Runblogger

Update to My Minimalist Running Shoe Guide

noreply@blogger.com (Pete Larson) — Thu, 24 May 2012 02:58:00 +0000

My minimalist running shoe guide has consistently been my top performing post for over a year now. However, due to the work that went into assembling it and the explosion of minimalist shoes that have come out since I originally wrote he guide in 2010, I have not spent the time needed to update it as initially planned. Today I finally got around to doing a full update, and instead of attempting to list every shoe that could be considered even remotely minimalist, I opted to trim it down and simply provide my top recommended shoes in each of five categories (all are shoes I have run in myself):

Zero Drop, Minimal Cushion (aka Barefoot-Style Shoes)
Zero Drop, Cushioned
0-6mm Drop Road Shoes
0-6mm Drop Trail Shoes
Racing Flats

If you think of running shoes as tools, these are the five categories that I would include in my personal running toolbox. If I had to cull my running shoe collection to just five shoes, I would most likely choose one from each of these categories – they would cover all of my personal running needs.

Click here to view my updated minimalist running shoe guide.

Brooks Going Zero Drop with the Pure Drift

noreply@blogger.com (Pete Larson) — Tue, 22 May 2012 18:21:00 +0000

Just came across an article on IndsideInsight announcing the Brooks will be releasing a zero-drop shoe in the near future. The Pure Drift is a new addition to the Pure-Project lineup and it features a removable 4mm drop insole, which when removed makes this a zero drop shoe. I’ve long wondered why shoe companies have not attempted to build “transitionability” (is that a word???) into a single shoe through a removable insole, so kudos to Brooks for taking the step. Hard to say much given the scanty info currently available, but that forefoot looks nice and big in the photo below, and looks like plenty of room for the big toe to splay out!

InsideInsight reports that the Pure Drift will be available in January 2013 and will retail for $100.

Just found a few more photos on the Brooks website, sounds like weight will be under 6 oz:

Barefoot Running Pros and Cons: Some Thoughts from and Interview on examiner.com

noreply@blogger.com (Pete Larson) — Tue, 22 May 2012 12:33:00 +0000

I was recently interviewed about my book, Tread Lightly, by Samantha Chang of examiner.com. One of the topics that she asked about was barefoot running – specifically, she wanted me to discuss some of the pros and cons of running barefoot.

I’m admittedly not much of a barefoot runner (pretty tough to do for about 4-5 months of the year up here in New Hampshire!), but have done it and enjoyed it on several occasions. Chapter 3 of Tread Lightly deals extensively with the topic of barefoot running, and it appears multiple times elsewhere in the book.

I wanted to share my answer to Samantha’s question here, and point you to the interview should you want to read more (lots of the questions focused on the health benefits of running in general, which I was happy about since the sport has really changed my life – just passed my five-year running anniversary!).

You can click here to read the entire interview on examiner.com, and my answer to the barefoot running question is below – it pretty well summarizes my current thoughts on the topic.

As always, if you have any thoughts of your own about the pros and cons of barefoot running, feel free to share in the comments section below!

SC: I read the chapter on barefoot running with particular interest because the practice has a small but growing (and avid) following. You wisely noted that barefoot running may not be totally practical in today's modern world (e.g., stray hypodermic needle, impact of hard surfaces), but also suggest that many runners could benefit by incorporating some barefoot running into their routines. Can you elaborate on this?

PL: There are some very real risks associated with barefoot running, and stepping on something is one of them. However, I think the hypodermic needle issue gets overplayed a bit.

Running barefoot forces you to be really aware of where you place your feet, and as long as you use your eyes to scan the ground, the chances of stepping on something nasty are pretty low. I’m by no means a regular barefoot runner, but I’ve tried it a few times and have found it to be enjoyable under the right conditions.

The bigger risk for someone wanting to try barefoot running is that running without shoes forces you to change your form. For one thing, it will really work your calf muscles, and they can be very sore at the start. Second, the skin on your feet takes time to condition, and blistering is common among new barefoot runners. Third, the bones and connective tissues in your feet need time to strengthen to handle the different kinds of stress placed on them when shoes are removed. If you do too much too soon in bare feet it is possible to suffer injuries like stress fractures of the foot bones.

The benefit of barefoot running is that it removes all interference between your foot and the ground, and is thus a great way to feel your form. Your foot is a highly sensory structure, and it will tell you when you are doing something wrong. Though your form will adapt when you take off your shoes, the type of adaptations seen may not be the same in all people.

Some people will continue to land on their heels when they switch to barefoot (I’ve videotaped many runners doing this!), at least for a time, but most will shorten their stride, which can be of benefit in reducing forces applied to joints like the knees and hips. Furthermore, since people run differently when barefoot, it will work your leg and foot muscles in a different way. Some will get stronger as a result (e.g., your calf muscles).

However, if you go exclusively barefoot, other groups of muscles may de-condition somewhat (e.g., the muscles on the front of your shin). Different footwear (or lack thereof) will work your muscles in different ways.

I’ll add that barefoot does not need to be an all-or-nothing thing. Even doing small amounts of barefoot running can be of benefit – in fact, it’s a common practice among track and cross-country teams to do a bit of barefoot running in their training.

If you do decide to try it, it’s important to be very gradual and careful. Starting out with as little as a minute of barefoot running at a time is a wise approach. Listen to your body, and build from there. If anything feels painful, then ease back. It’s ok to mix barefoot in very slowly while running in regular shoes.

And if barefoot isn’t for you, trying out a very minimal shoe for occasional form or strengthening work is another approach. It won’t be the same as true barefoot, but it may be more practical for a lot of people. Once you get started by giving it a try, you can decide how big a part of your running repertoire it will become.

Merrell M-Connect Footwear Series: Extending Beyond Merrell Barefoot

noreply@blogger.com (Pete Larson) — Mon, 21 May 2012 20:10:00 +0000

Two weeks ago I had the privilege of being able to spend a few days out in Michigan with the design and marketing teams behind the Merrell Barefoot line of footwear. Merrell had invited me and Jay Dicharry, who is doing some testing for them in his lab at UVA, to discuss the state of the running shoe market, to summarize what we know about running form, and to do a bit of brainstorming about the future of their shoe line. As has been my personal policy to date, I accepted no consulting fee for the trip – I just enjoy working with people who are passionate about making innovative shoes. Merrell in particular is a company that I respect, and every person I have met from the company has been fantastic. They’re the real deal, and it was quite a lot of fun to hang out with them on the shores of Lake Michigan (honestly, a “business” meeting with an outdoor-sports company is quite unlike any other I have ever experienced – involved a lot of biking, running, and a few brave souls even did a bit of swimming!). On a side note, it was particularly interesting to be there just as Merrell’s parent company Wolverine Worldwide had acquired Saucony – it’ll be interesting to watch how the two companies interact going forward.

One of the cool things about being at Merrell design headquarters for part of the trip is that I got to see a whole bunch of shoes that they have in the works. Shoe companies don’t typically allow discussion of products in development, so I haven’t said much about most of what I saw, but I got an email today from Merrell giving me the OK to post about their new M-Connect series of shoes, which they are announcing today. Here’s a snippet from the press release put out by Merrell about M-Connect:

“M-Connect Series includes four collections that are designed to enable ground connection but are built on different platforms based on activity – from Barefoot and Bare Access to Multi-Run with Mix Master and Multi-Hike with Proterra. All are built with agility in mind and range from zero to four-‐millimeter heel to toe drop and graded cushioning for enhanced ground response and necessary protection dependent on end-‐use and terrain.

Merrell Proterra is a brand new multi-hike collection that innovates with an agile approach to a traditional hiking product. The design combines Merrell’s heritage performance with Merrell Barefoot learnings for fast, breathable and durable hiking shoes and boots. Proterra is built on a four millimeter drop and demonstrated to improve a person’s stability through an outsole that enhances contact with the ground and a patent-‐pending upper that uses Stratafuse™ technology. Stratafuse injects the foot cage into the mesh upper, fusing it together for a lightweight fit, natural movement and incredible durability.

