Platypus' Beginners Guide to Running

[Merlin5]

cadence is how many steps per minute you make. if you have a slow cadence, then you make fewer steps, so to run at a specific pace you have to make longer strides. If the cadence was really low you would have to jump several meters in the air and crash in to the ground. With a high cadence it is like spinning your bike in a low gear, very little stress.

Awesome explanation, thanks. So basically, higher cadence will be less leg shock for me. I need to stick around 13 minute/mile, I find that gives me a gentler jog with shorter strides. I must say though it does look a bit wimpish. Longer strides looks better.

And when (or more like 'if') I'm at some point in the future able to sustain faster paces, say around 8 or 9 minute miles, my strides will be longer and I run the risk of heel strikes again, right?

I guess we have to be careful here as we're not allowed to offer medical advice, right? What I would say, I think that could be where tendons attach to the bone. Soreness will be the jarring of the muscle where it's not used to being pulled at, like shin splints.

Yes, I think that could be it, Andy. I mean, it sort of feels like the bone itself aches but I don't know if bones feel pain or just tendons and muscles. Well, after enduring the discomfort of sore quads in my first week of jogging, that has gone now. So after some rest for this latest thing, that will also hopefully disappear. Nevertheless, I better sort myself out with some better shoes, probably the same ones Ian has.

 

[Merlin5]

Agreed, i've never had knee pain in around 4 years of running, but have suffered the last few weeks when i went for a run with some fairly bad back pain. It must've completely changed my form and it's taken quite a few weeks to recover.

As for trainers. i think there's plenty options around that price point. Especially if you look on the likes of Sportshoes etc. Many will be a year or 2 old models of the high end shoes, and i'd prefer to aim for that than a current version of a lower shoe if that makes sense?

I think i posted in the weight loss thread, but Brooks do a good online questionaire to give you an idea of what trainer to go for, it'll then recommend something but you can always look for an older model of that shoe (Ie if it says Brooks Glycerin 17, try looking for the Glycerin 15 etc). Running trainers are quite helpful in that they use sequential numbering for the most part!

Martyn, I took the Brooks test that you suggested. I think I answered them pretty correctly. The reason I say that is because when it asked me if I was wobbly when standing on one leg, I was, but then I'd do it again and didn't feel wobbly. Then did it again or swapped legs and a bit wobbly. So I answered as wobbly. The final result was 'Looks like you've got alignment in knees and hips, flexible ligaments, and a steady training regimen. We recommend your shoes should be: Neutral.'

Then it asked me if I want soft shoes to cushion every step, or springy to propel me, or speed shoes to make me run faster. I opted for cushion. I guess that's the right choice to protect my landings? So it suggested PureGrit 8 cushioned neutral shoes, about £120. But then said out of stock. So it suggested three other similar cushioned shoes. Divide £70, Divide 2 £100, and Cascadia 15 £120. Do you know anything about them? I'd be happy to go for the Divide £70. Looks good in the photos, the underneath looks chunky and durable enough. What do you think?

https://www.brooksrunning.com/en_gb...l?dwvar_110333_color=424&dwvar_110333_width=D

 

[Martynt74]

I'm not too familiar with either of those (although i think the Cascadia is their Trail shoe).

The main benefit really is just to know that you're after a well cushioned neutral shoe. You can then look around for something matching that aspect.

EDIT - Looking at the divide it also looks like a trail shoe. What kind of surfaces do you run on? Trail shoes are generally for off road use, there's often less cushioning as the ground is softer vs tarmac/pavements. I think you mentioned you ran at a local park. Do you stick to the paved paths or run on the grass? My concern about trail shoes would be they may not be cushioned enough for road running which could impact your joints.

I'd opt for road shoes, even if you're on light trails/firm grass i think they'd suit better. I only really wear my trail shoes if i'm going properly off road and need the deep lugs for grip in mud. Given your location i imagine you don't have access to loads of muddy/slippy moors

 

[dwarf]

Just my experience but I got some Brooks Glycerin recently and I've not been too impressed so far, I don't actually find them to be that cushioned. Also echoing what Martynt76 says, trail shoes can be a tad uncomfortable if the lugs are not biting into soft ground or gravel as the deep lugs then just push up into your feet.

Around that price I would suggest you look at the Nike Pegasus 37, which can be found on sale quite often (£75). It's a classic recommendation for new runners, because they are so versatile, and I personally found them to be very good value for the money (mine are still going strong after 500 miles). If you're stretching the budget then take a look at the New Balance 1080 (there might be some deals on the outgoing v10 model) or Hoka One One Clifton. These are a bit more expensive, and probably won't be as long lasting as the Nike's, but are a bit nicer to run in.

