But wasn't her career best results due to the coaching of Salazar and his knowledge of run training and not her's?
I would say more DESPITE Salazar...
No you are engaging in revisionist history. The thing that Kara will never acknowledge is she was a good but not great runner until Alberto. She owes Alberto everything. She has no book without Alberto. She should send Alberto a big fat check.
I don't blame her. She shouldn't be waiting for proof they are possibly dangerous to development before keeping her kid from running in them. Researchers need to prove they pose not developmental issues first and it has to be independence researchers, not the shoe companies themselves. There are a lot of things I won't let me kids do because there isn't enough research out yet and I'd rather be cautious now than sorry later.
Would you would be bitter about just missing an Olympic team when those who beat you had secret equipment that was not availabe to you. Then it is later proven that the equipment was a performance booster of, on average, the approximate amount of time between your 4th place time and 1st.
I think she knows what she's talking about. She said something about achilles strength. People are always giving kudos to Kenyans for having an active childhood with no shoes or threadbare shoes that give them foot/ankle strength. She has a point. They change the way people run.
This is the sort of "Born to Run" type anecdotal evidence that never made any sense and that scientific studies have routinely shot down. Everyone was saying you should run in minimalist shoes until, slowly, the studies (and lawsuits) showed how much more likely you were to get injured. Now people run in maximalist shoes. One of the main benefits is that you don't get injured as much and your legs are more fresh. If you want to strengthen your achilles, you do calf raises and heel drops, you don't run in bad, 2000s-era style trainers.
People got injured cause they went their whole life wearing Air Maxes and then tried to run on concrete in bare feet or gladiator sandals. I'm running barefoot on a golf course in the morning but working up incrementally from 10 mins only. I think it's helping my plantars.
You can do calf raises and heel drops or you could also flex your foot while running.
1) We don't know how using super shoes at a very young age will impact the musculoskeletal system. Hence, as a parent, she is right to be skeptical and cautious.
2) Perhaps she is right about the 2016 trials as well. I watched the race in LA, where Cragg literally carried Flanagan to the finish line. Maybe their performance was enhanced due to "better" shoes? We shall never know.
The issue I have with Kara whining about 2016 is she is always the victim. Grow up! Like she wouldn’t have done anything at the Olympics anyway but more to the point it cannot be changed. But whine and whine and whine. As if she didn’t have “privileges” earlier at NOP which others could whine about and say that they were disadvantaged in comparison.
Goucher doesn't let her 12-year-old son run in super shoes because she thinks training in them too early may prevent kids' from developing proper lower body strength. She also said she's still bitter about the 2016 Olympic Marathon Trials where she finished 4th behind two runners (Amy Cragg and Shalane Flanagan) who were wearing super shoes when no non-Nike runner was.
Give me a break, particularly on the bolded. Based on what evidence? Astounds me that people that want to preach about being rooted in science and evidence then just take trips out to right field on certain issues like it's nothing at all.
The links on some do not go directly to the paper, but (from the article).
The prominent research on carbon shoes, conducted by Wouter Hoogkamer and published in Sports Medicine, found less ankle extensor movement in the Nike super shoe prototype and reduced work in the metatarsophalangeal (MTP) joint in the foot. But sports scientists speculate that decreasing the work output of the lower leg muscles could actually lead to atrophy of those muscle groups. This could lead to injury and negate the effects of the shoe. 'It's two sides of a coin. By using the ankle less and having less flex at the ankle, there's less chance of injury, but in the longer term, if you're not using those muscles as much, are you going to have an under-use injury?' says Walton.""
I think she may have point on the kids and the "super shoes". Few friends of mine have noticed an uptick in stress fractures in the feet of the kids they coach that do all their speed, tempo, etc work in the shoes and only wear regular trainers for easy/recovery runs. Maybe a correlation, maybe not. But they do stress the body differently. Worth a closer look.
Now as to 2016, it's been 7 years. Time for her to let go and move on. Being bitter just burns you up inside. Even if she made the team she wasn't going to medal. Two prior Olympic appearances as well. Sure it cost her a few bucks, but she can't be certain she would have made it even if Amy and Shalane wore regular racers.