Additionally, Merrell Barefoot gets a major update with heightened ground feel and a new upper design for running and fitness. Bare Access also gets a design update with greater ground connection and upper design but maintains a minimally cushioned ride with eight millimeters of M Bound™ cushioning throughout. For multi-‐run activities, Mix Master sneakers are fast, flexible and light, and built on a four-‐millimeter drop for multi-‐tasking activities.”

Basically, Merrell is taking the barefoot concept and extending it a bit into the more transitional shoe category, and all of these shoes (barefoot styles included)will belong to the umbrella of M-Connect. They already have zero drop running shoes with minimal cushion (e.g., Road and Trail Gloves), and zero drop shoes with some cushion (Bare Access). They will be updating all of these styles, then adding in 4mm drop road and trail shoes (Mix Master), as well as 4mm drop light hikers and hiking boots (Mix Master Tuff, Proterra). New to the mix are several barefoot-style and zero-drop cushioned training shoes targeted for use in gyms, fitness classes, crossfit, etc (Flux, Hammer, Crush Gloves and Bare Access Shape). These moves make a lot of sense as different people will have different preferences as to just how far along the “barefoot” access they want to go, and this preference may also vary with the purpose the shoes are to be used for.

Below is a grid showing where all of the M-Connect shoes fit:

Having seen most of these shoes, I can tell you that they’ve done some fantastic work on the design end. I’m particularly excited about the Bare Access 2, which is updated with a super-minimal upper and a more flexible sole, and the Mix Master Move 4mm drop road shoe (my sweet spot for longer runs).

Merrell is really excited about the Proterra, which extends the minimalist concept to a hiking boot (Merrell’s roots are in the hiking boot business), and which has a unique sole design with inverted lugs – the light hiker in particular is an awesome looking shoe. The Mix Master Trail was released briefly earlier this year and was recalled, but will return soon with an updated upper that will solve a tearing issue that seemed to be occurring with the original version.

Various models in this collection will be coming up over the course of the next year, and I will hopefully have a few in the not too distant future to try out. Stay tuned!

In the meantime, here are some higher resolution images of the Merrell Barefoot Road Glove 2, Proterra Light Hiker, Bare Access 2 and Mix Master Trail:

Facts on Foot Strike Excerpt from Tread Lightly is Live on the Running Times Website

noreply@blogger.com (Pete Larson) — Fri, 18 May 2012 13:51:00 +0000

A few weeks ago I announced that an excerpt from my book, Tread Lightly, appears in the June issue of Running Times Magazine. The article, titled Facts on Foot Strike, was just release live on the Running Times website (with free access) – you can read it by clicking this link.

The article looks at the differences between heel striking and forefoot striking in terms of the forces applied to the foot and leg, and how these might relate to injury risk. The excerpt represents a small piece of a larger chapter on the broad topic of the running foot strike. And if nothing else, you’ll learn why a forefoot striker is like a monster truck!

Once again, to read Facts on Foot Strike, click here.

So You’re a Heel Striker, It May Be OK! - My Interview on Trail Runner Nation

noreply@blogger.com (Pete Larson) — Fri, 18 May 2012 13:17:00 +0000

Earlier this week I recorded a podcast with the folks over at Trail Runner Nation. In the interview we discussed thoughts on form, footwear, and injuries (big surprise coming form me!), and talked a bit about my just-released book Tread Lightly.

One of the topics we focused on quite a bit was foot strike, and I tried to make the point that a single-minded focus on foot strike may not be wise given that it is only one aspect of the overall running gait. I also wanted to make it clear that I do not believe that every runner must run solely on their forefoot, and that mild heel striking is likely just fine if other aspects of form are good. I worry that the recent intense focus on forefoot striking has runners forcing the issue and causing themselves more trouble than if they just left things alone.

Here is the link to the podcast on the Trail Runner Nation website: http://trailrunnernation.com/2012/05/heel-striking/

Here is the direct link to download the podcast from Itunes: http://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/dr.-peter-larson-so-youre/id484661268?i=115576192

Here is the link to directly download the audio file (right-click link and “Save As”): http://trailrunnernation.com/podpress_trac/web/6381/0/larson-heel-striker.mp3

I hope you enjoy the interview should you choose to listen! As always, comments are welcome!

New Balance Minimus Trail Zero (MT00) Review

noreply@blogger.com (Pete Larson) — Fri, 18 May 2012 01:31:00 +0000

While in general I’m highly supportive of the trend toward lighter and less supportive shoes, I believe that there are certain situations where it is desirable to have a bit of protection underfoot. I learned this lesson when I ran the HAT Run 50K in 2010 in the New Balance Minimus MT10. I was crossing a stream, slipped on a rock, and while trying to maintain my balance I mashed my forefoot down hard on a pointy rock protruding from the water. Because the MT10 is fairly minimal and has no rock plate, my foot stood no chance against said pointy rock. I finished the race without major issue, but bruised my forefoot badly and the pain lingered for a few weeks.

I’ve come to appreciate the value of some degree of cushioning, or at least a rock plate, when running on trails or crushed rock along the side of the road. It’s for this reason that I was a bit skeptical when I saw that New Balance was releasing an even more stripped down version of the Minimus Trail, the MT00. I’ve now had the MT00 for about 5 months (disclosure: these shoes are review samples provided free of charge by the manufacturer), and have put a decent number of running miles on them, as well as quite a bit casual use.

Let me first say that I really like this shoe. Much like it’s close cousin the Minimus Road Zero (MR00), the MT00 has a very roomy fit, it’s incredibly lightweight (4.7 oz in size 10), and it’s super flexible. This is a shoe that can quite literally be rolled up into a ball. The sole is zero drop and only 12 mm thick, the upper is made of a “barely-there” mesh that is highly breathable, and the interior finish has allowed me to run sockless in it with no blistering. It’s a remarkably well made shoe and very unique in its construction.

So what’s not to like? Well, the issue with the MT00 is that due to its ultra-minimal construction, this is not a shoe that is going to provide much protection on trails. In fact, if I run on the crushed rock along the roadside near my house I need to be really conscious of my foot-plant since jagged rocks are most definitely felt through the sole. Given this, I would not recommend the Minimus Trail Zero for any type of rugged trail or crushed rock running surfaces. If it is to be used off-road, the MT00 is best saved for well maintained and cleared trails.

I’ve personally wound up using the MT00 mostly as a barefoot-style road shoe, and for this purpose it works phenomenally well. Because I’ve had such a hard time getting a good fit in the Vibram Fivefingers, I’ve grown to much prefer ultraminimal shoes with a standard (wide) toebox. Shoes like the Merrell Road Glove, Altra Samson, Inov-8 Bare-X 180 and the MT00 are my four favorites in this category. Of these, the MT00 and Road Glove have just a bit more cushion than the others.

What I like most about the MT00 is the breathability of the upper. The upper material is probably the thinnest of any shoe I have ever run in – it feels like tissue paper. In fact, it’s so thin that I can see my toes through the top of the toebox – kind of creeps me out a bit (see photo to the left). I have heard of at least one person who has had the upper tear on them, but so far mine is holding up very well. Because I can run sockless in this shoe without issue, the breathable upper will likely make this a great shoe for summer running.

The wildcard with this shoe will be durability. At an MSRP of $110 it does not come cheap, so hopefully it will last. I’ve probably put about 40 or so miles on mine so far, plus quite a few more miles of walking, and the upper and sole still look really good. There is just enough rubber in the right spots on the outsole to reduce wear, and the exposed EVA, though roughed up a bit, is holding up well.

In summary, the New Balance MT00 is a great choice if you are looking for a shoe that is ultralight, has minimal cushion, and has a super roomy forefoot. It can handle light trail work and is perfectly fine on roads, but I would not recommend it for rugged trails or any environment with rocks or debris – just not enough protection. If you want an ultraminimal shoe for more rugged conditions, the Merrell Trail Glove is a better choice as it has a more rugged sole and a rock plate. But, the MT00 works better for me on roads than the Trail Glove, probably due to its less structured sole. There are always tradeoffs I suppose.

If you have a significant number of miles on the MT00 and can speak to longer term durability, please leave a comment below!

