What difference could/does proper equipment/specific training make?

stepinnman

I have what I think is an interesting question for the experienced runners out there...

I've run 2 10km races in my life (the Calcutta Run for what it's worth). Last year I did it in about 45 mins and this year in just under 43 (I think the course was a bit easier this years- flatter anyway). On neither occasion did I do any (running) training and on both occasions, and in the absence of acsis runners or anything like that, I ran it wearing astro football boots (for the uninitiated they have shallow plastic grooves on the bottom). I also had a cold this year!

I'm 33 and generally fit from quite a lot of competitive football (2 games a week on average), and also over the last year from cycling in and out to work every day (about 65 miles a week). I'm also fairly competitive by nature, which makes the 'race' element attractive. I know, for example, that there is almost no way I could run a full 10k by myself without someone to pace myself off.

All of that is by way of background to my question...if you are pretty much as fit as you can reasonably expect to be, would:

(1) the correct running equipment make much different in terms of time (clearly it would make it more comfortable - particularly afterwards); and

(2) specific running training (as opposed to fitness training) produce a much quicker time?

For what it's worth, I don't feel I could go much faster than I did yesterday which is why I'm wondering if either of the above would/could make a significant difference?

Chivito550

stepinnman wrote: »

I have what I think is an interesting question for the experienced runners out there...

I've run 2 10km races in my life (the Calcutta Run for what it's worth). Last year I did it in about 45 mins and this year in just under 43 (I think the course was a bit easier this years- flatter anyway). On neither occasion did I do any (running) training and on both occasions, and in the absence of acsis runners or anything like that, I ran it wearing astro football boots (for the uninitiated they have shallow plastic grooves on the bottom). I also had a cold this year!

I'm 33 and generally fit from quite a lot of competitive football (2 games a week on average), and also over the last year from cycling in and out to work every day (about 65 miles a week). I'm also fairly competitive by nature, which makes the 'race' element attractive. I know, for example, that there is almost no way I could run a full 10k by myself without someone to pace myself off.

All of that is by way of background to my question...if you are pretty much as fit as you can reasonably expect to be, would:

(1) the correct running equipment make much different in terms of time (clearly it would make it more comfortable - particularly afterwards); and

(2) specific running training (as opposed to fitness training) produce a much quicker time?

For what it's worth, I don't feel I could go much faster than I did yesterday which is why I'm wondering if either of the above would/could make a significant difference?

Put it this way, if I said to you that I'm an ok footballer who does no training and usually wear runners playing, and then asked you would wearing football boots and actually doing some football training make me a better player, what would you say on response?

And while you may think you are as fit as you reasonably can expect, I can assure you that you are far from it.

stepinnman

Chivito550 wrote: »

Put it this way, if I said to you that I'm an ok footballer who does no training and usually wear runners playing, and then asked you would wearing football boots and actually doing some football training make me a better player, what would you say on response?

And while you may think you are as fit as you reasonably can expect, I can assure you that you are far from it.

Thanks Chivito550...with all due respect though it is for an individual to comment on their own expectations of themselves in terms of fitness. With my lifestyle (which includes working long hours and looking after a 1 year old baby), I'm happy that I'm pretty much as fit as I can be right now. I appreciate that one could always be fitter of course.

I'd also suggest the comparison you're trying to make between running and football isn't valid. Leaving aside the psychology of running - which I acknowledge is clearly very important in competitive racing - the physical co-ordination and skills involved in being a good footballer are at least more numerous if not more complicated.

Most able bodied people can run, to whatever level or at whatever pace.

There is arguably no limit to how much you can improve at football, whereas, physiologically, there is a limit to how fast you can run 10km.

What I'm wondering is, without being any fitter, per se, how much difference could one expect technique and equipment to make by themselves - 1 minute? 5 minutes? 10 minutes?

I appreciate that they would of course make some difference, I just think that it wouldn't be much more than maybe 5 minutes for me (which I'd be delighted with!).

Chivito550

stepinnman wrote: »

Thanks Chivito550...with all due respect though it is for an individual to comment on their own expectations of themselves in terms of fitness. With my lifestyle (which includes working long hours and looking after a 1 year old baby), I'm happy that I'm pretty much as fit as I can be right now. I appreciate that one could always be fitter of course.

I'd also suggest the comparison you're trying to make between running and football isn't valid. Leaving aside the psychology of running - which I acknowledge is clearly very important in competitive racing - the physical co-ordination and skills involved in being a good footballer are at least more numerous if not more complicated.

Most able bodied people can run, to whatever level or at whatever pace.

There is arguably no limit to how much you can improve at football, whereas, physiologically, there is a limit to how fast you can run 10km.

What I'm wondering is, without being any fitter, per se, how much difference could one expect technique and equipment to make by themselves - 1 minute? 5 minutes? 10 minutes?

I appreciate that they would of course make some difference, I just think that it wouldn't be much more than maybe 5 minutes for me (which I'd be delighted with!).

Arguably no limit to how much you can improve at football? Great, so if I work hard at it I can be as good as Messi.

