The Middle Miles

Gear Review: Brooks Pure Flow

2012-02-09T22:13:00.002-05:00

As some of you may know, I've been wearing the Brooks Launch as my daily trainer (with the Brooks PureConnect mixed in there sometimes). Unfortunately, some bad timing on my part had me at the National Running Center needing shoes on the spot with no time to actually ask them to order anything. No Launch in stock in my size meant I had to grab something else. Seeing as I had wanted to try the Brooks PureFlow for a while, I decided to take this opportunity to give them a spin.

Before we start, just to get you up to date, information on the Brooks PureProject can be found here.

The PureFlow is the highly cushioned shoe in the Brooks PureProject line-up. It is intended for the neutral, biomechanically efficient runner, though it is more forgiving than the aforementioned PureConnect. The PureFlow weighs in at 8.7oz for a men's size 9 and 7.5oz for a women's size 8, has a stack height of 22/17, and sports an H-delt of 4mm. Running Warehouse describes the PureFlow as such:

The PureFlow is a minimum featured, minimum neutral shoe designed for daily training or racing. It is built with a curved shape.
CUSHIONING
BioMoGo DNA fuses BioMoGo midsole and DNA gel cushioning technology for a fully custom responsive ride that adapts to the needs of each and every runner.
MIDSOLE
BioMoGo DNA fuses BioMoGo midsole and DNA gel cushioning technology for a fully custom responsive ride that adapts to the needs of each and every runner.
Toe Flex uses a toe split in the outsole/midsole materials that allows the big toe to function independently and engage the runner's natural balance during toe-off.
Omega Flex Grooves enhance midsole flexibility without compromising cushioning.
UPPER
Nav Band is a flexible, stretching band that wraps over the midfoot to help keep the foot secure.
Anatomical Last mimics the shape of the foot, resulting in a glove-like feel and allowing the the foot to work as a single unit.
OUTSOLE
Ideal Heel consists of a curved outer heel, to encourage midfoot and forefoot striking.
Blown Rubber outsole offers durability, responsiveness and flexibility.

Insoles are a crappy way of showing how much arch support a shoe has, but since it's impossible to take a picture of the actual arch support without cutting the shoes apart, this is the best I can do. Kind of works though, since in this particular case, the insole is a surprisingly accurate representation. Brooks PureFlow on the left and PureConnect on the right.

The first thing I noticed about the PureFlow was that despite the fact that it's billed as a more substantial shoe than the PureConnect, it's flatter than the PureConnect and has less in the way of arch support. I'm not talking about the Nav Band, which is present on both shoes. The Nav Band on the PureFlow is looser and doesn't hug the foot as tightly as the Nav Band on the PureConnect (to be honest, I don't notice it at all on the PureFlow). However, the Nav Band doesn't really do much in the way of actual support, since it tends to move with your foot rather than supporting it. The real arch support comes from the shape of the midsole, which does provide support for your foot, and the PureFlow definitely has less arch support than its lighter, more race-bred cousin.

The cushioning of the PureFlow is similar to that of the Saucony Kinvara, only a little bit softer. Suffice it to say that this shoe is pillow-y soft. Incredibly plush cushioning for a shoe that only puts 17-22mm of foam (plus the insole) under your foot. While it has the same stack height as the PureConnect, it is infinitely softer. In my review of the PureConnect, I had stated that that shoe felt soft, but compared to the PureFlow, it is downright firm. I have to admit that one of my first questions was whether a heavier runner would completely bottom this shoe out, but since the midsole is made up of a combination of BioMoGo foam and Brooks' non-Newtonian DNA gel, as long as the DNA is doing its job, heavier runners should be fine (though I have not actually talked to any heavier runners to confirm this). The Flow does seem to trade responsiveness for its soft cushioning, so despite its light weight, it would not be my choice for race day...I'd prefer something more responsive and faster feeling for that purpose (like the well-cushioned but responsive Brooks T7 Racer, or the super responsive ASICS Piranha, for example). It's also soft to the point that your foot really sinks into the cushioning, which can exaggerate any existing overpronation if that is of concern to you, making this shoe best for the neutral runner and perhaps the mild supinator.

It's hard to tell from the picture, but that black stripe above the blue is midsole foam, and all of that foam is of a super soft durometer.

Of note: "soft cushioning" is not the same as "lots of cushioning." This shoe is not an ASICS Nimbus or Brooks Glycerin. It doesn't put loads of cushioning under your foot...it's just that what's there is super soft. Again, it's a softer, very slightly more built up Kinvara. It's not a Glycerin.

The soft cushioning of the PureFlow also means there's not a whole lot in the way of ground feel, but I feel like ground feel is often more of a trail runner and minimalist thing, and trail runners are probably more likely to buy the PureGrit and minimalists are probably more likely to buy an actual minimal shoe anyway. On Brooks' "float versus feel" spectrum, this shoe is squarely in the "float" category, PureProject or not. That's a good thing if you're looking for a soft, protective ride (as many people are), but just be aware that there's less "feel" to this shoe than several of Brooks' shoes that they place in the "float" category. However, that makes it a great choice when all you want is cushioning and you don't really feel like feeling the ground (and we've all been there...or at least I have).

Brooks PureFlow forefoot flexibility

Brooks PureFlow torsional flexibility

The PureFlow is a very flexible shoe, perhaps a little less so than the PureConnect, due to its wider base (which does add a very small amount of lateral support versus the PureConnect). Like with the PureConnect, we're not talking about Nike Free flexibility, nor are we talking about the ability to roll the shoes up into a ball, but it should be more than flexible enough for most people. Lots of torsional flexibility, and lots of forefoot flexibility. I had no issues as far as flexibility goes, and I tend to like my shoes fairly flexible (though I don't necessarily need minimalist shoe-level flexibility).

The Brooks PureFlow has a looser Nav Band than the PureConnect

This is where the tongue of the Brooks PureFlow ended up on every single run.

The upper of the PureFlow is comfortable both with and without socks, and also has the benefit of having a nice thick tongue which, at least for me, seems to reduce the possibility of lace bite. It also has a higher instep than the PureConnect, so if you have high insteps and the PureConnect's are too low, you may not have that problem with the PureFlow. Unfortunately, the tongue does seem to slide around, and it would have been nice if there was a loop to run the laces through. I'd cut one myself, but the Nav Band is in the way. I have yet to finish a run where the tongues haven't slid all the way to the sides of the shoes, though luckily, it's not something I really notice while I'm running. The uppers also don't seem to be quite as breathable as some of my other shoes, though this is less of a problem in the winter than I assume it will be when the weather gets hot. It's a really attractive shoe though...after they're dead I'll probably actually save them for walking around instead of getting rid of them like I do with most of my shoes (despite the fact that mine are black. I know a lot of people don't like black running shoes, but whatever, they're black with a teal midsole, and if you aren't down with black and teal, I don't know what to tell you other than your fashion sense sucks haha).

Brooks PureFlow stiff heel counter for rearfoot support

Brooks PureFlow IDEAL heel to move contact point to middle of heel

Similar to the PureConnect, the PureFlow has a stiff heel counter for rearfoot support. It sports IDEAL heel technology, which means the heel is rounded under the shoe to mimic the shape of the calcaneus and move to contact forward slightly (Brooks claims that it moves it forward 3cm to the center of the heel). Like the PureConnect, the PureFlow seems to feel good with either a heelstrike or midfoot strike (either of which is possible in the shoe...though either being possible is the same for pretty much every shoe I've worn, minus the Piranha and Adidas adiZero PR which suck for heelstriking).

The Brooks PureFlow Toe Flex doesn't seem to have an effect on the ride of the shoe

Also like the PureConnect, the PureFlow has a split-toe. However, I didn't even notice this on the PureConnect, and the Toe Flex on the PureFlow is even smaller, so I definitely didn't notice it here either.

Brooks PureFlow (left) has a wider, less aggressively curved last than the Brooks PureConnect (right). It also has significantly more outsole (black on PureFlow; black and darker, less dirty teal on PureConnect).

While the PureConnect has the glove-like fit and curved last of a racing flat, the PureFlow is built off of a Universal (semi-curved) last and fits more like a regular trainer. They are wider than the PureConnect, lacking the very narrow forefoot of that shoe and of the T7. They also do not have the glove-like performance fit of the PureConnect and the T7, fitting more like your typical trainer. The upper is roomier, and as mentioned earlier, the Nav Band is looser. Don't get me wrong, it's not so wide that it becomes sloppy, nor is it "minimalist shoe" wide for room for toe splay, but it's definitely not the narrow toebox of the Connect.

Durability-wise, the PureFlow has much more blown rubber outsole on its sole than the PureConnect. Hopefully this means it will last longer. For now, they have very little outsole wear (slightly more than you can see in the picture above, since that picture was taken when they were new, but not significantly so) at a mileage mark that the Connect was already showing significant wear. They aren't wearing quite as well as my Launches or Ghost 4s do though. I'm still not expecting to get anywhere near the mileage out of these shoes as I get out of my regular trainers (I feel like Brooks' Twitter had claimed 300-500 miles for their regular trainers and 250-300 miles for their PureProject shoes, but I may be wrong on that, and those are just ballpark numbers anyway), but I'm really hoping to get more out of them than I did the Connect (which didn't even make it to the 250 mark), since the Connect's cushioning didn't wear out so much as the exposed midsole got chewed up to the point that the ride got weird.

The PureFlow has kinked laces! So I didn't need to change them. Score.

Black shoes and white socks. Sexy.

As far as "minimal" shoes go, the PureFlow...isn't minimal. Tons of soft cushioning and very low ground feel probably aren't on the top of most minimalists' lists. It seems to be a little bit more shoe than the Kinvara and Free, and is obviously more shoe than most of the shoes popular with minimalist runners. So what is the PureFlow? Well, it is a solid contender in the lightweight trainer category, outfitted with ample soft cushioning. It's a pretty cool shoe as far as lightweight trainers go, and if the Launch didn't exist, I'd probably add them to my rotation. But since the Launch does exist, and since the Launch is a little more responsive and not quite as squishy as the PureFlow, I doubt they'll be replacing the Launch in my regular rotation. They are growing on me a bit the more I wear them (either they're firming up slightly or I'm getting used to them), but I still think I have to give the Launch the edge. Also of note, like with the PureConnect, I don't really notice the PureFlow's 4mm heel-toe drop (though as I stated in my PureConnect review, I have also worn spikes for years).

The Brooks PureFlow retails for $90 and can be found on the Brooks website, as well as at many retailers that carry Brooks products, like the National Running Center. NRC does not have it on their website because Brooks prefers that their current products are not advertised online at some of the dealers that offer discounts (like NRC's PR Club), but if you call them at (800) 541-1773 or drop them a message here, they can get you set up. I found that they run true to size and bought the same size as I wear in the Launch and PureConnect, though some people will tell you to go a half-size down.

Full disclosure: I bought the PureFlow from the National Running Center at cost. The opinions expressed in this review are mine and based on my experience, and do not reflect the opinions of Brooks, the National Running Center, or anyone else.

Gear Review: The Ultimate Beginner's Running Guide: The Key to Running Inspired

2012-02-05T20:14:00.000-05:00

For people new to the sport, running can be somewhat intimidating. As nice as the idea of telling them to "just go run," might be, the truth is people want more information, as evidenced by the growing number of books and websites devoted to beginner runners. The question, of course, becomes which of these books and websites are worth reading, and which are not? When author Ryan Robert contacted me about his book The Ultimate Beginner's Running Guide: The Key to Running Inspired, I admit that I was skeptical. I had no idea who Ryan Robert was, and I was a little worried his book would be yet another beginner book that rehashed all the same tired information that was in every single other beginner book. However, upon reading the book, I was pleasantly surprised.

The Ultimate Beginner's Running Guide is broken down into five chapters: Getting Ready to Run; Raising the Bar and Staying Motivated to Run; Nutrition, Hydration, Running in Adverse Conditions, and Common Injuries; Running Inspired; and Training Schedules. The bulk of the book is in the first chapter, "Getting Ready to Run," and I feel that this is the strong point of the book. There's a lot of good information, including some of the very basic science, but not so much as to be overwhelming the way that books like Lore of Running and Better Training for Distance Runners can be. I think there is a little bit of a tendency to mention some things that may have beginners overthinking their running, but let's face it, beginners will do that anyway, so let's at least arm them with accurate information. This chapter is absolutely the high point of the book. Similarly, the second chapter, "Raising the Bar and Staying Motivated to Run" is also a well-written chapter that touches on various speed workouts, and includes information on how to perform said workouts, that can be included in a training program. I am a little more hesitant to recommend the nutrition portion of the third chapter, just because it seems more focused on weight loss than on running performance. The injury portion of the third chapter is good, but very similar to the plethora of other injury guides I've seen in similar books and online. The chapter on "Running Inspired" is short and probably not necessary, but it doesn't hurt to have it in there either. The training schedules look much more reasonable and effective than those presented in Kara Goucher's Running for Women, the other beginner runner book I've reviewed on this blog. Another neat feature of this book are the visualization exercises. Visualization is an often overlooked, yet important part of any sport, and it's nice to see it mentioned in this book.

While I did state that the science included early in this book isn't completely overwhelming, I still think that it may be a little much for the very beginning runner whose focus is to get in shape, lose 5 pounds, or finish his first 5K. On the other hand, I think this is a great book for the high school runner who is just starting to actually get into the sport (you know, the one who just managed to find her way onto LetsRun, and you look at and can't help but remember your own formative days when you spent hours perusing DyeStat...or maybe that's just me). Eventually you want to hand them one of those textbooks that I mentioned earlier in this post, but you don't think that they're quite ready for 1000 pages worth of mitochondria and muscle fibers and the Krebs cycle and vVO2 max yet. In the meantime, The Ultimate Beginner's Running Guide is a great companion to whet their appetite, and at $3, it's a great value and hard to go wrong.

The copy of The Ultimate Beginner's Running Guide that I received is in the Kindle format. I don't own a Kindle, but I was able to download an app for my PC that allowed me to read it on my computer. Similarly, you can also view it on your iPhone or iPad (though I would definitely not want to attempt reading this on my iPhone, but that's just me). If you do have a Kindle, I'd highly suggest using that. While I don't own a Kindle myself, the ones I've played with are nice little machines, and I can only imagine it would be easier to read than it was on my computer. On my PC, the formatting was weird and I sometimes wished a better job had been done with spacing. It was also laggy, but that might have been my laptop.

The Ultimate Beginner's Running Guide also includes a code to get three free PDFs on abs and diets. I did not look at them (I think the website wanted my email address or something, and I decided that a PDF on dieting wasn't worth the possibility of getting random newsletters about how I eat too much), so they will not be included in this review.

Ryan Robert might not have the credentials that some of the other running book authors like Jack Daniels or Tim Noakes may have, but he's put together a nice book for a fantastic price. While it may not be appropriate for the very beginner, and there's nothing in here that the advanced runner hasn't already seen, it's a good book for the beginner who is starting to ask questions about the sport.

The Ultimate Beginner's Running Guide: The Key to Running Inspired is available on Amazon for $2.99 as a Kindle Edition.

Full disclosure: The Ultimate Beginner's Running Guide was provided to me by author Ryan Robert free of charge in exchange for a review. The opinions expressed in this review are mine and based on my experience, and do not reflect the opinions of Robert or anyone else.

Random Update

2012-01-26T21:18:00.003-05:00

Apparently I've been neglecting this blog lately. The semester has started and I'm back above 70 miles per week, so I'll use that as my excuse. Finally started doubling again this week (thank God!), so we'll see how that goes. Doubling makes hitting bigger volume a lot easier, and generally once my body gets used to it, it helps me recover faster, but the first couple weeks are rough. I didn't want to start until I was averaging about 10 a day in singles though, so that's why I waited until now. My "low mileage" recovery week was 65, so I figured it was time. It's pretty easy for me to add an extra 20-30 miles a week by doubling (not this week though...20 mile jump all at once is more than I want, so I figure I'll only double about three days this week, for about an extra 12). I've gotten lazy about lifting though, so I need to get back on that train at some point. Probably not until after my body re-adapts to double workouts though. I'm just over 25 weeks post-op now (for those of you following along, that was to fix actual injury that lasted longer than like two weeks #2...kind of a doozy, but training is walking that fine line between ideal training and overtraining/injury, and it's inevitable that if you're pushing the limits, you'll probably screw up and push too hard and cross the line at some point...or at least I will hah). For now, everything is still easy mileage, but I really want to get my volume up and be hitting triple digit mileage comfortably before I add in any speedwork. I did start with some short speed workouts a couple weeks ago, but thought better of it and took it out for now.

Other than that, I'm in the process of working out something pretty sweet. (Actually, one of my friends is, and I'm just along to help). Details to come...stay tuned.

2012 U.S. Olympic Marathon Team Trials

2012-01-15T18:52:00.000-05:00

Got this picture from my friend Aimee's Facebook page. I'm assuming it's her picture?

Thanks for the inspiration. Now go get 'em in London!

Results

Gear Review: Mizuno Breath Thermo Sock

2012-01-13T18:38:00.003-05:00

Socks are one of those things that a lot of people, myself included, don't give a whole lot of thought to. For the first eight years of my running, I just ran in whatever cheap cotton socks I could find at Walmart in a 12-pack for $5 bag. The summer after my senior year of college, I worked at a running camp, and one of the guest speakers was a guy from The National Running Center, who gave each of the counselors a pair of technical running socks. Oh my God, my eyes were opened. Socks make a difference after all! Since running socks are kind of expensive, I still wear cheap cotton socks for a lot of my runs. However, there are some days that warrant decent socks. Today, with its roads that were a combination of ice and slush, its 30 mph winds, and its long run on the calendar, was one of those days. For a day like today, the best sock in my sock drawer is the Mizuno Breath Thermo Sock.

Mizuno's website describes the Mizuno Breath Thermo Sock as such:

Material
93% Polyester / 5% Polyurethane / 2% Spandex
Features
Breath Thermo® fabric removes moisture from skin to then generate heat for additional warmth
Reduces temperature loss
Superior moisture absorption reduces friction and abrasions
Anti-bacterial and deodorizing properties
Arch band and y-heel for a snug fit that won't slide
Quarter height for additional protection

You may recall, in a previous post, I mentioned using Burton snowboard socks for super cold days. And for the coldest of cold days, those are still my pick. However, the problem with snowboard socks is that they're on the thick side. Plus, I kind of wanted to wear my Brooks Launch today, which I bought a little bit snugger, and Launch + Burton socks + feet swelling from long run makes for a tight fit. One of the awesome things about the Mizuno Breath Thermo Sock is that, despite its warmth, it still manages to be a medium weight sock, and isn't nearly as thick as a snowboard (or even cold weather hiking) sock would be. Obviously it's thicker than those ultra-thin socks that people wear with their racing flats, but it is a cold weather sock, after all.

Of course, the big selling point of the Mizuno Breath Thermo Sock is its warmth. These are the warmest running socks that I own, by far. I actually wore a pair last week to go snowboarding since I couldn't find my actual snowboard socks (responsible of me, huh?). While my feet got a little cold snowboarding (emphasis on "a little"), this doesn't seem to be a problem with running, since you're actually moving the entire time and not sitting on a lift. I haven't even had to employ the duct tape over the mesh on the shoe trick since getting these socks (to be fair, it hasn't dipped into single digit temperatures yet this year). Unlike cheaper socks, they do a fine job of wicking sweat away, so your feet don't get wet and freeze. I did manage to crack through ice and get one of my shoes soaked today, and while that foot did get a little cold, it still wasn't horribly uncomfortable like I've sometimes dealt with in the past with other socks. Whatever material Mizuno is using to make these socks (perhaps the Polyurethane? Seems like a weird material to put in socks)...it works, and it works well. The material is also pretty soft and comfortable too.

The Mizuno Breath Thermo Sock uses an arch band an y-heel for a snug fit. I really appreciate the arch band (I have no idea what a y-heel is), because it keeps the sock in place, and IMO, adds comfort. They're also quarter height. Generally, I prefer a low sock (no-show or tab), but when the weather gets cold, it's nice to have that little bit of extra ankle coverage. They are not left/right specific. Personally, I'm not sure left/right specific socks have any actual difference between socks other than the coloring, but some people do seem to like them and notice a difference. They do have a Mizuno Runbird logo on one side of the ankle cuff that is probably meant to be on the outside, but there's no actual difference between socks.

Please remember that the Mizuno Breath Thermo Sock is that it is very much a cold weather sock. If you wear these in warm weather, your feet are going to get hot. Save them for the cold days.

The one downside to the Mizuno Breath Thermo Sock is its price. Running socks aren't cheap to begin with, and at $15, the Breath Thermo Sock is definitely up there. However, when compared to other cold weather socks (particularly the Merino wool ones), it's really not that terrible, so my advice is to watch for sales, because they do sometimes go on sale (like right now, at Running Warehouse, where they're $12!), and then buy one or two pairs for those really cold days, because they are worth it when it gets really cold.

The Mizuno Breath Thermo Sock retails for $15 and is available at many retailers that carry Mizuno products. Sizing is as follows:

Sock Size	Men's Shoe Size	Women's Shoe Size
SM	-	4-6.5
MD	4-8.5	7-10.5
LG	9-12.5	11-13
XL	-	-

Full disclosure: I got these socks on sale at The National Running Center. The opinions expressed in this review are mine and based on my experience, and do not reflect the opinions of Mizuno or The National Running Center.

2012 Olympic Marathon Team Trials...and another exciting announcement!

2012-01-11T13:40:00.000-05:00

First of all, everyone get stoked for the 2012 Olympic Marathon Team Trials! It all goes down this Saturday in Houston, with the men's start at 8:00am and the women's start fifteen minutes later at 8:15am (both CST). Unfortunately, the most important US marathon of the year won't be televised live. Instead, it will be shown on NBC from 3-5pm EST (same day coverage). Seriously, this is the Superbowl, because it picks the best in the nation, and then the top three go on to the Super-Superbowl in London where they face the best in the world. Can anyone imagine what the backlash would be like if the only Superbowl coverage was a two-hour highlight reel shown six hours after it actually took place? Such is the plight of being a fan of this great sport that most of America has no interest in watching.

Anyway, I have compiled some Trials information for you, since I'm not ballsy enough to put my own predictions out there (that and I really have no clue). So here you go:
US Olympic Trials Marathon Press Center
Pat Price @ Writing About Running's Road to Houston Recap
LetsRun's Men's 2012 US Olympic Men's Marathon Preview (if there's a women's, I can't find it)
Runner's World Olympic Marathon Trials Cheat Sheet
There's quite a bit of information on those four sites (not just the pages I linked to), so some digging around should get you some information.

Finally, congratulations to Molly Pritz and new sponsor ASICS!

Original photo from LetsRun

Gear Review: Brooks Launch

2012-01-06T20:39:00.000-05:00

With all the hype about all the new minimalist offerings on the market, it's easy for traditional performance trainers to get lost in the mix. And that's a shame, because there are plenty of people who want a shoe for fast days that don't quite warrant a flat, and who don't care about a few millimeters of foam. Not to mention, there some really solid offerings in that category. One of those performance trainers is the Brooks Launch, a relatively light, well-cushioned, traditional heel-toe drop shoe from Brooks.

The Launch is Brooks' neutral performance trainer. It weighs 9.1oz for a men's size 9, and has a 27mm heel and 17mm forefoot for a 10mm heel-toe differential. The Launch is described on Running Warehouse as such:

The Launch is a moderate feature, minimal neutral shoe designed for speedwork and daily training. It is built with a semi-curved shape.
CUSHIONING
Hydroflow ST cushioning in the heel uses a chamber filled with viscous fluid to attenuate shock, dampen impact forces, and add heel stability.
MIDSOLE
BioMoGo full-length midsole offers resilient cushioning and is made of environment-friendly, biodegradable materials.
Cush Pod Configuration is a cushioned midsole/outsole design that sets the foot up for an efficient, balanced heel-to-toe transition.
UPPER
Air Mesh upper consists of a breathable mesh material.
Synthetic Overlays are strategically located to provide a snug, secure fit.
Traditional Sockliner offers additional underfoot comfort.
Strobel Last with the upper stitched to full length BioS-257, a material which releases a non-toxic, natural additive when placed in active landfill that helps break down the midsole faster.
OUTSOLE
HPR Plus is a high abrasion-resistant rubber located in the heel for durable traction.
Blown Rubber in the forefoot offers durability, responsiveness and flexibility.
Cush Pod Configuration is a cushioned midsole/outsole design that sets the foot up for an efficient, balanced heel-to-toe transition.

Once upon a time, I wore the Nike Pegasus for pretty much everything except for racing. But then Nike kept tweaking it, and it strayed from the shoe that I knew and loved (the best way I can describe the current Pegasus is "Vomero-lite"). It made me long for a simple, flexible, soft, no-nonsense shoe. That's when I found the Launch. Simple. Flexible. Soft. No-nonsense. Pretty similar feel and ride to the Pegasus I was wearing in college, and pretty much fit the bill for what I was looking for.

Torsional flexibility of the Brooks Launch

Forefoot flexibility of the Brooks Launch

One of the features that I liked about the Pegasus is that they had less lateral stiffness and a weaker heel counter than many other neutral trainers. Same deal with the Launch. Plenty of lateral flexibility and a weak heel counter. Obviously, there is some torsional stability provided by the construction of the midsole itself, and the configuration of the carbon rubber on the outsole actually does provide some support, but not enough to completely compromise the flexibility. To go along with that lateral flexibility, it has a nicely flexible forefoot. Obviously, we're not talking about Nike Free flexibility or the kind of flexibility offered by many minimal shoes, but my foot doesn't bend in all those directions anyway (and if you can roll your feet up into a ball...well, more power to you. And post pictures because I want to see!).

The Brooks Launch has a fairly weak heel counter

The Launch also provides ample cushioning. It's not as heavily cushioned as some of the really cushioned neutral trainers, but to expect Asics Nimbus or Nike Vomero level cushioning in a 9 ounce shoe would be ludicrous. Instead, the Launch does what it can with the cushioning it does provide by making that cushioning super soft. It's not super responsive, and I'd probably want something faster feeling if I were using it as a racer, but I bought it as a trainer, not a racer. There's also a Hydroflow unit in the heel for you heelstrikers who like some extra cushion in the heel. If you're expecting a very responsive, fast-feeling performance trainer, the Launch may feel a bit mushy, but if you want soft cushioning in a simple, lightweight package, the Launch is where it's at.