The New Balance Minimus MT00 is available for sale at Running Warehouse.

Should You Emulate the Running Form of Elites: Book Excerpt from Tread Lightly

noreply@blogger.com (Pete Larson) — Mon, 14 May 2012 18:20:00 +0000

I was originally planning to publish a few excerpts from my book, Tread Lightly: Form, Footwear, and the Quest for Injury-Free Running, prior to its June 1 release date. Well, the publisher moved faster than I expected, and the book is now in-stock at Amazon.com and should be on store shelves very soon (and yes, a Kindle edition is also in the works from what I have been told).

Despite this, I’ve decided to move on with publishing a few excerpts, and below is the first. The text is a sidebar from a chapter on the running stride titled “Should You Attempt to Run Like the Elites?” It discusses why caution is warranted when examining the running form of an elite runner and trying to apply it to yourself. Enjoy!

Should You Attempt to Run Like the Elites?

One approach to learning about good running form is to watch the elites – they run for a living and have spent more time fine-tuning their form than the vast majority of recreational runners. However, a few things should be kept in mind when trying to emulate the form of elite runners.

First, and most obviously, elite runners in a race are running very fast, and form changes with speed. It makes little sense for a recreational runner who puts in most of their miles at an 8:00 or 9:00 per mile pace to attempt to perfectly mimic the gait of an elite 10,000-meter specialist running at a sub-5:00 per mile pace. Most of us would be better off emulating the relaxed form they employ during their victory lap!

Second, form among elite runners is variable. Alberto Salazar, who won the Boston Marathon once and New York City Marathon three times in the early 1980’s, was widely believed to have succeeded despite his form rather than because of it. So even elites may not be perfect role models. Should the average runner mimic the head-bob of Paula Radcliffe? Probably not, even though she does happen to own the women’s marathon world record. Emil Zatopek was one of the greatest distance runners of all time. But here’s how New York Herald Tribune sports columnist Red Smith described his form: “He ran like a man with a noose around his neck...the most frightful horror spectacle since Frankenstein...on the verge of strangulation; his hatchet face was crimson; his tongue lolled out.” Another newspaper scribe wrote, “He ran as if his next step would be his last.” But Zatopek, a three-time gold medalist in the 1952 Helsinki Olympics, had a ready-made answer for his critics: “I shall learn to have a better style once they start judging races according to their beauty. So long as it’s a question of speed then my attention will be directed to seeing how fast I can cover the ground.”

There are many factors that make elites capable of throwing down times that the rest of us could only dream of – these include inherent aspects of their anatomy and physiology, training background, motivation, mental toughness, VO₂ max, capacity to endure pain, and so on. Form is just one part of the picture when it comes to elite running success, and it may be a very small part.

Taking this a step further, even if we take a group of elites who experts might classify as having “ideal” form, careful examination will reveal variation among them. Some carry their arms high, some carry them low. Some keep their torso upright, some lean forward a bit. Some spend a bit more time with both feet airborne, some stay closer to the ground. Some heel strike, some land on the midfoot, and others land on the forefoot. There are commonalities among elites that may suggest general patterns, but looking at any single elite’s running form as a model of absolute perfection that should be copied is a mistake. Running biomechanist Peter Cavanagh made this very point back in 1980 in the book The Sweet Spot in Time by John Jerome: “It doesn’t work, for instance, to tell the novice to imitate (Bill) Rodgers…running style, or performance in any sport, eventually boils down to the way you adapt to your own anatomy, your own physiology, to the peculiarities of your own body.”

The take-away message for all runners is that each of us is unique—and this applies to the recreational runner as well as the elite. Ultimately, the key is finding the best form for your individual body – whether that’s the form that lets you run fastest, most efficiently, or with least chance of injury, that decision is up to you.

The State of the Running Shoe Market: First Quarter 2012 Sales Analysis from Matt Powell of SportsOneSource, and March 2012 Data From Leisure Trends Group

noreply@blogger.com (Pete Larson) — Sun, 13 May 2012 17:54:00 +0000

Matt Powell of SportsOneSource sent out his quarterly update on running shoe sales last week (add him on LinkedIn if you’d like to receive his report, or follow him on Twitter). I asked Matt if I could share his data on running sales and he kindly obliged. His report indicates that the lightweight running category (shoes under 10oz in weight) continues to cannibalize traditional running shoe market share. Minimalist remains small, though if you include the Nike Free it makes up 12% of the market. It’s worth noting that these numbers are from Sporting Goods, Athletic Footwear, and Running/Outdoor Specialty Retailers, so many of the shoes sold are likely not used for running.

Here is Matt’s report on Q1 2012 sales:

“Running sales declined in the low singles in Q1 on the weak April. While Lightweight Running (25% of all Running) grew about 20%, it was more than offset by losses in Stability (-25%) Motion Control (down mid singles) and Cushioning (down high singles). Lightweight Running doubled in the Family channel. Nike Lightweight grew in the mid singles and has 42% share. Reebok (39% share) leaped more than 40%, but average selling price declined about -15%. Adidas Lightweight grew about 20% with Asics up in the high singles.

Sales of Minimalist/barefoot more than doubled on the quarter and reached 12% of all Running sales. However, Nike has a 65% share in Minimalist, all on the Free platform. When we back Free out, Minimalist Running is about 4% of all Running shoes sold, about what it represented in 2011. Barefoot/Minimalist still appears at best to be niche business.

Nike Minimalist shoes were up nearly double, all on Free. Merrell sales also doubled and had a 4.7% share. Asics (5% share) and Brooks (6.4% share) Minimalist grew nearly tenfold. New Balance more than doubled and achieved 6% share.

Back in overall Running, Nike brand sales declined in the low singles but held share at 52.9%. Reebok grew by half and share leapt 400 basis points to 10.4%. Asics declined in the high teens and share dropped 200 basis points to 11.2% Adidas and Under Armour Running sales were flat.”

For comparative purposes, Leisure Trends Group, which publishes data on sales through Running Specialty channels, recently reported data for March 2012. Here is their report, which also shows continued growth in the minimalist category (up %119 from March 2011!) in Running Specialty:

“RetailTRAK™ March 2012 - Running Specialty Retail Sales

The warmest March on record brought continued velocity for specialty running store sales. Compared to March 2011, sales gained 13% to total $90M. Average retail-selling prices slipped 4% to chip away at an 18% unit growth. Closing out the quarter, run specialty brought in $218M or 12% more dollars than the same Q1 last year.

Running shoes, with $61M in sales, jumped 16% over last March. Road running shoes, with $56M, gained 17%. While stability models ($27M, +9%) and Neutral/Cushion models ($26M, +29%) drove sales, Motion Control models slipped another 1% to total a more modest $3M. Trail runners also proved to be popular, up 8% with over $2M in March sales.

Minimalism roared into spring with the category continuing to outpace traditional models. Minimalist Neutral/Cushion road running shoes pulled in $4M, up 119%, compared to $22M (+19%) for traditional Neutral/Cushion models. Minimalist trail runners totaled $900K (+30%) this March compared to $1.2M for traditional models which slipped 4%.”

Thoughts on “Form” from 1908: Bliss Carman on the Development of Graceful and Efficient Motion

noreply@blogger.com (Pete Larson) — Sat, 12 May 2012 19:14:00 +0000

Bliss Carman (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

“Animal motion is good through being instinctive and free, and our own motion can only become graceful when those qualities are ensured for it.”

-Bliss Carman, The Making of Personality, 1908

In my previous post I shared several passages about "barefoot shoes" from a 1908 book titled The Making of Personality by Canadian poet Bliss Carman. I’ve been reading a bit more of the book, and in a chapter titled “Rhythms of Grace,” Carman once again writes about a topic that has been oft discussed amongst runners in recent years: form. Carman has a beautiful writing style, and the following passage is particularly good – I really like the part about the development of form in children:

Here is another great passage – particularly relevant to any discussion about how to change one’s running form:

I couldn’t agree more!

