Runblogger

Sale Alert: Merrell Barefoot and Trail Shoe Flash Sale at The Clymb

noreply@blogger.com (Peter Larson) — Tue, 18 Jun 2013 17:10:00 +0000

Every once and awhile a sale comes around that’s worth sharing – this is one of them. The Clymb is currently running a flash sale on Merrell Footwear, and the prices are significantly discounted off MSRP. Here’s a list of current models and prices:

Merrell Trail Glove – minimally cushioned trail shoe, a personal favorite

Merrell Bare Access 2 – zero drop, cushioned road shoe

Merrell Road Glove – minimally cushioned, zero-drop road shoe

Merrell Vapor Glove - best barefoot-style shoe I’ve tried, zero cushion (pictured above)

Merrell Mix Master 2 – solid hybrid trail shoe

Merrell Mix Master Move – less luggy version of the Mix Master Trail

To view the entire men’s selection, head on over to The Clymb

There are also a bunch of women’s Merrell shoes on sale, you can see those here.

Finally, there are a bunch of Inov-8 shoes on sale. View the men’s and women’s selections.

An Update On My Wife and Her Hoka Bondi 2’s

noreply@blogger.com (Peter Larson) — Mon, 17 Jun 2013 16:45:00 +0000

About two months ago I wrote a post about my wife Erin’s long term problems with foot and hip pain. She had gotten her hip pain under control through a post-run strengthening routine (lunges), but earlier this year she was diagnosed with a neuroma in her right foot, and was unable to run without pain in any of the shoes that she had at the time. She was ready to give up running altogether.

After describing her situation to him, my buddy Nate recommended that she try out a pair of Hokas – they helped him through a bout of plantar fasciitis last year and he’d heard of others who’d had success using them to battle foot pain. I hopped on-line and bought her a pair of Hoka Bondi 2 shoes. She wasn’t crazy about the platform-shoe appearance, but she was game to give them a try.

I’m happy to report that my wife has experienced zero foot pain since she started running in the Hokas. That’s almost two months of pain-free running, and this past week she managed three pain-free 4-mile runs for the first time in as long as I can remember!

A couple of days ago Erin proposed that we run the Four on the Forth race together in Bridgton, ME on July 4. The Four on the Fourth is the first race I ever ran back in 2007, and she had agreed to run it with me as a way to motivate me to start exercising again (I was pushing 190 pounds at the time, and was horribly out of shape). Erin does not like to race (at all!), so this proposal nearly knocked me off my feet.

To say that I’m happy about Erin’s progress would be an understatement – a simple change in shoes has given her back an incredibly important part of her life.

Viva la Hoka!

Puma Faas 100 R Zero Drop Running Shoe Preview

noreply@blogger.com (Peter Larson) — Fri, 14 Jun 2013 16:47:00 +0000

I recently received a couple of pairs of Puma shoes – the Mobium and the Faas 500 v2. The Mobium is a bit of an odd shoe, but the Faas 500 is pretty solid and I hope to write a review up after getting a few more miles on them.

Yesterday I got a message from a Facebook friend (thanks Calvin!) with a link to a preview video of the new Puma Faas 100 R. It’s a 16mm stack, zero drop shoe that weighs in under 6oz. Seems to have a very minimal, highly breathable upper. Looks like an interesting addition to the growing crop of zero drop cushioned running shoes (e.g., Saucony Virrata, Brooks Drift, Skechers GoBionic, Altra Instinct, Mizuno Cursoris, etc.)!

Here’s the video:

And here's a preview with Mario Fraioli of Competitor.com

Natural Running: What The Heck Does it Mean?

noreply@blogger.com (Peter Larson) — Thu, 13 Jun 2013 16:38:00 +0000

The phrase “natural running” gets thrown around a lot these days. For example, there’s the Natural Running Center, there are natural running stores, Newton’s Danny Abshire wrote a book called “Natural Running,” and Saucony uses Natural Running as a category for shoes on the more minimal end of its range. But, what exactly does the phrase “natural running” mean?

I get the sense that most people equate the phrase natural running with barefoot running, or at least running with a form similar to that which you would adopt when barefoot (shorter stride, increased cadence, more plantarflexed foot at contact, generally a reduced impact transient if not heel striking, etc.). I largely agree with this definition. However, I think there’s a bit more to it than this.

Though barefoot running form has certain general elements that characterize it, it’s not something that can be defined concretely. There is no single barefoot running form, and thus there is no single natural running form that applies in all circumstances for all people.

Understanding what natural running means is further complicated by the fact that it’s become increasingly common for barefoot and natural running to be equated with forefoot striking alone, whether that is the intended message of those teaching natural running form or not. Sometimes a 180 cadence and forward lean are tied in, but I’m not going to go there in this post or I’ll never stop writing…

The reality is that running form is highly variable, and is largely dependent on an individual runner’s body and the conditions in which they are running (things like speed, surface, incline/decline, etc.). This applies even to foot strike. For barefoot runners, things will change depending on speed, surface, etc. There are habitual barefoot runners that forefoot strike, there are habitually barefoot people who heel strike when they run on softer surfaces. There are barefoot runners who heel strike on asphalt (and I have seen some very experienced barefoot runners making initial contact on the heel while running on asphalt). Most shod runners probably forefoot strike running uphill, and heel strike on the flats and downs.