Universally curved last of the Brooks Launch. The connected heel-forefoot outsole also adds some inherent stability.

The Launch is built off of the same universal, semi-curved last that Brooks' other neutral trainers use. It has an upward sprung toe (which is slightly noticeable when the shoe is on...could be a good or bad thing depending on your preferences). It's also built off of the same wide base that a regular trainer uses, which adds more inherent support than the narrow base used by many flats. This, along with its ample cushioning, gives the Launch a distinct "trainer" feel (versus the "racer" feel that you get from flats). Which makes sense...it's a performance trainer, not a racing flat, though it can certainly be used for racing if you so desire (I feel like Leah @ Chasing Atalanta has used the Launch in the past as her racer...go bug her if you want to know how it feels for racing).

Side view showing the midsole and upper of the Brooks Launch

Top view showing the upper of the Brooks Launch

The Launch's upper is mostly mesh, with a few overlays. It breathes well and fits my foot. No complaints there. Obviously your mileage may vary depending on the shape of your foot, but that's the same story with any shoe. It's pretty roomy, which again, adds to the "trainer" feel, and gives plenty of room for any foot swelling that might accompany high volume training. It's a bit narrower than the Ghost 3 and 4, but it's far, far wider than the T7 or Connect.

Durability-wise, it wears about the same as a regular trainer (which is pretty good for a performance trainer, actually).

Can I add as a side note, the laces on the Launch read "Dig Deep?" This has absolutely zero bearing on the function of the shoe, but that was one of the key phrases my college coach used to yell during races, so it made me smile. The laces stay tied, so I'm happy with the Dig Deep laces. The sole also reads "Fuel the Fire," but while it's a fun touch, that phrase has less personal meaning for me.

DIG DEEP!

When I bought the Launch, I wasn't entirely sure what to expect, since I had never worn a performance trainer before. Lots of trainers, lots of spikes, and lots of flats, but I always thought of performance trainers as that weird in-between zone and never bothered to buy a pair. Well, I still can't speak for other performance trainers, but the Launch is far more trainer than racer, and I've been perfectly happy using it as a general trainer. As a warning, I do have a few friends (neutral, fast, and have done some hardcore training) who have said that they don't think it's appropriate for the bulk of their high mileage training, and I do think I'd prefer something a tiny bit more structured for slow, recovery days (and I haven't attempted hardcore high-mileage training in it yet), though obviously everyone's different. I'd recommend the Launch for the neutral, biomechanically efficient runner who eschews minimalism and low heel-toe differential shoes in favor of a simple, soft, decently cushioned, and flexible trainer (or possibly even racer if you prefer lots of cushioning for races). The Launch might not be trendy, but it's a simple, no-nonsense shoe that gets the job done, and that's all I ask of a shoe. It's found a well-deserved place in my rotation.

The Brooks Launch retails for $90 and is available on Brooks' website, as well as at many retailers that carry Brooks products, like the National Running Center. It runs fairly true to size.

Full disclosure: I got this shoe from the National Running Center at cost. The opinions expressed in this review are mine and based on my experience, and do not reflect the opinions of the National Running Center or Brooks.

More on Footstrike and Some Other Random Stuff

2011-12-23T14:05:00.002-05:00

Actually I lied with that title. I don't really have any comments on footstrike. Just some fun with the video camera after the jump. Video was taken after a run, so I was tired enough that this is my natural stride, not some stupid thing I decided to make up for first five minutes of running. All of this was done at my relaxed easy day pace. There were also a lot more run-throughs than the eight here, but I just grabbed one from each direction/view/shoe when I was editing. Camera is a Canon something or other (that really narrows it down...I feel like the people who go into a running store and say "My current shoes are Brooks."). Shoes are the Brooks Launch and Brooks Pure Connect.

If you can tell what's going on in that video, you've got a better eye than me. It's reduced to 0.5x, but it all still happens too fast and the frame rate is pretty low. It may also be hard to watch if you're too busy headbanging to Kirk Hammett's guitar solo, but I digress. I did grab some shots of initial contact from the frame by frame though. I think it's about initial contact anyway, like I said, the frame rate isn't great. These are the clearest from all of the close-up run-throughs I had managed to videotape. Anyway, I figure my tibia is pretty close to perpendicular at contact, but more tellingly, I've been injured like twice in over twelve years, despite doing some pretty stupid things (Jump 30 to 75 mpw freshman year of college? Ultramarathon off 5K training? Sometimes I feel like I should be surprised I can still run at all). Pretty? No, not at all. Effective? Sure, gets the job done.

Initial contact in the Brooks Launch (top) and Brooks Pure Connect (bottom)

Initial Contact in the Brooks Launch (top) and Brooks Pure Connect (bottom)

In other news, Pat Price at Writing About Running has an interview up with Molly Pritz. Nice interview, worth a read. Go check it out.

Molly Pritz and Lauren Fleshman at the 2011 ING New York City Marathon, picture from Writing About Running's interview with Molly

And finally, Happy Holidays/Christmas/Festivus/(insert other holiday here) to all my readers! Leah at Chasing Atalanta has a holiday playlist up, which of course reminded me of the hilarious Twisted Sister video for "Oh Come All Ye Faithful." The entire video is quite funny and worth watching, but if you're pressed for time, the actual music starts around 1:35 or so.

Gear Review: ZonePerfect All-Natural Nutrition Bars

2011-12-21T00:51:00.000-05:00

Energy bars have come a long way. I think we all remember when "energy bar" meant a Powerbar, which, at the time, was a gluey tasteless sticky brick. That humble Powerbar has evolved into the mighty (and now much better tasting) Powerbar Performance, Powerbar's flagship energy bar and one of a huge selection of athletically-oriented food from that company. The Powerbar Performance is, in my opinion, the gold standard of energy bars, to which I compare all other energy bars. Of course, if I'm visiting my family for the holidays, the chances of my mom having a supply of Powerbars is pretty slim. Luckily for me and my pre-run snacks, she does keep a few boxes of ZonePerfect All-Natural Nutrition Bars handy. So, how do they stand up to my usual Powerbars?

My mom had three flavors of ZonePerfect bars: Fudge Graham and Cinnamon Roll from the Classic series, and Strawberry Yogurt from the Fruitified line. (She also had Chocolate Coconut Crunch from the Classic series, but no way was I voluntarily eating anything with coconut involved).

All of the ZonePerfect bars use a 40/30/30 ratio, which means that approximately 40% of the calories come from carbohydrates, approximately 30% come from protein, and approximately 30% come from fat. Since all three ZonePerfect bars that I reviewed have between 200-210 kcal per bar, each has 6-7 grams of fat (3.5-4g saturated), 22-25 grams of carbs (1-3g fiber, 15g sugar), and 15 grams of protein. According to the website, this is supposed to be an ideal carb/protein/fat ratio for weight loss or maintenance. Personally, I prefer a higher carbohydrate bar for my pre-workout snack, since my diet in general is much higher in carbohydrates (I seriously eat between 70-85% of my calories from carbs), because carbs are your body's primary energy source. I also prefer something a little lower in fat and don't need quite that much protein. The fiber is also unnecessary before a workout, though I doubt it's enough to cause serious problems for most people, unless you're very sensitive to fiber. For comparison's sake, the Cookies and Cream Powerbar Performance (my old standby) has 240 kcal, with 3.5g fat (0.5g saturated), 45g carbs (1g fiber, 26g sugar), and 8g protein.

However, because of the high levels of protein combined with the carbs, ZonePerfect bars do make a good post-workout snack. The ZonePerfect bars also have a multitude of vitamins and minerals (which you can find on the website), which further leads me to believe these are meant as a snack bar rather than an energy bar (since you can't really process those vitamins while you're running hard). The ingredient list varies from bar to bar, with some featuring more unrecognizable ingredients than others. For example, the Cinnamon Roll ingredient list looks pretty benign, while I have no clue what a few of the things in the Strawberry Yogurt bar are. They do claim to be all-natural though, so this may just be my lack of knowledge about what certain ingredients are. One other thing to note is that the protein comes from soy, if that's a concern for you. Also, all of the bars are pretty small, so don't expect them to fill you up.

First up is the ZonePerfect Fudge Graham nutrition bar. This bar was by far the best tasting of the bunch. You can definitely taste the chocolate and graham, and there are little pieces of marshmallow in there too. Obviously it doesn't taste like a s'more that you'd make over a campfire, but it's just as good as any candy bar that tries to mimic the taste of a s'more. I could easily sit and eat this flavor like candy. How tasty are these? Tasty enough that after my run, I finished off the rest of the box (which was like...another five of them. Sorry Mom!). I wouldn't hesitate to buy these on my own to eat as random snacks during the day or as my post-workout "I need food NOW and plan on eating before I bother to shower" snack.

Zone Perfect Fudge Graham nutrition bar. Oops...this is completely out of focus, sorry!

Zone Perfect Fudge Graham nutrition bar

Zone Perfect Fudge Graham nutrition bar cross-section

Nutrition information for ZonePerfect Fudge Graham

Ingredients for Zone Perfect Fudge Graham:

Soy Protein Nuggets (Isolated Soy Protein, Tapioca Starch, Salt), Chocolate Flavored Coating (Sugar, Fractionated Palm Kernel & Palm Oils, Cocoa [Processed with Alkali], Nonfat Dry Milk, Sorbitan Monostearate, Soy Lecithin, Natural Flavor), Corn Syrup, Milk Chocolate Drops (Sugar, Whole Milk Powder, Chocolate Liquor, Cocoa Butter, Milk Fat, Soy Lecithin, Natural Vanilla Flavor), Marshmallow Pieces (Sugar, Corn Starch, Fructose, Soybean Oil, Corn Syrup Solids, Natural Flavors, Salt, Soy Lecithin), Fructooligosaccharides, Milk Protein Isolate, High Oleic Sunflower Oil and/or High Oleic Safflower Oil, Glycerine.
Less than 2% of the Following: Fructose, Natural Flavors, Water, Xanthan Gum, Soy Lecithin.
Vitamins & Minerals: Calcium Phosphate, Ascorbic Acid, d-Alpha-Tocopheryl Acetate, Magnesium Oxide, Niacinamide, Zinc Oxide, Calcium Pantothenate, Ferrous Fumarate, Pyridoxine Hydrochloride, Vitamin A Palmitate, Riboflavin, Thiamine Mononitrate, Folic Acid, Chromium Chloride, Biotin, Sodium Selenite, Sodium Molybdate, and Cyanocobalamin.

Next is the ZonePerfect Cinnamon Roll nutrition bar. This bar wasn't bad, though it's a little sweet. There's some cinnamon taste in there, but it doesn't taste like a cinnamon roll at all. It tastes like you'd expect a cinnamon flavored energy bar to taste. It's not terrible, but it's not great either. I wouldn't hesitate to eat it as a snack if I'm hungry and it's sitting in the cabinet tempting me, but I wouldn't go out of my way to buy it either. The Cinnamon Roll also has the most benign looking ingredient list.

ZonePerfect Cinnamon Roll nutrition bar

ZonePerfect Cinnamon Roll nutrition bar cross-section

Nutrition information for ZonePerfect Cinnamon Roll

Ingredients for ZonePerfect Cinnamon Roll:

Soy Protein Nuggets (Isolated Soy Protein, Tapioca Starch, Rice Flour, Malt, Salt), Yogurt Coating (Sugar, Palm Kernel Oil, Nonfat Dry Milk Solids, Yogurt Powder [Cultured Whey Protein Concentrate, Cultured Skim Milk, Yogurt Culture], Soy Lecithin, Salt, Natural Flavor), Corn Syrup, Milk Protein Isolate, Fructose, Almonds, Palm Oil, Glycerine, Water. Less than 2% of the Following: High Oleic Safflower Oil and/or High Oleic Sunflower Oil, Natural Flavors, Salt, Xanthan Gum, Soy Lecithin. Vitamins & Minerals: Calcium Phosphate, Ascorbic Acid, d-Alpha-Tocopheryl Acetate, Magnesium Oxide, Niacinamide, Zinc Oxide, Calcium Pantothenate, Ferrous Fumarate, Pyridoxine Hydrochloride, Vitamin A Palmitate, Riboflavin, Thiamine Mononitrate, Folic Acid, Chromium Chloride, Biotin, Sodium Selenite, Sodium Molybdate, and Cyanocobalamin.

Finally, we've got the ZonePerfect Strawberry Yogurt nutrition bar. The strawberry was pretty fake tasting and the bar was overly sweet. Definitely my least favorite of the bunch, but not so bad that I didn't finish the bar that I started. There are little pieces of red in the bar, which I guess are supposed to be strawberries, but a peek at the ingredient list tells me they're actually strawberry flavored cranberries (there are strawberries in there too, but they're way down at the bottom of the ingredient list, so chances are, the red things are cranberries). Based on the name, it sounds like it should theoretically be the healthiest of the bunch, but the nutrition facts are pretty similar to the other two, and the ingredient list is the longest. This one is actually my mom's favorite though, so obviously my taste buds aren't the be-all, end-all (who knew?). That's probably a good thing, because it's the box I'm least likely to house on her.

ZonePerfect Strawberry Yogurt nutrition bar

ZonePerfect Strawberry Yogurt nutrition bar cross-section

Nutrition Information for ZonePerfect Strawberry Yogurt

Ingredients for ZonePerfect Strawberry Yogurt:

Soy Protein Nuggets (Isolated Soy Protein, Tapioca Starch, Salt), Yogurt Flavored Coating (Dried Cane Syrup, Fractionated Palm Kernel Oil, Nonfat Milk, Nonfat Yogurt Powder [Cultured With Nonfat Milk], Soy Lecithin, Modified Corn Starch, Lactic Acid, Vanilla Extract), Corn Syrup, Sodium Caseinate, Gum Arabic, Strawberry Flavored Cranberries (Sugar, Cranberries, Citric Acid, Natural Strawberry Flavor with Other Natural Flavors, Elderberry Juice Concentrate, Sunflower Oil), High Oleic Safflower Oil and/or High Oleic Sunflower Oil, Fat Replacer (Dried Fruit [Plums, Dates], Grape Juice Concentrate, Fructose, Glycerine), Glycerine, Strawberry Pieces (Fruit [Apple Puree Concentrate, Strawberry Juice Concentrate], Invert Sugar, Sugar, Glycerol, Dextrose, Wheat Fiber, Palm Fat, Pectin, Malic Acid, Natural Flavor, Elderberry Concentrate).
Less than 2% of the Following: Natural Flavor, Guar Gum, Citric Acid.
Vitamins & Minerals: Calcium Phosphate, Ascorbic Acid, d-Alpha-Tocopheryl Acetate, Magnesium Oxide, Niacinamide, Zinc Oxide, Calcium Pantothenate, Ferrous Fumarate, Pyridoxine Hydrochloride, Vitamin A Palmitate, Riboflavin, Thiamine Mononitrate, Folic Acid, Chromium Chloride, Biotin, Sodium Selenite, Sodium Molybdate, and Cyanocobalamin.

So, how do they work? Well, they work pretty much like any other food you'd eat before a workout. Getting in a few calories before you work out is a good thing for most people, since it tops off your liver glycogen and allows you to push a little longer and harder (no perverted jokes!), and these bars accomplish that. They're also effective as post-workout recovery bars. However, I would stick to a higher carb, lower fat/protein/fiber bar for before higher intensity workouts, and the ZonePerfect bars won't be replacing my Powerbar Performance bars for pre-workout snacks anytime soon, at least when I have to buy my own energy bars (although I might pick up some of the Fudge Graham ones for after workouts and for random snacks!).

ZonePerfect bars can be found at many grocery stores and health food stores, and generally range from $0.99-$1.50 or so depending on where you buy them. They can also be found in six and twelve count boxes.

Full disclosure: The ZonePerfect All-Natural Nutrition Bars were purchased by my mom, and I ate them while I was visiting her for the holidays, so there's nothing really to disclose, other than the fact that I'm a mooch. The opinions expressed in this review are mine and based on my experience, and do not reflect the opinions of ZonePerfect, my mom, or anyone else.

Quick Update

2011-12-18T14:23:00.000-05:00

First of all, my apologies for the lack of updates lately. Finals week is finally over, and instead of celebrating by updating my blog, I celebrated by visiting my friend Molly for a few days since she's visiting her parents for the holiday (shocking, I know! How dare I?!). So, after a few days of running at beautiful Bucknell, where the cars don't try to hit me and where I'm occupied enough that I forget I'm supposed to update my blog, it's back to reality. Translation: I'll have a real post for you soon.

Second, I've been featured at Become.com's Best of the Web! So a big thanks to them for featuring my blog! Their website Be in the Game has some interesting commentary and tips on a variety of sports, so those of you who read this blog and compete in sports besides running may find some useful information on that site.

Where your dreams become reality?

2011-12-08T19:19:00.001-05:00

Just for a moment, let me redirect you to Leah @ Chasing Atalanta's blog.

I've been banned on the LetsRun message board for defending my friend Molly Pritz. I'm not even going to get into what I think of the LetsRun community's treatment of an up-and-coming young woman who is part of a bright future of American distance running because all it does is get me frustrated. In all honesty, it's probably just a handful of people, but it truly sickens me. Anyway, like I said, that's all I'm going to say about that topic, because negativity countered with negativity doesn't solve anything, and my energy is better spent supporting Molly in other ways.

But this latest thing is just pathetic. This isn't the anonymous cowards of the message board...this is actually on the news page.

"Just how easy is the standard for women's US marathon trials? Well, a 4:08 marathoner can do it."

Dude, WHAT?! I don't want to talk about whether the women's B-standard is "soft." That's not why I'm writing this post, and it's an entirely different can of worms anyway. Yes, I understand that the main purpose of the Trials is to choose the Olympic team, but let's face it, a 2:19 guy is a really long shot to crack the top three too. What I do want to talk about is LetsRun's treatment of a woman who no doubt worked her ass off to achieve her dreams. LetsRun's tagline is "Where your dreams become reality," yet now they're going to tear down the accomplishment of a woman who did just that?! As well as the accomplishments of many other women who worked hard in pursuit of that same goal (not to mention those who sacrificed so much, yet still fell heartbreakingly short)? Brojos, do the right thing, fix the news story, and apologize to Erin O'Mara. And to Erin, congratulations on your accomplishment. However hard you had to work to take well over an hour off your time...well, clearly you deserve this, and no one, including LetsRun, can take that away from you.

Gear Review: RecoFiT Calf Component Compression Sleeve (Updated Version)

2011-12-05T16:00:00.001-05:00

A while ago, I reviewed the original RecoFiT Calf Component Compression Sleeve, a calf compression sleeve that has become my compression sleeve of choice. Recently, Susan Eastman Walton, the owner of RecoFiT who had stumbled across my previous review, emailed me to let me know that manufacture of RecoFiT has been moved to the USA, and that the sleeve has been updated with a hypoallergenic silicone gripper at the top. Updated compression sleeves? Yes, please!

Just in case you don't feel like clicking on my previous review, but forget what RecoFiT themselves have to say about the Calf Component, here's the description on their site:

Unique sleeve supporting the lower leg’s muscles and circulation from the ankle to the knee. Available in black or white.
Proper fit is extremely important for effective compression so RecoFit offers a wide variety of sizes based on the calf’s circumference. If your measurement is on the cusp between sizes, choose the smaller size.
* RecoFit’s calf compression components superior design and materials include GreatFiT ™ -- Gradient Recovery Exercise & Activity Technology -- delivering gradient compression where it’s needed most to reduce negative exercise and travel effects and maximize recovery. Careful pattern-making and construction provide gradient compression from the ankle up towards the knee, helping to return the blood to the heart.
* Resistex Negative-ion circulation assistance through Resistex™ carbon yarns increases blood oxygenation and supports the immune system as well as offering ribbed massage, compression, moisture-management and breathability.
* Superior materials featuring the finest breathable and most comfortable Italian fabrics and flat-seam construction that do not bind or irritate. The contour and cross-grain-cut of the fabric provides maximum compression benefits.
* Versatility and performance: Recofit components are more versatile and specific than shorts, tights or socks.
* Left- and right-specific for optimum fit and performance, as well as a wide range of sizes to best suit individual needs.

Front view of RecoFiT Calf Component Compression Sleeve

Like the original Calf Component, the new RecoFiT looks deceptively small out of the box. And whenever I get new compression gear, I always forget how hard it is to put on. The updated RecoFiT is no exception. They fit just like the original, meaning they're super compressive. However, despite the tight compressive feeling, they still manage to be comfortable.

One thing I really like about RecoFiT that I feel separates it from some of the other compression gear I've worn is the material they use. It's a sheer nylon/spandex/carbon blend that stays relatively cool. It's not as soft feeling if you're picking it up and playing with it in the store, but I definitely appreciate the material when I'm actually wearing it.

The updated RecoFiT Calf Component Compression Sleeve features a hypoallergenic silicone gripper at the top

The new silicone gripper is a nice touch aesthetically, but in practice, I don't really notice it. I never had a problem with the sleeves sliding down when I was wearing them before, so I don't see much of a change in function. To be fair, I wear these exclusively as a recovery sleeve, since I see definite benefits for recovery, but don't notice a performance difference with or without them when wearing them during training or competition (at least for my body...you can read the numerous studies on compression and performance and draw your own conclusions). If you do work out with the sleeves and did have problems with them sliding down, you may appreciate the new gripper. The gripper is pretty tacky, so I'd imagine it would stay in place better than the old sleeve, but since I never had problems with the old sleeve, it's hard for me to compare.

If you want more details on the fit or performance of the sleeves, please check out my previous review. Most of the sleeve has remained unchanged. This is fine, in my opinion. They worked how I wanted them to the first time around, so why fix what's not broken?

Side view of RecoFiT Calf Component Compression Sleeve

As you may or may not know, I had ankle surgery done in August. The hospital gave me compression sleeves to use in order to encourage bloodflow and reduce edema, but honestly, I used my RecoFiT instead. They both provided similar compression (though the RecoFiT had a little less "give" to it), but the material of the RecoFiT just made them more comfortable, especially in the August heat. Additionally, I have continued to use them in my return to running, and they have curtailed my shin muscle soreness (anterior tibialis for my fellow biomechanics geeks) to just a week (as I stated in the last review, this is something that used to haunt me for months after a layoff). I would recommend talking to your doctor before going this route though, since sometimes you're prescribed a specific compression grade, and RecoFiT does not specify exactly how compressive they are.

RecoFiT Calf Component Compression Sleeves are available for $44.95 on RecoFiT's website as well as at select retailers. Additionally, I have been informed by Susan that anyone who "Likes" the RecoFiT Facebook page will be automatically entered into a monthly drawing for a RecoFiT visor!

Full disclosure: I received the RecoFiT Calf Component Compression Sleeves free of charge in exchange for a review. While I appreciate their generosity, I do not have any affiliation with RecoFiT, and the opinions expressed in this review are mine and based on my experience, and do not reflect the opinions of RecoFiT or anyone else.

Gear Review: Mizuno Wave Rider 15

2011-11-28T13:15:00.000-05:00

15th Anniversary Edition Mizuno Wave Rider 15

When I was still running college cross-country and track, it seemed like the two most popular shoes on the team were the Nike Pegasus and Mizuno Wave Rider. To this day, the Rider is, without a doubt, one of the most popular go-to trainers among many of my serious runner friends. Last year, when I was looking for a trainer, several of my friends told me to go Rider. Unfortunately, the Rider that was available at the time was the Rider 14, the red-headed stepchild of the Rider family that strayed from everything everyone liked about the 13 and earlier. I tried it on, and immediately knew I couldn't wear that shoe...especially since the arch support seemed to dig into the front of my calcaneus (WTF???). Thankfully, Mizuno promised to return the Rider 15 to its roots, and I was again curious to try this shoe. When my friend Seth asked me if I wanted to test the Rider 15, I jumped at the opportunity.

I was actually smart enough this time to take pictures before I got the shoe dirty and gross! So you get clean shoe pictures. How awesome is that?

Mizuno Wave Rider 15. You can see the grey Wave plate extending partway into the forefoot.

The Mizuno Wave Rider 15 is Mizuno's neutral trainer. It weighs in at 11.1oz for a men's size 9, and has a 29mm heel and 17mm forefoot for a 12mm heel-toe differential. The Rider is described on Running Warehouse as such:

The Rider 15 is a moderate feature, moderate neutral shoe designed for daily training and high mileage. It is built with a semi-curved shape.
CUSHIONING
Mizuno Wave consists of an elastic, thermal plastic wave running from the heel to the midfoot, creating an incredibly springy and well-cushioned ride.
VS-1 cushioning material in the heel provides additional shock absorption.
MIDSOLE
Smooth Ride is a gender specific network of grooves that minimizes the rapid acceleration and deceleration of the foot to create a smooth heel to toe ride.
Extended Wave Plate in the midfoot is an extension of the Mizuno Wave for increased torsional rigidity between the heel and forefoot.
AP+ is Mizuno's top of the line full-length copolymer midsole for a lighter, more resilient ride.
Mizuno Intercool ventilation system in the midsole inhibits humidity buildup to keep feet cool and dry.
Gender Engineering utilizes gender-specific attributes such as a wider base in men’s shoes and additional flex grooves in women’s shoes.
UPPER
AIRmesh covers the entire upper and provides breathability to keep the foot cool.
OrthoLite Sockliner is anti-microbial and moisture wicking for a healthy foot environment.
Dynamotion Fit creates optimal fit with stretch material in the forefoot and a collar construction that prevents the heel collar from buckling under load.
Strobel Last with the upper stitched to full length fabric for a comfortable underfoot feel.
OUTSOLE
X10 located in the heel and forefoot is made of durable carbon rubber for enhanced traction.
Flex Controllers placed in high flex areas on the outsole act as miniature wave plates for increased flexibility and reduced weight.