I think she may have point on the kids and the "super shoes". Few friends of mine have noticed an uptick in stress fractures in the feet of the kids they coach that do all their speed, tempo, etc work in the shoes and only wear regular trainers for easy/recovery runs. Maybe a correlation, maybe not. But they do stress the body differently. Worth a closer look.
Now as to 2016, it's been 7 years. Time for her to let go and move on. Being bitter just burns you up inside. Even if she made the team she wasn't going to medal. Two prior Olympic appearances as well. Sure it cost her a few bucks, but she can't be certain she would have made it even if Amy and Shalane wore regular racers.
While I agree on the lack of evidence, what 12 year old needs super shoes anyways? Middle school cross country shouldn’t be so cutthroat as to where a kid needs $250 super shoes. At that age, keep them in trainers and let them focus on having fun.
While I agree on the lack of evidence, what 12 year old needs super shoes anyways? Middle school cross country shouldn’t be so cutthroat as to where a kid needs $250 super shoes. At that age, keep them in trainers and let them focus on having fun.
That's the issue here- a parent trying to give their kid an edge in a middle school race because they have the money.
The kid looks bad and the kids he/she is beating and their parents aren't impressed.
While I agree on the lack of evidence, what 12 year old needs super shoes anyways? Middle school cross country shouldn’t be so cutthroat as to where a kid needs $250 super shoes. At that age, keep them in trainers and let them focus on having fun.
That's the issue here- a parent trying to give their kid an edge in a middle school race because they have the money.
The kid looks bad and the kids he/she is beating and their parents aren't impressed.
Yep, it's even worse at the younger levels. I see 7 and 8 year olds in spikes which is totally unnecessary. Super shoes for a kid is just as douchey.
What do they know about whether or not a shoe "prevents kids from developing proper lower body strength"? She has a degree in psychology. Is she running tests at a lab or something? It's just silly. We get it, she doesn't like supershoes. She is upset about 2016.
I like her and her commentary, generally. Not allowing your teen to run in good shoes because you have an unsupported hunch is worth an eyeroll.
I'm sure she is bitter that she wasn't wearing super shoes in 2016 and she definitely would have if she could. Most normal people would be bitter or, at the very least, upset or resentful. That's normal. You would be as well.
It sounds like she also lives in your head. Too funny how she bothers some of you so much.
Yeah, I think her being annoyed in retrospect is a fair reaction. (Whether one chooses to use more loaded words like “bitter” is probably more revealing of them than Kara.) Given how much times and performances have exploded now that super shows are ubiquitous and how plainly obvious their advantages are over old school shoes, I don’t think it’s unreasonable to look back at those early days when only some athletes had access to them and be a little bit annoyed. That’s completely fair.
Loving the talk about the 2000s minimalist shoes too lol. That was my college running era and I remember so many guys running in Nike Frees or those other gross shoes from Vibram with the individual toes. I had my doubts about them at the time so it’s nice to see people eventually realized they didn’t work. When I graduated and moved on from competitive running, we were still in that era and people were still singing their praises.
Who da fkc would buy their 12 year old $250 shoes?
Lots and lots and lots of people. $250 shoes are a drop in the bucket, my friend.
Where in my post did a say it was a lot of money? I literally bought 2 pairs last night for $250 each for my wife and I. I still don't understand why you would spend 250 bucks super shoes for a TWELVE YEAR OLD. It's just LOL.
Lots and lots and lots of people. $250 shoes are a drop in the bucket, my friend.
Where in my post did a say it was a lot of money? I literally bought 2 pairs last night for $250 each for my wife and I. I still don't understand why you would spend 250 bucks super shoes for a TWELVE YEAR OLD. It's just LOL.
You “literally” did it? Well actually it is a lot of money for many people. Even for those of us who are financially comfortable it is a lot of money. Most of us didn’t get financially secure by spending $250 on a pair of shoes. Just saying…