In fact, when it comes to foot strike, Prof. Daniel Lieberman of Harvard emphasized variation when I interviewed him for my book. He said:

“I think everybody does everything. This idea that you’re just a forefoot striker, or just a midfoot striker, just a heel striker is bizarre. Variation is what biology is all about – everybody does everything! I think barefoot runners heel strike sometimes, of course they do. I don’t think they do it all the time. It’s speed dependent, terrain dependent, warm up dependent, etc.”

Let’s take a look at a few videos from the 2011 NYC Barefoot run to further emphasize this point. When we think about natural running form, we tend to think of something that looks like this – short stride, forefoot strike, vertical shin at contact, etc.:

But, sometimes, barefoot running form on asphalt looks like the video below – is this natural running form?

How about this clip, which of these runners is exhibiting natural running form?

To a certain extent, I’d argue that all of the barefoot runners in the above videos are using natural running form. They are using the form that is working for them in their current situation, with zero assistance from footwear or other technology. That’s really how I would define natural running. It’s not some ideal, archetypal running form, it’s what happens when you let your own body figure out what works best for you when you minimize interference between the foot and the ground. It’s what happens when you let your own muscles, ligaments, tendons, and bones do all or most of the work. It will vary depending on the type of ground under your feet, how fast you’re running, and so forth. It could hurt you – just because it’s “natural” does not necessarily mean that it’s always good. It could also help you – some people have overcome chronic injury by going “natural.” It’s a form employed by you, not necessarily a form employed by all. And your natural running form can change with time and practice. It might reach a comfortable steady state, or it might continue to change in small ways.

The last point is an important one. The form employed by the barefoot runners in the videos above is their current “natural form” while running easy on asphalt, but it may not be the “best” form that they could be using given the situation. If they are inexperienced, their form may change over time as they continue to practice. There may be some residual baggage in the form of ingrained motor patterns from running “un-naturally” with the assistance of footwear for many years (and yes, for good or for bad, I absolutely believe that shoes, even minimal shoes, change the way we run). Practice may be a required element to finding one’s natural running form.

It’s worth considering, however, that given that the individuals in the above videos came to a barefoot running event (some traveled a long distance to attend), we might assume that they have at least some experience running barefoot. Furthermore, unless they jumped in after the race started, these videos are taken of people running a second loop around Governor’s Island (i.e., they had already run a few miles on asphalt). Maybe heel striking is “natural” for them.

Now that these videos are posted on-line, I fully expect the usual slew of YouTube comments telling the heel strikers that they’re idiots and they might die if they keep running that way. Will they break their calcaneus? Maybe, maybe not. Most are running with other hallmarks of barefoot running form - short stride, bent knee, etc., and we can’t tell what the forces acting upon them at contact look like from a video. If they are highly experienced barefoot runners without an injury history, I’d probably just tell them to keep doing what their doing. Embrace the heel strike! Their natural running form is working just fine. If they are inexperienced, some advice or coaching might help them along the way to undoing their neurological baggage and finding their natural form without getting hurt.

As a final point I’ll say that “unnatural” isn’t necessarily bad. I run the vast majority of my miles in cushioned shoes. I’m pretty sure my form would change a bit if I ran regularly barefoot. But, I haven’t been injured seriously in 6+ years of regular running, and I’ve never missed a target race due to a running related injury, so I’m not too concerned about my form. My wife has found that the only shoes she can run in without foot pain are Hokas. Sometimes a bit of help from a shoe can keep you going, and there’s no shame in that.

How about you, how would you define natural running?

Dirty Runner: La Sportiva Helios Trail Shoe Review

noreply@blogger.com (Nathan Sanel) — Wed, 12 Jun 2013 13:49:00 +0000

I must confess that I have never run in La Sportiva shoes before this pair of Helios arrived at my door. Although the Vertical K interested me, I read that the toe-box was quite narrow. Since I have always enjoyed shoes with large toe-boxes, I just never gave them a chance. When the Helios was released it looked much more like my kind of shoe because it has more cushioning and a 4-5mm heel/forefoot differential.

La Sportiva describes the Helios as: A "MINIMALIST, HIGHLY BREATHABLE, FAST DRAINING NEUTRAL TRAIL SHOE PERFECT FOR ALL LEVELS OF TRAIL RUNNING AND LIGHT ROAD USE". Well, that sounds pretty good! That’s just the type of trail shoe that I like!

