Cyclists with a "Running" Problem

[amac]

1 hour ago, ridr said:

There's also this 50km record from last month - not sure why this one doesn't count?

https://www.cbssports.com/olympics/news/desiree-linden-breaks-womens-50k-world-record-by-over-seven-minutes/

It hasn't yet been ratified by the IAAF.  

[Shebeen]

1 hour ago, ridr said:

There's also this 50km record from last month - not sure why this one doesn't count?

https://www.cbssports.com/olympics/news/desiree-linden-breaks-womens-50k-world-record-by-over-seven-minutes/

non paywalled link

https://www.womensrunning.com/culture/news/desiree-linden-sets-50k-world-record/

 

 

Desiree Linden tackled her first ultramarathon on Tuesday on a certified 50K course near Eugene, Oregon, and she finished the distance faster than any other woman in the world ever has, becoming the first to break three hours.

In an official time of 2:59:54, Linden, who is a two-time Olympian and 2018 Boston Marathon champion, added another impressive line to her résumé, averaging 5:47 per mile for 50K. Although World Athletics does not recognize the distance as an official world record, it is a world best. The previous record was 3:07:20, held by Great Britain’s Aly Dixon, set at the 2019 world championships in Brasov, Romania. Linden said Dixon has been cheering on her quest to better the mark.

Originally she wanted to race the Two Oceans Ultramarathon in South Africa, but it was canceled due to the pandemic. So Linden, her agent, Josh Cox, and her sponsor Brooks created their own race on Tuesday near Eugene. It was certified and included a marathon, too, contested by Adriana Nelson and Chirine Njeim.

 

but following the rabbithole, it seems the only reason why it is not a record is because the mark doesn't exist. It's like me saying I'm going to set a course out for 6.89km tomorrow and attempt the record at it - as no one has done it before.

So.......does irvette break the record or not, if it doesn't exist? she's defintely not the fastest over the distance

One thing IS assured, actually.  Linden won't be setting a World Athletics record no matter what her time.  That's because the 50-kilometer distance is not recognized by the world governing body for athletics and road running as a world record distance. Instead, it's one of 18 disciplines relegated to the second-tier "world best" category like the 150-meter dash, 300-meter hurdles, and 35-kilometer race walk. In fact, the only ultramarathon distance which is part of the World Athletics records list is the 100-K.

Edited May 25, 2021 by Shebeen

[RABUBI]

So looking at shoes..

 

I see Mr Price is now advertising a carbon propel shoe for R799... crazy. 

https://www.mrpsport.com/en_za/elite-zeus-running-shoes-7999916245

 

When  I buy shoes I never even look at mr P shoes. Have anyone used them? worth a shot?

[Jewbacca]

2 minutes ago, RABUBI said:

So looking at shoes..

 

I see Mr Price is now advertising a carbon propel shoe for R799... crazy. 

https://www.mrpsport.com/en_za/elite-zeus-running-shoes-7999916245

 

When  I buy shoes I never even look at mr P shoes. Have anyone used them? worth a shot?

Mr P shoes have been winning local Marathons, Ultras and Comrades for a while.

I know of one hubber who runs a sub3 marathon TRAINING run who uses them.

The thing is, even lower end shoes have the same (probably better) tech than say ASICS Tigers did in the 90s and guys went FAST in those.

For most of us the bottle neck in performance is not our shoes. An extra R2000 isn't going to supplement track work, structured hill work and a proper rest/training/diet balance.

Are they 'as good'? Probably not, but what I'm suggesting is that most of us don't really benefit from using the best. Maybe even less so than rubbish bike riders on the latest 250k bikes

[b-rad]

46 minutes ago, Shebeen said:

non paywalled link

https://www.womensrunning.com/culture/news/desiree-linden-sets-50k-world-record/

 

 

Desiree Linden tackled her first ultramarathon on Tuesday on a certified 50K course near Eugene, Oregon, and she finished the distance faster than any other woman in the world ever has, becoming the first to break three hours.