1908 Book Discusses the Ideal “Barefoot Shoe”

noreply@blogger.com (Pete Larson) — Fri, 11 May 2012 03:20:00 +0000

“…no material comfort can equal the luxury of a well fitting, broad-toed, flexible, heelless shoe. Of course, the secret is that a good barefoot shoe enables us to walk naturally and to find in simple natural exercises not only health, but sanity and happiness as well. If I were a fairy and asked to bestow one gift on the man and woman of the twentieth century I would give them each a pair of model shoes.”

–Bliss Carman, 1908

Before I start this post, I’d just like to express how much I love this quote! The image of a shoe fairy just makes me happy. Ok, now on with it.

One of the things I enjoyed most about writing my own book was digging through old books on running. I spent a lot of time poking around on Google Books and borrowing old books via interlibrary loan in the hope of finding interesting tidbits about footwear and running form. I discovered that a lot of what we are debating now in these areas has been discussed in books for quite a long time.

A few days ago I got a message from a colleague in the Psychology Department at my college (he is also the cross-country coach) indicating that he had found an old book in his collection that had a chapter that talked about the “beauty of the foot.” The book is titled “The Making of Personality,” and it was published in 1908. The author, Bliss Carman, was a Canadian poet, and was Canada’s poet laureate in the early 1900’s.

Earlier tonight I read the chapter on the foot and was pretty amazed to see references to “barefoot shoes” from over 100 years ago! Read the following pages – it’s as if they could have been plucked directly from any number of blog posts written by minimalist advocates over the past few years (the Google Books embed feature is pretty sweet!):

There is a lot of additional interesting content in the chapter, and there are a few additional chapters in the book that I plan to read as well - one on graceful movement, and another on the virtues of being outdoors. Sometimes going back to these old books really puts things into perspective - there is a simplicity and clarity in the writing that often gets lost in many contemporary books. One thing that this book reminds us of with specific regard to shoes is that ill-fitting footwear is not a modern problem. Yet, over 100 years later we are still battling fashion for the health of our feet. Truly strange, isn’t it?

If you want to take a look at Bliss's book, the full text is available on Google Books (I’ve also embedded the full text at the bottom of this post).

I'll leave you with a few more quotes that I particularly liked – enjoy!:

“The modern shoe with its toe and high heel may be interesting as a bric-a-brac, as all human fashions are interesting however extreme or bizarre; but its comparative uselessness, its lack of anything like perfect fitness to meet the demands which be put upon it, make it essentially an inartistic invention. As long as it remains so artificial in shape and so ill adapted to its requirements, it can never be a really beautiful foot-covering. It is little less than an instrument of torture, and we wince at realizing it.”

“Whenever the foot is liberated from its fashionable bondage, it returns to the glad service for which it is formed; and all its added freedom and exercise bring back its lost suppleness, strength and grace It grows sensitive and mobile and adequately serviceable again, and so again become interesting and beautiful with the beauty of life. A withered member be it hand or foot cannot be made lovely by being encased in expensive trappings.”

“The hand or foot - or the whole body for that matter - cannot be kept beautiful by disuse. It was designed for use for motion not for immobility. It attained its present normal beauty its present formation through constant service and motion and only by being used freely and lovingly can its beauty be preserved and perfected.”

Tread Lightly Book Excerpt Published on Natural Running Center Website

noreply@blogger.com (Pete Larson) — Thu, 10 May 2012 23:41:00 +0000

Quick post to alert you to an excerpt from my upcoming book Tread Lightly. My co-author, Bill Katovsky, just posted an excerpt he wrote on barefoot running in the early 1960’s on the Natural Running Center website. This excerpt comes from his two chapter sequence on the history of footwear and the rise of the recreational runner.

You can read the excerpt here: http://naturalrunningcenter.com/2012/05/10/recreational-runner-excerpt-book-tread-lightly/

Moses Mosop–Slow Motion Running Form from the 2012 Rotterdam Marathon

noreply@blogger.com (Pete Larson) — Mon, 07 May 2012 16:05:00 +0000

Below is a video shot by Jacky Ledeboer, a phsyiotherapist from the Netherlands, showing the running form of elite Kenyan marathoner Moses Mosop at the 2012 Rotterdam Marathon. The video, posted on her YouTube channel, is shot at 210 frames per second. Mosop will be one of the three men representing Kenya in the marathon at the Olympic Games in London this summer.

Slow Motion Running Foot Strike Video from the CPC Loop Den Haag Half Marathon in the Netherlands

noreply@blogger.com (Pete Larson) — Mon, 07 May 2012 16:01:00 +0000

Jacky Ledeboer, a phsyiotherapist from the Netherlands, recently alerted me to a video she shot at the CPC Loop Den Hague half marathon in the Netherlands. The video, posted on her YouTube channel, is shot at 210 frames per second and provides a great sample of the variation in foot strike patterns seen among fast recreational-level runners in a road race.

One thing to notice in the video is that although most of the runners are heel striking, there is quite a bit of variation in the position of the foot and leg upon initial contact within this category. It’s for this reason that I personally don’t think all heel striking should be lumped together as an evil that runners need to banish from their form (for more on my thoughts about this, read my “Facts on Foot Strike” article in the June 2012 issue of Running Times).

Anyway, here’s the video – enjoy!

Facts on Foot Strike: My Article in the June Issue of Running Times

noreply@blogger.com (Pete Larson) — Sun, 06 May 2012 23:40:00 +0000

I wanted to alert you to an excerpt from my book, Tread Lightly: Form, Footwear, and the Quest for Injury-Free Running, that was published in the June 2012 issue of Running Times magazine (starting on page 26, with a great photo of my friend Mark Cucuzzella!).

The article looks at the differences between heel striking and forefoot striking in terms of the forces applied to the foot and leg, and how these might relate to injury risk. The article provides a good example of the kind of content you will find in Tread Lightly, though this particular excerpt is a bit more on the technical side and represents a small piece of a larger chapter on the broad topic of the running foot strike. And if nothing else, you’ll learn why a forefoot striker is like a monster truck!

If you get a chance to take a look at the article, I’d love to hear what you think – it’s not available on-line yet, but I will post an alert when it is.

Also, here’s the obligatory plug - if you’d like to pre-order my book, you can do so on Amazon.com.

Set Your Piggies Free: When It Comes to Kids and Shoes, I Couldn’t Agree More!

noreply@blogger.com (Pete Larson) — Fri, 04 May 2012 14:52:00 +0000

As a parent of three kids who love being barefoot, this song just makes me happy.

adidas Adizero Adios 2 Running Shoe Review

noreply@blogger.com (Pete Larson) — Mon, 30 Apr 2012 01:22:00 +0000

“Kenyan runners race in low-support shoes, but they mostly train in big, chunky, cushioned sneakers, just like your average, plodding Western jogger. Oddly, though, and contrary to Lee’s (Saxby) theories, these big shoes don’t force the Kenyans to run heel first. They virtually all run in a lovely, smooth forefoot-first style – what Lee would term “barefoot style.” The shoes, it seems, make no difference.

-Adharanand Finn, Running With the Kenyans

Several months ago I was contacted by a rep from Adidas inquiring if I’d be interested in reviewing a few pairs of shoes from their Adizero line. At the time, I suggested that the adidas Hagio seemed to be my kind of shoe (and it has turned out to be just that – see adidas Hagio review here), but they offered to send along a pair of the Adios 2 as well (disclosure: this shoe was a review sample provided free of charge by the manufacturer). I was really hesitant to agree to trying the Adios as it has a higher heel-forefoot differential than I typically run in (9mm drop – 24mm heel, 15mm forefoot according to Running Warehouse), but I was persuaded by the folks at adidas to give it a go. After all, it is the racing shoe worn by many of the elite African marathoners, so it couldn’t hurt to at least try the shoe worn by major marathon winners and World Record setters.

I really didn’t anticipate putting a lot of miles on the Adios. I suspected I’d wear it a few times, decide that I didn’t like it, and write a review saying as much. However, I’ve wound up running in the shoe quite a bit more than I expected(probably around 50 miles now), and am rather surprised by how it has performed.