I received the shoes just as I started ramping up my training for the Massanutten Mountain 100 (Disclosure: these shoes were provided free of charge for review puroses by the kind folks at La Sportiva). The first pair they sent was in my usual size, 10.5 and I could hardly even get my feet into them. I checked with my buddy Ryan, who had recently bought a pair as well. He had the same experience and both of us sized up a full size. I like my shoes a bit on the large side, to accommodate swelling from a long day of running, so most people will only need to size up 1/2 a size.

I find the fit to be nice and snug over the forefoot, which is excellent at preventing my foot from sliding forward on long descents. Although the toe box feels snug, it doesn't feel too narrow and I have never had any blisters running in them.

The mesh material used is light and airy with welded overlays to provide a snug fit. They drain extremely well.

The sole has a nice level of cushioning. Not minimal by any means, but not burly. The level of flexibility is very good for a shoe with this thick of a sole.

The tread consists of sticky rubber around channels of exposed EVA foam. As you would expect from La Sportiva, the "FriXion" rubber is incredibly grippy. Some of the best I've ever experienced over wet New England rocks. La Sportiva is world renowned for their climbing shoes and they know a thing or two about awesome grip.

Orange happens to be my favorite color, so I love how these shoes look, for whatever that’s worth.

The gusseted tongue does an excellent job of keeping dirt and grit out of the shoe and keeping it in place mile after mile. This is a "set it and forget it" shoe. No fiddling mid-run with these puppies.

La Sportiva lists the weight as 8.1oz. Presumably, that would be for a size 9. My size 11.5's weigh 9.5, which I think is very competitive. They certainly feel light while running in them.

The heel cup is a bit stiffer than I normally prefer, and at first I didn't have any problem with it. I did notice that the more I ran in them the more I noticed that it applied a bit too much pressure to my heel spur. I believe that I just have sensitive heels and don't really think it will be an issue for most people.

Rock protection in toe bumper area is fine. I have kicked many rocks in them and don't find them to be lacking in this area.

I had actually planned on wearing these shoes for MMT, which is known for its brutal rocks. But, the week before the race, while running on local quarry trails, I stepped on a sharp rock in the exposed area and got quite a bruise on my forefoot. The thought of trying to complete 103 miles over rocky trail with bruised feet was enough to make me second guess using them for a race. That was a real bummer considering that I liked them enough to purchase a second pair so I could rotate them during the race.

I still wear the Helios quite often and they’re a valuable part of my current arsenal of trail shoes. I currently have about 250 miles on them. I have thrown everything imaginable at them and they’re holding up really well. The sole shows normal wear and there are no tears or rips.

250 miles and still going strong.

The La Sportiva Helios fit nicely in what I call the "Middleamal" category – low drop with solid cushioning (Running Warehouse lists them at 20mm heel, 15mm forefoot stack height). These are also the trail shoes that my wife Amy bought for hiking and she loves them. They have a MSRP of $120.

The La Sportiva Helios can be purchased at Running Warehouse, Amazon, or Zappos. Now through 4/19/2013 you can buy them at Amazon for 20% off if you use the coupon SHOE4DAD at checkout.

Nate Sanel is an ultrarunner and author of the Dirty Runner column on Runblogger. You can find more of Nate’s writing on his personal blog, Biker Nate, or follow him on Twitter.

How to Download Garmin Forerunner Data Directly to An iPhone, and Then Upload to dailymile

noreply@blogger.com (Peter Larson) — Tue, 11 Jun 2013 17:51:00 +0000

A few minutes ago I glanced over at my Tweetdeck screen and saw this tweet:

This is why @dcrainmakerblog is the best: dcrainmaker.com/2013/06/garmin…
— Sara J (@sarajacobson) June 11, 2013

Intrigued, I followed the link and my world changed. The skies cleared up, birds started singing, and my 3 year old told me he really wanted to take a long, long nap later today. Really.

If you’re not familiar with DC Rainmaker, he writes the most comprehensive reviews of fitness electronics on the web. If you think my shoe reviews are long and detailed, read one of his GPS watch reviews and you’ll see that I pale in comparison.

Anyway, in his post Ray shows us how to upload workout data directly from an ANT+ enabled GPS device (mostly Garmin) to various tablets/mobile devices. Android, iOS devices, and Microsoft Surface are featured.

I was under the impression that I could only download my Garmin data to a computer. So, suppose I worked out away from home. I’d have to wait till I got back to my desktop computer before I could look at the data in detail and post it to dailymile. I could do it manually, but what fun is that when a solution that involves gadgets is available??? (yes, I am a gadget geek in addition to being a shoe geek…) Enter DC Rainmaker with a solution. And it just so happens that I have all the equipment needed to accomplish this little trick, so I decided to give it a go and report on my results here.

So here’s what I required to make this work:

1. An ANT+ enabled GPS watch. Check! I happen to use the Garmin FR610 as my regular workout watch, and it’s the same watch Ray used in his post. Watches that require a USB cable for data download will not work with iOS devices.