The first thing that I noticed upon putting on the shoe is that the fit is much improved from the unwearable (for me) Wave Rider 14. It's built off of a semi-curved last (also sometimes referred to as a universal last), as most neutral trainers are, and has a slightly upward sprung toe (though not nearly to the extent of some shoes I've worn in the past). The toe spring is pretty unnoticeable once the shoe is on.

Universally curved last of the Mizuno Wave Rider 15. You can also see part of the Wave plate and the yellow Smooth Ride grooves in this picture.

One thing I want to point out since I just posted the picture of the sole is something that one of my friends (a diehard Rider fan) refers to as the "Mizuno Rock." Because of that channel in the middle of the heel, you can sometimes pick up a pretty nice sized rock in there. I haven't run into this problem personally, so it must happen much more infrequently than it does with say, the Nike Free, but I've definitely been on runs with her where she had to fish the Mizuno Rock out of her shoe.

The Mizuno Wave Rider 15 is definitely a very responsive shoe, with firm cushioning and a fast transition. Don't get me wrong, the cushioning is definitely there, and it's not like we're talking about a super firm racing flat, but compared to many trainers I've worn, it has a firmer midsole. The AP+ midsole cushioning is also super responsive, and it has no problems with feeling "dead." I've also found that the Rider's ride feels better with a midfoot strike than a heelstrike. It just feels like a faster transition upon midfoot strike than I get with some of my other shoes, but the transition isn't quite as seamless with a heelstrike. I'm not sure if this is because of the way the Wave plate works or what...just something I picked up concerning the shoe's heel-toe transition (or entire foot-toe, in the case of the midfoot strike).

Forefoot flexibility of the Mizuno Wave Rider 15

Lateral flexibility of the Mizuno Wave Rider 15

These pictures I took make it look like the Rider is a pretty flexible shoe. However, I've found that that's not quite the case when running. Mizuno describes the Wave plate as being like a piece of corrugated cardboard, that is very flexible in one direction and not very flexible in the other. True to form, it doesn't have very much lateral flexibility, especially in the rear of the shoe (all of the lateral flexibility seems to be in the forefoot), and while, due to its design, it should have a lot of forefoot flexibility, it doesn't seem to have forefoot flexibility in the right place for my feet. This may be due to the positioning of the Flex Controllers or the placement of the flex grooves in relation to the joints of my foot. It's not that the Rider is an inflexible shoe, it's just that it's not flexible enough in the right places for my personal preferences. I have a hunch that the lateral stiffness towards the rear of the shoe and practically all of the lateral flexibility being concentrated in the forefoot might contribute to why I didn't like this shoe for heelstriking, but I'm not 100% sure on that one. The Rider also has a fairly strong heel counter. The Rider is designed for a neutral runner, and most of my friends who use this shoe have very neutral strides, though I think that the inherent support offered by the Wave plate may make it suitable for some mild overpronators also, depending on their personal kinetic chain.

The Mizuno Wave Rider 15 has a fairly strong heel counter.

I would expect these shoes to be pretty durable. Mizuno's Wave plate in their midsole has a reputation for durability, since it supposedly doesn't break down as quickly as some other technologies. They took the miles I put on them very well and other than the shoe being dirty and the carbon rubber outsole having some signs of wear, the midsole itself seems to be taking a lickin' and keeping on kickin'. However, I didn't actually get enough miles on these to wear them out, so I can't give a true measure of durability (more on that later).

The Mizuno Wave Rider 15's toebox is definitely on the narrow side, and it was a little narrow at the widest point of my foot. I definitely had to keep the lacing loose towards the toe. It was nothing that a little playing with the laces didn't fix, but if your foot is wide, you may want to order a wide width, or possibly even size half a size up if you don't mind a little bit of extra length. However, I have not heard any guys complain about this, so the narrow toebox may be unique to the women's version.

The upper itself is very nice, and hugs the foot well once you adjust the laces to fit your foot. It's comfortable with or without socks, though to be fair, I don't think I know anyone who wears their trainers sockless. It's also a very breathable shoe, so you shouldn't have any problems with your feet overheating. It's also a really attractive shoe is that matters to you at all. Mizuno also released a 15th Anniversary Edition in bright red for men and fuschia for women if you're a fan of brightly colored running shoes.

The Mizuno Wave Rider 15 has a narrow toebox. Here it is in comparison to the Brooks Ghost. Ignore how the heel of the Ghost is all stretched out...they didn't look like that 500 miles ago. Just compare the toeboxes. Should have taken it next to the Ghost 4, which is all new and pretty, but now the Rider is not new and pretty.

I really wanted to like this shoe for so many reasons. Seriously, Mizuno fans are like a cult...that's how much they love their shoes. The Wave Rider is like Blade Runner. It has a ton of fans, and all those fans absolutely love this movie, and if you haven't seen it, you feel like you're missing out! Anyway, at some point during college, I finally saw Blade Runner, and...I didn't like it. I wanted to like it though, so I watched it again. And again. And finally, after watching that unicorn prance across the screen way too many times, I decided that Blade Runner just wasn't my kind of movie. Well, I gave the Rider a bunch of chances to win my love, hoping they'd break in so they'd be flexible in the right places for my foot. And they did break in, but just not as much as I was hoping, and unfortunately, like Blade Runner, the Rider 15 is just not for me. Honestly, I think the Wave Precision (which I tried on in a store and was thiiis close to buying) would be more to my liking. For me, the Rider is a super comfortable shoe for walking around in, but I think I may have to retire them from my running rotation and make them my walking around and cross-training shoe. That does not, however, mean that you won't like them (that's why I feel that it's important to describe the shoe's characteristics, rather than just being like "this shoe sucks!" or "this shoe rocks!"), so it's worth reading my entire description of the shoe, and seeing whether or not that description describes a shoe that meets your personal needs. And I can definitely see why other people would like them...it's just that not every shoe works for every person (particularly when apparently my foot joints are in the wrong place for this particular shoe). In general, I'm thinking I'd recommend this shoe to the neutral runner (and possibly even the mild overpronator) who runs primarily with a midfoot or forefoot strike and prefers a responsive but less flexible shoe, and who's looking for a go-to high-mileage workhorse trainer for putting in the miles.

Wake up! Time to Run!

So the question remains: is the Wave Rider 15 a return to the Wave Rider 13? Honestly, I'm not sure, since I didn't wear the 13. However, from what I understand, the 13 was similar to the Brooks Ghost 2, in that it was straddling that line between performance trainer and general neutral workhorse. Like more recent iterations of the Ghost, recent iterations of the Rider are a traditional neutral trainer. I have heard from many Rider 13 fans that the Precision is a great alternative, and very similar to the Rider 13. I would advise fans of the Rider 13 to try on two shoes, the Wave Rider 15 and the Wave Precision (Mizuno's neutral performance trainer), and then to choose the shoe that better suits their needs.

The Mizuno Wave Rider 15 retails for $114.99 and can be located on the Mizuno website, as well as at running stores that carry Mizuno products. It runs fairly true to size, though the toebox is pretty narrow, so if your foot is on the wide side, you may want to consider ordering a wide width or going half a size up.

Full disclosure: I received these shoes free of charge as part of a test program Mizuno was doing with the Rider 15. I am not a Mizuno wear tester, nor do I have any affiliation with Mizuno, though I am grateful for their generosity in providing me a test pair. The opinions expressed in this review are mine and based on my experience, and do not reflect the opinions of Mizuno, Seth, or anyone else.

Gear Review: Brooks Pure Connect

2011-11-16T16:40:00.001-05:00

A while ago, I posted some information on the Brooks PureProject, Brooks' entry into the reduced shoe market. When they were first announced, I was pretty unfazed, being happy with my other shoes, and mainly just satisfied that if Brooks was making other low-drop shoes, maybe that meant they'd leave the T Racer alone and not mess with that shoe's H delt. But then the more I heard about them, the more I wanted a pair! First came Sage's review of the PureFlow, then there was the PureProject Facebook contest, and then, well, I bought a pair of PureConnects. The PureProject line consists of four different shoes: the PureConnect, the PureFlow, the PureCadence, and the PureGrit. More information can be found in my previous post. Well, I've finally got some miles on the Brooks PureConnect, the most race-bred of the group, and now, it's time for a review!

Before I start the review, I'd like to say I meant to take photos before I used these, but I kept forgetting. I finally remembered after they first got muddy, which means that the photos are of relatively new shoes, even though they probably look dirty. I did try to clean them for you though.

The PureConnect is the lightest and lowest-slung member of the PureProject line. It is intended for the neutral, biomechanically efficient runner. The PureConnect weighs in at 7.2oz for a men's size 9 and 6.5oz for a women's size 8, making it slightly heavier than the Green Silence, a stack height of 22/17, and sports an H delt of 4mm. Running Warehouse describes the shoe as such:

The PureConnect is a minimum featured, minimum neutral shoe designed for daily training or racing. It is built with a semi-curved shape.
CUSHIONING
BioMoGo DNA fuses BioMoGo midsole and DNA gel cushioning technology for a fully custom responsive ride that adapts to the needs of each and every runner.
MIDSOLE
BioMoGo DNA fuses BioMoGo midsole and DNA gel cushioning technology for a fully custom responsive ride that adapts to the needs of each and every runner.
Toe Flex uses a toe split in the outsole/midsole materials that allows the big toe to function independently and engage the runner's natural balance during toe-off.
Omega Flex Grooves enhance midsole flexibility without compromising cushioning.
UPPER
Nav Band is a flexible, stretching band that wraps over the midfoot to help keep the foot secure.
Anatomical Last mimics the shape of the foot, resulting in a glove-like feel and allowing the the foot to work as a single unit.
OUTSOLE
Ideal Heel consists of a curved outer heel, to encourage midfoot and forefoot striking.
Blown Rubber outsole offers durability, responsiveness and flexibility.

"Bubbles" on the sole of the Brooks PureConnect. The black and darker teal are carbon rubber, while the light teal is foam.

The design of the sole is probably the most distinctive part of the Brooks PureConnect. Like the Saucony ProGrid Kinvara, the PureConnect uses a hard carbon rubber over the parts of the sole where the runner contacts the ground the most, while leaving the other parts of the foam (which is a combination of BioMoGo and DNA) uncovered for weight reduction purposes. While it certainly succeeds as far as reducing weight is concerned, it does have the slightly disconcerting feeling that you're standing on bubbles. It's almost how I'd expect a pair of Reebok RunTones to feel (no, I do not own RunTones, but both of my roommates do, so I have seen them in person and can take a guess). However, running shoes aren't made for standing around, and luckily the feeling of standing on bubbles went away as long as I'm running at a decent speed. I do notice the bubbles for slower easy running (for me, I start to feel them around 8:10-8:20 pace), but I bought these as for steady state/marathon pace/possibly tempo running, so no big deal there.

What I felt like I was wearing when I first put on the PureConnect. Luckily, this feeling disappears at faster paces.

As I stated before, the Brooks PureConnect uses a combination of its biodegradable BioMoGo foam and non-Newtonian DNA to form the midsole. This provides an extremely cushioned ride for a 7oz shoe. Seriously, I would never expect a shoe this weight to be this well cushioned. Brooks seems to do a good job in general of making its shoes very soft and cushion-y, since its T7 Racer is also very cushioned for its weight, and the PureConnect is no exception. Don't get me wrong, the PureConnect is no squish-fest, but for a shoe of its weight that is described as "minimal," I was pleasantly surprised by how plush this shoe is. This feature will no doubt turn off the die-hard minimalists, but I don't think they're the target audience here anyway. However, despite having this cushioning, the PureConnect still manages to be a pretty responsive shoe. There are definitely no problems with this shoe feeling "dead" or slow. It's still not quite as fast and responsive as something like the T7 (and definitely nowhere near as responsive as the ASICS Piranha), and it won't be replacing my flats for racing anytime soon (at least not for half-marathon and below), but for something this plush, the Connect still manages to deliver on responsiveness.

The upper of the PureConnect is also very nice, and hugs my foot well. It is on the narrow side (more on that later), and is built off a fairly curved last. The PureConnect also has a thin tongue that tends to stay in place. Additionally, it is comfortable to wear with or without socks (though it does not seem to be very comfortable with the insole removed, due to the exposed seams, if you're into that sort of thing). It does have a pretty low instep, which may be a problem if your instep is high or if you have very high arches.

The Brooks PureConnect has a lot of forefoot flexibility

And the Brooks PureConnect also has a lot of lateral flexibility

The Brooks PureConnect is a very flexible shoe. It has a lot of flexibility both in the forefoot and in the lateral direction. While it's not as flexible nor will it allow your foot to move quite as freely as something like the Nike Free, it should be more than flexible enough for the majority of people. Despite being stiffer than the Free (which really isn't saying much, considering how flexible the Free is), in no way did it stop my foot from moving how I wanted.

The Brooks PureConnect has a stiff heel counter that adds some rear foot support

The Brooks PureConnect has Brooks' IDEAL Technology in the heel

The Brooks PureConnect has a stiff heel counter that adds some rearfoot support to the shoe. This heel counter hugged my calcaneus fairly well, and is one of the shoe's features that seems to add some inherent stability to it. The PureConnect also uses what Brooks calls IDEAL Technology in the heel. This rounds the heel under the shoe rather than having a piece of rubber sticking out behind your heel, in order to better mimic the shape of your calcaneus. It is meant to move the contact point forward slightly (Brooks claims it moves it forward 3cm to the center of the heel). While it's very possible to heelstrike in this shoe and no shoe will magically change your footstrike all by itself (plus footstrike, like the rest of running, isn't a one-size-fits-all thing anyway), I can tell you that this shoe feels good with either a heelstrike or midfoot strike (no data on the forefoot strike...I have to really try and sprint to get myself to forefoot strike). Very smooth transition with either a heel or midfoot strike.

The Brooks PureConnect has Brooks' Nav Band gives the shoe a glove-like fit

Brooks PureConnect insole

The PureConnect has great arch support for a shoe of its class. I was stunned. When you first put on the shoe, you get this glove-like fit that hugs your arch, courtesy of this piece of elastic that wraps around your midfoot and arch that Brooks calls the Nav Band (probably because it supports your navicular). Of course, the support from the Nav Band disappears once you start running, since it's elastic and pretty much flexes with your foot. The Nav Band continues to touch your arch, but it doesn't actually support it. However, the shape of the midsole picks up where the Nav Band lets off and actually does support your arch, giving the PureConnect a large amount of arch support for a shoe that seemingly has very little structure. It's no stability shoe by any stretch of the imagination, nor is it even a general neutral trainer (it is much less structured than even the Brooks Launch performance trainer), but the PureConnect has far more arch support than any of my racing flats, which will no doubt make it great as a lightweight performance trainer (or even a racer for longer races...wish this shoe was around when I ran my marathon). You can see from the radical shape of the insole that some of the arch support is provided by the insole, while the rest is provided by the shape of the shoe itself.

The Brooks PureConnect Toe Flex doesn't seem to have any effect on the ride of the shoe

Brooks added a ninja-like split toe to the PureConnect. Honestly, I didn't notice it at all. While there's no rubber in the groove for the Toe Flex, there is a hard piece of...something there, which means that your big toe does not bend separately from the others. Running, it feels like every other shoe that doesn't have a split toe.

Another cool thing that I mentioned in another post is the laces. Similar to the New Balance Sure Lace, the Brooks PureProject laces are kinked, which means they do a nice job of staying tied. Small detail, but a nice touch.

The Brooks PureConnect has a very narrow forefoot. For comparison, T7 is on the left, Brooks Ghost is on the right.

Something to note is that it seems that some people are having problems fitting into this shoe because of its narrow forefoot. The toebox seems to be of a similar width, perhaps a bit narrower, than that of the T7, and the last is fairly curved too, which adds to the narrow feeling. It's definitely narrower than the Kinvara, which is probably one of its main competitors. If you have a narrow foot, you'll appreciate the glove-like fit. If you have a wide foot, definitely try before you buy, or consider the slightly wider PureFlow.

Sole of Brooks PureConnect after 80 miles

I am a little worried about the PureConnect's durability. The patches of carbon rubber that protect the soft midsole seem like they're thin and sparsely placed, and the lateral toe has no carbon rubber, so if you push off that area of the shoe, you may find yourself wearing a hole in the sole quickly. The lateral toe of my shoe had very significant wear after only 80 miles on the shoe. Here's to hoping they are more durable than they appear, and that Brooks adds more carbon rubber on the Connect 2. While I don't like to use sole wear as my indicator as to how well the midsole is holding up, if the carbon rubber is gone from the sole, the soft midsole is going to get eaten up by the road quickly. It does seem to be more of a performance trainer/racing flat than a general trainer though, so I guess I shouldn't quite expect to get general trainer mileage out of it, and should be happy if I get the same mileage I get out of my T7s.

The other thing I'd like to note is that the PureConnect has next to no mud traction. Now, if I wanted a trail shoe, I would have bought the PureGrit instead, and when I bought this shoe, I was looking for a road shoe primarily for road tempo runs and road and track cruise intervals, so I'm not expecting wonderful mud traction. However, I do sometimes like to run in the dirt on the side of the road, and after it rains, this dirt often turns into mud. I haven't ever had an issue with any of my other road shoes before, but the PureConnect is definitely a little slick (which shouldn't be a surprise when you look at the tread pattern and realize there aren't really edges, just those bubbles). Of course, as long as you stay on the road (which is where this shoe was meant to be used anyway) or on the track, traction is perfectly fine.

So, the big question that everyone is looking for an answer to: as a "minimal" shoe, how does the PureConnect fare? Well, my experience with reduced shoes is limited, but here goes. The PureConnect seems to have softer cushioning and is built off a narrower base than the Saucony Kinvara, though its flexibility is probably similar. Also, it is much softer and less flexible than the Nike Free Run or Nike Free 3.0. And from what I've seen of the New Balance Minimus and Merrell Trail Glove (that is, tried them on in a store and ran around for a couple minutes, so no real test), it is much, much more shoe than either of them. So it's not a shoe for the true minimalist, nor is it anything close to "barefoot," but I think we all knew that as soon as we saw it. What it is is a damn good fast shoe, that's somewhere between a performance trainer and an all-out racing flat as far as performance goes, maybe even a marathon flat to compete with the likes of the Nike Lunaracer. And as for the 4mm heel-toe drop...I have yet to notice it, even though most of my shoes have a much higher drop than that. I guess my calves are weird (to be fair, I ran in spikes for years).

The Brooks PureConnect retails for $90 and is available on Brooks' website, as well as select retailers. It is scheduled for a regular release in January 2012, and at that point, it will be available at many retailers that carry Brooks products. I found sizing to run true to size, though as I stated before, the toebox is very narrow, and some people may want to size half a size up.

Full disclosure: The PureConnect was a personal purchase that I bought myself, so there's nothing really to disclose. The opinions expressed in this review are mine and based on my experience, and do not reflect the opinion of Brooks or anyone else.

Gear Review: New Balance Sure Lace

2011-11-12T20:52:00.000-05:00

Shoe laces are something that should be super simple. All they are is a little piece of fabric rope that keeps the shoe together. It shouldn't be rocket science. Yet so many companies can't get this right. I have complained time and time and time again about laces that just don't stay tied. I've double-knotted, I've tucked the laces into themselves...doesn't matter. The bad laces always seem to come untied at the most inopportune times anyway. Like mile 15 of a marathon when the last thing I plan on doing is stopping and retying them. Obviously something so easily replaceable should never be a deterrent to buying a shoe that you otherwise love (it's like not buying a bicycle because you don't like the saddle...just replace it), but it also does no good if you replace the laces with some other pair of laces that don't stay tied. Enter the New Balance Sure Lace.

The New Balance Sure Lace is a kinked shoe lace that appears to have separate little bubbles in the laces (these are also sometimes referred to as "bubble laces" or "pill laces" because of their shape). Admittedly, the first time I saw these, I was pretty confused, but I fell in love with them quickly (didn't fall in love with that particular pair of shoes, but that's what I get for buying a stability performance trainer and thinking I could use them as a substitute for the Nike Pegasus). These laces work, and while that's one of those simple things that you take for granted if you actually have a decent pair of shoe laces, it's something you appreciate if you've ever had your shoe laces come undone at an inopportune time.

ASICS Piranha SP3 with the New Balance Sure Lace

I've heard of some people using elastic shoe laces because they had problems with keeping their shoes tied. However, the Sure Lace has a big advantage over elastic laces. Elastic laces have some give to them, which means that the upper ends up with more stretch than originally intended. This means that some of the inherent support of the upper is lost. Additionally, it can give your foot more room to move inside the shoe, which could increase the risk of blisters. The Sure Lace suffers from none of these disadvantages. Elastic laces are great for triathletes' racing flats, when they need to get their shoes on super fast during T2, but for everyone else (including triathletes who are just training), go with a real pair of laces.

New Balance Sure Lace

While New Balance was the first company to use the bubble lace shape, a few other companies have followed suit. For example, the Brooks Pure Project laces use a similar design. The bubbles aren't quite as prominent, and there's only kinking on the ends of the laces, but they too seem to stay tied very well (at least I haven't had any issues with them thus far). However, I do not believe you can buy the Brooks laces separately, and these laces are not used on the rest of Brooks' line.

Brooks Pure Project shoe lace

I know this was a really short review, but come on, it's a shoe lace. There's not much to say about it, other than I wanted to give everyone a heads up that if they're going to replace their shoe laces, do it with these.

The New Balance Sure Lace is available in a variety of colors and lengths and can be found at many retailers that carry New Balance Products.

Full disclosure: I paid for these laces, so there's nothing really to disclose. The opinions expressed in this review are mine and based on my experience, and do not reflect the opinions of New Balance or anyone else.

‎Molly Pritz in 2:31:52 for top American at NYCM!!

2011-11-06T12:23:00.000-05:00

Molly Pritz just went 2:31:52 at the New York City Marathon, for 1st American and 12th overall! In her marathon debut no less too.

12 122 Pritz, Molly PA/USA 23 2:31:52 +08:37.12 5:48

Flotrack video after the break.

Picture courtesy of Runner's World

Flotrack post-race video, Molly Pritz Top American in Debut:

Watch more video of ING New York City Marathon 2011 on flotrack.org

She also now has an official Facebook fan page. If you're on Facebook, please add her!

No One Perfect Way to Run

2011-11-03T22:56:00.000-04:00

The latest article to sweep the running world is Christopher McDougall's New York Times article and video on how to run. The article is harmless enough...obviously it's skewed towards McDougall's way of thinking, and like any opinion piece, it only shows one side of the argument, but it doesn't present anything that actually stuck out to me as factually wrong (unlike his book, which has some incorrect details like the assertion that Nike invented the raised heel, when there were actually running shoes with raised heels on the market before Nike was even founded). The video is...odd. McDougall comes off a bit like a car salesman, telling people that there is only one way to run and 85% of people are running "wrong," and then showing people how to do the same barefoot sprint drills that the rest of us have been doing for years, calling it a foolproof method to running the "correct" way. Only lots of people who are running "wrong" are pretty fast...and if someone has gotten themselves to the elite level running "wrong," are they really wrong?

Interestingly enough, this article appeared on the same day that elite runner Kim Smith, with her bouncy, anything but textbook-perfect stride (but when you're that fast, who the heck cares how bouncy you run?), had her interview posted on Running Times.

“I never realized what I look like until I saw pictures. I tend to run up on my toes a little too much and kind of bounce around a bit,” she admits. “But it’s just what’s natural for me. I’ve been doing it this way for so long, I’m not going to change it – I think it would be really hard, and I might run worse, or get hurt. I don’t get the concept of changing your form just so it looks better. Ray [Treacy, her coach at Providence College and as a professional] figures, ‘if it’s not broken, leave well enough alone’.”

Whoa. Well, that's kind of the opposite of what McDougall is saying. McDougall on the other hand, pushes to find the "best" way to run, which is, as he describes, "not the fastest, necessarily, but the best: an injury-proof, evolution-tested way to place one foot on the ground and pick it up before the other comes down." Except "not the fastest" probably won't help Smith this weekend in NYC, and I'd argue that if it's not the fastest, it's certainly not the best. I'd also argue that there is no "injury-proof" way to run, and even if you're running with a "perfect" stride, if you're pushing the limits and skirting that edge the way every competitive runner whose #1 priority is getting faster does, eventually you're going to mess up and step over that line and get hurt. But I digress.

So, you all know that I'm a biomechanics nerd. What you probably don't know is where I actually lie on this whole barefoot thing, because I've tried to keep that out of my posts up to this point. Oh sure, I've pointed out that I don't think that messing with form is a viable substitute for hard training if you're serious about running faster. And I still don't think that playing with your form is a more effective way to run faster than training hard. No way in hell. But that doesn't really say where my point of view lies on the whole perfect form thing...it just says that I'm more of a fan of hard work than form changes. Really, as far as "perfect form" goes, my view is actually kind of close to what this guy says.

Yeah, Pete Larson. The RunBlogger. Seriously. You surprised? Thought so...I kind of was too when I realized I was reading his stuff and agreeing with a lot of what he was saying.

Believe it or not, I actually have a lot of respect for Larson and what he's writing. I don't agree with all of it, but I do agree with more than you'd probably think. If you read Larson's early stuff, he seems to start out more on the barefoot side than he is now. He placed a lot of emphasis on the midfoot strike, for example. And while he's still standing on the minimalist side of center, he's more centered than he has been in the past. (Or maybe he's always stood in the center, but his writing emphasis has changed, or maybe just my point of view reading his stuff has changed, or maybe I have Larson completely confused with another minimalist blogger in which case I apologize to Larson). When I look at my own stuff, I definitely started out as your typical physical therapy student, pointing out factors that contribute to pronation and writing a satire piece that was originally intended to poke fun at one of my minimalist friends. Now, don't get me wrong, it's not that I completely disagree with I've written in the past, because the things I talk about definitely do contribute to things like overpronation and supination. And I still don't think that everyone is able to go minimal (more on that later). However, my own view has moved a bit more to the center (albeit the opposite side of center from Larson), and I am now thinking that the exact same factor that prevents everyone from benefiting from a stride change to whatever McDougall's "perfect stride" is also prevents everyone from fitting perfectly into the current stability-pronation paradigm. That factor? Variability. If you want to read Larson's "opposite side of center from me" post on variability, it's right here. So keep that word in mind for me. Variability.