Look you are running 42 minutes. Humans have run 26. It goes without saying that if you actually trained you would go much faster.

stepinnman

I think you're missing my point...my question is, leaving fitness aside, how much difference does equipment and technique make in terms purely of time?

Clearly if you train you'll get fitter and faster.

ultraman1

stepinnman wrote: »

.my question is, leaving fitness aside, how much difference does equipment and technique make in terms purely of time?
.

None....if u put a pair of spikes on a dude who can't run...he still can't run

Chivito550

stepinnman wrote: »

I think you're missing my point...my question is, leaving fitness aside, how much difference does equipment and technique make in terms purely of time?

Clearly if you train you'll get fitter and faster.

That translates to "how much faster can I go without having to do any training".

Anyway, to answer your question... It us fairly unanswerable. How can we know how much you will improve from through improved running technique when we don't know how good, bad, or indifferent your current running form is?

Timmaay

stepinnman wrote: »

I think you're missing my point...my question is, leaving fitness aside, how much difference does equipment and technique make in terms purely of time?

Clearly if you train you'll get fitter and faster.

You can have all the equipment and technique in the world, but without also improving your fitness you will make a negligible improvement. At a guess you'd improve by 10seconds at 10k.

It would be like putting a v8 engine in your car, but forgetting to fill it up with fuel then.

RayCun

Fitness isn't measured on a single scale. You can be fit for football, or fit for sprinting, and not fit for running a 10k or marathon

Krusty_Clown

If this is a 'look at me, I can run 42 minutes in football boots with no training thread', then well done - it's a damn fine time. However, I suspect, with proper training, you could hit some really good times and this could be a 'look at me, I can break 33 minutes for 10k' thread.

By changing the equipment, I'd imagine you could could probably shave off 20-30 seconds, but why bother? The real question is, how much you could improve by training, and the only way you will find out is by training. No snobbishness or elitism intended. I'd really like to see what you could do with some decent training. You've clearly got some talent.

stepinnman

Krusty_Clown wrote: »

If this is a 'look at me, I can run 42 minutes in football boots with no training thread', then well done - it's a damn fine time. However, I suspect, with proper training, you could hit some really good times and this could be a 'look at me, I can break 33 minutes for 10k' thread.

By changing the equipment, I'd imagine you could could probably shave off 20-30 seconds, but why bother? The real question is, how much you could improve by training, and the only way you will find out is by training. No snobbishness or elitism intended. I'd really like to see what you could do with some decent training. You've clearly got some talent.

Thanks Krusty...I was aware when posting that it might come across like that but that's genuinely not what I meant. I'll have to learn how to use emoticons to get across nuances!

I'm just interested that people seem to think the equipment makes such a minimal difference. Why wear specialised runners so? Is it purely for comfort (which of course is a sensible enough reason!). And would technique only shave a few seconds off as well? The consensus seems to be so. I've no doubt that my technique is very poor...I think I'm probably very flat-footed how I run and its really only a certain level of underlying fitness and a bit of determination (coupled with the competitive element of a race setting) that gets me around.

I approached the race pretty much the same way last year, and I suppose as a barometer of how much fitness shaves off, I'd definitely say I was fitter this year and about 3 mins better as a result.

Maybe I should ditch the bike and buy some runners! Thanks for the feedback - interesting thoughts from everyone.

Krusty_Clown

stepinnman wrote: »

Thanks Krusty...I was aware when posting that it might come across like that but that's genuinely not what I meant. I'll have to learn how to use emoticons to get across nuances!

I'm just interested that people seem to think the equipment makes such a minimal difference. Why wear specialised runners so? Is it purely for comfort (which of course is a sensible enough reason!). And would technique only shave a few seconds off as well? The consensus seems to be so. I've no doubt that my technique is very poor...I think I'm probably very flat-footed how I run and its really only a certain level of underlying fitness and a bit of determination (coupled with the competitive element of a race setting) that gets me around.

I approached the race pretty much the same way last year, and I suppose as a barometer of how much fitness shaves off, I'd definitely say I was fitter this year and about 3 mins better as a result.

Maybe I should ditch the bike and buy some runners! Thanks for the feedback - interesting thoughts from everyone.

Well, to give you an example, I wear a pair of racing flats for 5k races (and fast training sessions in aid of those 5k races). If those racing flats (very light racing shoes with little support) gave me 2-3 seconds per kilometer, I'd be delighted. The equipment becomes more important the closer you get to the extremes of your potential. In your case, as an undertrained runner (potentially great footballer, I'm not trying to be rude here!) your best bang for your buck will be some training. You'll be surprised just how much you can improve with a little structure and ambition. I'd still recommend a pair of training shoes over the astro boots, as they will reduce the risk of injury. Think of it like this: those astro boots are probably similar in terms of support and cushioning to the shoes worn by high performing runners 20-30 years ago. A more supportive shoe (without going overboard) will allow you to train more regularly while reducing the risk of injury (I'm guessing you wear the astro boots on astro-turf most of the time!).

