Barefoot/Minimalist Shoe Running Clinic in Grand Rapids, Michigan (Read 1842 times)

One thing I know for myself is that after about 2.5 hrs of running my feet really feel every step.

It may be that the shoes do this rather than prevent this (since they apparently are not preventing it).

 I'm sorry, but when I took statistics I recall a population of about 40 was required for statistical significance.

This is an incorrect and imprecise assumption.  Sample size requirements depend on numerous factors; there is no single answer as to the sample required to conduct a study.  Some studies requires a very small sample; others require tens of thousands of participants.

By the way, I didn't say it was a "poor argument"; I said it was one of the worst arguments. 

 

 

Instead, we say let's emulate what elites are doing and apply that.  They run a lot, so we try to run a lot.  They run fast here and there to sharpen, so we try to run fast (whatever "fast" means to each and every one of us).  Mechanics of elites is much smoother...  Yes, so we work on it just the same.  To me, these statements are as good as saying: "Forget running 100MPW; forget running 6-minute pace; forget trying to run smooth..."

 

 

 

I don't necessarily think everybody should be running 4-hour marathon although in actuality I do feel they should go pretty darn close.  My point actually was that, if they train properly, they should do a little better--and that, unfortunately, include emulating what elite runners do.  As far as I'm concerned, they are elite and run so much faster than most of us because they are doing something right.

 

 

 

 

I don't need to discuss any of the trainng method; I wasn't quite sure if you knew.  Obviously, you do know Galloway, Higdon, Pfitzinger, or Burfoot...  Did you know they were actually a very good runner?  Or are you talking more about something like FIRST program?  They are all decent program though, as you pointed out for me, I don't necessarily think you need to go much beyond 3-hours.  My point, in case you ddn't get it, was that these programs, which I would say are pretty popular unless you have other programs in mind, are pretty darn popular and these guys were all elite at one point.  Which program would I recommend?  I recommend mine.

 

By the way, in real life, 130lb guy CAN land heavier than 200lb guy--it is HOW they run and HOW they land.  You seem actually pretty smart and may know a thing or two about math and physics and statistics but if you can calculate who lands harder and who runs faster based on some numbers, you don't need to have a race.  Real life is a lot more complicated than that.

 

By the way, so why am I supposed to be cartwheeling?

I suppose it could be one of the worst and still be a good argument, but to me "worst" is not as good as "poor."   For what it's worth, I could have paraphrased YOUR argument just as badly as you did mine.  (Something like....Use light shoes because the Japanese do and they are good runners.)  but it would be as bad a distortion of your thoughts on the issue as your interpretation was of mine.

My point about emulating elite runners was that we all should not do exactly as they do simply because it's good for them.  Nowhere did I say anything about how far to run every week or when to run fast.  I think you introduced those issues, which by the way I agree with, but not with hard numbers like 100 or 6.  They are all relative to one's physical condition and to one's ability.  I have never run a 6 min mile.  Nor 100 miles in a week.  But I've run as fast as I could and as far as I could in a week, and tried to go even faster and farther year after year after year.

Elites run faster because they have genetic factors that favor running faster.  In addition to these, they apply training methods to draw the very best effort out of their talent.  Now don't misunderstand what I wrote.  I have not said that others don't have talent that can be exposed and improved.  They do and it can.  But elite runners are like great musicians.  They have a special talent that has been developed through hard work to the point where they are the best in the world.  By the way, just think of all the people who started with the same talent but never exposed it?  Just like the many possible cellists who never got a chance to play.

Yes, I am aware of how good some of those runners were.  I'm also aware that they sell their plans to the masses, who often blindly do what the book says, in spite of evidence suggesting there are better ways to train.  I used the 3 hr example to illustrate that point.

Yes, a 130 lb runner CAN land heavier than a 205 lb runner, but he would have to have far worse form and likely be running more up and down than straight ahead.  (As an aside, have you ever noticed how smooth the heads of good runners are?  They hardly bob up and down at all.)  My point with the 130 lb runner was more directed to the size of elites.  I've never seen a 205 lb elite marathoner.  

Back to shoes for a moment.  (Isn't that, at least partly what this thread is about?)  As I've mentioned in prior posts, they seem to cause almost as many problems as they solve.  However for recreational runners, (which most of us are) who don't have personal coaches to help with the finer elements of training, such as form or stride, the quickest fix is often the best.  Suggesting that someone should run in light shoes because it will "fix" their landing will more often than not lead to a totally screwed up landing.  And that's a recipe for injury to me.

It's been good talking to you.

But just because elite marathoners wear gloves when it's cold doesn't mean that your typical 4 or 5 hour marathoner needs to wear gloves. Haven't you noticed the skinny fingers on elites?

Don't patronize me, I took physics in high school.  Fast running generates more heat that slow running so a 4 or 5 hour marathoner might need to wear 2 layer goretex mittens.

I have trouble believing you. Suppose the population size is 10. Then obviously no sample size will exceed 10.

Contrast that with a study of US runners, where the population size is.... not sure.... across 50 years it is probably in 7 digits? (Unless you consider it to be theoretically infinite, which is also a plausible approach.)

In the first case, if you do studies on all 10 as your sample, it is not just significant, but definitive. (Remember, that's your entire population.)

In the second case, we have to consider a lot of more complicated factors.

Those cases are, I assert, dramatically different in evaluating how conclusive are your results from a sample of 10.

I'd suggest this is a bit like the difference between distribution over a small, finite set, and distribution over an infinite set.

AP -

The goal of achieving an adequate sample is to ensure that your study findings are not due to chance alone.   Sample size is based on expected effect size, variation around the effect and confounders.  Larger populations require larger sample not because the population is bigger per se, but as you suggest because there are more confounders.  Once the confounders are covered, you don't need to grow your sample size requirement just because the population grows.incorporating all the confounders into the model is to make sure that any differences your experiment finds can be generalized into the wider population.  But once you have covered all the confounders, your population can grow 10 times, but the sample size requirement does not. 

Think of national telephone surveys done for marketing.  They have methods to make sure that all demographics are represented, but ultimately the survey contacts a miniscule fraction of a percent of all Americans.  They have enough sample to be confident that any observed results really do represent the country, with all its inherent variation and confounds.  The sample requirement does not change based on the country's population; it changes based on evolution in the types of people who live here.

If your experiement's outcomes have wide variation around them and lots of confounders, you will simply not be able to perform the experiment in a population of 10.

Suggesting that someone should run in light shoes because it will "fix" their landing will more often than not lead to a totally screwed up landing.

To repeat my (unanswered) question from earlier, how do you know?

 

I bet you take them off when it gets warm, too.  Like today.  Damn it was nice out.  I took my gloves off.  My hat, too.

yep, no gloves today.