In an official time of 2:59:54, Linden, who is a two-time Olympian and 2018 Boston Marathon champion, added another impressive line to her résumé, averaging 5:47 per mile for 50K. Although World Athletics does not recognize the distance as an official world record, it is a world best. The previous record was 3:07:20, held by Great Britain’s Aly Dixon, set at the 2019 world championships in Brasov, Romania. Linden said Dixon has been cheering on her quest to better the mark.

Originally she wanted to race the Two Oceans Ultramarathon in South Africa, but it was canceled due to the pandemic. So Linden, her agent, Josh Cox, and her sponsor Brooks created their own race on Tuesday near Eugene. It was certified and included a marathon, too, contested by Adriana Nelson and Chirine Njeim.

 

but following the rabbithole, it seems the only reason why it is not a record is because the mark doesn't exist. It's like me saying I'm going to set a course out for 6.89km tomorrow and attempt the record at it - as no one has done it before.

So.......does irvette break the record or not, if it doesn't exist? she's defintely not the fastest over the distance

One thing IS assured, actually.  Linden won't be setting a World Athletics record no matter what her time.  That's because the 50-kilometer distance is not recognized by the world governing body for athletics and road running as a world record distance. Instead, it's one of 18 disciplines relegated to the second-tier "world best" category like the 150-meter dash, 300-meter hurdles, and 35-kilometer race walk. In fact, the only ultramarathon distance which is part of the World Athletics records list is the 100-K.

The body that distances over 42.2km falls under is the IAU (International Association of Ultrarunners). 

As far as I can tell and what I've heard is that the run of Des Linden hasn't been submitted for ratification (?). And even if it has it might not be ratified. I may be far off the mark here though but it's what I've heard. 

Regarding bonuses etc for the Nedbank event the listed record was still that of Aly Dixon on the race day so that is what stands and bonuses should be paid as long as any doping tests, if done, are a pass. 

 

[Stretch]

18 minutes ago, Jewbacca said:

Mr P shoes have been winning local Marathons, Ultras and Comrades for a while.

I know of one hubber who runs a sub3 marathon TRAINING run who uses them.

The thing is, even lower end shoes have the same (probably better) tech than say ASICS Tigers did in the 90s and guys went FAST in those.

For most of us the bottle neck in performance is not our shoes. An extra R2000 isn't going to supplement track work, structured hill work and a proper rest/training/diet balance.

Are they 'as good'? Probably not, but what I'm suggesting is that most of us don't really benefit from using the best. Maybe even less so than rubbish bike riders on the latest 250k bikes

I think you'll find that after about 400 to 500km they will be shot... But 2 pairs will still be cheaper than 1 pair of a big name brand... However It's just more crap to go on the landfill eventually... So I'll rather buy the big brand name

Edited May 25, 2021 by Stretch

[Chris_]

6 minutes ago, Stretch said:

I think you'll find that after about 400 to 500km they will be shot... But 2 pairs will still be cheaper than 1 pair of a big name brand... However It's just more crap to go on the landfill eventually... So I'll rather buy the big brand name

Do the big name pairs hold up for > 500kms? genuine question.

I've held the fancy Nikes and can't believe they can last very long. One the foam feels so spongy I can't believe it remains like that, two theres almost no rubber underneath - although the intended sub 3 peeps run very differently to me...

[Jewbacca]

Just now, Stretch said:

I think you'll find that after about 400 to 500km they will be shot... But 2 pairs will still be cheaper than 1 pair of a big name brand... It's just more crap too go on the landfill eventually... So I'll rather buy the big brand name

I don't road run enough to justify fancy shoes. I regard myself a solid hacker, which means I am happy to spend 'some' money on nice trail shoes, I refuse to pay the most.

My general understanding was than most of the carbon infused shoes lasted 400 to 600 km before going plank anyway.

I do get the sustainability thing though, but then I also think road shoes are not built for our roads. Gone are the days of a rubber outsole and foam midsole. Even 'training' shoes these days have 'strategically placed' rubbed lugs to reduce weight but expose the midsole to our filthy, littered pot hole roads.