People are different. We aren't all built the same. Our bones are shaped differently, our ligaments are of different laxity, and we're of different weights and body compositions. Some of us are genetically predisposed to have big powerful glutes and dinky calves, while others of us have beautiful calves but can't seem to build a butt no matter what we do. Some of us are flexible beyond belief, while others of us have to stretch religiously to have anywhere near functional hip extension. You don't need to do a study to observe that. Heck, you don't even need to go to an anatomy class's cadaver lab (though I won't lie, that makes it really obvious). All you have to do is look at people. So knowing that different strides affect your body in different ways (one example being that heelstriking tends to place a greater percentage of stress on your upper legs, while midfoot striking shifts some of the stress to your lower legs, and forefoot striking shifts even more of the stress to your lower legs), how could one single stride be perfect for everyone? The answer is it can't. Look at this:

Three very different strides. Caroline Kilel (closest to screen) is forefoot striking and carrying her arms super high. Sharon Cherop (behind Kilel) is midfoot striking and carrying her arms a bit lower. Desi Davila (Hansons singlet) has her arms the lowest and is heelstriking. Yet all three of these women are incredibly fast. (And please don't post any comments about how Davila's stride is "making your knees hurt" or "her heelstriking is why she's behind." There's enough of that in the YouTube comments and it's a pet peeve of mine. And YouTube guy who posted that heelstriking Davila is behind the Africans...Davila beat Cherop, along with the rest of the field! That means she beat all of the midfoot strikers, and only lost to one forefoot striker. So there). If there is only one perfect way to run, then two of these women must be wrong. In which case...I wish I ran as wrong as them!

So if there's more than one right way to run, how do you figure out what the best stride is for you? I believe that your body is smarter than your brain, and your body will naturally and automatically figure out its most efficient stride with training. When you're running enough, and doing hard enough workouts, your body has no choice but to figure out what's the most efficient way to run. It has no choice but to be efficient, so it needs to figure out the best way to run for your personal biomechanics. You don't need magic shoes to do this. Oh sure, shoe companies that want to make money will tell you that you need certain shoes to run with good form, but you don't (you can't villainize traditional shoe companies for wanting to make money but then assume minimal shoe companies are different. I hear that argument all the time and it doesn't work. A company is a company and they all want to make money, which is fine by me because if they don't make money they can't make shoes that I like). All you need is a good work ethic and a determination to put in the work! I often hear the argument that cavemen ran barefoot. But at the same time, I highly doubt they were saying to each other "Yeah man, Grok said I was heelstriking on the soft grassy part of the plain today, so I'm working on moving to a midfoot strike." They were running whatever way their body figured out naturally, trusting their body to figure out how to run down prey while using the least oxygen and burning the least amount of precious calories (aka the most efficiently). And no, you can't heelstrike on pavement. Believe it or not, I have done a little bit of barefoot running before, and on pavement, I change my stride to a forefoot strike immediately (and I also get way slower, but I digress). But you can heelstrike barefoot on soft grass, so God only knows how cavemen were actually running, other than with a natural stride (that is, the stride that came naturally to them, not a stride that they forced because someone told them it was "natural"). So if you ask me how to develop an efficient stride, I'd probably prescribe speed development work: short, fast intervals with full-recovery. Go ahead and try to consistently work speed development workouts into your training and not develop a stride that's efficient for your personal kinetic chain...not happening! If you're still convinced your form is actually bad for some reason, Greg McMillan's Running Times article has some good advice. Focusing on running tall is, in my opinion, a safer and more effective way of fixing form problems than trying to alter the way your foot hits the ground.

Now the shoes thing. Again, the key word here is variability. I don't believe that orthotics are evil. I think they're overdiagnosed, but they're no more evil than the very minimalist shoes that are no more than a thin piece of rubber with a thin upper. I think Vibrams are a little bit of a fad, that there's nothing special about separated toes, and that a very thin-soled minimalist shoe will function the same, but I don't think they're evil either. And really, since both orthotics and Vibrams have gotten people out the door running healthy (and maybe even fast!), doesn't that make them both good, at least for those people? The important part is getting the right shoe on the right person. Not everyone can transition to minimalism. There are factors out of our control that all the stretching and strengthening in the world won't change. On the other hand, not everyone with "dysfunction" needs orthotics. Most of the time it's something training related that needs to be changed, sometimes strengthening and stretching can fix it, and yes, sometimes a change in shoe can help.

And then there's something else that can be chalked up to variability: how much pronation is ideal. Check out this picture:

The shoe in that picture is the Reebok RacerZ:

Reebok RacerZ: neutral lightweight 5.0 oz flat with very little structure or stability to it. Source

I purposely cropped the head so you couldn't tell who it is. Those red lines show what appears to be overpronation and the hip on the swing leg dropping quite a bit during stance phase. If I had you play PT, what would you do with this runner? A year ago, I would have put her in stability shoes. Oh, wait...except that's Kim Smith. Oops. To be fair, I have no idea what kind of shoes she trains in, and she may very well be wearing a stability or motion control shoe for the bulk of her mileage. I am definitely aware of elites who wear stability shoes, so it's not outside the realm of possibility. But she's racing marathons in flats, which means she's probably also doing at least some of her speedwork in flats, so she's obviously okay with some overpronation. Yet other people honestly do better in a stability shoe that controls their overpronation. And then one of the studies I read ended up with neutral runners doing best in stability shoes and overpronators doing best in neutral shoes. Well, crap. Which brings me to the next problem: different people do better with different kinds of shoes to control their different levels of pronation. If you're already running happy and healthy in some pair of shoes, you're doing something right. No need to change because Chris McDougall or someone in a store or your doctor or the shiny advertisement or anyone else tells you to. You're already in the right shoe for your personal biomechanics. And if you're just starting out and have no idea what kind of shoes to wear? I'd still suggest you start with a gait analysis, because I think it's a good starting point, but no way is it a be-all end-all.

So where does this leave us? With a lot more questions, unfortunately, but with one big answer. It's that key word again: variability. We're all different. We shouldn't all try to run with the same stride, and we won't all do best in the same shoe, whether that's a minimalist shoe or a shoe that gives us textbook perfect pronation control.

Oh, and one more thing. McDougall's 100-Ups? Dude, if he wanted to learn about them, all he needed to do was go observe just about any NCAA team! We've been doing barefoot sprint drills for years! Only we called this particular one high knees because it's more descriptive than 100-Ups. I wonder what he'd think of our other drills.

New Design and Countdown to NYCM

2011-10-31T21:06:00.001-04:00

Yes, you are at the right blog. Well, you're at the right blog if you're looking for that blog with all the shoe reviews that used to have a picture of 2006 Pre-Nats in the background.

5 days until the Freshman Class (Molly Pritz, Lauren Fleshman, Bobby Curtis, and Ed Moran) make their marathon debut at the New York City Marathon. Don't miss it.
Elite men's field: http://www.nycmarathon.org/pro_men.htm
Elite women's field: http://www.nycmarathon.org/pro_women.htm

That is all.

Departure from the Norm...Seven Random Facts

2011-10-29T23:09:00.000-04:00

I do a lot of serious posts, and not nearly enough "fun" posts. So I decided it's time for a fun post. Leah at Chasing Atalanta just tagged me to write a Seven Random Facts about myself post. Thanks for the link, Leah! She herself was tagged with a Versatile Blogger Award (well deserved), but my blog is not very versatile, so I'm not sure that part was actually intended for me. Since all my readers actually know about me are my shoe preferences, here's a chance to get to know me a little better. Plus maybe it'll help me make this blog more versatile and/or get me more internet friends and readers.

1) Since you all know me as a shoe geek, I may as well start with that. For someone who has referred to herself as the Carrie Bradshaw of running shoes, I actually suck at figuring out what shoes I'll like before putting significant miles on them. For example, I hated my now-beloved Brooks T Racer when I first bought them (T5 waaay back in 2007), and only bought them because I needed a road flat and they were the only ones the store had that fit me. They felt bulky, heavy, slow, squishy, and had a high chunky heel compared to my spikes. A few months later, I bought the Nike Zoom Katana Racer and liked them much more. Fast forward about a year: I was in love with the T Racer, and the Katana was sitting in my closet.

This is just what I brought to school. If I brought everything, I'd need a closet like Carrie's (right)

2) Another random shoe fact about me: for two of my four high school XC seasons (didn't run track until college), I didn't even run in real running shoes. Freshman year I ran in a pair of Boscov's Nikes, and junior year I wore the Nike Air Kukini. I was the only person at State who didn't have spikes...and had a pair of fashion shoes held on with a rubber spiderweb instead. I also wore the Nike Pegasus exclusively (plus spikes/flats for racing) from senior year of high school, all through college, and during most of my time in Boulder, and I'd put between 800-1200 miles on each pair before retiring them. So shoes might not matter as much as I like to pretend they do (at least for some people...variability among people is still king).

Nike Air Kukini. Mine were cooler and had black and yellow lightning bolts.

3) I'm a huge nerd. I've been a gamer since I was six, and had to completely forbid myself from playing MMORPGs after I got into one in college and ended up doing nothing that semester but running and gaming. I'm currently playing Fallout. In addition to games, I'm kind of a comic fan too. I've drawn some comic stuff, and I just dressed up as Supergirl for Halloween, though I haven't actually read a ton of comic books myself.

This year's Halloween costume, and one of my sketches for comparison. No way was I buying boots, and I didn't have a skirt that worked, so red shorts and red T6s will have to do.

4) I graduated with a B.S. in Computer Science Engineering (which is Bucknell's fancy way of saying "computer science with some electrical engineering mixed in") and got a job in Boulder, CO as a software engineer. While out there, I met elite runner turned physical therapist Mark Plaatjes, who was AWESOME and probably the best physical therapist I have encountered thus far. (If you're wondering how I met him, here's some advice: if you're doing 5K training, and your friends ask you to do an ultramarathon with them, tell them NO, because you will break).

Mark Plaatjes is awesome.

5) I am obsessed with cereal. I could eat cereal every day for every meal and be perfectly happy. I actually have to go and buy it when I want it, because if it's sitting in my house, I'll eat the entire box in one sitting as a snack, so I end up at the grocery store a lot. I hate fruity cereal (Fruity Pebbles, Froot Loops, etc), but anything else is fair game. My favorite is a toss-up between Reese's Puffs and Kashi Go Lean, depending on if I want something sugary or healthy. I usually eat it dry, straight from the box. Hot cereal is good too, and I eat a ton of oatmeal, mainly because it's cheaper than cold cereal.

Whoever thought to combine peanut butter and cereal was a genius.

6) Along with running, I love riding my mountain bike. I have a road bike too, because prior to buying that bike I used my mountain bike for 50 mile road rides and it sucked, but I ride that primarily for cross-training, whereas I mountain bike for the joy of it. Unfortunately, I tend to be accident-prone, and I've ruptured my spleen in a mountain bike wreck, sprained my wrist the third time I ever rode my BMX bike, and have ~~been hit by a car~~ taken out the side mirror on some guy's SUV (to be fair, I got away pretty unscathed that third time). I snowboard too, but that's not nearly as much fun as running and biking.

Braaap!

7) 99% of my music playlist is made up of metal and punk. My college boyfriend got me into metal, though I honestly can't remember how I started listening to punk. I have a pre-race pump-up mix that I've had since sophomore year of college that's made up of bands like Metallica, Slayer, Social Distortion, Avenged Sevenfold, and Bad Religion. And the first song I learned to play on my guitar was "Master of Puppets" (rhythm part, I suck way too much to attempt Kirk's solo), and it's still one of the few songs that sounds halfway decent. However, I do have some crappy pop music on my iPod for bike trainer sessions. 3OH!3, Katy Perry, and Kesha have a more prominent driving bass beat than my normal stuff (okay FINE, and I actually kind of like 3OH!3).

Now I'm supposed to tag twelve people. I don't even think I know twelve people who blog and who I think might see this post. Most of my views are Google searches rather than actual followers, which isn't helpful for this type of post. Oh well, here are six because that's all Leah tagged:

Julie at 2. Travels B. An Account of One's Journeys
Mike at 12 Steps Forward
Matt at Faster than a Turtle
Luke at Dream in Vertical
Ken at Read/Write/Run
Laura at Laura Runs a Latte

Quick update and new links

2011-10-27T19:39:00.000-04:00

I just noticed that the #1 search term leading people to my site this week has been "Kara Goucher." (In the past, it's almost always been something related to Brooks). So, in an attempt to send people where they want to go, go here if you're looking for my review of Goucher's book, here if you're looking for Goucher's Competitor.com blog, and if you're looking for confirmation that she has left Alberto Salazar and the Oregon Project for Jerry Schumacher and OTC Elite, no need to go anywhere, because I'll confirm it right here. I also got really excited that maybe I was one of the top results in a Google search for Kara Goucher! No dice...I don't know how people are getting here.

In other news, I've updated my links page with a couple of the other blogs that have caught my eye recently.

Review of The Jade Rabbit at Chasing Atalanta

2011-10-23T23:43:00.002-04:00

Friend of a friend and fellow blogger Leah at Chasing Atalanta has just posted a review of Mark Matthews' book The Jade Rabbit. I haven't read it, so I'll let Leah describe it for you, but it certainly looks interesting based on her review. Anyway, she's hosting a contest right now, so along with getting myself an entry into the contest, I wanted to give my readers a heads up so they can head over there and enter themselves too. Plus she has some cool entries detailing her own running experience out in Michigan (including getting proposed to at the end of a half marathon), so if you're looking for another running blog to read, you should consider adding Chasing Atalanta to your list. You can read her review here.

Gear Review: La Sportiva Crosslite

2011-10-22T15:45:00.002-04:00

When I was still living in Boulder (before grad school took over my life), once a week I would meet the Boulder Trail Runners for a trail tempo run. It was a pretty quick bunch, and there were a few very good regional caliber (and perhaps even national caliber...I'm really not familiar with the Who's Who of American trail running, and the good trail runners smoked me as soon as we got to a technical trail section) runners. One thing I noticed was that the most popular shoe was the La Sportiva Crosslite. At the time, I was wearing the New Balance 790, a lightweight trail racing flat that has since been replaced by the New Balance MR101, but I couldn't help but be at least a little curious about the shoe that all the fast guys and girls were wearing (peer pressure!). When I got the opportunity to try this shoe, I jumped on it! Continuing the trend of giving full reviews to shoes mentioned in this post, here's the La Sportiva Crosslite.

Again, before I get down to reviewing, I'd like to apologize for the iPhone camera photos. Hopefully I'll have my computer back by the time I review my next shoe.

The La Sportiva Crosslite is La Sportiva's trail racing flat, designed to be appropriate for the neutral runner. It weighs in at 10.7oz for a men's size 9 and has a 21mm heel and 11mm forefoot for a 10mm heel-toe differential (this does not include the lugs, which are approximately 5mm tall). The Crosslite is described on Running Warehouse as such:

La Sportiva's Crosslite is a minimum featured shoe engineered for the neutral or supinating runner. This low-profile trail shoe has an integrated external scree guard to protect against debris. The Crosslite has a curved shape.
CUSHIONING

MEMlex EVA is a full length midsole engineered for moderate cushioning.
TrailShock is located in the heel and is a dual density EVA foam designed for shock absorption and stability.
MIDSOLE

MEMIex EVA is a full length midsole engineered for moderate cushioning.
Composite Shank is embedded in the midsole is a 2.5mm long shank designed for torsional stability.
UPPER

Air Mesh encompasses the majority of the upper and is breathable to help keep the foot cool.
Scree Guard covers most of the upper and is an external guard to keep debris out of the shoe.
Traditional Sockliner
Strobel Last is full length and is designed for comfort.
OUTSOLE

FriXion AT is a full length lightweight and resilient outsole that is engineered for wear resistance.
V-Groove Lugs are spaced throughout the outsole and is designed for enhanced cushioning and traction.
Impact Brake System is a lugged system designed to lessen impact by 20% and increase uphill/downhill traction.

Note: This shoe is not to be confused with the La Sportiva Crosslite 2.0, which is a stability trail racer. The 2.0 is not the "new" version of the Crosslite. They are on the market simultaneously and designed for different types of runners.

The La Sportiva Crosslite doesn't have very much in the way of forefoot flexibility.

Nor lateral flexibility for that matter.

The first thing that I noticed upon putting on this shoe is that it's stiff and not very flexible. Maybe it's just the roadie in me and the fact that other than the NB790 (which was pretty much a road shoe that was colored brown to look like a trail shoe), it was the first and only trail shoe I've ever worn, but it just didn't feel like what I expected based on its description as a "low profile neutral lightweight shoe," as the description on the La Sportiva website states. Compared to any one of my other (admittedly road-oriented) shoes, there's not a whole lot of forefoot or lateral flexibility here. However, compared to most trail shoes, this may very well be par for the course, at least if the Brooks Ghost GTX that I just played with is any indication (the Ghost GTX is far stiffer than the regular Ghost).

The La Sportiva Crosslite is a fairly firm shoe, that doesn't have a lot of soft cushioning underfoot. This part I did expect, given its pedigree as a racing flat. Additionally, less cushioning is necessary since trails are generally more forgiving than asphalt. It also has a fairly solid heel counter. I actually feel that due to these features and lack of lateral flexibility, not only will this shoe work for neutral runners (which is who it was designed for), but it may also work for mild to moderate overpronators, depending on when their overpronation occurs, even though it lacks any sort of posting normally used by stability shoes. La Sportiva also makes the Crosslite 2.0, which was mentioned above. The Crosslite 2.0 is a more stable shoe specifically designed for overpronators, just in case you're a midfoot striking overpronator who finds the rearfoot control offered by the heel counter doesn't help you, or you find that the inherent stability isn't enough support.

The La Sportiva Crosslite has a firm heel counter.

At 10.7oz for a men's size 9, the Crosslite also doesn't feel very light for a racing flat. Again though, I may just be spoiled by road flats, since trail trainers are also significantly heavier than road trainers. I honestly don't care about weight in my training shoes, and think this is a perfectly acceptable weight for a trainer (it's actually pretty light for a general training shoe), but personally I like something a little lighter for racing. To be fair, the was introduced way before any of the new minimal trail shoes hit the market, and at the time, was actually very lightweight for a trail shoe. And I'll wager a guess that it probably has way better traction than any of the minimal trail shoes, but I can't say that for sure until I try those out.

The Crosslite is built off of a pretty universally curved last, which makes sense since it seems to be designed for long trail races, and I doubt many people want a super aggressively curved last for trail marathons or ultramarathons. It also seems to have a fairly narrow forefoot.

The La Sportiva Crosslite has large lugs for excellent traction in gnarly conditions.

Where this shoe really shines is in bad conditions. The huge lugs make it a fantastic mud or snow shoe. While there are obviously some conditions where no shoe can help you (sheets of solid ice, that gross thick clay mud, etc), it's traction is unmatched in most gnarly conditions. On muddy trail runs where every other shoe I own, including the NB790 and probably even my spikes, would send me sliding around, the Crosslite bites into the mud and keeps me on my feet. Case in point: not that long ago, two of my friends, Julie and Luke, did a crazy muddy ultra. Luke wore the Crosslite and did very well. Julie wore Vibram Five Fingers and said she did nothing but slide around in the mud. And the traction isn't limited to mud either. When the roads are slick with a mixture of slushy snow and ice and the plow hasn't come through yet (or when the plow does a bad job), the Crosslite is nearly as sure-footed as my road shoes are on pavement. While the lugs are too tall to be a smooth ride on asphalt, I'll deal with them for a run that's half-plowed and half-gnar if it means not sliding around during the gnar parts.

Additionally, the Scree Guard mini-gaiter over the laces keeps snow out of my shoes. It also keeps some out some of the mud, but I don't care nearly as much about that since mud doesn't make my feet freeze the way snow does. These shoes aren't Gore-Tex, but they do a very good job of keeping my feet relatively warm and dry, or at least as dry as I could hope for in really nasty conditions, and much better than your typical mesh-filled running shoe. On the flip side, the Scree Guard makes loosening the laces impossible, and I'm not entirely sure what you'd do if you broke a lace (which I have not done). And speaking of the laces, these laces aren't very good at staying tied, and I can't even figure out how to replace them. I feel like I've done so much complaining about laces lately. Seriously, everyone should adopt the New Balance Sure Lace. Brooks just put something similar on their Pure Project...everyone else should follow suit too.

The La Sportiva Crosslite has a Scree Guard to keep muck out of your shoe. You can also see the height of the lugs again in this picture.

All in all, this is a very purpose-built shoe for a very specific use. If you do a lot of your running on muddy trails, or if you live somewhere where you get a lot of snow and they never plow the roads, this is your shoe, as long as you have something else for any forays you may make onto the roads. Personally, it's a little stiff for me, and I prefer my cushioning a little softer. It also doesn't really fit into my training very well, seeing as most of my running is done on the roads, and it really only gets used when the city's snowplow either does a really bad job or hasn't come through yet. However, you have to remember that I'm not really the intended audience for this shoe, and the intended audience (like my trail running buddies from Boulder) love it for its intended purpose.

The La Sportiva Crosslite retails for $95 and retailers can be located on the La Sportiva website. It runs true to size, but sizing is based on the European scale, so you'll need to convert your size. Sizing is unisex, so women should size 1.5 sizes down before converting. As stated previously, it runs a little on the narrow side, so if you have a wider foot, you probably want to try before you buy.

Full disclosure: I won these shoes at a race that was sponsored by La Sportiva. The opinions expressed in this view are mine and based on my experience, and do not reflect the opinions of La Sportiva or anyone else.

Gear Review: Nike Zoom Streak 3

2011-10-16T18:10:00.001-04:00

In the past, I've worn ultra lightweight flats for half-marathons and shorter races. However, when I signed up to do a marathon, I decided that the 3.9oz Adizero PR just wasn't going to cut it. Whatever time I saved from using a lighter shoe would be negated tenfold by foot fatigue. I needed a little bit more shoe underneath me. I briefly considered the Brooks T6, but eventually decided something with a slightly less aggressively curved last might be a better idea. I did a whole bunch of searching and trying on various shoes, and eventually ended up with the Nike Zoom Streak 3 (not to be confused with the Nike Zoom Streak XC 3). The Streak 3 is another shoe that I've mentioned in the past, but felt it was deserving of a full review.

Before we actually get to the meat of the review, I want to apologize for the poor picture quality. My computer decided to die last week, and somehow that led to me using my phone to take pictures.

Look at that photo from the 2011 Boston Marathon and tell me what you see. As far as shoes go, it looks like Christmas, because there's a lot of red and green in that picture. The green shoes are the Adidas Adizero Adios, and the red shoes are the Nike Streak 3. While it can be argued that this simply means Nike and Adidas sponsor a lot of top athletes, it also needs to be remembered that Nike and Adidas have two of the most extensive lines of flats. With Nike offering the Lunaracer, LunarSpider R2, Mayfly, Streak XC 3, and Streak 3, and Adidas offering the Ace, Adios, Feather, Rocket, and possibly Pro (is that still around?), neither company has any lack of variety in their line, and more than one shoe in each line is suitable for the marathon. Yet everyone seems to choose the Adios and Streak 3. What is it about the Streak 3 that makes it such a popular marathon shoe?

The Streak 3 is described as follows:

The Streak 3 is a minimum feature, minimum neutral shoe designed for racing. It is built with a curved shape.
CUSHIONING

Zoom Air is located in the heel and is a low-profile air unit with encapsulated tensile fabric for responsive cushioning.
MIDSOLE
Cushlon LT is a full-length midsole foam that delivers plush, resilient cushioning.
TPU Shank is located at the bottom of the midfoot and is a thermoplastic unit designed to improve heel to toe transition.
UPPER
Open Mesh is a lightweight, one-piece construction engineered for breathability and water drainage.
Microfiber Synthetic overlays are internally located in the forefoot to further lock down the upper for a snug fit.
Slip Lasting involves wrapping and stitching the upper in a bootie-like shape before it is glued to the midsole to increase flexibility and decrease weight.
OUTSOLE
BRS 1000 carbon rubber is located along the heel for durability.
Duralon blown rubber is located in the forefoot under the metatarsal head area for improved cushioning.

Hello, curved last! You can also sort of see the small thermoplastic shank in the arch.

The Streak 3 is the spiritual successor to the Nike Zoom Marathoner (~~there was no Streak 1 or 2, though the Streak 3 was introduced when the Streak XC 2 was on the market~~ EDIT: I have just been informed that there was a Streak 1 and 2 a while ago, not just the Streak XC and XC 2). At 6.7oz for a men's size 9, the Streak 3 is light for a marathon flat, weighing less than the Adidas Adizero Adios, ASICS Gel Hyper Speed, Brooks Green Silence, Mizuno Wave Ronin, and New Balance MR1400. It has a breathable mesh upper and a relatively responsive ride, much moreso than its softer and mushier counterpart, the Lunaracer. According to Running Warehouse, it has a 28mm heel and 18mm toe for a 10mm heel-toe differential. Like many flats, it's relatively narrow and hugs the foot, though the toebox is roomier than that of the T7 (since I tend to always use that flat for comparison). I actually found the upper baggy in the toebox area, but my feet are pretty narrow. On the other hand, the heel cup is narrower and keeps my foot in place well.

The Streak 3 has a surprisingly curved last for a marathon flat. It's not curved to the extent of the T7, but I was expecting something a lot straighter before I actually saw the shoe. It does give it a pretty fast feeling though.

The Streak 3 offers a tiny bit of lateral stiffness for support. There is a very thin plastic shank across the arch to offer a little bit of inherent stability and aid with a faster transition. However, that's about it as far as support goes, and most overpronators will probably want a little more shoe underneath them for a marathon (though this may be a good option for them for 5K and shorter races). It's probably important to decide whether you want a flat for a marathon too, and part of this is dependent on how long you plan on being out there, but that's a subject for another post. Additionally, the Streak 3 has no real heel counter, and therefore does not offer rearfoot support in that form. It doesn't have the absolute most flexible forefoot of shoes that I've worn, but still feels more than flexible enough while running.

Less lateral flexibility than some of the real minimal 5K-10K flats, but more than adequate for most people's purposes.