2. A Wahoo ANT+ sensor for iPhone/iPad. Check! The sensor is a little plug that allows the watch to communicate wirelessly with your iOS device. They sell for $48 at Amazon. I’ve had one of these for a long time, and used to use it to view my cadence data recorded by a stride sensor. I stopped using it once I realized I could get the cadence data from the stride sensor directly on my Garmin. Ray reports that the 30-pin Wahoo sensor works with a lightning adapter for newer iOS devices. I don’t have an adapter, so can’t try it.

3. The Wahoo Fitness app, already have it on my phone. Free download at iTunes.

4. My iPhone (I have an iPhone 4). Also works with iPads.

I miraculously managed to locate my Wahoo sensor in the depths of my desk drawer, plugged it in, and fired up the Wahoo Fitness app. All of the images that follow are direct screen captures from my iPhone.

Following Ray’s instructions I pressed the history button, clicked “Import from Garmin Watch,” and waited while the app searched for my FR610.

I waited quite awhile, and nothing was happening. I then looked at the screen again and noticed that the message at the bottom had changed:

Ray mentioned this step in his post, but I’m not good at following directions. Maybe a little voice alert in the app that says “Read Me You Idiot” would be a helpful addition… On the 610 I went to Menu--->Setup--->System--->Data Transfer and turned initial pairing on. That did the trick and my data transferred over. Not sure why there are so many iterations of a workout on June 8 at 11:02 AM…

I chose the first workout in the list and it started to upload the data.

Voila! The workout appeared on the app interface, and clicking on it I was able to view data from my run yesterday as well as a map and mile lap splits. Very cool!!!

Next, I tapped the little “Mail” button on the upper right and it brought up an option to configure sharing of workout data. Looks like there are 10 possible upload destinations:

Since I use dailymile, I clicked that and was greeted by my dailymile login screen. I filled in my info and arrived here:

A click of “Allow” and I was set to go. I returned to my workout page, clicked the “Mail” button on the upper right again, and clicked “Upload to dailymile.”

The app started to talk to dailymile, and in a few seconds the workout was uploaded.

Here’s what it looks like on dailymile.com:

Now, all this does is upload the GPS track and run data to dailymile. You can’t describe your workout, plug in shoe type, or participate in any of the social functions that dailymile allows. But, if your goal is simply to get the data uploaded, this little trick works really well. It does require that I have the ANT+ iPhone sensor nearby, which might be problematic unless I leave it in my car or tuck it in my wallet. My bet is I’d lose it before long, but that’s just me.

From a practical standpoint, how often will I use this method of data upload? Probably not very often since I’m now mostly working from home, but I could see using it while traveling. When I was working at the college I’d often run after work and manually input my data in the car before heading home so I wouldn’t forget. There’s another situation where it might come in handy.

Anyway, hope this helps those of you who are Garmin and dailymile users. And a huge thanks to DC Rainmaker for putting up the initial tutorial – love finding tricks like this!

Garmin Forerunner 10 (FR10) Review: Great Performance in a Small, Low-Priced Package

noreply@blogger.com (Peter Larson) — Mon, 10 Jun 2013 16:49:00 +0000

One of the first reviews I wrote here on Runblogger was of the Garmin Forerunner 205 GPS watch. That was way back in April of 2009! I loved the 205, and it was a mainstay on my wrist for a long time. It tracked distance and pace accurately, provided a ton of customization options on its large screen, and the battery seemed to last forever. On the downside, the 205 was huge! It was not a watch that you’d wear around all day.

Last Christmas I finally upgraded to the Garmin Forerunner 610. From a functional standpoint, the 610 does pretty much everything the 205 does (with the exception of crazy long battery life), but does so in a smaller form factor that can stay on my wrist all day (no more swapping watches for workouts!).

I’ll have a review of the 610 coming soon, but I started this review with mentions of the 205 and 610 to make a point. When it comes to GPS watches, I’m a Garmin fan. I’ve tried watches from other brands, but none of them have yet satisfied my needs as well as Garmin watches do. A big part of that is that I can easily import Garmin data into Dailymile.com and Sporttracks, which are the two places I sync my running data. That fact alone has kept me loyal to Garmin.

A few weeks ago I entered a affiliate partnership with Clever Training whereby they’d occasionally provide me review samples of products that they carry (you can get 10% off most purchases at Clever Training by using the code RunBlogXJT – purchases support this site and allow me to write in-depth reviews like this one!). Here’s how it works – they send me a product, I try it out, write a review, then send it back to them. Their suggestion for a first review was the Garmin Forerunner 10 (FR10) GPS watch. I agreed to try it out, and have been using it for the last several weeks.

The FR10 is essentially the “entry-level” GPS watch in the Garmin lineup. I was initially skeptical about it as my experience with other more basic GPS watches has not been great (e.g., Soleus 1.0, Timex Run Trainer 1). They tend to lack the functionality that I look for, current pace tracking has been iffy, and easy export of data to my preferred sites/programs was lacking.