As with most things on bikehub though, there are definitely more qualified people who know more than I do about the Mr P shoes. 

[b-rad]

8 minutes ago, Stretch said:

I think you'll find that after about 400 to 500km they will be shot... But 2 pairs will still be cheaper than 1 pair of a big name brand... However It's just more crap to go on the landfill eventually... So I'll rather buy the big brand name

Good point. However all the pure racers (especially carbon plate) aren't designed for high mileage at all anyway (or lose their effectiveness quite quickly). Many of the 'racing' type shoes, like the Nike Next % with the soft midsole, are also only truly effective for around 400km. 

Just had a look at that Maxed shoe on their website. It's a pity there are almost no specs on the shoe. Would be nice to know the weight, stack height, outsole material, full or partial carbon plate (looks like a fully woven plate in the pics?), drop etc.

For that price though I must say it looks great in the pics. The upper looks very similar to the Nike flyknit uppers from a couple years ago. Those flyknit uppers are/were brilliant on the Nike. 

The outsole looks a little too complicated or a bit too much going on (weight) in terms of trying to achieve a racing shoe if that's the goal. Might just look like that in the pics though. 

For 800 bucks definitely worth a go.

 

 

[Stretch]

For the record...I was referring to the standard maxed shoes.. Not the carbon plate ones... I agree Those have a life limit regardless of brand

[Stretch]

41 minutes ago, Chris_ said:

Do the big name pairs hold up for > 500kms? genuine question.

I've held the fancy Nikes and can't believe they can last very long. One the foam feels so spongy I can't believe it remains like that, two theres almost no rubber underneath - although the intended sub 3 peeps run very differently to me...

My ASICS get about 1000 miles. I still have one pair on about 900 miles that I still use, but only for short runs.

I have switched to Brookes and my first pair of Ravenna's (which are not a marathon shoe) are on about 700 miles and they are starting to feel like they're ready to be replaced. I don't use them for long runs anymore. My Brookes adrenaline pair are on about 300 miles at the moment and still feel brand new

[shaper]

Am sure the Mr P shoes will be ok for short speed work runs during the week.  As said, pity there not more on the specs of the shoes.

[SwissVan]

2 hours ago, Chris_ said:

Do the big name pairs hold up for > 500kms? genuine question.

I've held the fancy Nikes and can't believe they can last very long. One the foam feels so spongy I can't believe it remains like that, two theres almost no rubber underneath - although the intended sub 3 peeps run very differently to me...

When I started running on a regular basis I had a pair of converse running shoes, they lasted a *few years of running and gym.... that was last century tho, when men were men and running shoes were... tekkies 

* also before gps watches, when training logs were hand written and distances unknown

Edited May 25, 2021 by SwissVan

[Chris_]

2 hours ago, Stretch said:

My ASICS get about 1000 miles. I still have one pair on about 900 miles that I still use, but only for short runs.

I have switched to Brookes and my first pair of Ravenna's (which are not a marathon shoe) are on about 700 miles and they are starting to feel like they're ready to be replaced. I don't use them for long runs anymore. My Brookes adrenaline pair are on about 300 miles at the moment and still feel brand new

Ja sorry, I thought you were comparing them to say adios pro/next %/etc. But you addressed that in your prev post. 

[Chris_]

4 minutes ago, SwissVan said:

When I started running on a regular basis I had a pair of converse running shoes, they lasted a few years of running and gym.... that was last century tho, when men were men and running shoes were... tekkies 

 

And when they wore down you whacked some Takkie Patch on the bottom. (I think that was what that see-through glue stuff was called?) 

Not forgetting the rubber outsole was also a cm thick. Little wonder it lasted so long. 

[SwissVan]

Nowadays days I replace my running shoes at about 500 km, although my last pair of hoka’s still feel ok and they are now just over 600km and I still use them sometimes even though they are wearing thin on the forefoot ( my shoes always wear out on the forefoot first)