I opened this review with a quote from the soon-to-be-released book Running With the Kenyans by Anharanand Finn. I’m only about 100 pages into the book (it’s fantastic so far – you can pre-order it from Amazon if you are interested), and he writes a bit about running form and footwear (Finn made a transition to barefoot-style form just prior to moving to Iten, Kenya for six months with his family). One of the things that surprised him is that despite stories of Kenyans running barefoot, most of the high level adult runners train in big, cushy footwear. Yet, he observes, they retain barefoot-style form (presumably learned through significant barefoot running in childhood).

How the heck does this anecdote about Kenyan runners and their shoes relate to a review of the adidas Adios? Well, I’m now about 1.5 years into my own transition to barefoot-style running form, and at this point I’ve come to find that I can run in just about anything and retain this style. I may heel strike a bit from time to time, more-so with some shoes than others, but my cadence stays high and I don’t tend to overstride regardless of the shoes on my feet. I can’t even force myself to do the heel mashing, 45 degree angle between the sole and ground that is so common in recreational runners wearing big shoes. Running in zero drop shoes now rarely causes me calf soreness. My new form seems to be ingrained, and it now just feels normal. The wear pattern on the Adios seems to support this – there is zero wear on the most posterolateral heel (see photo below), and the wear along the lateral edge extends from the anterior heel to the posterior forefoot. This suggests to me a midfoot strike to a mild heel strike in the Adios. Nothing like the days when I was running in heavy stability shoes with a 12mm lift – I used to trash the heels of shoes like that.

My runs in the Adios have for the most part been quite enjoyable. The shoe is fairly lightweight (just over 8oz in size 10), extremely firm, and it feels very responsive. It’s also a rather stiff shoe, more suited to racing than use as an everyday training shoe, but I can understand why this is a racing shoe of choice for many elite marathoners. It’s a shoe made for fast running. I can even see the 9mm heel differential as being useful for offloading the calf muscles a bit in a long race, particularly for those not used to running in flatter shoes. That being said, given a choice I would personally opt for less heel than what the Adios offers, particularly for training and any race shorter than a marathon (I used the Adidas Hagio for a 5K a few weeks ago and it worked out great – the Hagio is currently my favorite racing flat).

The Adios is not without its downsides however. The interior is scratchy and not suitable for sockless running, which is not a deal breaker, but given some of the great uppers out there nowadays I find it surprising when a shoe pays seemingly little attention to interior feel. My bigger issue with the Adios is that the toebox is too tapered at the front. The width is fine at the ball of my forefoot, but from that point forward the shoe tapers to a very distinct point, which causes considerable toe scrunching, particularly the little toe. Going up a half size might help with this, but I much prefer the forefoot shape of the Hagio to that of the Adios (I do feel like the Adios runs about a half size smaller than the Hagio, which might be part of the problem). If there is one single factor that would keep the Adios out of my regular rotation, the tapered toebox would be it (a bit surprising to me as I thought the heel would be the problem).

One thing that I do like about the heel of the Adios is that the posterolateral heel is sculpted upward just a bit (see photo at left – the region under the black portion of the midsole). That is, the lateral portion of the heel does not rest flush with the ground when the shoe is placed on a flat surface, and this may help to avoid premature contact of the heel with the ground on the run.

Perhaps what I have enjoyed most about the Adios is simply that, as discussed above, it has helped me to confirm that my running form has indeed changed. The fact that I can run in a shoe like this one and not tear apart the heel like I used to is somewhat gratifying.

The adidas Adios is not a shoe that I would recommend to someone looking for good ground feel, and it’s not a shoe that will do much to promote form change in those who are looking for some help from a more minimal pair of shoes. That being said, it might be a good first step for someone looking to transition slowly downward if they can handle the tapered toebox. It’s also a decent choice as a racing shoe for people who do all of their miles in more traditional 12mm drop shoes – it’s not as big a deviation from what they are used to as a flat with a lower differential. For minimalists, there’s not a lot in this shoe that will appeal, but that’s not really the target audience for a shoe like this. For me, the adidas Hagio meets my needs and fits me better than the Adios, so this is probably not a shoe that will see a lot of action on my feet going forward. That being said, I’m glad that I accepted the offer to try this one out.

For an alternative take on this shoe, check out the adidas Adios 2 review by Brian Martin at Running Technique Tips.

The adidas Adizero Adios 2 is available for purchase at Running Warehouse.

Nike Free 3.0 v4: Initial Thoughts

noreply@blogger.com (Pete Larson) — Sat, 28 Apr 2012 18:42:00 +0000

I have a long history with the Nike Free 3.0 line. Back in early 2009, the original Free 3.0 was my first foray away from stability shoes, and it was the shoe that convinced me that I did not need a lot of support and structure in a running shoe. I fell in love with that shoe from the moment I put it on my feet, and I still have a soft spot for it.

I next used the Free 3.0 v2 a bit as a work shoe (bought a pair in black), but it somehow lacked some of the elegance of the original, and the narrowness of the 3.0 started to bother me a bit. I subsequently passed on the v3 as it represented only a minor update from the v2. The Free 3.0 v4, just released a few weeks ago, is a completely re-designed shoe from bottom to top. I thought I’d write up a few preliminary thoughts about them now that I’ve had them for about a week.

First and foremost, be warned that the 3.0 v4 is a low-volume, relatively narrow running shoe. I initially ordered my usual size 10 from Running Warehouse, but the shoe was incredibly tight and there was no way it was going to work for me. However, it looked great and seemed like my kind of shoe in all other respects (lightweight, flexible, 4mm drop, etc.), so I decided to exchange for a 10.5 and see if that would work. The 10.5 felt a bit better, but was still tighter than I typically like. I found that removing the insole improved the fit quite a bit – it’s one of those awful memory foam (aka, sensation-robbing) style insoles that I have come to despise. I swapped in the very thin insole from a pair of Skechers Go Bionics, and the fit was improved enough that I opted to keep the shoes and give them a go on a run.

The Free 3.0 v4 is a very nicely made shoe. The interior is soft and quite suitable for sockless running, and the upper is very minimal yet seems like it will be plenty durable. There is no tongue, and the shoe has the sock-like construction of early versions of the Free Run+. The pair that I bought were a vivid orange color – probably the brightest shoes that I own! My one big concern about the upper is that it is not very breathable. I wore them around town one day and my feet definitely stayed quite moist inside the shoes – the shoe needs more open mesh regions and less of the solid overlay material. I think the rather snug fit contributes to the lack of air-flow through the shoe.

One the run the sole of the Free 3.0 retains the fantastic flexibility and soft feel of it’s predecessors in the 3.0 line (maybe a tad firmer?). The sole is 4mm drop (21mm heel, 17mm forefoot), and shoe weight is just a bit over 7oz with the insole removed. Gaps in the sole are much narrower than in previous versions which should help to prevent rock and stick collection in the gaps. I felt like the shoe stretched a bit as I ran in it, which gives me hope that a break-in period will continue to improve the fit.

I plan to put more miles on this shoe in the coming weeks, but if I had to summarize the initial pros and cons they would be as follows:

Pros – well-made, sole feels great underfoot, retains the excellent flexibility of previous versions, nice looking shoe

Cons – not very breathable, low interior volume, and narrow through the forefoot

The Nike Free 3.0 is available in a variety of colors at Running Warehouse.

Effect of Step Rate on Lower Limb Loading in Runners

noreply@blogger.com (Pete Larson) — Wed, 25 Apr 2012 12:19:00 +0000

Just over a week ago Amby Burfoot wrote a post about a new study from Japan that provides additional evidence supporting the benefits of a shorter stride for reducing loading of the lower limbs. The study by Hobara et al. is titled Step Frequency and Lower Extremity Loading During Running and was published in Orthopedics and Biomechanics. I thought I’d follow up with a few thoughts of my own.

In the study, Hobara et al. wanted to determine how increasing or decreasing step rate would influence vertical impact force and vertical impact loading rate during foot strike (see first peak on the image above or read this post for a detailed discussion of these variables). Vertical loading rate has been linked to some types of running injuries (e.g., stress fractures), and the idea was to determine whether altering stride rate could lead to alteration of loading, and thus possibly reduce injury risk.