If you want to spend a bit less then the Reebok Floatride Energy 3 is getting rave reviews at the minute. It's £75 but if you sign up to their newsletter you'll get 20% off, so £60.

There are loads of others to look at as well and I could go on all day about running shoes

 

[Shadowness]

Thumbs up from me for the Pegasus 37. I've ran almost 300 miles in mine and they still look brand new......the sole that is.

Definitely impressed with them!

 

[Martynt74]

Just my experience but I got some Brooks Glycerin recently and I've not been too impressed so far, I don't actually find them to be that cushioned. Also echoing what Martynt76 says, trail shoes can be a tad uncomfortable if the lugs are not biting into soft ground or gravel as the deep lugs then just push up into your feet.

Around that price I would suggest you look at the Nike Pegasus 37, which can be found on sale quite often (£75). It's a classic recommendation for new runners, because they are so versatile, and I personally found them to be very good value for the money (mine are still going strong after 500 miles). If you're stretching the budget then take a look at the New Balance 1080 (there might be some deals on the outgoing v10 model) or Hoka One One Clifton. These are a bit more expensive, and probably won't be as long lasting as the Nike's, but are a bit nicer to run in.

If you want to spend a bit less then the Reebok Floatride Energy 3 is getting rave reviews at the minute. It's £75 but if you sign up to their newsletter you'll get 20% off, so £60.

There are loads of others to look at as well and I could go on all day about running shoes

Good call on the New Balance. I loved the 1080's i had, was just a shame they didn't last as long as some others i've had.

I also wasn't impressed with the Glycerin 17 i had. The Ghost 12's i had were quite good though. The Hoka Clifton are quite narrow i found.

 

[Ian_Eb]

I'm taking note of all these recommendations as well (Apart from the NB ones... Blisters )

Just looked at some Nike Run Swift that I got at their outlet place in Stoke (Crazy place, loads of gentlemen carrying out > 10 pairs to sell on the market etc. I think that branch carries the stuff that doesn't sell in the "Factory" shops) They fit on the foot, but the upper lace bit doesn't seem to fully close over the tongue, so probably not as wide.

Will try them out and update on how they feel.

 

[Merlin5]

Thanks Martyn, dwarf, Shadowness. And thanks for the shoe selections, dwarf.

Yes Martyn, I made a mistake at the start of the brooks questionnaire. It asked me if I was running gym/road or trail and I answered trail but should have answered gym/road since I mostly have been running in the park and the path in the park is basically the same as a road, flat and compacted tarmac. All the road shoes suggested by Brooks are either too expensive, not available any more or they're out of size 10, clearly that's the most popular men's size.

So I think I'll go for the Nike Pegasus 37 from Sports Direct for £75 in the blue/ white + £4.99 postage. In terms of impact absorption to reduce heel strike shock, and comfort, would you say they're good enough? I could still consider the Reebok Floatride Energy 3 which as you mentioned I can get for £60. But it sounds like the Nike 37 is a tried and tested favourite and very durable so probably the best choice for me?

 

[dwarf]

In terms of shock absorption and comfort, would you say they're good enough?

Yes, the Pegasus are very much designed for cushioning, especially on the heel, and there's loads of foam underfoot. The comfort is also very good but it's more comfort in terms of a nice secure fit rather than being a plush, pillowy shoe like you might get from brooks or asics. Just a note on the pegasus, they were a bit narrow in the toebox for me at first but got better with time. I think quite a few people have found they need a bit of bedding in.

 

[Shadowness]

Thanks Martyn, dwarf, Shadowness. And thanks for the shoe selections, dwarf.

Yes Martyn, I made a mistake at the start of the brooks questionnaire. It asked me if I was running gym/road or trail and I answered trail but should have answered gym/road since I mostly have been running in the park and the path in the park is basically the same as a road, flat and compacted tarmac. All the road shoes suggested by Brooks are either too expensive, not available any more or they're out of size 10, clearly that's the most popular men's size.

So I think I'll go for the Nike Pegasus 37 from Sports Direct for £75 in the blue/ white + £4.99 postage. In terms of impact absorption to reduce heel strike shock, and comfort, would you say they're good enough? I could still consider the Reebok Floatride Energy 3 which as you mentioned I can get for £60. But it sounds like the Nike 37 is a tried and tested favourite and very durable so probably the best choice for me?

