When using orthotics (in my case, prescribed by physio for mild overpronation) do you remove the slightly moulded inner sole from your trainers?
I've used the orthotics for about 12 months, to good effect, in old Sauconys (Triumph 3). I removed the inner sole, which gave my feet plenty of room. Even with the forefoot cushioning reduced as a result, the old faithful trainers were as comfortable as ever.
A few weeks ago I decided that they really did need replacing, and I splurged on two new pairs of trainers. On physio advice, I went for neutral shoes (Saucony Triumph 10, and Mizuno Wave Rider 16) to use with the orthotics whilst working towards not needing them any more.
But they don't fit into the new shoes as well. In the Mizunos, I can fit them in, just about, with the insoles still in place, but in the Sauconys I've removed the inner sole.
What do others do? Should I buy some completely flat cushioning insoles to replace the original ones? Seems to me that they would provide more room for the orthotics as they wouldn't have any moulding at all.
Having tried two long runs (10 and 11 miles) experimenting with a gel for the first time, I didn't feel any beneficial effect. Did 13 today without any gel, and it was just fine! And I also drink very little water during a run. Today took 2:21, and I had probably two or three sips of water. I always take water with me, just in case, but rarely take more than a few sips. I get a stitch if I try to drink too much.
Really interesting discussion! I haven't done enough LSRs and longer races with and without gels to be able to make a comparison yet. I'm going to aim for 12 miles LSR this weekend, which will probably take me just over 2 hours, and try without any gel to see how it feels.
Isn't it a bit of a pain to be carrying banana on a long run?