The study itself was fairly simple. They had 10 subjects run on an instrumented treadmill at 2.5 m/s (about a 10:45 min/mile pace) at five different step rates: freely chosen step rate, and –30%, –15%, +15%, and +30% of the freely chosen step rate. Modifying step rate at a constant pace results in a change in stride length, so increased step rates lead to a shorter stride, and decreased step rates lead to a longer stride. The researchers monitored peak impact force, instantaneous vertical loading rate (VILR; this is the peak loading rate observed during impact), and average vertical loading rate (VALR) as each runner ran on the treadmill.

Results are pretty well summarized in the following figure adapted from Hobara et al. 2012 (any errors in reproduction are my own – I recreated it to avoid copyright issues):

The stars in the above figure indicate values that are significantly different from that observed at the –30% step frequency. This implies that running with a really slow step rate/long stride significantly increases impact force and the rate at which that force is applied. Though there appear to not be significant differences among the other stride frequencies, a quadratic regression analysis found that impact peak, VILR, and VALR were all minimized at a step rate of roughly 17-18% higher than the freely chosen step rate (i.e., this is the low point of the black curved lines fit to the sample data for each step frequency). Data for individuals were unfortunately not provided.

This is not the first study to suggest that a shorter, quicker stride might be beneficial when it comes to reducing loading of the lower limb. Others have found similar results (e.g., read this post on stride length and leg joint loading), and the topic has received a lot of attention of late. In fact, I wrote an entire chapter on the topic in my forthcoming book that summarizes historical advice on stride length as well as what modern science has to say about the topic. I’ve come to the conclusion that stride length is likely one of the more important form characteristics to consider when it comes to reducing injury risk. Though there is a great deal of debate about proper foot strike, most people seem to agree that overstriding is bad, and there appears to be some solid science backing this up.

Limitations of this study are that it’s difficult to say whether the results are generalizable to runners across a range of paces (all ran at a 10:45 min/mile pace here). It’s also difficult to know whether treadmill-derived results are applicable to overground running. Nonetheless, the fact that these results are consistent with previous research on the topic adds further support for the use of stride length modification as one potential tool in the prevention and treatment of running injuries.

Introducing My Book: Tread Lightly: Form, Footwear and the Quest for Injury-Free Running

noreply@blogger.com (Pete Larson) — Sun, 22 Apr 2012 16:15:00 +0000

About 16 months ago I received an email from a guy named Bill Katovsky asking me if I had any interest in writing a book. I didn’t know him at the time, but I had at least given thought to the idea of writing something more than another blog post. We spoke on the phone a few times, and found that we had a mutual interest in writing about running and exercise (he founded Tri-Athlete Magazine many years ago, co-authored a book titled “Bike for Life,” and more recently authored a book titled “Return to Fitness: Getting Back in Shape after Injury, Illness, or Prolonged Inactivity.” Bill is also a co-founder and editorial director of the Natural Running Center website).

Bill’s initial idea was for me to write the book and he would serve as editor and agent (which he has done for several books by Phil Maffetone), but in our conversations we came up with a concept that was going to be more than I could handle on my own given time constraints associated with my day job and being a father of three little kids. So, we agreed to co-author a book and divided up the topics that we wanted to hit upon. After a sometimes grueling process (as I hear any book-writing experience can be), Bill and I finally finished our book last month (which involved a marathon editing session while I was on vacation with my family in Disney World!).

The end product of our labors is a book titled Tread Lightly: Form, Footwear and the Quest for Injury-Free Running. The content will not come as a surprise to readers of this blog (or Bill’s Zero Drop blog). We basically address the question of why modern runners so often get hurt. We don’t pretend to provide an answer that will “cure” running injuries, but we do take what we feel is a fairly balanced look at topic as it relates to form, footwear, and food (and much more). This is by no means a barefoot running book (far from it!), or even necessarily a minimalist running book. Rather, it is a book that attempts to look at how modern humans differ from our running ancestors, what both history and modern science tell us about form, footwear, and injuries, and how this knowledge might be applied to reduce your chances of getting hurt. A lot of the questions we address still have incomplete answers, but our hope is that our writing will stimulate continued thought, research, experimentation and discussion.

Over the coming weeks you will hear more about this book, and I’ll likely post a few excerpts leading up to the official release date (June 1 according to Amazon, but could be a few weeks earlier if the current schedule holds. For now, I’ll provide the chapter titles to give you a feel for the breadth of topics that we cover:

Introduction - Pete’s Story and Bill’s Story

Chapter 1 - The Evolution of Running in Humans

Chapter 2 - Running Injuries: Why They Happen

Chapter 3 - Barefoot and Running

Chapter 4 - The Running Shoe

Chapter 5 - The Recreational Runner

Chapter 6 - Pronate Nation

Chapter 7 - Foot Strike

Chapter 8 - The Running Stride

Chapter 9 - Turning the Clock Back on Nutrition

If you are interested in pre-ordering a copy of Tread Lightly, you can do so on Amazon.com. I don’t have official confirmation that a Kindle version will be released, but I assume that this will happen (I read most books on the Kindle app on the Iphone these days, so I plan to push for it). If you’d like to help this process along, you can go to the Amazon page for Tread Lightly and click on the “Tell the Publisher: I’d like to read this book on Kindle” link just below the cover photo.

Thanks to all of you who read this blog and have offered your support over the past few years – I owe much of the thought process that led to the book’s evolution to discussions that I have had here!

Below are the front and back covers of Tread Lightly:

Casual Minimalist Work Shoe Reviews: Merrell Tough Glove, Merrell Edge Glove, Vivobarefoot Aqua, Vivobarefoot Neo

noreply@blogger.com (Pete Larson) — Sat, 21 Apr 2012 10:46:00 +0000

I’ve spent a lot of time on this blog writing about minimalist running footwear. Much of this stems from my own personal journey from more traditional running shoes to more stripped down models. However, one of the things I have begun to notice over the past year or so is that I have a much wider tolerance for variation in running footwear than I do for casual, all-day shoes. While I don’t mind running in a shoe with a bit of heel lift, I now spend the vast majority of my shod, non-running time in zero drop shoes with a wide toebox. It’s what my feet have come to prefer, and I’d find it hard to ever go back.

One of the challenges to going zero-drop full time is that options are more limited among casual shoes, particularly shoes that are suitable to wear to work. Given that my dress code as a professor is a bit more casual than in, say, the business world, I’ve been able to manage without much trouble. I do get asked quite frequently about minimalist work and casual shoes, so I thought I’d write up a post about the current rotation of shoes that I wear to the office (and while lecturing in front of a crowd of 90+ students!).

Here are the four shoes in my current work rotation:

Merrell Tough Glove

From an appearance standpoint, the Merrell Tough Glove is my favorite of the four shoes reviewed here – it’s a really nice looking shoe. They are made of full-grain leather and are nice enough that I can wear them with a sport coat, and have done so at admissions events where I have to present to large groups of prospective students and parents. The fit is great – they hug my feet like gloves through the heel and midfoot, and widen nicely in the forefoot (though not as much as the Vivobarefoot Aquas – see below). Flexibility is excellent.

My one complaint about the Merrell Tough Glove is the sole. It’s the exact same sole as that found on the Merrell Trail Glove, and while the sole feels great on soft surfaces, it’s not as comfortable on hard ground. The heel is slightly rounded and is composed of firm rubber so it tends to concentrate pressure under the center of my calcaneus when I walk. It’s not painful, but I’d prefer a flatter, slightly softer heel in a shoe meant for walking.

The Merrell Tough Glove is available at Zappos.

Merrell Edge Glove

The Merrell Edge Glove is a relatively new offering in the Merrell Barefoot collection. Made of suede leather, the Edge Glove is a bit more casual than the Tough Glove. Like the Tough Glove, it is both zero drop and flexible, and offers a very roomy fit. It feels a bit roomier through the midfoot – while the Tough Glove is clearly a close cousin of the Trail Glove, I would compare the Edge Glove to the Merrell Road Glove in terms of fit and feel. Like the Road Glove, the Edge has a flatter, wider sole (particularly in the heel), and is thus more comfortable for walking on hard surfaces. However, also like the Road Glove it has a bit more support under the arch. This does not bother me, and I find the Edge Glove quite comfortable for all day wear.