I’d read a few reviews of the FR10 which discussed its limitations, and I wasn’t sure I was going to like it. At $129.99 MSRP it’s the cheapest GPS enabled watch in Garmin’s lineup, and it lacks the customizability of siblings like the 205, 610, and so on. However, I’ve come to realize that the simplicity of the FR10 is its biggest strength, and I’ve actually been blown away by this little device. It pains me that I have to send it back!

Let’s dig into the review.

Size/Form Factor

First and foremost, compared to other GPS watches the Forerunner 10 is small. In fact, it’s not a whole lot bigger than a standard stopwatch that has no GPS. If you saw it on somebody’s wrist, you’d be hard-pressed to identify it as a GPS-enabled device.

From left to right: Garmin Forerunner 610, FR10, and FR205. My cat Mokey seems to like the FR10 best, and the 610 still thinks it’s in Oregon.

Not only is its form-factor compact, the FR10 is also very light. My Garmin 205 and 610 weigh 2.8oz each, and the FR10 is only 1.5oz, and the difference is noticeable when wearing it on your wrist. It’s a super comfortable watch for all-day wear – hand’s down the best option I have tried for a GPS watch that stays out of the way. The FR10 also comes in a slightly smaller form factor for women with black, pink, green, and violet as color options (see photo at left).

Menus/Options

In terms of menu navigation, the FR10 is as simple as it gets, and this is a huge plus. I like my FR610, but the touch screen isn’t very user friendly and there are a ton of menus to sift through. The FR10 has only 4 buttons, and they are intuitive and super easy to use. On the top left is a backlight button. On the top right is a button that serves to initiate a workout and functions as the “enter key” in menus. Bottom left is a back button, and bottom right is the button you use to pull up and scroll menus. Simple!

I was most worried with how the FR10 would handle my data needs on the run. I loved the 205 because it had a big screen and I could configure the 4 data fields to show just about anything I wanted. I could also toggle between three separate screens, so that allowed 12 fields total! More than anyone really needs on the run, but I’m a data junkie. The FR10 limits you to only two data screens, each of which displays only two data fields. But, because there are only two fields, the text is large and easy to read.

There are 6 data field combos that can be shown on each screen: Time/Distance, Time/Pace, Time/Calories, Pace/Distance, Pace/Calories, Distance/Calories. You get to choose two of these via the Run Options--->Data Fields menu on the watch.

Sampling of data field display options

There is an additional level of customization for the Pace field. In the Run Options--->Pace/Speed menu you can configure the Pace field to show any of the following: Current Pace, Lap Pace, Average Pace, Speed, Lap Speed, Average Speed. You only get to choose one, so you can’t have one data screen show Current Pace and another show Average Pace. I mainly use Current Pace, and I have auto-lap enabled so after each mile it spits out my lap time, so it gives me what I need.

Other menus include a nice History menu that allows you to view your data from each run (see photo below), and a Records menu that records your fasted time at the mile, 5K, 10K, Half-Marathon, and Marathon distances (also longest run). In the Run Options menu there is a Virtual Pacer that allows you to set a target pace and get alerted if you deviate, and a Run-Walk/Interval option where you can set run times and walk/recovery times. You can also turn on/off a manual lap button (lower left button during a workout).

Summary data from yesterday’s 10 mile run

Performance

I’ve used the Garmin Forerunner 10 on almost every run for the past several weeks. I even wore it when I ran the Vermont City Marathon a few weeks ago, with the FR610 on the other wrist for comparative purposes. I did another 10 mile run with both watches yesterday for a final test.

I have to say that I’ve fallen in love with this watch – when wearing both the FR10 and FR610 I often find myself looking at the FR10 more often than I look at the FR610. If it weren’t for just a few missing features (e.g., wireless data transfer, better interval workout capability, foot-pod sync) I’d consider selling my 610 on Ebay and buying FR10’s for myself and my wife.

As I mentioned above, my main data screen on the FR10 while I run displays current pace and distance. I have Time/Pace on the second screen. For the majority of runners that’s all that’s really necessary. Most of the time that’s all that I need as well.

What I love most about the FR10 is that the current pace readout is rock-solid. It reports pace in 5 second increments, so 8:00/mile, 8:05/mile, 8:10/mile etc. At first I didn’t think I’d like this, but what it accomplishes is a lot less fluctuation in current pace readout (and let’s be serious, current pace readouts on GPS watches probably aren’t accurate to the second). When running my marathon, I relied on the FR10 almost exclusively for real-time pacing and used the FR610 for it’s lap display (the main reason why I’ll keep it – being able to display lap time, lap distance, current pace, and lap pace all on one screen).

I have found tracking accuracy in the FR10 to be right in line with the much more expensive FR610. In fact, the FR10 measured the Vermont City Marathon course more closely than the 610 (26.37 miles for the FR10 vs. 26.48 miles for the 610 – need to work on running those tangents!). On my 10 miler yesterday, the FR10 measured 10.13 miles at an average pace of 8:22/mile, the 610 measured 10.12 miles at an average pace of 8:23. Pretty solid agreement! The Forerunner 10 has earned my complete confidence in its ability to track pace and distance.