The Streak 3 doesn't really have a heel counter at all.

I don't know why all of my flats looks like they flex in weird places when I bend them like this. They flex normally when being used the way they're supposed to though.

These shoes are durable! The Streak 3 made it through my entire marathon training segment, where I used them for every single one of my speedworkouts (usually twice per week, ranging from as short as 3 miles on the track to over 10 miles on the roads...yes, I should have done further than that at marathon pace, but I had no clue how to train for a marathon), as well as the marathon itself, and they show virtually no signs of wear, other than being dirty. There's very little outsole wear, and the midsole cushioning is every bit as good as when I got them. I'd expect them to make it through another training cycle, at an absolute minimum.

The Zoom Air unit in the heel makes this shoe suitable for heelstrikers, but it also seems to work very well for midfoot and forefoot strikers, as evidenced by the many of the slow motion videos I've watched. Honestly, I don't believe it favors either type of runner, and your footstrike shouldn't be used to determine whether or not this particular shoe will work for you.

Traction is very good both on pavement, wet pavement, and on dirt roads. It's not a great mud shoe, but then again, it wasn't really intended to be.

I'm torn on the upper. It's super breathable and my feet definitely do not overheat, but it's not quite as comfortable as the softer (though less breathable) mesh that is used on some of my other shoes. It's not quite as glove-like as some of my other shoes, and is a little baggy in the forefoot (but again, this is partially because I have narrow woman feet and it's a unisex shoe). I did not have any issues with the upper and not wearing socks for the marathon though. I did end up with some blisters on the soles of my feet, but that's probably because I was stupid and decided not to wear socks for a marathon in 85 degree weather, even after seeing Brian Sell's video of him post-marathon with his blood-soaked shoes. Duh. To be fair, my shoes were not nearly as gnarly as his. Also, the upper (as well as the cushioning) do a very good job of draining and don't retain very much water, a definite plus on rainy days, as well as on hot days when you're sweating a lot or dumping water on yourself, since they don't add tons of weight from being waterlogged, and the water that is there dries pretty quickly.

These laces are terrible. If you do decide to get this shoe, replace the laces. I double knotted them and tucked them into the laces further towards the toe, and they still came untied somewhere around mile 15. I had some issues with this during workouts too, but thought the tucking the ends into the part where the laces cross fixed it. Apparently not. However, props to the shoe for not actually loosening much, and between the heel cup hugging my foot and the laces only loosening slightly, the Streak 3 did a good job of staying on my foot for the next 11+ miles, despite being untied.

The Streak 3 is a great shoe for the fast, biomechanically efficient marathoner, as well as for a neutral or even mild-overpronator looking for a short distance shoe with a little more substance to it. Overpronators and supinators looking for a marathon shoe may want to look for something with more support or more cushioning (respectively), and runners who are going to be out on the marathon course for a longer time may want a little more shoe underfoot to help ward off foot fatigue.

The Nike Zoom Streak 3 retails for $85 and can be purchased on the Nike Store website, as well as other select dealers and websites carrying Nike running shoes and flats. Sizing is unisex, and they seem to run large, so expect to order between a half and a full size smaller than you usually wear.

Full disclosure: I bought the Streak 3 myself, so there is nothing to disclose. The opinions expressed in this review are mine and based on my experience, and do not reflect the opinions of Nike or anyone else.

Gear Review: ASICS Piranha SP 3

2011-10-04T22:52:00.002-04:00

One of the coolest pairs of flats I've worn was the Adidas Adizero PR. At 3.9oz, they were super lightweight, incredibly low slung and close to the ground, and fit my foot like a glove. Unfortunately, Adidas is constantly revamping its Adizero line, and they were discontinued a few years ago. However, ASICS and Mizuno have since introduced ultralight flats, namely the Piranha and Wave Universe (There may be a few reduced shoes marketed as minimal that would also fall into this category, but I unfortunately have no idea what they are and therefore can't throw any names out for you. Maybe the Somnio Nada? I don't know). The Piranha is currently on its third iteration, the SP 3. When my PRs finally gave up the ghost, I decided it was time to look for another ultra-lightweight to replace them. When I was buying these (which was admittedly quite a while ago), only the Piranha was available in small sizes, so that made the decision as to which flat to buy very easy for me. I mentioned this shoe in the past, but never really gave it a full review. Well, seeing as that "review" was really more of an overview, here's the dirt on the Piranha.

Asics makes a few racing flats, including the Piranha, Hyper Speed, Tarther, and DS Racer, and the Piranha is the lightest and most minimal of the bunch by far, weighing in at a scant 4.6oz for a men's size 9. That's nearly two ounces lighter than the Brooks T7, which if you follow this blog, you're sure to have heard me rave about (I'll be using the T7 for comparison in this review because I'm familiar with it, and it's convenient because it's sitting next to me). According to Running Warehouse, it has a 5mm heel-toe differential, with a 21mm heel and 16mm forefoot. However, keep in mind that this is measured with the insole (which is non-removable), so it actually feels quite a bit lower than that. It is described by ASICS as such:

At 4.6 oz, this featherweight dynamo enhances road feel while providing a surprising amount of platform support and protection. The Piranha SP® 3 features slip lasting for flexibility, while the Solyte® midsole absorbs shock and innovative outsole material maximizes traction.

Racing Outsole
Maximizes traction while minimizing weight.
Solyte® Midsole Material
A lighter weight midsole compound than ASICS’ standard EVA and SpEVA®. Also features enhanced cushioning and durability.
Slip Lasting
For lightweight and flexibility. Upper is wrapped and stitched before it is glued to the midsole.
Ecsaine Collar Lining
Creates comfortable, soft fit and allows sockless option.
DuoSole® Outsole
Reduces weight and enhances flexibility while maintaining traction and durability.

The Piranha has a cool understated look. It's not super flashy, and calls to mind the classic flats that were worn in the '70s. In addition to its appearance, the simplicity of the flat itself is also somewhat of a throwback, though it does utilize modern materials to achieve its incredibly light weight.

The Piranha redefines low-slung racer. For comparison, Piranha is on the left, T7 is on the right. No camera tricks involved.

The first thing you'll notice when you slip on the Piranha is that they are light. Like, seriously Light with a capital L. I know I wore the PR before this, and the PR was even lighter, but it still always surprises me when I put on a shoe that weighs this little. They are also extremely responsive. Their cushioning may be the tiniest bit softer than the PR (which again, assumes you've worn that shoe), but they are still much more responsive than anything else I've ever worn. The midsole is very thin, which also means you get a ton of road feel. The Piranha somehow makes many of my other flats feel like a trainer. All this goes towards making the Piranha feel fast. There is no way you can put on this shoe and not feel fast (unless you're out of shape, in which case you'll probably need more than shoes to make you feel fast). It almost feels like a spike...probably as close as you'll get with a road flat anyway.

Another thing you'll notice is that the Piranha has very little in the way of support. It has a tiny bit of a heel counter, where some blown rubber wraps around you heel, but even that is super flexible and doesn't do much to support your foot. If you try to twist it in your hand, it feels like there's some lateral stability, but that goes away the minute you actually put it on your foot. There are some overlays on the side of the shoe for the logo, but they don't do anything at all for support. This shoe is designed for the biomechanically efficient runner, and even then, is most likely best used as a 5K-10K flat. Possibly half-marathon, but keep in mind that even Ryan Hall and Deena Kastor use custom versions of the Hyperspeed for the marathon, since the Hyperspeed will offer a tiny bit more support and cushioning to help stave off foot fatigue. I've actually found I overpronate more in these shoes than in any of my other flats (including the radically curved and softer T7, as well as the ultralight and minimal PR). The physical therapy student in me can't figure that one out and wants to say that it's all in my head, but in reality, not everything is explainable with our current knowledge, so these end up being a short track interval and 5K shoe for me (whereas I was fine in even the PR for a half-marathon).

What heel counter?

As I stated before, these shoes are more flexible than they look. When you first pick them up and try to twist them around, the sole doesn't feel like it has a lot of give to it. Not so when you wear it. The thin midsole makes for an incredibly flexible shoe. The forefoot feels the tiniest bit less flexible than the PR and T7 when you're walking around, but I challenge you to actually notice that when you're actually running.

You can't tell from this picture, but the Piranha a lot of lateral flexibility.

In your hands, the Piranha looks like they flex in a weird spot. This is not a problem when running in them.

The last is curved, but not extremely so. Along with giving the Piranha a universal fit that will work for many runners, this also has the interesting side effect of making it able to accept some orthotics. Since the insole is non-removable, this will only work if you have a low volume foot, so try it on before you buy if you fall into this category. While many people may question why anyone would put an orthotic in a racing flat, the Piranha would give orthotic wearers a very flexible and lightweight option for racing (assuming they were wearing the type of orthotic that also has some support built in).

While Asics description states that the Piranha has a lining that makes it conducive for wearing without socks, I've found that the tongue and lace area is kind of weird feeling, and it's the one pair of flats that I own that I honestly would rather wear with socks (I generally race and do speedwork sockless). There are also quite a few overlays on the upper if overlays tend to bother you, but to be honest, I haven't noticed them even when sockless. The biggest thing about the fit that bothers me is that the toebox seems weirdly baggy. However, keep in mind that I'm a woman with narrow women feet so you may not have this problem. The heel cup, on the other hand, is great and really hugs my foot nicely.

As far as durability goes, I really am not sure what to say. The blown foam on the side of the shoe got wear creases fairly quickly (<100 miles), but since there already is very little in the way of cushioning, you really don't notice a difference in the ride at all. Honestly, with a shoe like this, I would expect to probably bust through the upper before I wear out the cushioning (or lack thereof). So I'm not sure why those wear creases are even showing up, or whether it matters at all that they're there (I'm kind of guessing not).

Stress lines on lateral portion of Piranha. You can also see stress lines in the heel counter picture above.

These shoes have fine traction as long as you're on the road or track. They're intended to be a road shoe, and that's really where they need to stay. The Piranha + wet rocks is not going to go well for you. Also one more complaint: replace the laces as soon as you get these. They are very sheer and are terrible at staying tied.

This shoe also seems to have garnered a bit of a following among the minimalist crowd, and I can certainly see why. The Piranha actually feels lower to the ground, more flexible, and more minimalist than the majority of the shoes actually marketed as being minimalist. Additionally, as I stated before, there is a lot of road feel in these shoes. For example, there seems to be less underfoot even than with the New Balance Minimus Trail, which is one of the more highly regarded minimalist shoes on the market, though to be fair, I don't have a bunch of miles on the Minimus...just played with them in a store. I won't post too much on this subject, since I don't presume to know what the minimal crowd is looking for in their shoes (actually I have no idea whatsoever), but if you are a minimalist, definitely check out this shoe, despite the fact that it is marketed as a racing flat rather than as a minimal shoe.

In case that first picture didn't get the point across, this shoe is seriously low to the ground. Piranha is on the left, T7 is on the right.

Moral of the story is this is a super fast shoe for the biomechanically efficient runner looking for a short distance racer, and may also be an option for the minimalist runner who is looking to put as little between their foot and the road as possible. For overpronators who need support, supinators who need cushion, or people looking for a marathon shoe, you may want to look elsewhere for a shoe with a little bit more to it.

The Asics Piranha SP3 retails for $110, and retailers can be located on the ASICS website. Sizing is unisex (so women should go down 1.5 sizes) but fairly true to size (I have these in half a size smaller than my T7, which runs small, but the normal 1.5 sizes smaller than my trainers).

Full disclosure: I bought these shoes myself, so there is nothing to disclose. The opinions expressed in this review are mine and based on my experience, and do not reflect the opinions of ASICS or anyone else.

Brooks Pure Project Contest

2011-09-27T20:10:00.000-04:00

I'm ridiculously proud of this picture for some reason, so I'm posting it up. Came out almost exactly how I had it pictured. This is the effect I was going for (alright, so theirs is better, but those are professional graphic designers who made that. I am a physical therapy grad student with no formal graphic design or art training who did this between classes, and Facebook compressed it all funny on me). View the full size here or by clicking on the photo (it's worth it for full size, I swear!). More after the break.

UPDATE 9/28: This one's not bad either. Fairly happy with this one, though the first entry is my personal favorite. Click for full size.

UPDATE #2 9/29: This picture took way less time than that HUD one, which took forever. This one is kind of funny and is dedicated to my friend Julie the VFF fan. Alternately, it could be dedicated to Sage Canaday, whom I've never actually met, but whose video made me laugh and gave me the idea for the picture (it is a tongue in cheek video, people, no need to freak out). It's supposed to be smashing through the Vibram webpage, but after I did it, I realized it should probably be glass smashing, not paper ripping, nor should it look like someone wrote on it in Sharpie, but by then it was too late. So I'm calling it the Vibram catalog that has a navigation menu on top for some reason (dude, it's Vibram, it shouldn't be a surprise if they don't make sense ;) ). Click for the large version.

UPDATE #3 9/30: This one sucked. To make, that is. I couldn't figure out how to make it look the way I wanted. I bet there is an easy way to do this. I should ask my brother, because he is a real graphic designer and probably doesn't just do a combination of playing with random Photoshop tools and sort of looking at tutorials online until it looks kind of how I pictured it. I think it came out looking okay though. Clicky!

UPDATE #4 10/1: This one was pretty easy once I finally figured out where I wanted to go with it. Deciding where to go was a completely different issue...it went through about three different backgrounds, and the guy has been changed quite a few times. Clickity click.

This was originally going to be my entry for 10/1, but then I decided that I didn't like it enough, so I made the second one. This one took almost as long to make as the HUD picture, but it just didn't come out quite as nicely as I would have liked it to.

I have added all of these to the Artwork page, in case anyone is interested.

Unfortunately none of these won. Pure Project is now available at retail locations, and will be available online on January 1, 2012.

Paula Radcliffe's 2:15:25 No Longer World Record

2011-09-22T00:15:00.002-04:00

Paula Radcliffe at the 2003 London Marathon (Getty Images)

Apparently the IAAF has decided that mixed races can no longer count as a women's world record. Instead, performances from those races can only be considered a world best. World records can now only be set in a women's race, since male pacers can help a woman run a faster time. This is being applied retroactively, so the world record is being stripped from Paula Radcliffe's incredible 2:15:25 performance at the 2003 London Marathon. That's 5:10 pace in case you're wondering. It wasn't even until 1958 that any men were able to run that fast! In its place, it is being awarded to Radcliffe's 2:17:25, which is her third best time for the marathon (Radcliffe has also gone 2:17:18). Imagine someone told you that your PR is no longer your PR. Instead, your new PR is actually your third best time, and your fastest time no longer counts. It used to count, but it doesn't anymore because we just changed the rules and are going to apply them retroactively. You still ran the time with your own two legs on a legit course without the aid of performance enhancing drugs, it just doesn't count because there were guys in the race. (Apologies to my male audience, but just try to work with me here.) Now imagine that you're the greatest female marathoner this world has ever seen, and that your PR can no longer be considered the world record. I am disappointed.

If you're looking for Radcliffe's take on it, here's an excerpt from Runner's World:

I think it is a decision that is going to be hard to fully enforce. Look at how many national and area records are set in mixed races. I also think it is a little unfair to set it like that retroactively. If they were going to make that rule, it should have been so from the beginning when world records came in on the roads. Now it is messy, in my two mixed races it was not my decision, rather the race organizers', to have male runners with me, and in each case I very consciously ran alongside them rather than ever behind. Indeed, in London, I was actively racing the two guys. Furthermore, I fully believe that I would have run pretty much the same time that day alone with the crowds and motorbikes. However, rules are rules and I am not stressing about things that are out of my control.

The World Marathon Majors and Association of International Marathons has stated that the new ruling is "confusing and unfair and does not represent the history of our sport." Deena Kastor also has a good quote:

I wouldn't mind if someone would have broken that record because it's gratifying to see the sport move forward. But to have it taken away? That feels like a little bit of a cheap shot. To have it stripped from you, when no drugs were involved, when no scandal was involved, is hard to believe.

Kastor's 2:19:36 American record has also been replaced, that one by Joan Benoit's 2:24:52 (Benoit's actual PR is 2:21:21).

New York Times has a good write up on the whole situation.

...Can you imagine the backlash if the NBA suddenly decided to get rid of 3-pointers because they felt they were unfair, and to go back to past championship games and alter all the scores to reflect those changes? Take away championships from teams, and give them to someone else based on rules that players couldn't possibly have known about? You can argue that you understand why they want to limit world record performances to women-only races, but applying rules retroactively is NOT. COOL.

The IAAF may no longer consider it the world record, but this is still the fastest marathon ever run by a women. It's incredibly inspiring...enjoy the video:

Gear Review: Tifosi Slip

2011-09-20T20:41:00.000-04:00

I recently reviewed the Oakley Flak Jacket: sexy, performs great, and expensive. Consider it the Lamborghini Gallardo of sunglasses. Now, we all love Lambos, but not all of us want to spend the money for one, especially if you're someone who tends to lose or break sunglasses. In that case, you can go with a Honda Civic, aka your typical pair of cheap, but still UV-protective, sunglasses from a department store, or you can decide you still want great performance without the huge price tag and get yourself a Subaru WRX. The Subarus of the sunglasses world come from a company known as Tifosi, and their WRX is the Tifosi Slip.

Tifosi Slip in Carbon with High Speed Red Fototec lens

The Slip is a half-frame pair of sports sunglasses with an interchangeable single lens (similar setup to the Oakley M-Frame). The Slip comes offered in one of several combinations: either a frame that includes three different lenses, or, for $10 more, one of the Fototec lenses (which adjusts to different light conditions, similar to Oakley's Photochromic technology). The Slip comes with a hardshell case as well as a soft sleeve for protection. For purposes of this review, I will be reviewing the Slip with GT Fototec (20-56% light transmission), Smoke (17% light transmission), All-Condition Red (27% light transmission), and Clear (98% light transmission) lenses.

The Slip is a fairly small pair of sunglasses, and fit best on a small to medium face. Those with larger faces may want to look elsewhere (the Pave may be a good alternative, which I used to own but was too big for my face so I gave to my dad, since they fit him much better). Like most sports sunglasses, the Slip has a plastic frame with replaceable rubber earsocks and replaceable rubber nose pieces. The earsocks are adjustable and can be bent to fit your head, but the nose pieces cannot be adjusted (in case you're wondering, this is the opposite of the Pave, which has adjustable nose pieces but static earsocks). While the rubber isn't quite as tacky as the rubber used on the Oakleys, they still do a good job of staying on my face, even when the rubber gets wet. Another thing to note is that the Slip is remarkably lightweight. I can put these on my face and completely forget that they're there (until the sun goes down and I wonder why I can't see anything). They don't feel quite as solid on your face as the previously reviewed Oakleys, and feel like they'd be flimsy, though in reality, they can actually take a whole lot of abuse without breaking (I think this feeling is due to their light weight). These sunglasses also do a very good job of staying on the top of my head if I happen to decide I don't need them partway through the run, though this will vary from person to person depending on the shape of your head.

Silver Tifosi Slip with GT Fototec lens (light, since indoors out of sunlight)

My favorite lenses are the smoke lenses, which are a neutral lens that allows you to see true colors. It's great in bright light, but like Oakley's grey iridium lens, it's not ideal for overcast days or shady trails. This is where the GT Fototec lens shines. The Fototec lens darkens or lightens depending on the light conditions, which makes it fantastic for runs that begin with the sun still up but end as it is setting, and it also fairs well on trails. It is not an instant transition, so don't expect it to instantly darken the moment you step out from under the trees, but it's probably is a good choice for those of you who do epic races that involve long stretches in the forest until you pop out above treeline for a while, and whose races stretch from sunrise to high noon to sunset. This is also my mountain biking lens, since it seems to provide an ideal contrast for seeing features on the trail. The GT Fototec is not the best choice for the sunniest of days however, since at its darkest, it still isn't quite as dark as the smoke. Additionally, it gives everything a yellow tint, which I really dislike, and is the main reason I give the nod to the grey as my favorite lens, at least for non-trail purposes. There are other color Fototec lenses, but the yellow GT ones were the lenses that came with my sunglasses, so I have to deal with the yellow unless I decide to buy more lenses at some point. The All-Condition Red is probably a good choice for trail runners who are constantly in and out of trees, though honestly, I don't use this lens all that much, since I feel that the Fototec lens does everything AC Red does, only better (probably why you don't get both, unless you buy them separately). The Clear lens is another lens I don't use very often, though it does come in handy for cycling on cloudy or rainy days (bugs in your eyes suck, and some days are too dark for sunglasses), as well as running during sleetstorms when you don't want ice flying in your eyes.

Front view of Slip with GT Fototec lens (light, since indoors out of sunlight)

Coverage on the Slip is good, even though the lenses are fairly small, since the Slip fits very close to your face. Despite the Slip's close proximity to my face, I have no problems with fogging, possibly due to the air vent near the top of the lens. There is little issue with distortion, despite the radical curvature of the lenses (moreso than with the Flak Jacket, but not enough to actually bother me). Smudging is an issue, so don't grab them by the lenses unless you want to look at fingerprints during your run. Changing the lenses is a fast and easy process, should you choose to buy one of the pairs with interchangeable lenses or buy lenses separately.

Side view of Tifosi Slip with GT Fototec lens (light, since indoors out of sunlight)

The Slip's durability seems to be pretty good, as I've abused these sunglasses (way more than my Flak Jackets actually) and they're still in one piece. If you really toss them around, the lenses might pop out, but they're easy enough to pop back in, and it really takes some abuse to pop them out like that (like say face planting on my BMX bike...that'll do it). Additionally, I've had some issues with paint chipping on the frame along the ear pieces, but it's only aesthetic and does not affect the performance of the sunglasses in any way. Another thing to note is that the lenses do not scratch easily, which is nice.

As far as bang for your buck goes, it's hard to beat the Tifosi Slip. It's a great pair of sunglasses for the money. They don't quite have the solid feel of the Flak Jacket, but they're also less than half the price (even if you buy a base pair of Flak Jackets and a blinged out Fototec pair of Slips). If you have the money to burn, get the Oakleys, because everyone loves a Lamborghini, and to be perfectly honest, I do prefer the Flak Jackets to the Slip. But for everyone who can't justify spending $150 on a pair of sunglasses, you will not go wrong buying the Tifosis, just like you wouldn't go wrong buying a WRX. You won't be disappointed either way.

Tifosi Slip in action at the 2008 La Sportiva Dirtfest 10K. This is the GT Fototec lens (dark, since in bright conditions).

One other thing to note is if you like the look of the carbon Slip, please look at it in a store in person first, and don't just order it off the internet. It looks awesome online, but as of two years ago, it looks really weird in real life, so unless they've fixed it, it doesn't actually look like carbon fiber. The other colors are fine, and how they look online is the same as how they look in person.

The Tifosi Slip is available at several retailers linked off of Tifosi's website for $59.99 for the three lens setup or $69.99 for the Fototec lens. Additionally, it can be found in many specialty running stores nationwide. Lenses are available online and range in price from $14.99 for a basic lens to $49.99 for a Fototec or Polarized lens. Replacement nose pieces and earsocks are also available online for $4.99 each.

Full disclosure: I got the Tifosi Slip from Fleet Feet Boulder at cost when I was still running for the store team. The opinions expressed in this review are mine and based on my experience, and do not reflect the opinions of Fleet Feet or Tifosi.

Galen Rupp 26:48.00 AR! ...and also a Brian Sell video

2011-09-16T14:49:00.003-04:00

Whaaat?!

This photo is not mine. It belongs to Steve Richie of steverichieontrack.com. And that mask belongs to Galen Rupp, who is one BAMF.

Alright, I confess I was originally going to make this post only about Rupp because...holy crap, that is amazing! But then I saw this and didn't want to make another short post that involved next to zero work on my part. Anyway, Brian Sell has been my hero since freshman year of college. Huge inspiration to me, and one of my favorite runners ever. He retired a few years ago, and we haven't heard much from him since. Well, Flotrack just put up a video, so here you go.

Watch more video of The Pros in 2011 on flotrack.org

Cadence and the Magic Number of 180

2011-09-11T19:43:00.001-04:00

It seems that everyone has been told that the ideal cadence is 180 steps per minute. The great Jack Daniels himself has stated that a slow cadence is associated with overstriding and increased injury rates. For a long time, this has been undisputed. A cadence of 180 was king. However, lately this magic number seems to be something people are questioning. Is a cadence of 180 really ideal for every person at every pace?

One time in college, my team was out on a winter run and decided to get off the road and take the snow-covered field to get back to the fieldhouse. The snow was a little deeper than we expected, and someone got the idea to get into single file and step in each other's footprints. It took us all of a couple seconds to realize that while we were all running the same speed, our stride lengths were all over the place and this clearly wasn't going to work. One example that sticks out in my head is that of my friend Mollie and I. Just for some background, our training was similar, we probably have similar amounts of talent, and our PRs in everything from the 1500 to the 5000 are within two seconds of each other. However, though she had more than a few inches of height on me, my stride was a lot longer. When I tried to step in her footprints, I found myself using an awkward clipped stride that nearly felt like a fast-feet machine gun sprint drill. We switched places and she found herself taking triple jump-style bounds to land in my footprints. Considering we were running the exact same speed (it was an easy group run), this could only mean that my turnover was way slower than hers. I already knew my cadence was under 180, but this was just embarrassing, so after we laughed about it that day, I did my best not to mention it around the team again. (On the bright side, my stride was still shorter than our assistant coach's, who was also running with us that day.) Now, I knew that my cadence sped up to something closer to ideal when I was doing speedwork or racing, but it's not like I'm counting my steps while looking at my watch during a race, so I have no idea whether I hit (or surpass) that 180 steps per minute or not. However, at slow paces, that run was proof that I was definitely not running with an ideal cadence (I've counted about 170 at my normal faster than an easy recovery death crawl, but slower than a steady run pace).

