is a good read about the misconceptions associated with human activity and what studies of our historical behaviour can tell us about what is and isn't important in staying active.

https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2021/01/daniel-lieber...

> Most children happily run around all day and rarely develop any issues

I am an adult and I definitely have kept issues from things that I did as a child.

Now, seriously, isn't the body weight to joint surface ratio completely different for children and adults?

Can anyone point to more details about the kinds of injury one sustains when going to "a lot from zero"?

What can be done to fix such injuries?

As a guy who has run basic training for recruits in the military, I would say the most common is shin splints (by far), followed by tendonitis, plantar fasciitis, IT band syndrome, and in exceptionally rare cases, compartment syndrome (although I have seen it, and this requires surgery to correct).

Prevention is key for these-- particularly by familiarizing your body with the loads incrementally. While some may have the aerobic fitness to complete a 5k (even if they're new to running-- a cyclist or swimmer, perhaps) the musculo-skeletal adaptations involved with consistency haven't occurred yet, and injury is a lot more likely. Even elite runners, when they're "getting back into it" start with alternating run-walks to avoid the "too much, too fast" loading.

Most of these can be addressed by seeing a physiotherapist, and normally involve cutting mileage or pace significantly and/or strengthening weak supporting muscles.

Every physical activity has potential to damage some part of your body. Running, when done properly, doesn't damage the knees. Even more so research seems to suggest that it is good for the knees.

One out of every runner gets injured :)

How do these runners knees not succumb to problems? Genetic lottery? I run 6 miles on a treadmill with zero drop & pronation inserts, stretch withe a calf wedge & still feel like I'm flying close to the sun with my knees.

>Running Does Not Increase Symptoms or Structural Progression in People with Knee Osteoarthritis: Data from the Osteoarthritis Initiative

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6095814/

>History of Running is Not Associated with Higher Risk of Symptomatic Knee Osteoarthritis: A Cross-Sectional Study from the Osteoarthritis Initiative

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5179322/

>Running does not lead to knee osteoarthritis, may protect people from developing disease, experts say

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/11/141116094058.h...

Curious what you can find about IT bands? I used to run triathlons. Stopped when I had a long recovery from a cracked foot. 10 years later I have chronic IT band tightening that pulls my knee out of alignment and causes constant pain.

When I was doing triathlon, I was in the Clydesdale division because I had a physique more like a football player than a runner. I've often wondered if my leg/knee problems of today are casually related to my choice to seriously do an exercise against body type.

You should do a very thorough course of pilates and core strengthening, and possibly some squats/leg presses. The IT bands and other problems that untrack are all about balanced strength groups in your butt/groins/core.

I had patellar chondromalacia for about a year after one of my Ironmans and I couldn't get it to go away. I started doing a mat pilates and it went away within a could weeks.

Then I had back problems kinda like sciatica, and that was solved with the leg presses, but I feel the leg presses helped make the knees even healthier.

The other issue with running as a triathlete, especially a clydesdale, is that you may be excessively heel planting. It can be hard to transition to midfoot planting for a big dude, but it is much much easier on your knees.

You'd have to do some sprinting on your toes, very unorthodox for triathlons, but even then it is very hard to change the fundamental style of running.

This is dangerous. My friend blew out his knee pushing too hard with trailrunning, and now he can never run again.

"Blowing out a knee" is a completely different issue to osteoarthritis of the knee.

If you fall due to tripping over a rock or something then of course you can damage your knee. The point is that running a lot won't necessarily wear your knees out.

Telling people not to run due to a misconception about perceived harm is much more harmful than the risk of a serious knee injury from running.

The old myth that running is bad for your knees. It isn’t unless you have a condition. What you may not have is tendons ready for the effort or the right supporting muscles. These can be worked on.

Go on, don't leave us hanging. Any suggestions on a workout to strengthen the muscles?

I’ve found Vlad Xcel to have really good videos for this. For example: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=meeZydx-vhU

This is paid but also very good. https://uphillathlete.com/product/at-home-strength-training-...

The main thing 90% of people will benefit from is learning to activate their glutes, then strengthening their glutes. Clamshells are a great place to start.

A lot of people hurt their knees because their glutes don’t activate and are weak from sitting all day. This forces them to become quad dominate, which puts more strain on the knees.