The FR10 is rated at 5 hours of battery life with the GPS on, and it made it through my marathon no problem. It’s not the life that my old 205 had (I swear that thing had a Prius battery in it and recharged while I ran), but it’s sufficient for my needs up to now.

My only performance complaint about the FR10 is that it tends to not track that well under dense tree-cover (few watches that I have used do this well). If ultras are your thing, the combo of 5-hour battery life while recording and sub-par forest performance mean you should look elsewhere.

One other thing to note – as an entry-level watch the FR10 does not include a heart rate monitor. I don’t generally use a heart rate monitor, so no big deal for me.

Data Export

As mentioned above I use Dailymile.com and Sporttracks to store my run data. The FR10 syncs with both without a problem. I’ve also started using Garmin Connect a bit and really like it. If I hadn’t been using Sportracks for years I might even consider using Garmin Connect as my main run storage location. Below is a sample screen from Garmin Connect showing the FR10 recording of my run at the Vermont City Marathon:

As an entry-level watch, the FR10 does not upload wirelessly (I like this feature of the 610). It connects via a USB cable that snaps securely into place on the back of the watch.

Garmin FR10 – Sync Cable and Back of Watch

Garmin FR10 – Sync Cable

The only data I typically look at that is not recorded on-board the FR10 is elevation (e.g., you can’t get elevation in SportTracks). However, when you upload the data from the watch to Garmin Connect you can view an elevation profile that is based on your GPS track (I suppose similar to how a site like MapMyRun or GMap Pedometer computes elevation profiles when you create a route manually on a map). Otherwise the data I get in Sporttracks is essentially the same as the data I get from the 610.

Summary

Given the fact that the Garmin Forerunner 10 is positioned as an entry-level GPS watch, I wasn’t expecting to love it as much as I do. Everything that it does, it does well, and for the majority of my runs it’s really all that I need. The only place it falls behind a bit is when I need more detailed lap data for an interval workout. Other than that, I could easily see using this is my full-time GPS watch, and given how much smaller and lighter it is than the FR610, I’m half-tempted to buy one for myself as an all-day watch and save the FR610 for more complex workouts (though I’d have a hard time justifying that purchase to my wife!).

The FR10 is an ideal GPS watch for a beginning runner, and for the experienced runner who doesn’t much care about anything besides how fast and far they ran, it is an equally good choice. At $129.99 MSRP the price is right as well.

Big thumbs up for the Garmin Forerunner 10!

The Garmin Forerunner 10 is available for purchase at Clever Training in the colors seen below. Clever Training specializes in fitness electronics, and has agreed to provide a 10% off discount to Runblogger readers on most products that they carry – just enter the code RunBlogXJT at checkout. Purchases support this site and help me to write reviews like this one. Your support is very much appreciated!

Foot Strike Follies: New Study Suggests Heel Striking is Better, Or Does It?

noreply@blogger.com (Peter Larson) — Thu, 06 Jun 2013 18:11:00 +0000

I spent much of yesterday in a meeting with Merrell footwear that was attended by several running biomechanics experts. One of the things we all lamented was the laser focus on foot strike that has arisen from the barefoot running debate and resulting discussions about what type of running form is best. Running form seems to have become synonymous with foot strike, and forefoot striking seems to have become synonymous with barefoot running. This frustrates me as there is much more to running form than foot strike, and I think there are quite possibly more important aspects of running form that are influenced by running barefoot than where the foot makes initial contact.

After the meeting yesterday I returned to my hotel room to find a bunch of references to an article that had just been published on the New York Times Well Blog. The article was titled “Is Barefoot-Style Running Best? New Studies Cast Doubt” and was accompanied by a giant photo of the Vibram Fivefingers shoes (which, strangely, have also become synonymous with barefoot running – they are not!). The article went on to discuss a study from UMass published online last month at the Journal of Applied Physiology.

The study was an interesting one. They took two groups of runners - 19 habitual RF and 18 habitual FF runners – and compared their running economy using their habitual foot strike and the reversed, non-habitual foot strike at three different speeds (3.0, 3.5, and 4.0 m/s). Foot strike was classified in the lab using both video and force parameters, and this is where one important point needs to be made. Because true forefoot strikers were difficult to find, their “forefoot” group actually consisted of 14 midfoot strikers and only four true forefoot strikers. Keep that in mind when interpreting the results – it was more a comparison between midfoot and heel than forefoot and heel. All subjects ran in the same New Balance racing flats.

Now, the NY Times reported the results as follows:

“In the end, this data showed that heel-striking was the more physiologically economical running form, by a considerable margin. Heel strikers used less oxygen to run at the same pace as forefoot strikers, and many of the forefoot strikers used less oxygen — meaning they were more economical — when they switched form to land first with their heels.”