If Merrell took the sole of the Edge Glove and combined it with the upper and fit of the Tough Glove you would have one fantastic shoe. As they are, both are great choices, and personal preference will largely dictate whether aspects like the heel of the Tough Glove or arch of the Edge Glove will be a problem for you.

The Merrell Edge Glove is available at Zappos.

Vivobarefoot Aqua

The Vivobarefoot Aqua is hands down the most comfortable of all of the zero drop shoes that I wear to work. The sole is ultraflexible, the toebox is expansive, and they honestly feel like a broken-in pair of slippers. They aren’t necessarily the best looking pair of shoes, but when it comes to pure comfort they are tough to beat. I have also found them to be remarkably durable – after over a year of use there is barely any wear visible on the sole, and this despite using them almost exclusively last Spring semester and most of the Fall semester. Fantastic shoe. I have posted a full review of the Vivobarefoot Aquas here.

The Vivobarefoot Aqua is available at Planet Shoes.

The Aquas are probably not nice enough to wear with a suit, so for a shoe with a similar build you might check out the Vivobarefoot Ra. Although I have not tried them myself, I known a few people who wear the Vivobarefoot Ra with a business suit.

Vivobarefoot Neo

As I mentioned above, one of the benefits of my job is that I can get away with fairly casual attire and footwear. Last summer Vivobarefoot sent me a pair of black and yellow Neos to try out. I’ve worn the shoes a few times on runs, but although they give great ground feel and have a wide toebox, I’ve always felt that they looked more like a casual shoe than a running shoe (a problem with many Vivobarefoot shoes…). Furthermore, the black/yellow color combo didn’t appeal to me very much.

Several months ago Vivobarefoot released an airmesh version of the Neo, and I purchased a pair in the olive color shown above. This is definitely a casual shoe and not one you would wear on a dressier occasion, but it works fine for my work environment where I am often hanging out in a lab filled with dead animals. The Neo is a great fitting shoe like the Aqua, though the sole is a bit different – it has those hexagonal lugs seen in the photo above and is made of a firmer rubber. Despite this, it’s a super comfortable shoe for walking around, and I could use it as an ultraminimal running shoe with great ground feel should I desire to do so. Unfortunately, it appears that Vivobarefoot may have discontinued the olive colorway that I have (I really like the look of it), but a few other airmesh colorways are available at Zappos

Well, those are the four shoes I wear most often to work these days. On occasion I can go a bit further toward the casual side and be spotted in lab wearing Inov-8 Bare-X 180's(my personal favorite out-and-about shoe right now - simply awesome!), but for a laid back work environment that does not require a suit, any of these shoes would be a good choice.

If you have any other suggestions that have not been mentioned here, please share in the comments. And if you have any suggestions for minimal shoes that work with a suit (since I’ve only worn a suit only about twice in my life!) please share as well.

Town of Runners: Documentary About Becoming a Professional Runner in Ethiopia

noreply@blogger.com (Pete Larson) — Wed, 18 Apr 2012 16:21:00 +0000

A friend on Twitter just sent me a link to a trailer for a new documentary called Town of Runners. As described on the film’s website:

“The film tells the story of two young girls, living in a rural town as they try to run their way to a different life.

Narrated by their friend Biruk, it follows their highs and lows over three years as they try to become professional athletes. Through their struggle, the film gives a unique insight into the ambitions of young Ethiopians living between tradition and the modern world.”

Below are several clips from the film – looks fantastic!

Also check out this great video from the 2009 Ethiopian Youth Championships – lots of athletes competing barefoot and in sandals.

For more, visit the Town of Runners website.

New Balance Minimus Road Zero (MR00) Review

noreply@blogger.com (Pete Larson) — Mon, 16 Apr 2012 01:19:00 +0000

As I’ve slowly been building my mileage back up after a long period of low volume running, I’ve found myself way behind in writing up shoe reviews. One of the shoes that I’ve had for quite some time now is the New Balance Minimus Road Zero (MROO). I’m not sure exactly how many miles I’ve put on them, but it’s a fair amount, and I just did a ten miler in them earlier today. All in all I’m quite a big fan of this shoe (disclosure: these shoes were media samples provided free of charge by the manufacturer).

Weighing in at just over 6 oz, the MR00 is both lighter and more flexible than the original Minimus Road (MR10) – in my opinion it is far superior shoe. With only 12mm of sole underfoot (the shoe is zero drop), the MR00 keeps you close to the ground, but there is just enough cushion to take the edge off. I’ve come to very much like zero drop running shoes with a bit of cushion, and this one fills that niche nicely. I ran a fast 7 mile leg of a Ragnar Relay in them back in January, and found that there was plenty of cushion for speed. They also handled my 10 mile run today quite well - I was especially pleased about this given that it was my first double-digit mileage run in a few months.

The fit of the MR00 is excellent on my feet, which have grown very intolerant of any shoe that is even remotely too narrow. The upper is lightweight, lacks any structural elements beyond a few overlays, and is plenty breathable.The heel and midfoot fit snugly (the midfoot could even be widened just a bit), but the forefoot is expansive, leaving my toes plenty of room to spread out. The interior is nicely finished, and this is a shoe that causes me no problems when I decide to go sockless – this is a rarity for me, and is a huge plus. I have read some complaints on-line about the raised “rim” that has formed around the margin of the non-removable sockliner – this seems to be caused by the way the sockliner was stitched in. I can feel this under my medial arch while standing in them, but it has caused me no trouble while running, so for me it is a non-issue. Though the midsole does curl up a bit under the arch, there is no real arch support in this shoe (note that I am not generally sensitive to arch support, so others may disagree).

Having now run in and reviewed a large number of shoes over the past several years, I often find myself comparing each new shoe to those that I have worn previously. I find a lot of similarity in feel between this shoe and the Mizuno Universe 4. The MR00 is flatter and maybe just a tad wider in the toebox, whereas the Universe is a few ounces lighter and considerably flashier (this could be good or bad depending on your personal preference), but not as comfortable for sockless running (the faux-leather heel liner is problematic for me). Both are flexible and ride close to the ground, with just enough cushion for speed work and longer runs. Both are among my current favorite shoes.

Conclusion

I’ve grown to really like the New Balance Minimus Road Zeros. Given my experience with this shoe so far, I’ve found it to be a rather versatile road shoe. It works well for speed, and it handles distance nicely as well. Not sure if I’d choose it for marathon distance, but then it’s been a year since I’ve run 20+ miles in one run, and I’ve been running more and more in zero drop shoes of late, so I would no discount the idea. The MR00 is also going to see a lot of use for me as a casual out-and-about shoe. I’ve been zero drop pretty much 100% of the time when I’m not running for over a year now, so having more options like this shoe for everyday wear is appreciated. I highly recommend the New Balance Minimus Road Zero.

The New Balance Miminus Road Zero is available for purchase at Running Warehouse.

Motorola MOTOACTV GPS Workout Recorder Review: Close, But Not Quite There

noreply@blogger.com (Pete Larson) — Mon, 09 Apr 2012 00:08:00 +0000

For the past three months or so I’ve been using the Motorola MOTOACTV GPS on almost every single one of my runs (disclosure: this product was a media sample provided to me free of charge by the manufacturer for review purposes). About a month into using the MOTOACTV I was prepared to write a review claiming that I would no longer have a need for my Garmin and that the MOTOACTV was the device that would best all other GPS devices on the market. Alas, I never wrote that review, and in the following few months I’ve come to the conclusion that this is instead a device still in need of some improvement.

The reason for my change in outlook is that the Motoactv has started to feel like a beta version that was released before all of the kinks could be worked out. This is frustrating because the device is pretty darned amazing in many ways, but it’s limitations make it hard for me to recommend that anyone buy it right now.

Let’s start with the good stuff. Basically, the MOTOCACTV is like an iPod Nano crossed with a Garmin Forerunner. It can both record a GPS signal and spit out pace, splits, etc., and it can also play music. It does both of these things quite well. When running with both my Garmin 205 or 305 and the MOTOACTV the GPS results are very close, and I have found the accuracy of the MOTOACTV to be overall excellent. This is one of the reasons that I have been willing to go solo with the MOTOACTV for so long – it works very well as a workout recorder.