stepinnman

Thanks for the tips Krusty. I'll be back with an update if I do get the chance to start training.

desertcircus

To answer from a somewhat similar perspective: I've been playing rugby for the past four years, and last year I decided to train for Gaelforce to keep myself fit over the summer. I ran two 10km races - finished in 48:40 in one, and just over 53 in the other (albeit in 30+ degree heat). By the end of the summer, my running fitness was vastly superior to what it had been (my running time for the commute to work dropped from 22 minutes to 15), but for the first few weeks back at rugby training my fitness was disastrous. Short-sprint times were worse than when I'd been 10 kilos heavier, twenty minutes of lineout practice left me with arms like jelly, and my scrummaging as a loosehead prop was brutal. It took about two months to get back to what I'd been able for. Then, by February, as our season was winding down and I decided to switch to racing and cycling year-round, I found out that my running times for 10ks were worse than the previous summer. I joined a triathlon club and started training properly, knocked two minutes off my PB and now I'm hoping to crack the 45 minute mark by the end of the year (slower than you by some distance, but then I was a loosehead prop!). Training properly has had a huge impact so far - I've set PBs twice this year and beat my 10k pace again today in a five-mile. Equipment makes a difference, but not nearly as much as training does.

RandyMann

A few years ago I ran 200m in runners and then a couple of weeks later, I ran it in spikes. The difference was 0.2 seconds.
Two years of training later, the difference was over 2 seconds. Footwear helps but training makes the real difference.

Hani Kosti

stepinnman wrote: »

I have what I think is an interesting question for the experienced runners out there...

I've run 2 10km races in my life (the Calcutta Run for what it's worth). Last year I did it in about 45 mins and this year in just under 43 (I think the course was a bit easier this years- flatter anyway). On neither occasion did I do any (running) training and on both occasions, and in the absence of acsis runners or anything like that, I ran it wearing astro football boots (for the uninitiated they have shallow plastic grooves on the bottom). I also had a cold this year!

I'm 33 and generally fit from quite a lot of competitive football (2 games a week on average), and also over the last year from cycling in and out to work every day (about 65 miles a week). I'm also fairly competitive by nature, which makes the 'race' element attractive. I know, for example, that there is almost no way I could run a full 10k by myself without someone to pace myself off.

All of that is by way of background to my question...if you are pretty much as fit as you can reasonably expect to be, would:

(1) the correct running equipment make much different in terms of time (clearly it would make it more comfortable - particularly afterwards); and

(2) specific running training (as opposed to fitness training) produce a much quicker time?

For what it's worth, I don't feel I could go much faster than I did yesterday which is why I'm wondering if either of the above would/could make a significant difference?

Just my two cents
Started runnig with club in Feb and the improvement is remarkable (I still run slower than a snail compared to some and will never reach competitive times... but shaving off the seconds bit by bit)
I also recommend you find shoes that a) support your foot (if you are pronator or supinator) and you feel comfortable running in
Good luck in your training and races

stepinnman

I think I'm feeling the consequences a bit of not wearing the correct running gear 2 days later - very tight calves today, which I suppose might be expected anyway, but can't have been helped by the Astro runners.

Clearly training is the way to go - not that I ever doubted that of course - it's just been interesting to hear actual 'runners' thoughts on the marginal difference that the correct equipment and technique makes.

walshb

I don't think equipment will make a tangible difference to your running times. Your style and gait and the way you run is part of you. Little tweaks here and there may give you a little more, but I would say it's not of much importance. Structured training and quality mileage is what works, as well as rest and good healthy diet! Weight management would be important. Carrying extra lbs that you know you shouldn't, get rid!

Edit: Good light/cushioned running shoes. They helped me.

robinph

As others have said, the super speedy lightweight gear won't make a whole lot if any difference to your times. What you need to do to improve running times is more running.

Once you've then knocked those massive chunks of time off the 10km from training properly for the event you'll then be looking for the seconds, and that is when the lightweight shoes in flashy colours and with go faster stripes come in.

drquirky

I reckon w/ the right gear you'd go 29/30 mins for the 10k

stepinnman

'gear' might have been an unfortunate choice of word by me!

huskerdu

No-one has mentioned the real link between "proper" running gear and race times.

If you decide to do some 10K specific training, with a view to reducing your PB, that means running a minimum of 3 times a week for between 40 - 120 minutes a time.
If you do that in astro boots and a cotton t-shirt and baggy jog pants, you will quickly get blisters/ sore calves / hamstring or knee injuries / runners nipple / thigh chafing, or all of the above.

The right runners don't make you run faster in a race, but they are necessary for the training.

rom

Better equipment often gives more of mental benefit than actual. In tri it can give a real difference especially the bike. Not so much in running. There are plenty of runners out there doing great times in runners that should have been thrown out years ago.

walshb

rom wrote: »

Better equipment often gives more of mental benefit than actual. In tri it can give a real difference especially the bike. Not so much in running. There are plenty of runners out there doing great times in runners that should have been thrown out years ago.

And probably would have done even greater times had they thrown them out!