Now, here’s what the what the authors of the study report in the text of the paper:

“We found no difference in rates of oxygen consumption or relative contribution of carbohydrate oxidation to total energy expenditure between habitual RF and FF runners performing their habitual footstrike pattern at a slow, medium, and fast speed.”

So, when runners used their usual foot strike pattern, there was actually no difference in running economy between the groups. No difference at any of the three speeds tested. This result is consistent with other studies that have compared economy between heel and forefoot strikers. They also found no statistically significant difference in carbohydrate oxidation between the two groups at any of the speeds tested, though there was a trend for “forefoot” strikers to burn more carbs. This is quite different from what was reported in the Times.

When they asked the runners to run with the opposite foot strike, they found the following:

“When performing the alternative footstrike pattern, FF running resulted in greater rates of oxygen consumption than RF running in the RF group at the slow and medium speeds and across groups at the fast speed.”

So, habitual heel strikers got less economical when they ran with a forefoot strike at the slow and medium speeds. No real surprise there as it was a novel pattern requiring greater use of the plantarflexor muscles. If I’m interpreting the results presented in their Figure 2 correctly, the forefoot strikers were equally economical when running with either foot strike at any of the speeds. It was only when the foot strike groups were combined that rearfoot striking was more economical at the fast speed. Carb usage was only significantly increased when the rearfoot strikers switched to a forefoot strike at the slowest speed.

One of the cool things about this study is that they provided data on individual changes. Group means don’t always provide a good picture of the magnitude of change that can occur at an individual level. What they found was that economy for rearfoot strikers was better when rearfoot striking for almost all individuals at the sow and medium speeds, and for roughly 2/3 of individuals at the fast speed. “Forefoot” strikers were split roughly 50-50 at the slow speed in terms of whether rearfoot or forefoot was more economical, but more tended to do better with a rearfoot strike at the higher speed. Similarly, about 75% of the habitual RF strikers tended to burn less carb with a rearfoot strike at all speeds (slightly less at the fastest), whereas patterns for the forefoot strikers were more evenly split.

How would I interpret all of this?

1. If you are a heel striker, switching to a forefoot strike will likely lead to reduced economy, at least until you become used to the new pattern. But, it’s not likely that you will become more economical with a forefoot strike even with practice (remember, there was no significant difference between habitual rearfoot and “forefoot” strikers when using their habitual foot strike). Economy is probably not a great reason heel strikers to mess around with their foot strike.

2. If you are a midfoot striker, as were most in this study, it probably doesn’t matter much what your foot is doing. Forefoot and heel strikes are equally economical. This doesn’t surprise me much since a midfoot strike is kind of a middle ground between forefoot an heel striking (in fact, my guess would be that they might use multiple foot strike types when they run).

3. There was a tendency for forefoot strikers to burn more carbs. The authors reference a paper I published which showed that midfoot and forefoot strikers tend to switch to a heel strike late in a marathon. Thus, if your plan is to race a marathon, there may be an advantage to a heel strike (a mild heel strike I’d guess).

4. This study was conducted on a treadmill, so we do have to be careful about extrapolating the results to a non-compliant, harder surface like a road.

Now, one part of this study that I haven’t mentioned up to this point is that the authors also measured some kinematic variables. Two of the variables they measured were stride length and stride rate. The focus of the study was to compare running economy, but my guess is that most people considering switching foot strike are doing so not to make themselves more economical, but do so because they are dealing with some kind of injury and think that a switch might help. People generally don’t take up barefoot running out of a desire to race faster, they do so because they either enjoy it or have found that running in shoes just does not work for them. When groups were combined, they found that rearfoot strikers tended to take longer and slower strides (about 2% longer, and 2% slower). Previous research has shown that an increase in stride rate of even just 5-10% can reduce loading on the knee and hip (again emphasizing here that there’s more to running form than just foot strike!). So, there my be a tradeoff whereby a forefoot strike may at times be less economical for some individuals, but they may benefit in other ways such as via a shorter, quicker stride with reduced loading of the knee/hip (but possibly increased loading of the foot and ankle).

As always, I come back to the individual. If you’re a forefoot striker, there’s probably not a big benefit to trying something else except maybe if you plan to race a marathon or if you have injury issues that can be linked to your contact style (foot, ankle, calf problems perhaps). If you are a rearfoot striker, you’re probably not going to become an elite runner by switching your foot strike. You may, however, shorten your stride up a bit which could be good for other reasons (e.g., reduced loading). Consider the tradeoffs, and figure out what’s best for you and your needs.