At some point during college, I picked up Chris Lear's Running with the Buffaloes. Time for a quote:

Slattery runs next to Elmuccio, his predecessor as King of New Jersey prep running. While obviously laboring as his chest heaves in search of oxygen, Slattery still captures Wetmore's attention. "Look at him," he says with the admiration of a veteran horse trainer admiring the gallop of a promising colt. "He's got a big, powerful stride!" Slattery gobbles up ground as he runs, taking one stride for Elmuccio's two. Despite their Jersey roots, the two are a study in contrasts. From Elmuccio's short clipped stride and reticent demeanor to Slattery's gallop and brash countenance, the two are polar opposites. What they do share is an intense rivalry born in their prep days, and this first workout is just a prelude for the battles to be waged between the two throughout the fall.

Okay, while obviously "one stride for Elmuccio's two" is an exaggeration, it's clear that Slattery has a longer and slower stride than Elmuccio (the book gives no indication whether Slattery is below 180 or Elmuccio is above 180, though I would suspect it's a combination of the two, which would exaggerate the difference without either athlete going to the extreme end of the spectrum). So at least I'm not the only person who doesn't have a super high cadence, and some people with slower cadences are pretty fast too. Steve Slattery has won a Big 12 Championship and a National Championship, among other honors, despite having a slower cadence than Matt Elmuccio, even when the two are running at the same speed. So that makes me feel a little better. But let's explore this some more.

Pete Larson at RunBlogger has an interesting post on cadence (as well as stance, swing, aerial, and step time) that compares this data among elites at the 2011 Boston Marathon. Something interesting that Larson notes is that cadence does not predict footstrike (which was hinted at in Daniels' statement that a slow cadence often means overstriding), since Desi Davila has a very fast cadence (193.6) despite being a heelstriker (though it would be kind of silly to assume that Davila's proprioceptive heelstrike is overstriding). On the other end of the spectrum is Ryan Hall's relatively slow cadence of 173.9.

One question that's bound to come up is what effect does height (or more accurately, inseam) have on cadence? If the ideal cadence is truly 180, someone 6'3 will have the same stride length as someone 5'3, assuming they are running the same speed. And I'm sure we've all seen track races where it looks like everyone is running exactly in stride, no matter what their height. However, logically it would seem that someone with really long legs would have a longer stride (due to their longer legs) and slower turnover (due to the increased weight of their legs) than someone taller. Davila seems to be an example of this, as she stands 5'2 and has a very high cadence. However, my friend Mollie and I stand as a counterexample, since she probably has about 4 inches on me, yet has a much shorter stride. It can be argued that neither Mollie nor I are elite runners and therefore may not have the world's most efficient strides, though at this point, both of us had been running competitively and doing speedwork (including efficiency and speed development work) for several years. Unfortunately, three is a pretty pathetic sample size, and no real conclusions can be drawn from this data, though I felt it was interesting enough to warrant a mention.

I mentioned earlier that I am fairly certain that my cadence varies a bit with speed. I've never counted (props to those of you who can race and calculate cadence at the same time), so I couldn't say by how much, but I'm pretty sure that my legs turnover faster when I'm racing a 5000 than when I'm jogging a recovery run. So I'm going to point you to a recent post at Sweat Science, since Alex Hutchinson actually does have some real data, as well as some great charts to accompany it. Now, before you try to point out that Hutchinson is only one person, and try to claim that he's running "wrong," check out his next post on cadence variability among elite Kenyan runners at different paces. Again, we're looking at a pretty small sample size (as Hutchinson admits), but it's some really interesting stuff! On the flip side, Dave Munger of Science-Based Running points out that Lagat's cadence does not change as he changes paces, though I feel like talking about 5000m race pace versus a kick is quite a bit different than talking about the variety of paces at which Hutchinson looks. Munger also calculates Lagat's cadence at 216, which is higher than anything Larson saw at Boston. Is this because Lagat has a naturally faster turnover? Or because Lagat's 5000m pace is faster than Davila and Hall's marathon pace, and the faster pace warrants a faster turnover? Anyone have any more data on this? If so, leave me something in the comments, I'd love to read more on this subject!

Pronation and Midfoot Striking, Forefoot Striking, and Heelstriking

2011-09-06T11:41:00.000-04:00

Every so often I hear someone say that they know they have a neutral gait because they are a midfoot or forefoot striker, and overpronation is the domain of heelstrikers. They claim that because they don't heelstrike, it's impossible for them to overpronate and they don't need a shoe with any stability (though the idea that neutral shoes have no stability is also a myth). Similarly, I sometimes hear of someone well-meaning but ill-informed trying to push a minimal shoe on someone just because they midfoot or forefoot strike, without actually doing a gait analysis. While a midfoot or forefoot striker may or may not actually have a neutral gait, the idea that every midfoot and forefoot striker is a neutral pronator is absolutely false.

In an earlier topic, I discussed pronation, overpronation, and supination. Pronation is, in and of itself, a good thing. Without some level of pronation, your body would be unable to cushion itself, and you're at increased risk for stress related injuries, such as stress fractures and stress reactions. However, too much of a good thing is no longer good, and overpronation results in your foot not being able to form a rigid lever for push-off, decreasing efficiency and increasing your risk for torsion injuries. This rule holds true no matter how your foot lands on the ground. A forefoot or midfoot striker should still have some degree of pronation in order to cushion their landing, and like heelstrikers, many still have problems with overpronation or underpronation.

The same treadmill gait analysis that would be done for a heelstriker can and should be done for a midfoot or forefoot striker, though once their pronation level is determined, their needs will differ slightly from a heelstriker's. For example, a supinating heelstriker really benefits from a heel cushion, whereas a supinating forefoot striker would need more cushioning up front. Similarly, a firm heel counter will still help a forefoot striker's calcaneus from rotating medially, but probably not quite as much as it would stop a heelstriker's calcaneus, so an overpronating forefoot striker may need a different type of stability (medial post, arch support, etc...depends on what works best with your footstrike). On the other hand, a heelstriker may be overpronating before a medial post too close to the forefoot can help, and may benefit from a firm heel counter and a plastic piece in the arch. Since a midfoot or forefoot striker's foot mechanics are a little different, different stability and cushioning mechanisms will react to their stride differently than a heelstriker's, so a shoe that controls a heelstriker's pronation might not control a midfoot striker or forefoot striker's, and vice versa. The easiest way to actually determine which type of stability or cushioning works best for you is to try on different shoes and see how each one reacts to your stride.

To give you an example of what I'm talking about, let's look at the Brooks T7. I've worn ultralight flats like the Adizero PR and Asics Piranha, but they also tend to work best when I'm moving at half-marathon pace or faster (when I'm actually midfoot striking, and don't really care about rearfoot cushion). At marathon pace and slower, I'm a heelstriker, and the T7 has a rearfoot Hydroflow unit. That probably does nothing for a forefoot striker, and only slightly more for a midfoot striker, but wow, is that thing awesome for heelstrikers. While it does lift the heel higher (12mm heel-toe differential), it adds a lot of heel cushion for a shoe of its weight. If Brooks were to take that out so they could decrease the 12mm drop to 4mm...I'd be really upset and would probably need to go find a new pair of flats. That's not to say that the T7 is a terrible choice for midfoot strikers, but that rearfoot Hydroflow unit is really Brooks' gift to heelstrikers.

Seriously, I love this shoe. Please, Brooks, don't change it.

Another thing to keep in mind that it's not three single footstrikes: heel, midfoot, and forefoot. You can be a forefoot striker who strikes further back and is almost a midfoot striker, a forefoot striker who pretty much runs on their toes, a heelstriker who grazes the ground with their heel and weight bears the same way as a midfoot striker (proprioceptive heel strike), a heelstriker who weight bears on their heel (which is unfortunately usually caused by overstriding, and may be the one time I'd actually recommend messing with your footstrike), etc. Additionally, many heelstrikers turn into midfoot strikers at faster speeds, and most people turn into forefoot strikers when sprinting! So it's impossible to say that "this shoe will work for forefoot strikers, this shoe will work for midfoot strikers, and this shoe will work for heel strikers," since there's so much overlap!

A trend that I find very interesting is the one that's putting a lot of midfoot and forefoot strikers (natural and unnatural) in shoes with low heel-toe differential. First of all, it's very possible to midfoot or forefoot strike in shoes with a high heel-toe differential. You don't need to go zero drop to midfoot strike. All of this is dependent on the amount of dorsiflexion you have upon landing, as well as where, exactly, your foot is landing in relation to your body (and the angle of your lower leg), which is related to that whole dorsiflexion thing). Something that I do think is important to note, however, is that different muscles are being emphasized with different footstrikes. A midfoot or forefoot striker actually puts more stress on their lower legs than a heelstriker, particularly the eccentric load upon landing. Conversely, heelstrikers tend to use their upper leg and gluteal muscles more than midfoot and forefoot strikers. This isn't a bad thing, since everyone uses different muscles to different extents. Your natural stride, whatever that may be, most likely favors your stronger muscles anyway, since those were the muscles that you have developed and with which you naturally run efficiently. However, if you're trying to change your stride, it is something to be aware of, since you'll be using muscles that are not accustomed to the new stresses. That means that a natural heelstriker who is trying to force themselves into a midfoot strike and a shoe with a lower heel-toe differential is hitting their calves with the double whammy. I'm not going to tell you not to play with your stride (just make sure you're doing it for the right reasons), but please be careful with the transition and understand that you will be stressing your lower legs far more than they are used to being stressed.

Gear Review: Oakley Flak Jacket

2011-09-02T16:14:00.001-04:00

I've had Oakley lust since I can remember. As an elementary school kid, I bought a pair of $10 Foakleys at a flea market because they looked almost exactly like the Oakley Twenty (which I believe went by a different name back then, but that name escapes me right now). Unfortunately, as you've probably guessed, while they looked like a genuine pair of Oakleys, they were not made like a genuine pair of Oakleys, and they broke within a few months. Come to think of it, they probably didn't offer very good sun protection either, but I digress. It wasn't until after undergrad that I finally bought a quality pair of sunglasses, and while my running partners at the time all sported either Zeal or Rudy Project, I was unable to resist the siren song of Oakley. The guy I was dating at that point had a pair of Oakley Flak Jackets, and after trying on his, I decided that the next pair of sunglasses I bought were going to be Flak Jackets.

Oakley Flak Jacket with XLJ lens

The Oakley Flak Jacket is a half-frame pair of sports sunglasses with interchangeable lenses. It is available in two models: the Flak Jacket and Flak Jacket XLJ. The XLJ uses a larger lens that provides more coverage for larger faces. Since the lenses are interchangeable, and XLJ lens can fit into the regular Flak Jacket frame, and vice versa. Lenses are available in a variety of tints with different levels of light transmission for different conditions. For the purpose of this review, I will be reviewing the regular Flak Jacket with black iridium lens, a neutral colored lens with 10% light transmission for bright days (simply because those are the lenses my sunglasses came with).

The Flak Jacket is a medium sized frame that fits a range of faces. It's not so small that it doesn't provide enough coverage, but it's also not so huge that you look like Paris Hilton. People with small faces may want to consider the Half Jacket, while people with very large faces may want to consider one of the larger Radars, or at the very least, opt for the Flak Jacket XLJ. However, everyone in between will probably fit the Flak Jacket just fine. I've found that the frame is a weird shape in that it does not stay on the top of my head, so if the sun goes away partway through a run, I'm stuck carrying them (I got stuck carrying them for 13 miles of a marathon, because no way was I tossing a $150 pair of sunglasses on the side of the road). This will vary from person to person depending on the shape of your head, but it may be something to look for if you hate carrying things while running. They do fit on my head backwards and upside down, so I guess that's an alternative if you really don't want to carry them if the sun goes away...but it looks kind of ridiculous, and I'm afraid they'll fall off and I won't notice.

Front view of Oakley Flak Jackets

The Flak Jacket, like most sports sunglasses, has a plastic frame. It's not the lightest frame in the world (they're actually the heaviest sunglasses that I own), but they have a nice, solid feel to them, and they're comfortable on my face. The coverage is very good, with only a little bit of light leakage at the very top of the frame. None on the sides though, and I'm not even using the XLJ. The Flak Jacket has rubber earsocks and a rubber nose piece that stay tacky even when wet that help to keep the sunglasses on your face. I get very little slippage with these sunglasses, which is nice. There are a few different size nose pieces to help customize the fit of the sunglasses. However, the earsocks are not adjustable, and any attempt to bend them will not change their shape.

Side view of Oakley Flak Jackets

The grey iridium lens is dark. It's fantastic for bright, sunny days, though if the sun goes away, it's not a lens you can get away with when it's not as bright out, nor is it the ideal lens for shaded trails. I am happy that this is the lens that came with the sunglasses, however. It's a neutral lens that allows you to see true colors, and I'm really not a fan of those weird colored lenses that make you think you're wearing BluBlockers (even though they are supposedly good for certain light conditions). The lens has a nice mirror-like finish to it, and the iridium coating reduces glare (though it will not work nearly as well as a polarized lens). Additionally, despite the curvature of the lens, there is very little of the distortion that is often present with cheaper sunglasses. I also have absolutely no problems with fogging, which is often a problem with cheaper sunglasses. They're supposed to be treated with something that prevents smudging, but my coating must have worn off, because mine smudge like crazy.

3/4 view of Oakley Flak Jackets

The durability on the Flak Jacket seems to be good. I've owned mine for about 2.5 years now and they haven't fallen apart on me, though to be fair, I've taken pretty good care of them, storing them in a hardshell case when not in use. I have had black something (paint?) flake off of the inside of my earpieces, but it's only on the inside and not noticeable when the sunglasses are on, and obviously does not affect the performance of the sunglasses in any way. The lenses do scratch, but these scratches don't make any difference in the function of the sunglasses, and really the only thing that happens is they don't look quite as pretty from the outside anymore, and again, this does not affect the performance of the sunglasses. (I can only see the scratches looking at the sunglasses from the outside...it's still a crystal clear view from the inside). Finally, the earpieces have gotten loose over time, and they tend to flop around when not in use. The screw holding them in is really small and recessed, and I don't have a screwdriver small enough to fix them. However, this is not an issue once the sunglasses are on your face, making all three of these issues relatively minor. Oakley claims that the lenses are impact resistant, though I have cheap sunglasses for mountain biking, and therefore I haven't tested these with any rocks to the face.

Action shot! Rocking the Flak Jackets at the 2009 Colfax Half-Marathon.

I really like these sunglasses. The only thing that makes it kind of hard for me to recommend them is the price tag ($150 for the base model, more for polarized and photochromic models). If you have the money to spend, are they a great pair of sunglasses? Absolutely. These are, by far, the best pair of sunglasses I own (though they are also the most expensive by about $80). Are they twice as good as a $75 pair of sunglasses, or three times as good as a pair of $50 sunglasses? Eh, probably not, especially if you're one of those people who tends to lose sunglasses. Your best bet is probably to look for these online and hope to find them cheaper. However, make absolutely certain that you buy from an authorized Oakley dealer. Fake Oakleys are not just something you buy off the streets in New York, and saving a couple bucks for POS sunglasses is not worth it.

The Oakley Flak Jacket and Flak Jacket XLJ retail for $150-220 depending on color, polarization, and whether they're photochromic, and can be found on the Oakley website. Lenses are also available online, and range in price from $55-145 depending on color, polarization, and whether they're photochromic. Replacement nose pieces and earsocks can be bought online for $13.

Full disclosure: Nothing to disclose, since I bought these. The opinions contained in this review are mine and based on my experience, and do not reflect the opinions of Oakley.

Cutting on High School Cross-Country Teams

2011-08-29T17:09:00.001-04:00

Recently, Running Times published an article by renowned coach Greg McMillan that got quite a bit of attention. This article seemed to be geared towards high school cross-country (and track) coaches, listing the different types of runners and how to best coach each personality. While it does play up stereotypes, the article still seems pretty spot on for the most part, and most high school runners fall into one of those categories. I think anyone who's run in high school (or college for that matter) can think of teammates who fit into each of the categories fairly well. Additionally, I think McMillan's methodology for handling each type of runner is very good (for the most part...read on for the actual controversy). However, the paragraph that's been getting the attention is about the runners that McMillan labels the "Necessary Evils," the talented runners who didn't put in the necessary work over the summer and come in out of shape. McMillan says to cut them.

Obviously a statement like that is going to get some negative pushback. At most schools, cross-country is a no-cut sport, since there are things like B-teams and open meets. Everyone gets to run, everyone gets to experience being on a team, everyone gets to learn the joy of school sports, everyone gets a chance to better themselves, et cetera. To cut people is to deprive them of that opportunity. Additionally, to cut a talented athlete because he didn't train over the summer may jeopardize the team's chances to win meets. Also, cross-country isn't the most popular sport in America, and many schools can't really afford to be cutting athletes and making a small team even smaller.

On the other end of the argument are the people who support McMillan's statement. The people McMillan advocates cutting are those who are not dedicated to the program and who do not put in the necessary work. Supporters of this article claim that these kind of athletes are a poison who frustrate the coach and drag other athletes down. These people take up the coach's time, financial resources, and are a bad influence on other runners. Additionally, cross-country is a competitive sport. It is not a jogging club; it is a team, and a team should not accept just any slacker or poor athlete, lest it become a jogging club.

So you're probably wondering where I stand in all of this. So the first thing I'm going to point you towards is the example of Joe Newton and York Community High School boys cross-country program. When you have about 90 minutes to kill, The Long Green Line is available on Hulu, and you should watch it. To me, this represents the ideal cross-country team. York welcomes any athlete who wants to run, and only cuts athletes who break some serious school policy, yet that hasn't prevented them from being incredibly successful, winning 27 state titles and 20 national titles since Newton began coaching the team in 1959.

Now obviously that is the ideal. Most schools are not going to be nearly as successful as York. However, I'd still discourage cutting on high school teams. First of all, these athletes are not a poison to everyone else, especially if they're talented. Plus, they can often help the team. A lot. One of my college roommates didn't do much running over the summer...or over fall/winter/spring break...or any doubles...and she sometimes skipped captain's practices and run-on-your-own days. However, her lack of running never rubbed off on the other athletes on the team, and no one else just decided not to run because she wasn't running. Anyone who gets dragged down by that wasn't going to run anyway, with or without the outside influence. But more importantly, by the end of the season, she was in shape and helping the team. In fact, an incredibly gutsy performance helped us to win an XC League Championship one year, and had our coach cut her at the beginning of the season, we wouldn't have won that meet. Another time she won the League 5000m championship and got her ECAC qualifier, which got our team 8 points. It's pretty hard to call an athlete who contributes that much to the team a poison or a resource drain. Did she frustrate our coach? Yes, definitely. But was she enough of a value to the team that she was worth the time and money spent on her? Again, yes, definitely.

Additionally, McMillan states that it's nearly impossible for a team to be both participatory and competitive, and that competitive programs may have to cut slow but dedicated runners, which obviously many people will find upsetting for a number of reasons. I also find it somewhat disheartening to hear an implication that an all-inclusive team will have trouble being competitive, and that a team that wants to be great has little choice but to cut slow runners. For some background, Greg McMillan is the coach of McMillan Elite, which obviously is a very exclusive and competitive post-collegiate program. With a program like McMillan Elite, it's impossible to let any hobby jogger on the team, since they have limited financial resources to work with, as well as limited time to work with their athletes. Making an elite team into a participatory team would severely dilute their team and undermine their goals. Obviously, high school teams suffer from these same problems of limited finances and limited time on the part of the coaching staff. However, I don't believe that it's anywhere near the same level as an elite team, and it should not be treated as such.

Again, York is the perfect example of a team that is both participatory and competitive, though as I stated before, not every program can be York. This does not, however, prevent other programs from balancing those two aspects. My high school team allowed anyone who wanted to join the team, whether they came to "summer practice" or not, and whether they ran a 16:00 5K or a 40:00 5K. And my coach paid attention to every person on the team too. On the surface, this sounds like a purely participatory team, until you consider that the boys' team won the 1999 state championship and were undefeated in the conference from 1995 until the school closed in 2007 (that would be a record of 65-0). The girls' team wasn't nearly as good, though we were still a perennial power and had our fair share of conference championships too. Many of those kids, both fast and slow, stated that running on that team changed their lives. And the back of the pack made huge strides too. One girl went from running a forty minute 5K to a thirty minute 5K (10 minutes!), and raved about the positive changes running brought to her life. Cutting the slow ones would have deprived them of that experience, and I think that would have been a sad thing. I also mentioned my college team before, who allowed my roommate to continue running for the team despite not running over the summer (much to the team's ultimate benefit). My college team, despite being a D1 team, also allowed walk-ons onto the team, and raced them as a B-team at smaller meets, yet I'd hardly call us a "participatory" team. Yes, the Patriot League is a far cry from the PAC-12, but we often did very well at our League meet (I think we won 10 out of 12 women's XC/track League championships while I was there), and at least one of those years, we did fairly well at cross Regionals. We were not a jogging club by any stretch of the imagination. Obviously, our coach spent more time and more money on the fast kids (as he should, especially at that level). The fast kids got more of his attention, and they traveled to bigger, better, more competitive, and more expensive meets. However, the walk-ons never slowed down everyone else. In fact, some of them later helped the team. I was probably one of the slowest, most pathetic walk-ons my freshman year, yet by the time junior year rolled around, I had scored at track meets and I had a few top 7 finishes in cross, and I was far from the only or the best "walk-on did alright for herself" success story. Now obviously this can't be done at a school like Stanford or Colorado, but that's not who we're talking about here, and if it can be done at a small D1 university, I think it can be done at the high school level.

Not everyone can (or should) make their high school football or basketball team. However, they say the roads are always open. Let's give our kids a good welcome and not take away the opportunity for them to learn, grow, and better themselves. There are too many valuable lessons that can be learned from school sports for us to cut kids from a team because they don't live up to an adult's standards (within reason, of course). The best we can do is encourage kids to put in the work and train hard, as well as hope that the lessons of not putting in the work will be taught to the kids who struggle to run with those who have done the appropriate summer running.

Gear Review: Skullcandy Ink'd Headphones

2011-08-17T21:40:00.009-04:00

At some point in their running career, most runners use a pair of headphones. It might be on the treadmill, it might be lifting or cross-training in the gym, or it might be running outside (hopefully in an area devoid of cars, cyclists, dogs, and other hazards). When I'm looking for a headphone to use while working out, I want something cheap (because it will inevitably get ruined), something with at least passable sound quality, something small and light (preferably an in-ear monitor), something that's going to stay in my ears, and something that can deal with a little bit of sweat. My current workout headphone of choice is the Skullcandy Ink'd.

Now, before I go any further, let me say I do not condone racing with headphones, particularly when it's explicitly spelled out in the race rules as either forbidden or discouraged. It's disrespectful to the race organizers, to volunteers that you can't hear, and to other competitors whom you're more likely to obstruct. And honestly, I don't want to hear the "I keep it low so I can hear" argument. If the race declares itself headphone-friendly, then fine, bring your iPod and rock out. However, if headphones are forbidden or discouraged, keep in mind that you signed a contract stating that you would follow the rules and leave the headphones at home. If you absolutely can't run without headphones, wait until the race is finished and go run the course by yourself.

Alright, enough with the lecturing, and on to the review! The Skullcandy Ink'd is an in-ear monitor, or IEM, meaning that it is actually inserted into your ear canal. This style of headphone is sometimes referred to as an earbud, but it should not be confused with the buds that are made in the style of the stock Apple earphones that come with iPods and that sit outside your ear canal. The Ink'd comes with three different size silicone gel tips, and the user can install the tip that best fits his or her ear. Comply foam tips can be purchased separately for those who prefer the fit of foam, which better conforms to the ear (though foam tips do not last as long). This also acts as passive noise cancellation, making them an isolation earphone, since little sound is able to penetrate the barrier that the tip forms. This makes these headphones unsuitable for running outside, but great for use on the treadmill or the gym, where it will block out unwanted noise, whether that noise is treadmills, bad gym music, or grunting weightlifters.

Skullcandy Ink'd action shot on the bike trainer (cropped...you don't want to see the face I'm making)

The Ink'd isn't particularly durable, as it's a plastic headphone, and I cracked one of my buds when it was hanging out of my car door and I didn't notice and shut the door on it (to be fair, that would destroy most headphones). However, a little bit of duct tape seemed to fix it, and it still works perfectly fine. Skullcandy products in general seem to have less than stellar build quality (I've had three other products from that company break with no abuse whatsoever), but the company stands by their products and has a fantastic warranty program, where any headphone broken because of a defect in the product is replaced for the price of shipping the broken headphones back to the company, and any headphone broken because of user abuse is replaced for 50% off. Every time I've warrantied something with Skullcandy, they've gotten back to me within a few weeks with a coupon for the price of the headphone plus shipping to use on their website. The good thing about the plastic shell is that it keeps the headphones very light. Of all my headphones, these are the least noticeable. While not actually waterproof (at least I don't think they are, but I haven't absolutely soaked them, so I guess I'm not 100% sure), they seem to hold up pretty well to sweat, which is more than I can say for two more expensive metal IEMs that I've used. Your mileage may vary if you sweat very heavily, but if that's the case, you may run into problems with any headphone that isn't explicitly advertised as waterproof. Plus if you break them they're $20, even if you don't use the warranty. Good deal.

Skullcandy Ink'd, complete with duct tape. Yeah, I can't believe these still play fine either, but they do. Note: These are NOT the silicone tips that come with the Ink'd. They're from a pair of Crossroads Mylar that shorted out due to sweat, but I lost the Skullcandy tips that fit me.

A lot of audiophiles complain about Skullcandy headphones' sound quality. And to be truthful, right now, as I'm typing this and listening to Metallica, I'm using my Ultimate Ears, because they sound a whole heck of a lot better. However, I'm not bringing $200+ headphones that I know don't stand up well to moisture to the gym. Not. Happening. For $20, the Ink'd doesn't sound half bad. It's a little bass heavy, but if you like your music colored that way (as I do), they're a pretty good choice. There are better choices if you like a flat, accurate tone or if you're a big fan of midranges (which tend to get drowned out with this headphone), but for bassheads looking for a cheap workout can, this is your headphone. There are some microphonics (unwanted sound when the cables rub against your clothes), but I've definitely heard much worse, often from more expensive headphones. Also, as a note, the Ink'd does not label its speakers as right or left specific, and either bud seems to fit in either ear without reduced sound quality. The only issue with this is that some songs will take advantage of stereo sound and only play certain parts of the song out of one speaker, but that's pretty nitpicky, and for most people, isn't an issue, especially for a workout headphone.