It's one of those "How to get better at x? do x." things

for running, lowering your pace to "just above walking" speed will help you run much longer, and develop the muscles needed

There's a few things that will help:

1. Run slower. Then run slower again.

2. Run a shorter distance/time and gradually build up over time (weeks/months).

3. Lose weight (on average, people are overweight). If you're underweight, then eat more.

Some need to walk before running. Walk the distance you want to run (e.g., 10K) and your body will tell you where your fitness level is at. I walked a month before running.

Weighted squats

Genetics play a role, but it can be done with very, very gradual increments in weekly mileage, perhaps over the course of years. The "add no more that 10% rule per week" is even too aggressive over the long run. You have to give your legs time to adjust to higher mileages.

When I was 35 and younger I could run no matter what i did to my body.

Now that I'm in my 40's I find if I get knee pain, its almost certainly tight muscles around the knee.

That means I haven't' been stretching, drinking water, foam rolling or squatting and deadlifting enough. As you get older I find almost all ailments are a sign of not taking care of your body, not a sign of age related decay.

Having to be more and more careful about taking care of your body is the age related factor here.

I'm 38 and run about 80km a week on average and have run since I was 12 years old. Humans are built for running! Any notion that running is bad for the average person is nonsense (clearly if you have some known underlying issue which may prevent running, e.g. one leg longer than the other, then it's best to avoid running)... Anyway, the key to not screwing up your knees, getting shin splints, IT band syndrome, or whatever else chronic injury is:

0. Unless you've been running for a long time or done some other endurance sport, your aerobic system is probably in terrible shape. Even if you are already a runner, it's likely your aerobic system is still in terrible shape. If your pace zones don't match up with your heart rate zones, e.g. you are out of breath no matter how heard you run and your HR shoots up the moment you start running then you need to improve your aerobic system. If you are stressing yourself on every run then you have a much higher chance of injury. On most of my runs I go <Z2, which is about 6.30 min/mile for me at the moment but could easily do a marathon at that pace and not be too stressed about it. I can breath through my nose at that pace and assuming I warmed up sufficiently, then breathing feels very easy and I can carry on a conversation with my running partners. Recovery feels almost instant after stopping. If your aerobic system is poor then you'll be dipping into anerobic territory which stresses the body a great dealand lengthens recovery time. I only work anerobically about 20% of the time. Teach your body to be a better fat burner, your aerobic system will thank your for it and you'll feel generally better overall in daily life. Learn about the aerobic threshold and the anerobic threshold. The secret to fast, injury free, easy running is to push your aerobic and anerobic thresholds as high as possible, so you can run fast whilst burning fat and not accumulating excessive levels of blood lactate. You can achieve this by doing most of your training below your aerobic threshold and the remainder at or above your anerobic threshold. Determining your aerobic thrshold can be tricky - some people say it's the pace you can run at when breathing through your nose. If you have a blood lactate monitor then it's the pace/HR when lactate starts appearing in the blood samples. It's maybe easier to do a metabolic test though. Read Phil Maffetone's book to learn more - it's a good introduction.

1. Make sure your form is good. The main things are: 1) don't overstride. If you overstride, you'll land on your heel instead of mid/fore foot and put quite a bit of stress through your legs. Instead, increase cadance and lower stride length so you are landing mid foot. 2) You see a lot of people running with their ass sticking out, which pulls centre of gravity backwards and makes running much more difficult - overstresses quads, shins and knees. Your centre of gravity should be directly over the foot in the stance phase. Try to make sure hips are forward and level. There's tonnes of stuff on the internet about running form. I think you can get most of the way there by increasing cadence and shortening stride. Running should feel like you are gliding over the road... People walking should be surprised when you beast it past them at 5 minute mile pace because your feet hardly make any noise when they touch the ground.

2. Make sure that all your muscles groups are strong and balanced, in pcarticular the glutes. Most people have weak glutes, specifically the glute medius, which will cause the knee to bend inwards when running, resulting in quite a bit of pain as it compresses the knee on one side and stretches it on the other. Many runners think strength isn't relevant for running but it really is. You need to keep on top of it and do strengthening exercises at least a few times a week. There's tonnes of blogs on the web which teach you the kinds of exercises you need to do. E.g. side leg raises, clam shells, squats, single leg dead lifts, glute bridge, marching bridge...