The most comfortable shoes I have are the Vaporflys (or maybe the Alphaflys). Both are in a league of their own, but the Pegasus 37 is certainly up there. I have On Cloudatlas and Cloudflow, the Cloudflow particularly feels much firmer than the 37s. And as I say, after 300 miles, there's barely any sign of wear. (stupidly I bought the white versions, so some bits are now more brown!, but that's it)

I'll see if I can get some photos of them later.

 

[dwarf]

Well here are mine after 871 km. Excuse the mud!

Spoiler

I had to cut some of the sole rubber off maybe 50km ago where it was starting to peel away. This is where I land my footstrike so always wears the most on my shoes. Quite a bit of wear under the ball of my foot where I push of and that's it. Minimal wear everywhere else on the sole and the upper has no wear at all really. I'll easily take these past 1,000km

 

[Ian_Eb]

Urghh... that serves to show me how much I must be landing on my heels I guess. Your soles are well worn and the heels look untouched. Mine are kind of the other way round from what I can see.

How does one go about changing the way you land?

 

[dwarf]

Ian, it's tricky. You shouldn't really change your footstrike unless it's causing you problems. Heel striking may be what your biomechanics dictate is best for you and changing that could cause injury. For me I had really bad Ilio-tibial band (ITB) issues that even months of phisio couldn't cure. I tried to transition from a heel to forefoot footstrike to fix these ITB issues, which worked for me.

I started by basically trying to run on my tiptoes. You want to aim to hit the ground with the ball of your foot and it kind of feels like your heel barely touches the ground at all. I guess I'd best describe it as what you would have to do if you ran barefoot on concrete. There's no way you could land on your heel as it would hurt way too much. You naturally go up onto your toes to protect your feet. Anyway, barefoot running is a whole other subject of debate! If your interested, have a read of Born to Run which goes into this quite well, although it's a bit holier-than-thou and almost reveres barefoot running as a religion whilst modern cushioned shoes are seen as the devil. It's a good read though.

 

[Ian_Eb]

Sounds interesting. I am not feeling any issues and it does feel to me that I am not landing really heavily on my heels, so will try to just be a bit more aware of things and watch the heel/sole wear on my next trainers.

 

[Merlin5]

Yes, the Pegasus are very much designed for cushioning, especially on the heel, and there's loads of foam underfoot. The comfort is also very good but it's more comfort in terms of a nice secure fit rather than being a plush, pillowy shoe like you might get from brooks or asics. Just a note on the pegasus, they were a bit narrow in the toebox for me at first but got better with time. I think quite a few people have found they need a bit of bedding in.

Thanks dwarf. I decided I want the Reebok Energy 3 because a reviewer called Eddbud raved about it and said it was a much better shoe than the Pegasus 37. He didn't really rate the Pegasus 37. I'm sure the Nike is really good and he's probably used to so many shoes that he's just being picky. But since the Reebok is cheaper and apparently very good, I thought I'd go for that.

Thing is, I decided I want a blue shoe. I know it sounds petty but anything that keeps running fun is important to me. I can't get the Nike in size 10 in blue anywhere.

And the Reebok Floatride Energy 3 in blue (called Radiant Aqua) I can only find in size 10 on a site called Runnerinn.com for £74.98 including shipping, that's the only place I can find a pair in my size. I signed up for the newsletter on the Reebok site and it said it'll let me know if size 10 becomes available. Would be nice to buy a pair for £60 and Reebok do free shipping too, but it looks like I'll probably end up having to buy from Runnerinn.

Unless I go for a 9.5 or a 10.5? I don't know how tight or loose a 10 would be and if a size up or down would work? Maybe I should order a 10.5 from Reebok directly, and return them if they're too big? Their 20% discount is until 24th Feb.

 

[D.P.]

Awesome explanation, thanks. So basically, higher cadence will be less leg shock for me. I need to stick around 13 minute/mile, I find that gives me a gentler jog with shorter strides. I must say though it does look a bit wimpish. Longer strides looks better.

And when (or more like 'if') I'm at some point in the future able to sustain faster paces, say around 8 or 9 minute miles, my strides will be longer and I run the risk of heel strikes again, right?

.

When you get faster you will find that the speed comes from higher efficiency, better push-off, faster cadence, and a longer stride. But You wont end up heal striking.

When you get faster your stride will be slightly longer, but your body should be stronger to withstand that. You basically end up back to the same issue of high speed vs easy runs. Mz easy pace is abut 8-8:20 a mile, but if I do my 800m intervals then I am at 5:45 a mile, and there is massively more impact. Whenever I am in high training mode for a marathon doing 10-12x 800m repeats at this pace, my body gets worn out, the joints get fatigued, I start getting niggles, I get closer to injury

 

[D.P.]