Since the Ink'd comes with different size silicone gel tips, they do a pretty good job of staying in your ears. They'll pop out if the cable gets snagged on something, but they don't just fall out randomly like some non-IEM buds do. This is, of course, somewhat personal depending on the shape of your ears, though most people should be able to find a gel tip that fits their ears (and if not, there's always Comply foamies). You can also try wearing them upside down and looping the cable behind your ears, though I've found the Ink'd doesn't seem to stay in quite as well as some other headphones worn this way. They're also a relatively comfortable earphone, since they're light, and while they are IEMs, do not insert extremely far into your ear, like some of the dual and triple flange tips do.

The cable is thin and light, and measures in at a relatively short 1.3m, which is good for not having a bunch of extra cord to constantly get caught on workout machines or flapping around while you try to run. It has a straight plug rather than a L-shaped plug, if that matters to you, and the plug is 3.5mm, meaning it will fit just about any portable music player (but not full-size speaker systems or the phones that use those really little plugs). It's also a Y-cable as opposed to the awkward J-cable, meaning that both buds are attached to cables of equal length, rather than one being longer than the other (I hate J-cables). A version of the Ink'd, cleverly named the Mic'd, is also available with a microphone, in case you use your phone as your music player. I cannot speak for the quality of the microphone on the Mic'd, since I do not own that model.

Are there better sounding headphones out there? Of course. But can they be found for a cheap enough price that I wouldn't mind destroying them at the gym, and can they put up with sweat and a cracked case? Probably not, which is why I continue to use the Ink'd for my lifting and bike trainer workouts, and will probably replace them with another pair of the same headphones if and when they ever break. The Skullcandy Ink'd is available from Skullcandy's website in a variety of colors for $19.99, though some colors can be found on closeout for $14.99. The Mic'd version retails for $24.99.

Full disclosure: Not much to disclose, since I bought these. The opinions expressed in this review are mine and based on my experience, and do not reflect the opinions of Skullcandy.

Oh hey, it's a personal life entry!

2011-08-04T13:45:00.000-04:00

Apologies for the lack of updates this past week. I just had surgery to fix a lingering problem that was keeping me from training the way I wanted to. One of those things that probably could have been prevented had I taken time off or even just cut back when I first started having a problem, instead of continuing to run through it and letting myself overcompensate, but no sense dwelling now, and pushing the limits comes with the understanding that getting hurt once in a while is inevitable. So, in the meantime I'll leave you with a quote from steeplechaser Anthony Famiglietti as well as my Twitter account that I just started, in case anyone feels like reading about my personal life (which, for now, will probably involve me being emo about not running).

"You are going to face obstacles. You are going to get sick. Everyone gets sick in running. You are going to get hurt. Almost every single runner has been hurt at some point. That's going to come. The athletes that succeed are the ones that understand how to deal with that." -Fam

And as long as I'm quoting Fam, here's another quote, just because I love this one:

"I used to have a background in skateboarding when I was in high school. It was a really exciting individual sport to me. It was all about what you put into it is what you got out. The amount of time you learned a trick, the aggressiveness and the guts you had to go down a flight of steps; you knew you were going to go down the first 10 attempts on it. You might crack your skull open, but eventually you were going to land it. That takes a certain attitude to be able to do that. And so that was the attitude I took towards running. It was a little reckless." -Fam

Twitter: Follow me!

Hot Weather Running

2011-07-26T20:40:00.000-04:00

Runners have got to be some of the whiniest people I've ever met. When it's cold, I swear half my Facebook friends have some status up about how miserable it is to finish a run with icicles on their eyelashes or how painful it is to defrost in the shower after a run. When it finally gets above freezing, the statuses change to how much everyone hates cold rain. Then it gets hot out, and then everyone starts complaining about the heat and humidity. Don't get me wrong, I love perfect weather as much as anyone, and I've been known to whine mightily when it's gross out. However, you don't have to run for long before you realize that the gnarly days far outnumber the beautiful days, and the chances that your goal race falls on a day with absolutely perfect weather is slim to none (and if you only train on beautiful days, you're not going to be very good). Luckily, some bad weather is "less bad" than others (i.e. -5 °F and windy is better than 35 °F and raining, and both are better than 60 °F and hailing), and most of it can be combated with proper clothing, correct hydration, and other preparation. Like any other less than ideal weather, hot weather running brings with it certain challenges.

Running in the heat can be particularly challenging because exercise generates internal heat, in addition to the heat coming from the external environment. Even under cool conditions, body temperature can rise with exercise. You can imagine how much more quickly this happens in hot weather, and at a certain point (approximately 102 °F), performance declines. As the body heats up, fluid is sent to the skin, and through evaporation of sweat, the body is able to cool itself. However, this leads to dehydration and means that there is less blood available to provide muscles with oxygen, which is not good for performance either. In addition to having a negative effect on performance, heat can also be dangerous to run in, with hazards such as heat cramps, heat exhaustion, heatstroke, and other heat related injuries.

Luckily, we do acclimatize to heat, a process that takes between 7-14 days, though improvements may occur for up to 30 days. Ideally, workouts should be done in a range of intensities, temperatures, and humidities in order to fully acclimatize. A heat acclimatized runner will see changes in heart rate, increased resistance to raised body temperature, more efficient cooling through sweating, and lower salt concentration in sweat. Heat acclimatization is retained fully for about a week after returning to cool temperatures, and is thereafter lost gradually throughout a period of about 28 days.

The best tip I can give you about running in hot weather is to run early before it gets hot, or to run late after it cools down. Anyone doing doubles has already figured this out, but those of you who are used to running over your lunch hour may want to rearrange your schedules a bit. In general, mornings are cooler but more humid, and evenings are warmer but less humid (humidity is important because sweat evaporates more rapidly in a less humid environment, allowing more efficient cooling). Ideally, you can train at the time of day your goal race will be run, though unfortunately, not everyone's schedule affords that kind of flexibility.

The other important part of the heat puzzle is staying hydrated. A drop in fluid level means that the body is less efficient at cooling itself. Additionally, a 3-5% decrease in body weight due to fluid loss is enough to have a detrimental effect on performance. It is possible to become overheated without being dehydrated, and to become dehydrated without becoming overheated. Since different people sweat at different rates and have different tolerances for how much liquid they can take at one time, it is important to be cognizant of your own personal fluid needs (though in general, people replace less fluid than they lose during exercise). Another thing to consider is that during hard efforts, it may be beneficial to use a sports drink instead of water, in order to prevent hyponatremia (low sodium levels in the blood). One last important point is that people on a low carbohydrate diet are more likely to become dangerously dehydrated since water is stored with carbohydrates (I would very much discourage a low-carb diet when trying to train for a number of other reasons too, but this one is a biggie in the summer).

Dehydration can be combated by making sure the athlete is properly hydrated before exercise, as well as taking in fluid during exercise. Before exercise, the athlete should drink enough that their urine is very lightly colored, but not so much that they're overhydrated and peeing every half hour, which will cause a loss in sodium and potassium. Hydrating during exercise can be a little tougher in that the athlete needs to figure out where to get their liquid from. If you're lucky, you have a coach (or friend or significant other) who will follow you on a bike or meet you at certain points in a car. For everyone else, storing water bottles along your route or doing short loops that run past your house is probably the easiest way. Ultrarunners may want to practice running with a handheld (or FuelBelt or Camelbak).

Clothing choice is also important. Every so often, it'll be ridiculously hot out, and I'll see someone huffing along in a sweatsuit. You do not get a better workout by wearing clothes that make you sweat more. For the most part, light-colored, loose clothing made of porous materials that do not stick to the skin is best, and often, the less clothes the better (within reason, of course). Some people like wearing a light-colored hat, while others find that it makes their head hotter. On very hot days, I'll wear a hat and periodically douse it with cold water, since I'm either doing small loops or running past a water source on those days. Of course, there are always some exceptions to this rule, such as when training for extremely hot races (we've all heard stories about the elite runner who trained for a hot race wearing a sauna suit), and when running in extremely hot environments (check out the clothes that Badwater competitors wear), but that's really the exception, not the rule.

One other thing to consider doing in the summer is sponging. Hot weather causes blood to pool in the veins of the arms and legs as the veins dilate. Lowering the skin temperature through sponging will constrict these veins and send the blood back to the heart, increasing the volume of blood filling the heart and aiding the heart in maintaining a high stroke volume and cardiac output at a lower heart rate.

And if all else fails, there's always the treadmill for those really hot days.

Why School Sports are Important for Kids

2011-07-15T02:00:00.014-04:00

I just found out that the district in which I competed in junior high school is eliminating all junior high school athletics championships for the 2011-2012 school year. I do not know how this will impact each individual school's athletic program, whether they will still continue to have a program that competes in dual meets and conference championships, or if the writing is on the wall for them too.

I did not begin to run until 9th grade, but I had been involved in school sports for long before that. I actually first wore a uniform with my school's name on it back in third grade, when I joined the school basketball team (and I didn't stop wearing a school uniform until I graduated from college). I went to a small Catholic elementary school, and we competed with the other Catholic elementary schools in the city, and whoever had the best record at the end of the season got a plastic trophy and a banner to hang in their gym. I played in quite a few other leagues so I was playing year-round, but the school season was what was important, and all the other leagues were just training for that. There was more at stake. My teammates were my classmates, my friends. I didn't want to let them down, and I sure didn't want to face them the next day at school if I played like an idiot. And since we spent the entire lunch period of every day talking about basketball (replace with "running," and some things never change), you knew it was going to come up at some point during the day. That just didn't happen with the other leagues, since it wasn't like I was seeing those teammates all the time. Secondly, I knew the opponents. We read the local sports section of the newspaper religiously, taking note of who was good and who we had to watch out for (in third grade, "scores lots of points" and "good" is synonymous...not a lot of great playmaking point guards whose strong point is assists at that age, and tracking who scored the most points was easy enough). Oh my God, I can't even imagine what it would have been like if we had the internet and Facebook! It was a lot more personal than getting your butt kicked by the powerful African American girls from Philadelphia who were as tall as my dad in the AAU tournaments, or playing against the skinny boys in the local coed league, because they were all just nameless opponents. This rivalry made the first week of junior high practice interesting, since we were all on the same team then, but we got over it quickly enough. A few years ago, the bishop decided to combine all of the elementary schools into one big school, and with that, the league was destroyed. They still have an intramural league, but hearing my little cousin talk about it, I can tell that it's not the same. The bishop also did this same thing with all the high schools in the Diocese, which pretty much destroyed an entire Conference, but that's a topic for another post. That left junior high as the next opportunity for school sports.

Junior high got a lot more competitive, since all of the players from all five elementary schools were now competing for positions on one team. I still continued to play year-round in other leagues, but school season was still my main focus. My close friends and teammates were still synonymous. I never would have made friends like that had it not been for the team. Additionally, I still had a good idea of who my opponents were, and no way did I want those public school punks to beat me. Plus I wanted that plastic trophy for my school's trophy case (talk about school spirit!). Districts wasn't a big thing for us (or a thing at all, for whatever reason), but it was for my classmates on the cross-country team. While junior high basketball may be able to escape this move relatively unscathed, junior high cross-country (and possibly other sports) will lose their big meet at the end of the season.

A high school team at their district championship meet, something that's going to become a thing of the past for their junior high counterparts.

When I talk to people, they either loved junior high and high school, or they hated junior high and high school. I fell into the latter category. I loathed every day of it. The one thing that got me through was school sports. It gave me something to look forward to at the end of each school day. It gave me goals to work towards. It gave me a large portion of my social circle. I don't know where I would have been without it. If this move eventually leads to the demise of junior high athletics, I'll mourn for all those students and everything they'll never have. We say we want our kids to be active, healthy, and athletic, but then we take away one of their greatest opportunities to do so. There are plenty of adult athletes who didn't participate in sports as a child who turned out just fine. But that doesn't mean it's a good thing to take away that opportunity for children. I know that budgets are tight, and I don't have a good solution, but I just don't think that taking away school sports is the right way to go about fixing things. I truly hope that it does not come to that for the junior high schools in my district, and my heart breaks for all the kids whose programs have already suffered this unhappy fate.

Gear Review: Kara Goucher's Running for Women: From First Steps to Marathons

2011-07-08T00:56:00.006-04:00

Kara Goucher has become one of America's most recognizable runners, and for good reason, with accomplishments such as a third place finish in the 10,000m at the 2007 World Championships and a recent 5th place finish at the 2011 Boston Marathon. While not every great athlete makes a great coach (and not every great coach was a great athlete), it's unlikely that someone like Goucher would be able to get as far as she did without picking up some knowledge along the way. In Kara Goucher's Running for Women: From First Steps to Marathons, Goucher passes some of that knowledge along to the reader, giving a lot of information that I can honestly look at and say "I wish someone told me that when I started running!"

If I found out that one of my nonrunner friends was going to start running, I would buy her this book. I'd probably buy it for one of my guy friends too, and conveniently black out the "women" part of the title with a Sharpie and just tell him to ignore the chapter on pregnancy. There are a lot of things that I've learned in 12 years of running that I didn't know when I started, things that would have made my life easier had I learned them through some way other than trial and error. Much of it can be found in various training books or on the internet, but most beginners would be completely overwhelmed by the 900+ pages of physiology and kinesiology in Lore of Running, or don't know where to even begin looking online. In her Kara Goucher's Running for Women, Goucher collects a lot of this information and writes it all down in one place, in one easy to read book that is very accessible for the beginning runner.

While some of Goucher's advice is the same basic information that seems to get posted in every article in Runner's World and Active.com, there are also some gems that I'm glad she included, because I don't believe that they're common knowledge among runners, and I do believe can be helpful for many people. For example, she states that the long run should make up no more than 20% of one's weekly mileage, touches on the concept of working in some barefoot drills and having a pair of fast shoes specifically for racing, but emphasizes that most running should be done in trainers, talks about how deviations from a training schedule are normal and expected, and even mentions that no one really sleeps the night before a race, so to focus on sleeping the nights preceding that. I would have loved to have known some of this stuff earlier in my career! I figured out the 20% rule on my own, but not until I actually sat down with my coach's schedules and did the math and poured over plenty of George Malley's writings on LetsRun. The shoes thing is the same conclusion I reached after extensive research, but that was a lot more work on my part than just reading this book and taking Goucher's word for it. The training schedule deviations are common sense, but runners get so obsessive compulsive about following their schedules, and it's refreshing to hear an elite runner say that deviations are normal. I didn't even hear about critical night until my fifth year of running. And that's just the beginning! I was also really happy that Goucher devoted a few pages to stating that the marathon may not be an ideal early goal for beginners, and that it's not the be-all end-all race (a mentality that seems really prevalent among many beginning runners). Goucher herself was running competitively for 18 years before she attempted her first marathon (more patient than me...I waited 10).

Author Kara Goucher after she won the bronze medal in the 10,000m at the 2007 World Championships

Goucher does not really elaborate on any of the information she offers. Each piece of advice is offered as a short tidbit based on Goucher's experience, without the accompanying science or sources backing up what she has to say. This can be seen as a good or a bad thing, since it further helps the book to be accessible and easy to read, but may leave the student of the sport wishing for more information. Daniels this is not. The advice is sound, but I would have liked to see a little more about some of the topics. Additionally, if you've been running for a few years, have read some of the more scientific books, and keep up with a few running websites, there probably won't be anything in this book that you haven't seen before.

In addition to her insights on training, Goucher also includes short narratives illustrating her own career, each story pertinent to whatever subject she is about to tackle. These stories are a nice touch, as they provide diversion for the beginner who does not want to be overwhelmed, and add interest for the veteran who has seen all the running advice already. Goucher also brings in other people with different knowledge bases to offer their input, including her coach and former elite runner Alberto Salazar, her ART therapist Justin Whittaker, and others.

Where I feel that this book falls short are in the training plans included at the end of the racing and marathon chapters. Looking at this book's intended audience, I wasn't expecting Goucher to include her own schedule in this book. However, I would have liked to see her draw upon her own experience a little more, because I can't imagine that even when running lower mileage in high school, she ever did anything even remotely resembling the plans laid out in her book. Each plan involves running three days per week (which is reasonable enough for beginners), but then has a speedworkout that doesn't quite look like it fits in, and the marathon plan has a long run that is kind of on the ridiculous side. Every speedworkout in the 5K and 10K plan is repeat 400s, and every speedworkout in the half-marathon and marathon plan is repeat 800s, with no direction as to pacing and no real variation in workouts. Additionally, while it's impossible to follow the 20% rule that she mentioned earlier in the book when only running three days per week, the marathon plan includes a long run of 20 in a week of 33 miles (61% of the total volume for the week)! It's probably not in Goucher's best interest to actually discourage people who don't have time to run more than three times per week from running a marathon, but based on what she had said earlier in the book, I have to wonder what she was truly thinking when she was writing those plans. I would have preferred to see her either follow the principles she has learned through her own training and write a "dummied down" schedule based on that (a la Pfitz, who I'm sure didn't train with the schedules he laid out in his books, yet he still applied his knowledge the best he could), or to see her include a sample from her own log and allow her readers to learn from that (a la Sage Canaday, who included teammate Drew Polley's log in his book).

Author Kara Goucher in her marathon debut at the 2007 Great North Run

Kara Goucher's Running for Women is perfect for the beginning runner, female or male. It's accessible, it's unintimidating, it's easy to read, it doesn't delve into details that will overwhelm the beginner, and it offers some good advice. It will have less to offer for the advanced runner and for the student of the sport, though both may find the narratives that open each chapter interesting and entertaining. I do believe that Goucher missed the mark with her training plans, and more information about the "why" behind the advice would have been nice, and as the runner gets more experienced, she may be happier with one of the other books that I've written about here. However, it's a great book for the beginner, as well as for the diehard Kara Goucher fan who's heard all the tips but is dying to read her personal stories. It also doesn't hurt that Goucher's name is attached to it, given that she is recognized as one of America's top runners and because she has become a role model for countless female runners (and probably some male runners too). Just don't go into it expecting Daniels or Noakes, and you'll be fine.

Kara Goucher's Running for Women: From First Steps to Marathons retails for $16.99, and can be found on Amazon.

Full disclosure: Nothing to disclose. I borrowed this book from the library and have no affiliation with Kara Goucher, the Nike Oregon Project, or Nike.

Are we messing with form and shoes as a substitute for hard training?

2011-07-05T03:08:00.008-04:00

Everywhere I look today, I see information on "the perfect running form." Articles on how to move from an ungainly heelstrike to a beautiful stride where your midfoot gently kisses the ground. How you should ditch your heavy foamboat foot coffin trainers with their high wedge heels and go to a minimalist zero-drop shoe that promotes good form. How this will all help you run faster, more efficiently, and injury-free. I can hardly go to a running website or forum anymore without being bombarded with information overload on form and shoes! And people are eating this information up too, to the point that I see more questions about running form and shoes than about training!

I know a lot of runners. There's a lot of variation as far as form goes, and as far as what shoes they wear. There are a lot of heel strikers, some midfoot strikers, and even a few forefoot strikers. And their shoe choices run the gamut from traditional trainers with a high level of cushioning and stability to completely barefoot. And it's not like the slow ones are the heel strikers who wear heavy trainers...my fastest friend is a heel striker who primarily wears the Brooks Defyance, a neutral trainer with a 12mm heel-toe differential and a high level of inherent stability for a shoe of its class (yes, neutral shoes have support built in). However, there is one thing that all of the fast ones have in common...they all work their effin' asses off.

Now, before we go any further, let me answer the question that several angry people are ready to pose: am I insinuating that people who are concerned with form are not training hard? Of course not. You can play around with form and still train hard. AlSal had Dathan doing it, and he's working pretty darn hard. That's not what I'm talking about at all. The catch is Dathan is not more concerned about his form than with the rest of his training (I'm assuming so anyway, since I don't actually know Dathan, but I think it's a reasonable conclusion). My concern is the people who are trying to change their natural heelstrike to a midfoot strike or transition from their Brooks Glycerin to the Somnio Nada in hopes of getting faster, and convincing themselves that that's more important than say...hard 800 repeats on the track.

Not every person has the same structure. We all have the same big structures, and we all run basically the same way. However, there are small structural differences from person to person. Small differences in the angles of our bones, or the laxity of our ligaments. All of this means that different strides are most efficient for different people. Amby Burfoot just wrote about how generalizations about foot strike and shoe choices are stupid. It just doesn't work. Not everyone will run best as a midfoot striker who wears minimalist shoes, and for many people, those two conditions will increase their risk of injury. The idea that everyone should transition to minimalist shoes is every bit as ludicrous as the idea that everyone needs orthotics.

But enough preaching about that. I do enough of that in other posts. What I want to discuss is the fact that many people are trying so hard to attain that perfect form that they are losing sight of what actually needs to be done to make them a better runner. That's hard, quality training. Depending on where you are in your running career, it could be high mileage, it could be fast track work, it could be long tempo runs, or it could be, and most likely is, some combination of those (and more). Hard work is sometimes unpleasant. I'm not going to sit here and lie and say it's all fun and games, because it's not. But it's what makes you faster. We all like to try to find the easiest, least painful way to attain our goals. That's just human nature. And working on moving to a midfoot strike or running low mileage because you're transitioning to less shoe sure sounds easier and less painful than 10x1600 at tempo pace. But the easiest and least painful way isn't always the best way (and sometimes, it's the completely wrong way). Most of the time, shortcuts don't work. Changing your natural footstrike or transitioning to a more minimalist shoe is not a substitute for real work.

Similarly, there are a lot of people who get injured and automatically blame their shoes or their "poor form." However, assuming you're not in a radically wrong pair of shoes for your biomechanics, most injuries are training related. Simply put, you went faster or longer than what your tendons and ligaments are currently able to handle. Structural changes happen slowly (much slower than cardiovascular changes, for example), making it easy to push too hard and injure the structures of your body that are taking longer to adapt than your cardiovascular system. (Gotta be honest here, I'm guilty of this too sometimes.)

In general, I'd encourage people to stick with what kind of stride comes naturally to them, and to figure out their most efficient stride through training. When you're putting in high mileage weeks or running Daniels' style repetition work, your body is going to figure out what's most efficient for your personal structure on its own. You'll be too tired or trying to run too fast to run with anything but efficient form. Your body will have no choice but to to run in a manner than conserves energy (the definition of efficiency). But if you really want to play around with your stride, nothing I say is going to stop you. So instead, I'll just give you a friendly reminder to keep in mind that it won't make you faster the way quality work will, so please don't lose sight of what it actually takes to make you a better runner.

2011 USA Outdoor Track and Field Championships

2011-06-25T00:56:00.005-04:00

Just a heads up for anyone interested: Along with the live feed (that I keep missing because I haven't been paying attention to start times), RunnerSpace.com also has videos available of all the races. Here are the links to the women's 10,000, men's 5000, and women's 1500, and anything else can be found using the list on the left hand side of the screen.

Gear Review: Born to Run

2011-06-21T23:26:00.010-04:00

Many runners have a certain running book that they've found stands out for them. It's the book they open when they're looking for inspiration or motivation. For me, that book was Running with the Buffaloes. Once a Runner was a close second, but the story of the University of Colorado's cross-country team just hit a little closer to home and was just a little more powerful for me. Today, many runners have found that "their book" is Christopher McDougall's Born to Run: A Hidden Tribe, Superathletes, and the Greatest Race the World Has Never Seen. I initially had no interest in reading that book, having already read a lot of barefoot and minimalist literature a few years prior, and having talked to a few too many people who were convinced that running barefoot would cure everything from overpronation to ovarian cancer. Then a few months ago, I attended the wedding of one of my college teammates. My old assistant coach was there, and one of the things he asked me was whether I had read Born to Run. I told him no and explained why it didn't really interest me. He told me to give it a chance, that it's not 300 pages of "Shoes are evil" rants, and that he had enjoyed it. So, with an open mind and only a couple years late, the review that you've all been waiting for: Born to Run.

The majority of Born to Run tells the story of McDougall's attempt to learn the secrets of the Tarahumara and the chronicle of a race between the Tarahumara and a group of American ultrarunners. This is, without a doubt, the most compelling and best part of the book. The first part of this story involves McDougall's foray into the dangerous Copper Canyons in an attempt to speak with the reclusive Tarahumara, and his eventual meeting with the enigmatic Caballo Blanco, an ex-Coloradoan who made his home in the canyon and became a Tarahumara in all but blood. McDougall then goes on to describe the failed attempts by a greedy agent to have the Tarahumara race the outside world at well-known ultramarathons like Leadville, followed by Caballo's efforts to pit some of America's top ultrarunners against the Tarahumara on their home turf in the "Ultimate Fighting Competition of underground ultras." McDougall does a fantastic job of relating the stories of each athlete to the reader, from the great Scott Jurek to the wild and crazy East Coast "Young Guns" to the slightly insane Barefoot Ted. His description of the race itself is even more exciting. McDougall recounts his own race, while also describing the races of the other competitors, with all the thrilling detail you'd expect from a running book.

Also excellent is the chapter on the Running Man, or the evolution of homo sapian as born to run. It's a theory I've heard before, but McDougall explains it with excellent clarity. This chapter explains how human anatomy is perfect for distance running, and how humans likely evolved to be able to run down prey over multiple hour hunts. However, I feel that this is a chapter that people sometimes misunderstand. McDougall himself points out that in a few hundred years, humans' facial shape has changed to better accommodate the food that they ate at that period in time. What isn't mentioned, but can be inferred from that last statement, is that there has also been plenty of time to introduce less than perfect biomechanics into the gene pool. For quite a while now, we've no longer has to chase down their food or escape from predators, and someone with flat feet won't end up with plantar fasciitis and not be able to catch food, allowing them to live to pass on that gene to offspring. McDougall's point in that chapter concerns the big anatomical structures, such as the Achilles tendon and nuchal ligament, and as long as the purpose of this chapter is understood, it is an informative piece of literature.

If that was the entirety of Born to Run, I'd give it a thumbs up. Not exactly Running with the Buffaloes, but a pretty good read nevertheless. However, between chapters of this narrative and the information on the Running Man, McDougall inserts chapters that can tend to read like a high school student's poorly researched persuasive essay, and it's in those chapters that Born to Run falls flat.