3. Recover properly. Any "tightness" after a run is probably because you've overworked some muscle group. Learn how to do self massage and maybe use a theragun or similar device. Cold therapy also helps. Try to sleep well (no alcohol before bed, no food three hours before bed, no caffeine in afternoon) and if you don't feel great or are ill then either don't run or do only active recovery that day. From experience you are way more likely to injure yourself on a day where you don't feel great.

4. Whenever you are going to do a hard session, warm up properly with some light aerobic exercise and mobility exercises. You want to make sure all the main muscle groups are activated and ready to go before you run. On slow days this is less of an issue. A hard session is anything above Z2. Always run at least 5 minutes in Z1 before starting any run. Alsways do at least 5 minutes in Z1 at the end of a run.

5. Diet. Don't eat refined carbs or any sugars. Focus on a high fat diet and only eat cars when you need to fuel before a hard session or race.

6. Up training distance gradually. Track things like resting heart rate at night or HRV to check whether you are over-doing it or not. Gut feel for this is probably more useful though. If you feel exhausted or you get pain then cut back on running and do more strength exercises.

I appreciate this comment. I'm 36 and started running at 16, mostly to prepare for the Army's physical fitness test which includes a two-mile run. I'm still going.

Point 0 is one that I've had to learn and re-learn several times, because it's a hard pill to swallow. When you don't have much time to train (and I've never felt like I had time for more than 20 miles per week as an adult), it's tempting to feel like you can make up for it by training harder. Oddly, the Army actually teaches that we should run no more than three times per week, and no more than a few miles, but to make those runs faster, to reduce injuries. I don't know why. Whenever I've gotten hurt, it was due to trying to run faster than I was ready for.

Point 1 reminds me of my favorite passage in Daniels' Running Formula: "If a group of beginners were required to start running 100 miles a week, two things would probably occur: Many runners would hurt themselves, and many who didn't get hurt would adjust to taking quicker, lighter steps." I read that book after my first ten years of running and made a radical change to a forefoot strike with something closer to his recommended 180 steps per minute.

Great advice except for point 5.

Carbs are fantastic, eat them.

Just to clarify. I eat carbs! Just not refined carbs or sugars, and only on days I need to replenish glycogen or make sure I’m topped up. Get most of my intake from super starch, fruit or vegetables. I don’t eat pasta or bread.

There’s absolutely nothing wrong with refined carbs though.

Sugar is good, take some during long runs and hard training sessions to aid recovery. It’s also absolutely necessary as a fuel source during long races.

Can't upvote this enough. Carbs are king for endurance, though I tend to drink most of mine as I find it easier.

I find more liquid gels are nice and palatable during runs. SIS ones are nice in that respect

For gels, I do maple syrup, which usually comes with a pinch of salt. I will also add 50-100g+ carbs per 750mL bottle. I find it hard to chew solids when biking at anything higher than low Z2, it actually increases my heart rate a bit.

I must be doing something really wrong, i'm 41 run 50km a week (for 10+yrs) and my <Z2 is 8:52min/mile.

Best i can do is 5km @ 7:15 and i'll be dead running 190bpm+ for the whole duration (and sometimes 200)

must be the genetics.

Two things:

1. Genetics that allow their bodies to push harder and recover faster (at the elite level) than an average human.

2. Years upon years of building up resilience by increasing distance, time, intensity in a semi-controlled manner.

That said, there's millions of people worldwide who run far below the elite level whose bodies don't crumble to bits. It's a total myth that running destroys your knees.

Aside from the other comments / suggestions...check your diet. It's possible you're eating something(s) that triggers inflammation; and when your running that inflammation manifests as pain in your knees.

OK, but how would I check for that?

I mean, how do I know if it's the bacon, the coffee, or the cheese, etc?

Process of elimination. Keep a food diary. Look for patterns. Start with knowns (e.g., sugar, dairy, gluten, etc.) and work your way into the weeds.

I have run 30-40 miles per week since I was 15 to the age of 40 so far. The period I have injuries are correlated to the times I am not also training kung fu. Since kung fu involved a lot of deep stretching and yoga like stuff, I think the trick to running is probably just to also make sure to practice yoga seriously and you’ll be good

Besides proper weight training, have you gotten help with your running style? As a purely knee-saving exercise, I learned some POSE running. Let’s be clear, I do not run long distance nor do I ever want to. The single longest distance I have run is 10K. This was purely to stop heel striking because that was giving me problems.