Though bigger than a typical watch, when attached to the optional wristband the MOTOACTV is not so big that it cannot be worn as a full-time wristwatch – I have done so for a few months and have found it plenty comfortable (and it has prompted a lot of comments!). The interface is clean and very well designed, and there are plenty of options to customize the data displayed on the screen (for workouts, you can choose up to 4 customizable data fields at a time), and the full color display looks beautiful. The screen is touch sensitive, so a simple swipe will allow you to jump from the real-time data readout to a listing of your splits. You can even swipe to a real-time map showing your location and running route (though cool, this is limited by the size of the screen, and the lack of detailed map labeling makes it of limited practical utility). There are also multiple clock-face options for using the MOTOACTV as a watch, and you can set the device to function as a pedometer that records the number of steps that you take (accuracy is questionable, especially if you do a lot of walking while pushing a baby carriage…).

The ability to play music is also a huge plus for this device as it means one less gadget that I need to lug around in my workout bag – I actually have not had to use my IPod Nano for several months. Importing music to the device is simple, it plays files purchased on iTunes with no issues, and sound quality is very good. Having an all-in-one device like this is really nice, and is the major draw for me.

So, the MOTOACTV has a beautiful and user friendly interface, records GPS signals accurately, and can play music – sounds like a dream device, right? Not quite. There are some serious issues that in my opinion need to be addressed before the MOTOACTV becomes a prime-time player in the workout GPS world. Here’s a rundown of what I see as the biggest issues.

1. The headphone jack is problematic. Because the headphone jack does not have a cover, it’s wide open to sweat, water, etc. After about a month of use, I started to notice that my headphones would not work sometimes when I plugged them in – sometimes I could get them to kick on by twisting the plug around, but success with this technique was spotty. This problem has gotten progressively worse, and now I have completely given up on using plug-in headphones – the jack is essentially non-functional. In perusing the MOTOACTV online forum, I have seen numerous people reporting this same issue, and it is a major flaw in the device (apparently you can call and ask them to send a rubber grommet to stick in the hole – this should have been standard with the watch). My workaround is that bluetooth headphones continue to work just fine, so I have been able to continue to use the device as a music player. It would appear that the problem is thus specifically isolated to the jack. I would not recommend buying the MOTOACTV unless you plan to invest in a pair of bluetooth enabled headphones to go with it.

2. Battery life is not great. Motorola has been proactive on this issue and has issued several firmware updates to improve battery life, but let’s just say I still would not risk using the MOTOACTV as a GPS device for any race longer than a half marathon. I have not done a multi-hour run with it so I can’t comment on absolute battery life, but it’s not terribly great in active GPS recording mode (especially with music playing). Even just using the device as a watch, it needs a charge every other day or so. Thus, battery life lags far behind most every other GPS device currently on the market.

3. The “Start” button on the top of the watch is touchy (wither that or there is some weird software issue). I find that the watch will randomly start workouts while I’m walking around, and after pausing the workout on a run the watch will frequently restart the workout on its own before I am ready to go and without me touching it (very annoying!). This is a big pain, especially since the online software does not make it particularly easy to delete mistaken workouts.

4. There is currently no streamlined way to export data from the Motoactv to the workout recording platforms that I use (Sporttracks and dailymile). It is possible to export workouts as CSV files and then import these into Sportracks, and there is a bookmarklet that facilitates upload to dailymile, but indirect uploads are cumbersome and have gotten old fast. Furthermore, some of the CSV files I upload to Sporttracks need to be corrected, so I have concerns about accuracy using this method (I’ve uploaded a few 8000+ mile runs – wish I was capable of that!)I haven’t played around much with the Motorola workout site since I don’t have any desire to adopt yet another recording platform.

My general feeling about GPS devices is that hardware manufacturers should worry about making the hardware work well, and allow users to choose their workout platform. So may of us are already tied to one site or another and for various reasons have no desire to switch. Thus, facilitating the ability to sync a device easily across platforms should be a priority (maybe this is planned for the future, I don’t know). I kind of view this analogous to the days when manufacturers would make digital music players that couldn’t play iTunes files – no way was I going to abandon my investment in all of my iTunes music to adopt a different piece of hardware. To be honest, even given its flaws, I probably would still use the Motoactv regularly as is if I could simply download data directly into Sporttracks. Without this, it’s one more nuisance to have to deal with that my trusty old Garmin 305 solves effortlessly.

The above points are what I view as critical flaws or nuisances, some of which may be fixable or at least improvable with firmware updates, others of which are design issues (the headphone jack). Clear these up and this would without a doubt be one of the most innovative GPS devices out there, and the Motoactv would be on my wrist every day.

I also have a wish-list of things that could be easy improvements for the watch.

1. Add additional data screens. My Garmin 305 has 3 screens, each of which is capable of displaying four separate data fields. I use all of these regularly – one for general run stats, one for lap data, etc. This would seem to be an easy fix to make via a firmware update – add a few additional screens that can be swiped to view, each which of which can be configured like the standard data screen.

2. Do more with the map view. This is a cool feature, but not of much practical use right now. More detail, return to home capability, etc. would be great.

3. While I’m in the asking mood, since Motoactv is hooked into Wifi, allowing the ability to do a one touch upload to various workout sites would be amazing.

I will finish by saying that there have been a few firmware updates that I have not yet loaded onto my Motoactv. I have hesitated to do so since one of them introduces a “shake to wake” feature that sounds like a total disaster to me (note, my random workout starts are with the firmware just previous to the one that introduced this feature, so that is not the issue with my watch). On the plus side, the folks at Motorola have been pretty proactive about issuing firmware updates for the device, so they do seem committed to improving user experience. I hope they continue to do so, and I hope they continue development on the hardware as I truly believe that Motoactv has game-changing potential. It’s just not quite there yet.

Nike SMS Roadrunner: A Toddler Shoe with a Flat, Flexible Sole

noreply@blogger.com (Pete Larson) — Mon, 02 Apr 2012 15:47:00 +0000

Today is my son Benjamin’s second birthday. As a full-blown toddler, he’s going through a period of remarkable transition – he’s learning to run, talk, joke, express displeasure, and to use the word “mine” about 100 times per day. As a parent who has a fascination with footwear, this is a particularly difficult time as he is emerging from an age where soft-soled options are plentiful and entering into that dreaded period where all he has to choose from are miniature versions of adult shoes. Put bluntly, he is going from this (yes, he does have Elmo shoes!):

To this:

My goal with Benjamin is to avoid for as long as possible having him wear a constrictive, stiff shoe with excessive cushioning and a lifted heel. I simply cannot understand why a 30 pound child would ever need a shoe like this, or why we insist on moving them into this type of shoe the moment they emerge from toddlerhood. He can walk around all day in his Elmo Robeez without complaint, and I see no reason why the simple act of getting older means that he needs a shoe built like a tank. Call me crazy, but given all that I have learned over the past few years, this is something I feel very strongly about.

Given this, I’m always on the lookout for decent options for parents who would like to keep their kids in shoes with flat, flexible soles. I happened to be at a Nike Outlet store yesterday afternoon and I happened upon a shoe called the SMS Roadrunner. The shoe looked interesting as it had a flexible plastic sole – all of the cushion was built into the insole, which was removable. Since I get a lot of questions about kid’s shoes (my older kid’s wear Merrell Barefoot Kid’s Trail Gloves and Crocs – the latter are cushioned, but at least are extremely wide and flexible), I thought I’d share this one as it seems like a decent option and it is available in sizes up to 10c (which bridges the gap to where they can fit in something like a Merrell Trail Glove).

Since I just bought them yesterday, I can’t comment on durability, but removal of the insole makes the SMS Roadrunner completely flat and very flexible, and also makes for a pretty roomy little shoe. I’ll try and update this post after he wears them a bit. For now, here are some photos of the shoe, which is available for sale in both boy’s and girl’s colorways at Nike.com.