Early in the book, McDougall builds up the Tarahumara as superathletes, the greatest ultradistance athletes in the world. There is no doubt that the feats of the Tarahumara are insane. As a collective people, there are probably few other cultures that come close to their athletic prowess. Athleticism and an active lifestyle is emphasized in their culture, and their tribe competes in multiple day-long races covering hundreds of miles. While I understand McDougall's point that it is their lifestyle that makes them such amazing athletes, I feel that his portrayal of non-Tarahumara athletes is unfair and insulting to top elite athletes. Early in the book, he compares the Tarahumara to Lance Armstrong, who struggled through his first marathon. What he completely neglected to mention (but hopefully the reader is astute enough to realize) is that Armstrong is a cyclist, and despite having an extraordinary VO2max, he does not have the running economy of a trained runner. That's not a valid comparison. Additionally, he claims that the Tarahumara are better ultradistance runners than Olympic marathon runners. Well, I'd certainly hope so, considering Olympic marathoners are training for a very specific event that is not an ultramarathon. America's very top runners are generally weeded out, often as early as high school, and cultivated through high school, NCAA, and professional or elite development programs to be great track and road runners, not ultramarathoners. Surely not every marathoner would make a great ultramarathoner, just as not every miler makes a great 5K runner, but we will never know whether Ryan Hall and Nick Arciniaga could beat Scott Jurek in a 100 miler, because Ryan and Nick probably don't want to risk injury or waste the valuable time to train for and race the Hardrock 100 when the Olympics are on the horizon. A professional runner, like any other runner, runs for love of the sport, but also has to consider sponsors and money, two things offered in far greater volume at more traditional distances. With the very top runners out of the picture, the athletes left to go ultra-long are the lunatic fringe who prefer long races on trails and those who weren't quite good enough to score a sponsorship (no offense intended, because you've gotta be damn fast for Nike to come calling). When McDougall finally acknowledges the great elite runners who do not run ultras, he praises those of yesterday, and wonders why American runners today have gotten slower. Without a doubt, yesterday's top runners were incredible. However, if runners today are slower, yesterday's records would still stand...but they don't.

Speaking of Nike, McDougall's criticism with shoe companies is the most ridiculous part of the book. Shoe companies are a business. They are not perfect. I think we all can admit that, Nike employees included. However, McDougall goes way over the line here. Unfortunately, in the chapters about shoe companies, McDougall comes off as an angry, bitter man who is upset about his own injuries and is now blaming shoe companies for his problems, Nike in particular. In one chapter, he rips on University of Oregon coach and Nike founder Bill Bowerman, implying that Bowerman knew little about running and invented the foam heel wedge, which was integrated into a shoe called the "Nike Cortez." Interestingly, a few chapters later, McDougall names this same Cortez as being a flat and minimal shoe. Also interestingly, Ed Ayres, the founding editor of Running Times, will tell you that he was running in shoes with a raised heel long before Nike was founded. McDougall backs up his accusations with science, and while much of it is technically correct, is also incomplete and fails to tell the whole story.

McDougall cites several statistics on injury rates among runners, yet never cites any sources. I'm sure he didn't just make them up, but they are quite a bit different than numbers I've seen in the past, and the scientist in me would love to read the sources from which he got his data. (To be fair, I don't cite my sources either, but this is an internet blog, not a book, and if you're really curious, most of my stuff comes from one of these books or from my physical therapy textbooks). In one part of the book, he claims that up to 8 out of 10 runners are injured every year. 8 out of 10?! Either there's a real emphasis on the up to part of that sentence, or he's talking about the little twinges that runners get that they ignore and are gone in two days. In another part of the book, he mentions that injury numbers have risen since the advent of cushioned shoes...but ignores the fact that the number of runners as a whole have also risen, with much of the growth in the back of the pack. With more people running, of course there are going to be more injuries. Additionally, running was more exclusive in the '70s. It was more self-selecting. The runners who got fast had no choice but to have great biomechanics, otherwise, they'd have been injured and would not have been able to put in the training necessary to be great. Today, you can have less than perfect biomechanics, and with the help of modern technology, you can still put in high training volumes. Don't get me wrong, I truly believe that orthotics are over-diagnosed (though there are certainly people who do benefit from them). But 12oz running shoes with cushioned midsoles and perhaps a small medial post? That's a godsend for a lot of people.

If you're looking for an easy read that tells an interesting story about a race between the Tarahumara and some great American ultradistance runners, Born to Run is a good book. However, it's not a good book to read for real data on minimalism and barefoot running. Born to Run, at its core, isn't even about barefoot and minimalist running, but rather about a tribe of people and how humans are born to run. In that respect, it is successful. However, if you're looking for information on barefoot and minimalist running, you're better off finding an actual kinesiology book or talking to a trained professional with a degree. I agree with some of McDougall's points and disagree with some of his others, but I've come to those conclusions after reading hundreds of articles on both sides of the argument, as well as those that are completely unbiased and fall on neither side, which are often the most informative of them all. So please, if you read this book, enjoy it for its good parts, but don't take it for gospel. There are just too many incomplete and misleading points, and I can't help but feel that the book would have been better had McDougall done a bit more research.

Born to Run retails for $24.95, but can be found for less on Amazon.

Guest Blog: Gear Review: Saucony Grid Type A4

2011-06-14T20:55:00.004-04:00

I asked my friend and college teammate Julie to write up a guest review on the Saucony Grid Type A4 racing flat, which has become her trainer of choice. After college, Julie took her running in a completely different direction than I did, returning to the trail running she had done outside of NCAA running, getting involved with ultradistance races, and experimenting with minimalist shoes, including various flats, the Vibram Five Fingers, and running completely barefoot. While I did a review of the Nike Free a little while ago, my review still came from the perspective of a shod road runner. As far as minimalism goes, Julie is the real deal. So, for all you trail runners, ultrarunners, and minimalist fans, this review is for you.

Example of the terrain we normally run on

I pretty much exclusively run trails, and mountains. Many of our trails are rocky with a layer of sandy dirt on top. My three main training routes average between 15 and 25% grade, and runs are between 3 and 26 miles long. Of course, this terrain was probably not what Saucony was thinking when they developed the A4, but for me it works. The shoe feels like a sock, and the sole provides adequate protection from rocks, branches, pebbles, etc. The more flexible of a shoe I wear, the less chance I have of developing Achilles tendonitis, and I have had no issues with the A4. I would rate the sole flexibility as very high. It allows sufficient ground feel, which to me adds to the fun of mountain running, while allowing me to fly down trails with less regard for foot damage than I need in Vibram Five Fingers, increasing my descent speed drastically.

My shoes after about 400 trail miles

I had four major concerns about this shoe when I first tried it on. First, the heel cup is very high in the back. Some people seem to think you should just deal with blisters until the skin gets tough enough. I think the shoe shouldn't cause blisters at all, and it's lame if it does. Unfortunately, this turned out to be a real problem with really low socks, but I decided the rest of the shoe is awesome enough that I will just wear higher socks. Second, there are actual holes in the sole of the shoe (to save weight?). Almost all of the time, this is okay for trail running. Every once in awhile, a small rock gets stuck in one of the holes, which I only notice when running on pavement at the very end of my runs, and they are usually pretty easy to pull out. Even more rarely, but a lot more annoyingly, sometimes I will land on a pointy rock that somehow finds its way directly into the hole, stabbing me in the foot. Someday I think this is going to be a real problem, but so far I've only suffered minor bruising. Third, durability was a big worry. These shoes are light due to their EVA sole, which isn't exactly ideal for trail running. Surprisingly, somehow the shoes are holding together. I am definitely on the lighter side of trail runner build, so that might have something to do with it, but the sole is staying together! Yay! The little dots that pretend to be traction haven't fallen off! This is awesome. Good job Saucony, I am shocked they are still together. Lastly, when it comes to traction, well, its a road shoe. I've found that huge lugs on the bottom of a shoe are rarely necessary (mud and snow being the exceptions), and I think most shoes would slip on the sand/rock combination on some of the trails I run. Yes, I'd like better traction but not at the cost of weight or flexibility, so I'll make that compromise.

My shoes after about 400 trail miles

The upper is pretty awesome, I have no complaints here. Its extremely breathable (huge mesh holes), which is awesome for running in the desert. They are white, so they reflect the sun, not absorb it (black shoes...i.e. black five fingers...in the desert sun are not fun). There is elastic on the side of the shoe that is just the right tightness to comfortably hold the tongue, and your foot, in place, without causing blisters, even barefoot. I've had no issues with laces coming undone, unlike some other brands.

From a "barefoot movement" perspective, lots of people care about the heel to toe drop...the difference between the height of the heel and height of the toe. Barefoot gives you a zero drop stride. Lots of shoes are around 12mm+. I wanted to stick with smaller since Five Fingers are pretty close to barefoot, and the A4 has a 4mm drop. This means the shoe has a different feel than a lot of running shoes out there. It doesn't have a thick sole to begin with, so you get a very close to the ground feel. I consider this a big plus for trail running so I can feel what I am doing and am less likely to trip and fall.

A4 tested over various terrain, including snow

Overall, the A4 is super light, super flexible, and still provides some protection from the mountain trails. They just feel good on my feet, as long as my socks are high enough to protect my heel from blisters. They don't force me to change my stride to compensate for the shoe, which is critically important to me (otherwise I feel like I can't move my feet and running stops being fun). If you've only worn heavier, more protective shoes, then this probably isn't the best shoe to start mountain running with, but if you have some experience in mountains or experience with training in lightweight shoes, I highly recommend them for trail running. I would not recommend them for running in the snow due to the holes in the bottom and the mesh upper. The A4 has turned into my #1 training shoe, with five fingers runs mixed in to keep my feet and calves extra strong. I'm still looking for a good mud shoe though.

Disclaimer: I am not an expert and if you get hurt, please don't blame me.

Notes from Becki:
The Saucony Grid Type A4 retails for $95 and is available on the Saucony website, as well as at many running stores that carry Saucony products, including the National Running Center, where it is on sale for $79.99 (NRC has some sizes listed as out of stock, but give Rob a call at 1-800-541-1773 between 8am-8pm M-F or 10am-5pm Sat US Eastern Time, and he can order you a pair if necessary). It is available in both men's and women's sizing. I am not certain on how this shoe fits, so go to Julie's blog and bug her if you want details.

Full disclosure: Julie purchased these shoes herself, and the opinions expressed in this review are hers and based on her experience, and do not reflect the opinions of Saucony or the blog's regular author.

Julie chronicles her running and other adventures on her blog 2. Travels b. An account of one's journeys. If you enjoyed her review and want to read more, check out her blog.

Warrior Dash, Tough Mudder, and Other Cross-Obstacle Races

2011-06-14T17:00:00.006-04:00

Over the weekend, one of my Facebook friends recently put up a status asking why the sudden proliferation of events like the Warrior Dash, Tough Mudder, Muddy Buddy, and urban adventure races. It seemed that the comments on this status fell onto one of two sides. The first side declared that such races are a show of false bravado for weekend warriors, a money making scheme that lacks the seriousness of a "real" competition, and an injury risk for "real" athletes. The other side stated that such races are a ton of fun, a great way to get people moving, and an excuse to push one's limits. A similar discussion was posted on LetsRun last week, with similar arguments on both sides (though LetsRun being LetsRun, I'm sure you can guess which side most posters took).

During my freshman year of high school, occasionally my cross-country coach would send out the girls' team and boys' team on a run together. The boys' team won the state championship that year, so for them these runs were no doubt easy recovery jogs. On the other hand, the girls' team was not all that impressive, making these runs fairly challenging for us, and the slower girls usually completely fell off the back, which gave the top guys ample opportunity to run extra by looping back and forth to keep an eye on them so they didn't get lost. On these runs, the guys took us on trails that we otherwise would not have seen. We shimmied across fallen trees or hopped across rocks to cross creeks, scrambled up rocks and hills of scree, used an old rope swing to make our way down a cliff, and one time even ended up in what looked like a junkyard that involved us crawling over various pieces of old discarded furniture to get to the other side. We dubbed these "cross-obstacle" runs, and more than a few people stated that they would give up cross-country to run cross-obstacle. These runs were a blast for us, and obviously the occasional cross-obstacle run did not prevent our boys from winning state.

The Warrior Dash and its ilk are a similar concept to what our high school cross-country team (and no doubt countless others) discovered years ago. Each event is a run that is broken up by a number of obstacles, such as barricades and ropes to climb, streams and mud pits to cross, hills to scramble up, and fire to hurdle. The distance and obstacles vary from race to race. I feel like there must be some people who race for place or time, and the Warrior Dash has winners and losers, but it seems that the vast majority of participants go simply for the experience (though I'm not sure that differs much from the modern marathon). The 3000m steeplechase this is not. In fact, the Tough Mudder does not even post results online, stating, "Since Tough Mudder is an event, definitely not a race, we do not post the finish times on our site. We’re not into people focusing too much on their time, as we think a)it detracts from some of the most important parts of the day, namely camaraderie, and b)it’s lame."

Having faceplanted in the steeplechase pit in college, I think I'll pass on this. Picture from UPchicago.com

Alright, before we go too much further, I take some issue with that last quote. WTF lame?! I work hard for my finish times. Calling them lame is not the best way to attract me to an event. And I've built fantastic camaraderie through real competition, and most of my close friends were developed through racing, finish times and all. But I digress, and my thoughts on how close friends and lasting relationships can develop through the blood, sweat, and tears that surround the journey towards a finish time have little to do with the rest of this post.

You can get muddy and have friends with a very real emphasis on time too.

For the most part (stupid views on finish times and competition aside), I think that these races are great. I've heard people at school talking about Warrior Dash. People who otherwise probably wouldn't give a crap about racing (or event-ing in the case of Tough Mudder). It gives them a reason to get off the couch, put in some training, and be active. Awesome. We need more events like these, if only for reasons like that. Additionally, it gives many "real" runners something with which to mix up their training, to break up the monotony of the trial of miles. I've heard from plenty of runners how much fun events like these are.

However, for some people, these events are less of a good idea. I remember having a conversation with a few of my runner friends and one of them brought up that she might be interested in doing a Tough Mudder. My other friend and I looked at her like she had lost her mind. This woman was a serious runner who is focused on performance. We eventually dissuaded her, since for her, the risk of injury was just not worth it. Her hardcore training put her at enough of an injury risk, why stress everything even more by making her jump off barriers? Her biggest priority was a time. Why potentially compromise her training and sacrifice the fulfillment of her major goal for a couple hours of fun in the mud? (As far as injury risk, it was pointed out that many trails have just as great, if not more injury risk than these cross-obstacle runs. Very true, but I don't run trails like that anymore, at least not during training cycles. And I gave up the steeplechase after college. And my mountain bike sits in the corner during serious training cycles too. Seriously, it's hard enough to stay healthy with my normal training. You think I need something else in there?)

While I have a pretty good idea of where the boys' team's trails are, I have not returned to these trails since high school. Part of this is because the city no longer maintains those trails, which would make them overgrown and even more obstacle-filled than before, but the big reason is that I'm sure I would find such a run a waste of time and an unnecessary injury risk. Does that mean that runs like the Warrior Dash and Tough Mudder are bad? Of course not. They have an audience that loves them every bit as much as someone else might love to see a new track PR, and it's up to you to decide whether or not you're part of that audience.

Gear Review: Running for the Hansons

2011-06-07T15:44:00.003-04:00

You don't graduate from Bucknell University without being at least somewhat of a Hansons fan. My first exposure to the Hansons-Brooks Distance Project was in 2003, my freshman year, when I somehow managed to make the travel squad to a cross-country meet in Detroit (I have no idea how that happened...I sucked freshman year!). My coach, Kevin Donner, had previously coached Brian Sell at St. Francis University and took the opportunity to introduce him to our team. Additionally, one of my teammates, a fellow freshman, had run for Sterling Heights High School in Michigan, and had been coached by Kevin Hanson, one of the two founders and coaches of the Hansons team. Then, a few years later, my best friend and college running partner Molly Pritz was accepted to their program (to be fair, she's gotten a lot faster since college, and training with her post-collegiately often involved me getting dropped). At this point, anyone who ran for the Bison kind of becomes a Hansons fan be default. So when I heard that Hansons runner Sage Canaday was putting out a book about his experiences with the team, I ordered myself some reading material.

In 2003, the big running book that everyone was reading was Chris Lear's Running with the Buffaloes, which tells the story of the 1998 University of Colorado cross-country team. What Running with the Buffaloes does for college cross-country, Canaday's Running for the Hansons does for professional running. Lear's influence is obvious, as Running for the Hansons opens with a short introduction of each member of the men's team, sticks to short chapters, includes plenty of quotes from team members, and is an easy and quick read. Also similar to Lear, Canaday manages to grab the reader's attention early, and does not let it go until the end of the book. I finished this book in a single night (and if I were 100% healthy and had an early speed workout this morning I would have been screwed). The lighthearted writing style and interesting stories keep the pages turning, and readers may find themselves saying that they're only going to read the next chapter before putting it down...over and over again.

Author Sage Canaday at Boston

Sage Canaday is a Cornell University graduate and professional runner for the Hansons-Brooks Distance Project in Rochester, MI. He is a two-time Olympic Trials qualifier in the marathon, having qualified for the 2008 Trials at age 21 and again with a 2:16:50 for 2012. Canaday is the brains behind Vo2max Productions, a company that puts out videos promoting the sport of distance running, and the author of Running for the Hansons. Running for the Hansons is Canaday's inside account of what it's like to run as a professional runner on an elite team.

Canaday goes between speaking about his current experiences with the program and giving background information, whether it's about the area, the history of the program itself, details about other Hansons runners, or a humorous look at the customers that come into the Hansons Running Shop. There are stories to which every serious runner can relate, covering subjects including hanging on for dear life during workouts, trying desperately to hit a speed workout during a super high mileage week, dropping a deuce in the middle of a run, forgoing a beer the night before a workout, turning an easy run into a race with a teammate, and the crushing disappointment of a fantastic training cycle turned into a miserable race. However, at its core, this book is about an elite runner and his team, and there is no shortage of big mileage numbers and fast times. In this book, Canaday gives readers a look at the "secret" that makes Hansons athletes so successful...that is, that there is no secret at all, just hard work and lots of sacrifice.

Running for the Hansons offers an inside look at the Hansons-Brooks Distance Project: the running, the lifestyle, and all of the ups and downs that accompany it. As a young runner who is new to the Hansons, Canaday takes on the perspective of the young "fat guy" who often feels out of place when running with the older, established guys on the team. This view allows Canaday to keep the tone humorous and light, and become a narrator to whom readers can relate, even if their race times are nowhere near Canaday's. However, despite this tone, Canaday is careful not to present the idea that elite running is all fun and games, and also includes chapters on disappointment and heartache, as well as the sacrifice the lifestyle entails. Additionally, Running for the Hansons includes plenty of extras, such as information on training (similar to what is seen on his blog) and Drew Polley's running log.

Running for the Hansons is available in paperback on Sage Canaday's website, Vo2max Productions, for $14.95 (plus shipping). You can also request an autograph and dedication if you order through the website. Customer service is great and shipping is very prompt, and I actually received an email from Canaday shortly after ordering the book, apologizing that it was taking so long because he had to "track down Molly Pritz" as per my special instructions that I included with the order asking for Molly to draw a picture of the Hansons team (and seriously the day after I got that email, I got a text message from Molly telling her Sage stopped her immediately after her run and made her draw a picture on the inside cover of one of his books).

The reason you should order from Sage's site rather than Amazon.

Full disclosure: Nothing to disclose. I bought this book myself and have no affiliation with the Hansons or with Sage Canaday.

Why Do You Run?

2011-06-03T22:29:00.022-04:00

Running is a somewhat odd activity. It's a selfish endeavor, and many of us leave our families for hours every day, plunging ourselves into an activity that benefits no one but ourselves. Sometimes we're helping a team or a running partner, but for the most part, it is something we do to satisfy our own desires. It's a financially draining sport. Sure, I win a little bit of money on the roads now and then, but that money doesn't even cover my shoes, let alone the rest of my gear, my race fees, or my running related medical bills. Many professional runners aren't even making enough to live, and they have to have another part-time job on the side. It's a punishing activity, bringing with it the physical pain of effort and injuries, and the mental anguish of heartbreak. Yet for whatever reason, we all continue to do it. So while you read this post, I'd like you to start thinking about the answer to the question: Why do you run?

Obviously, we run because we love running. If you're not passionate about the sport, you're clearly wasting your time. The vast majority of us aren't going to make the Olympics or make a living out of this (myself very much included), so you've got to love it. Otherwise, you're making a lot of sacrifices for nothing. But we all have goals, and that's what I'm going to cover in the rest of this post.

The answer to why each of us runs is very personal, and it changes over time. Additionally, it's multi-faceted. Very few people have only one goal. Instead, most of us have a number of different reasons that we run, some of which are more important than others. One mistake that is often made is losing sight of which goals are important to us, and allowing a less important goal to take priority over a more important goal, sometimes even at the expensive of the more important goal. Just to be clear, I'm no psychiatrist, and I'm not trying to get into the deep meaning of why we run (acceptance, self-worth, etc), but the simpler answers to these questions, as you'll see in the paragraphs ahead. Additionally, I'm referring to priorities within running, rather than the balance between running and other facets of life (family, social life, work, etc).

I run because I want to see how fast I can possibly be. Now, I'm sure some of you are thinking, "Duh, who doesn't run to get faster?" And no doubt, speed is somewhere on just about everyone's priority list. However, I'm going to go out on a limb here, and say that it's not #1 for many people. Here's an example for you. Obviously, to get fast, you need to stay healthy. However, someone who places speed above everything else pushes limits and puts themselves at a greater risk of injury than someone for whom running healthy is numero uno. On the other hand, many runners set the goal to still be running when they're seventy (or eighty or ninety) as their top priority, and will therefore train differently than someone who is constantly skirting that line between their best possible training and being injured.

My friend Karen came to me last January with the goal of getting faster, PRing in the marathon, and qualifying for Boston. However, at the time, one of her big goals was weight loss. Unfortunately, ideal marathon training and having a top goal of weight loss are not compatible. After a few conversations, I convinced her to temporarily shelve her weight loss goal and focus on her marathon training. The result was that she gained some weight, but ran a 9 minute PR and got her Boston qualifier. Had she continued to limit her caloric intake, I don't believe she would have gotten her qualifier, and there's also a greater chance that she would have gotten injured during marathon training and perhaps not even made it to the starting line. However, did she achieve her primary goal? Yes she did, and not only did she run a lifetime personal best, but she smashed her old PR and ran minutes faster than her Boston qualifying time. So while it's possible to switch priorities around, you have to make your primary goal your primary goal, and not let other secondary goals get in the way.

Another goal that seems to be more common today is "strengthening your feet." Ignoring the limitations of this goal for a minute (strengthening feet does not correct overpronation for some people, depending on the reason why they overpronate, for example), it's useful to decide why you want to strengthen your feet. Again, what's your primary goal, assuming the primary goal isn't just to strengthen your feet for the heck of it? Is it to prevent injury? If so, you may be better off doing theraband exercises, which isolate certain muscles and do not carry the same risks as running in minimalist shoes. Is it to run faster? Structural changes happen more slowly than cardiovascular changes, so most people will be able to train much harder with more support and cushioning, since support and cushioning in a more traditional trainer will assist the small intrinsic and extrinsic muscles of the feet when they get tired, and allow the runner to continue to train the heart and lungs with less risk of overuse. Is it because you think minimalist shoes look cool and want to wear them? It may work or may not work, depending on your bony structure and the laxity of your ligaments, which cannot be changed by strengthening. Is it to make your feet more attractive? Sure, I've heard that some people's feet look nicer after some strengthening, so that might be worth a try.

It's often easy to lose sight of what your big goal is. I admit that I have been guilty of this at times, for various reasons. One of my biggest issues is that I'm a numbers chaser. I run high mileage, and for the most part, high mileage works for me. I got faster off of big mileage weeks, and it seemed like the higher I pushed my mileage, the better I got. If I'm not careful, I end up playing the numbers game, where a shorter run might be better for my overall performance, yet I force myself on a longer run anyway, because somehow I temporarily delude myself into thinking that big numbers equal fast times (not necessarily true), and I therefore like seeing my mileage total for the week rack up. Or something will hurt, but I won't cut back because I need to get these miles in, and my training will be irrevocably damaged if I take a day off or cut a run short (even though it won't, but don't try to convince me of that). While mileage is a large part of my primary goal, it is not my primary goal, and it's in my best interest not to lose sight of that fact. Another common problem is the weight game. Runners get it in their head that they have to be skinny to run fast, so they try to lose weight, often at the expense of their training. Inadequate caloric intake results in a lack of energy and poor training, as well as increased risk of injury, since the body is unable to repair itself and make training adaptions.

It's important to keep in mind that you can only have one primary goal at a time. Everything else is secondary. If you attempt to have too many big goals, all of them will suffer and there is a good chance that you will fail at one or more of these goals. Take some time and figure out what the most important focus of your running is, and cater your training towards that goal. And every so often, assess yourself and make sure that your primary goal is still your primary goal. And be honest with yourself! Don't try to convince yourself to go for something else because you think a different goal is "right," because one goal isn't necessarily more noble than another (with a few obvious exceptions, such as someone with an eating disorder whose primary goal is that of weight loss, which is way outside of what I feel qualified to talk about in this blog). If you really want to lose those last 10 pounds, this year isn't the time to train for a marathon. If you're training for a big marathon, maybe you should tell your friends that you can't run 5Ks every weekend with them like you did in prior years. If you're trying to increase your mileage, don't worry about your 5K time until you're satisfied with your base. If your big goal race is next weekend, you probably want to skip that half-marathon today, even though you have a good shot at the prize money. If you want to run a marathon in every state, maybe you shouldn't also be trying to PR in the 10K. If you want to start a serious marathon training cycle, now isn't the time to go mess with your shoes and try to go minimal. You only have a limited amount of time to spend running. Use that time to focus on your primary goal, whatever it may be. Make it count.