I had knee pains when running only on the roads. It was due to weak muscles to support it.

Switched to trail running and it's been a life saver. It's a lot easier pace, but the hills/mountains really help stabilize the glutes and core. I'm running longer/further and still close to my 5k times from being a road runner

Have you tried running barefoot or with "Barefoot" sandals? It will quickly teach you the correct way to run without your heels touching the ground, which removes the impact stress from the knee. I have very much liked using them, albeit I haven't run on a treadmill.

This is the running equivalent of "how do people who use computers not bleed from their eyeballs"

Running is a highly repetitive task and it will amplify any biomechanical issues you have.

In the first phase of my running career, I used to struggle with achilles tendon problems, nothing any shoe or podiatrist or orthopedist was able to properly diagnose or fix.

Eventually I saw a PT. The PT clued me in that I had a weak core and bad biomechanics. To use an analogy: I was like a car with an out of alignment suspension. And I had been trying to fix it by changing the tires. When what I needed to do was fix the suspension. The suspension is everything above your feet, but in particular your hips and core. And mine were in terrible shape from years of sitting before I started running in my late twenties.

So I had to re-invent myself as a runner.

Originally I started with the exercises the PT gave me for my hips and core. I got rid of my motion-control shoes and my prescription orthopedic inserts. I switched to just a basic cushioned shoe. Shoes are like unsprung mass on a vehicle. I didn't want any more weight on my feet than I absolutely needed, especially since I wear size 11-12 shoes.

I started to pay attention to and work on my form. I found the PT exercises boring so I ended up joining a Crossfit gym for a couple years which worked for me, but I don't recommend Crossfit as generic advice since Crossfit gym and coach quality varies widely. But it worked for me.

With my form and strength in better shape, it enabled me to start putting in more mileage. Whereas previously I couldn't run more than 35 miles/week w/o risking injury, I was now able to comfortably run 65-75 miles/week. That allowed me to take on the types of training routines that I needed to achieve some of my time and distance goals.

Now, I know some folks who never cross train and don't get injured and maybe they just naturally have good form.

But for me it was something I had to work at. And the best kind of professional I know for advising you on this is a PT who is themselves a runner and works with runners.

The image I keep in mind when I'm thinking about running form is Mo Farah's:

https://www3.pictures.zimbio.com/gi/14th+IAAF+World+Athletic...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uxf1gEkm_EE

Here's some of the exercises he does to have and maintain that form:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zx2i6TKMi1A

And for comparison, here's Ed Whitlock in his 80s:

https://mindmotionmatter.files.wordpress.com/2011/09/ed-runn...

i would also like an answer to this. Unfortunately it is getting even worse as I age.

Well the glaring omission is that you apparently don't do any knee strengthening exercises even though your knees hurt?

How do you expect to have strong knees without squats, lunges, etc? It's like saying you're bad at math and expect to magically get better at it, without actually practising math.

Even doing a few sets of squats every day is better then nothing, and for some reason most newbie runners think they can do nothing, with zero sports background, and still run every other day.

I went along as handler for a friend at a couple of Old Dominion 100s in the 1980s. The then course took the runners over Massanutten Mountain somewhere around 80 or 85 miles in, and the one year runner could be accompanied for the last 25 miles, the other year for the last 33. The first year I didn't need to accompany for my friend dropped out because of the brutally hot weather. The later year, I split the companion duties with my brother.

The thing about ultra-distance races is that the exhaustion can affect the judgment, and the runner and the race are better off having somebody with judgment unimpaired along.

Edit: I should add that the course took runners over Massanutten Mountain in the dark. Perhaps the real beasts managed it in daylight, but it was a nighttime leg for lot of good solid runners who were going to get the belt for finishing under 24 hours.

As a amateur runner. I want to thank you for your service.

>Yes, runners can use a variety of electronic devices (GPS watches, heart rate monitors, accelerometers on your shoe) to try to set their own pace but none of these are perfect. They also require constant attention.

Yes, those devices do require constant attention, usually by glancing at watch, what is rather distracting. But, something that mostly resolved this deficiency, at least for me, was Garmin Varia Vision - tiny heads up display mounted to sunglasses. it can keep in your eyesight all the relevant metrics. It is a great help for me in outdoor runs

But how do the pacers keep pace?

In my case, practice, knowing the course, and running close to my easy pace all help. I have a pretty good sense of what different paces feel like, effort wise.