Thanks dwarf. I decided I want the Reebok Energy 3 because a reviewer called Eddbud raved about it and said it was a much better shoe than the Pegasus 37. He didn't really rate the Pegasus 37. I'm sure the Nike is really good and he's probably used to so many shoes that he's just being picky. But since the Reebok is cheaper and apparently very good, I thought I'd go for that.

Thing is, I decided I want a blue shoe. I know it sounds petty but anything that keeps running fun is important to me. I can't get the Nike in size 10 in blue anywhere.

And the Reebok Floatride Energy 3 in blue (called Radiant Aqua) I can only find in size 10 on a site called Runnerinn.com for £74.98 including shipping, that's the only place I can find a pair in my size. I signed up for the newsletter on the Reebok site and it said it'll let me know if size 10 becomes available. Would be nice to buy a pair for £60 and Reebok do free shipping too, but it looks like I'll probably end up having to buy from Runnerinn.

Unless I go for a 9.5 or a 10.5? I don't know how tight or loose a 10 would be and if a size up or down would work? Maybe I should order a 10.5 from Reebok directly, and return them if they're too big? Their 20% discount is until 24th Feb.

Size up for running shoes. Really dont gain much with tight shoes

 

[D.P.]

Ian, it's tricky. You shouldn't really change your footstrike unless it's causing you problems. Heel striking may be what your biomechanics dictate is best for you and changing that could cause injury. For me I had really bad Ilio-tibial band (ITB) issues that even months of phisio couldn't cure. I tried to transition from a heel to forefoot footstrike to fix these ITB issues, which worked for me.

I started by basically trying to run on my tiptoes. You want to aim to hit the ground with the ball of your foot and it kind of feels like your heel barely touches the ground at all. I guess I'd best describe it as what you would have to do if you ran barefoot on concrete. There's no way you could land on your heel as it would hurt way too much. You naturally go up onto your toes to protect your feet. Anyway, barefoot running is a whole other subject of debate! If your interested, have a read of Born to Run which goes into this quite well, although it's a bit holier-than-thou and almost reveres barefoot running as a religion whilst modern cushioned shoes are seen as the devil. It's a good read though.

Yeah, I aso find the Born 2 Run anti-shoe religion pretty ridiculous, and it sadly detracts from the overall message of the book. Humans were definitely born 2 run, and yes we originally evolved to run without shoes. But we also didn't evolve to drive cars or fly planes but they are pretty amazing ways of getting around.


To me the take away is bio-mechanically we evolved to run, and to land on our mid-foot. Running shoes do not cause to get running injuries, but a combination of bad running form, bad training, adn the fact most of us don;t start to train properly until we are older and overweight rather than growing up running long distance form a child means we are more susceptible to running injuries than we should be.

Where possible we should try and and avoid heal strikes, but the process should be gradual and if it doesn;t work out then it is not the end of the world.

And the combo of mid-foot strike with running shoes is better than mid-foot alone

 

[Merlin5]

When you get faster you will find that the speed comes from higher efficiency, better push-off, faster cadence, and a longer stride. But You wont end up heal striking.

When you get faster your stride will be slightly longer, but your body should be stronger to withstand that. You basically end up back to the same issue of high speed vs easy runs. Mz easy pace is abut 8-8:20 a mile, but if I do my 800m intervals then I am at 5:45 a mile, and there is massively more impact. Whenever I am in high training mode for a marathon doing 10-12x 800m repeats at this pace, my body gets worn out, the joints get fatigued, I start getting niggles, I get closer to injury

Understood. Wow, your EASY pace is under 9 a mile? And you can do 5.45 a mile? I can only dream.

Size up for running shoes. Really dont gain much with tight shoes

Ah cool. So I'll order the 10.5 then. I just don't want them to be loose, but we'll see how they feel. Reebok seem to have a great policy for returns.

"Tried on your item(s) and need a different size? No problem - we offer free exchanges. Simply go to your account and request a free exchange postage label. You can send us your item back at no cost, and we'll send you a new one in the correct size."

Unless of course they still don't expect the correct size in anytime soon, in which case I imagine they'd refund me.

 

[D.P.]

Im not in shape now after all the raves being cancelled but i was in condition for a 2:50 marathon last spring. About 6:30 a mile oace for 26.2 miled, so would run easy at about 8-8:30 a mile during training.