But I also use a GPS watch and Stryd pod to monitor my pace in real-time and keep track of my 1 mile and 5K splits.

Generally though, runners tend to go out way too fast in a race because they are very excited and should have gone through a taper, so it feels easy while running too fast at the start. Because it's not a race for me, I can avoid that excitement. Then toward the end, they slow down because they went out too fast. Since the entire race is at a relaxed effort for me, I can avoid that too.

I also probably haven't spent the last 10 days tapering, so I don't have to really adjust my feel.

That said: a few years back I ended up pacing the 4:30 marathon group which was almost 3 minutes/mile below my race pace and I was constantly having to check myself. My preference when pacing is to be close to my easy pace for the distance, not to fast, not too slow.

Thousands and thousands of miles of practise. Elite pacers can hit 400 m splits with sub-second accuracy by feel alone.

At an elite event there are LEDs along the inside of the track that are set to pace at world record pace or what ever pace the meet chooses. The rabbit can pace off the LEDs, or at some interval to the LEDs. Recently there may be multiple paces set by the LEDs.

> speed up a bit on the downhills

That is bad for your knees.

[edit] I highly recommend the book Born to Run by Cristopher McDougall.

My $0.02: Sitting on the couch is bad for your knees. Over-striding is bad for your knees. A weak core is bad for your knees. Running slightly faster on downhills is not bad for your knees.

FWIW, I've read nearly every running book there is including that one. I still have healthy knees at 51 and have run tens of thousands of miles on them over all sorts of terrain.

See my sibling comment.

Repeated stress of right intensity makes bones, joints and tendons stronger. Avoiding all stress is a bad advice I have heard many times in my life I am sick and tired of it. It is the stress that causes the body to need to recover and it is during recovery that it becomes stronger.

The only really important thing to remember is that the right intensity is crucial and that it is very easy to suddenly overload a part of your body you have never even been aware of. Even a slight change in technique caused by something like different shoes or an aching toe can shift forces to places that are not ready yet and cause an injury.

That's why good running technique is crucial -- because it is nothing else as a discipline to put your body through predictable motions in response to predictable loads. If you can do it you can now make sure your loads don't change too much over time and you should be relatively safe from injuries.

Lots of injuries are caused by people running for longer duration but slipping with their technique because, for example, their core muscles get fatigued through the run. And this shifts loads to new places and causes things to get overloaded.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34958029

It is only bad for your knees if you don't know how to run downhills and don't train for it.

Running injuries come from overload or overuse (or bad health). Both causes can be prevented by being conscious of what causes overload and overuse and then training in a way that will prevent it.

If all you ever do is run flat asphalt and then you suddenly decide to run hills then yes, the downhill can be bad for your knees -- but that's just because you stupidly decided to introduce a new load your joints and tendons are not adapted to.

Same happens whenever you change technique or have some kind of imbalance -- your body will adjust by moving loads from one place to another but your brain may not be smart enough to realise the new place may not have had enough time to adjust to it.

Anybody can write a book, I guess. But don't take any running books as gospel. Nobody really understands everything about running (well... maybe Phil Maffetone does).

I run with severed ACL in one of my knees and so out of necessity I have to be much more knowledgeable to be able to keep running safely and keep my legs in good shape.

> That is bad for your knees.

[Citation needed]

I wouldn't recommend speeding up on the downhills for beginning runners. But if you're well conditioned, running slightly faster on the downhills in a relaxed way won't hurt your knees. It all depends on the slope of course. On very steep hills, it simply isn't be possible to run fast downhill.

> I highly recommend the book Born to Run by Cristopher McDougall.

It's an entertaining read, but that's about it. The science is to be taken with a large grain of salt. (I've run more than 50000 km since reading it.)

Yeah, I've read Born to Run too. I think it's pretty naive to deduce that the modern shoe industry is responsible for joint/tendon issues. Frankly, more pros would be wearing minimalist footwear if it was the cure-all as written. To be clear, if the minimalist footwear trend works for someone, that's great for them. But if you played the game of "I spy" for minimalist footwear at any professional meet with distance runners... Good luck finding a pair.

I usually go trough a couple of running shoes a year and I think adjusting the insole correctly the first times you use it is key.

I try to place the insole in a way that avoids vibrations when hitting the surface and the ankle to work at a correct angle.

Read the article...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com