Altra 3-SUM Zero Drop Running Shoe Review

noreply@blogger.com (Peter Larson) — Tue, 04 Jun 2013 23:47:00 +0000

This is a guest review by John Shepard (@runsheprun on Twitter). John is the owner of Take it on the Run, a boutique running store that he runs out of his home. John is an Altra vendor, and over the past few months has been trying out the recently released 3-SUM Tri shoe. I asked if he’d be willing to write a guest review since I’m not a triathlete, and he gladly agreed. Here’s what he has to say:

Altra 3-SUM Review

I started dabbling in Triathlons last summer. Why? I have no clue, but I got my hands on a free bike (think "American Flyers" starring Kevin Costner era bike) and I had a neighborhood pool to swim in. So, I went with it…

After I was finished with my first Tri, I was immediately thinking of ways to get faster… just like I do after every other race that I’ve ever finished. One area for improvement in the race was in the 2nd transition area where I literally sat there and laced up my shoes (coincidently Altra Instinct 1.5s). It felt like it took me 3 hours to tie the shoes. I needed to change what was on my feet if I was going to banish the “What if…” voices from my head.

Enter the Altra 3-SUM. Even if I wasn’t in the business of selling shoes, I’m a shoe geek, and I get pretty excited about new shoe releases. I was beyond my normal level of excitement however when Altra came out with the 3-SUM. It was going to fill some voids in my shoe arsenal. 1) I needed a racing flat. Racing flats are tough for me to fit in because of my size 14, extra wide foot. 2) I am planning on doing more and more Tri’s. 3) They are a big departure from the aesthetics of Altra’s original shoes. Color Poppin’!

Ok, so let’s get down to the nitty gritty of the shoe itself. I have put some good miles on them in the last 2 months and here’s my opinion. They are a great racing flat. Altra does one thing better than any brand of shoe that I have tried on: consistency. They keep the fit of their shoes the same. I can go across the brand and know that my foot will fit exactly the same in each make. I know many people have had issues with their sizing (trust me, I sell them and have had a lot of returns), but once your Altra sizing dialed in, expect the same fit across the brand.

Characteristic Altra Foot-Shaped Last

One differentiator from the rest of the Altra line is that the 3-SUM is lower profile (18mm) than, say, the Instinct 1.5 or Provision. This gives them great ground feel. As someone who isn’t used to low profile shoes on pavement, my feet were barking at me after competing in the River to River Relay where I ran three 5k’s in them in one day. You will feel the pavement for sure. However, this is characteristic of just about any racing flat.

Another characteristic of a racing flat is that they tend to be lightweight. Altra delivered here, with the 3-SUM topping the scales at only 6.7 oz! When I first slipped these on, I was immediately impressed by how light they were. Funny how just a couple of ounces less on your feet can make you feel faster. Not sure if it was a mental thing or the shoes, but I PR’d my 5K time in the first leg of that relay race.

Altra 3-SUM Sole – note the full rubber outsole and the drain holes

Ok, so with every good comes some bad, and I have only a few concerns about the 3-SUM. First off let me make sure that I state this clearly… THESE ARE DESIGNED TO BE A TRI SHOE. Yes, I know it’s obvious, but if you want just a racing flat and don’t plan to compete in triathlons, buy The ONE from Altra.

Here’s why:

The lacing. Altra teamed up with Yankz to provide their drawstrings as laces on these shoes. I totally get it. You won’t be that moron sitting there tying your shoes in a race (i.e., me - see above). However, what I’ve noticed is that it takes a bit of practice with the lacing to figure out the right fit. And no matter how much you think you have tightened each shoe the same, you haven’t. Each foot requires its own combination of tightening and loosening. Furthermore, if you lace your shoes any special way, it’s near impossible to do so with the Yankz. I know this seems like more of a problem with Yankz, but they’re the laces you get with the shoe.

The other big problem – blisters! Tri shoes are typically meant to be worn sockless. It’s a time game, and putting on socks adds time to the transition. This is why most of the elites don’t wear socks. I took the 3-SUMs out sockless for the first time for just a mile and got a blister on the top of my foot. This could have been due to the issue above with the Yankz, but I can’t be certain. Either way, blisters are no bueno. I did remedy this by putting on socks. By no stretch of the imagination do I see myself winning any races in my career, so I don’t care about putting socks on in transition. But, if you aim to shave every nanosecond from your transition, this is a consideration.

Finally, the name. I am just kind of shocked that a name like that could get through. Maybe my head is eternally in the gutter or something. “Having shoe issues? Try a 3-SUM.” Anyway, I just think there are other names to use that reference 3 than that.

So, if you are in the market for a great zero drop Tri shoe, and you don’t mind wearing socks, the 3-SUM is the way to go.

To learn more about John’s approach to selling shoes, or to buy a pair from him, visit Take it on the Run (disclosure: I do not have an affiliate relationship with John, just helping out a friend and fellow shoe junkie!).

Karhu Flow3 Trainer Running Shoe Review

noreply@blogger.com (Peter Larson) — Mon, 03 Jun 2013 14:37:00 +0000

This is a guest review by Brad Patterson. Brad is an electrical engineer by trade, and lives in Grand Rapids, Michigan. As you will see, his photography skills are far superior to my own! – Pete, Runblogger.com

Before I started running back in January of 2011, I had never even heard of Karhu. As my love for running grew, and also my fondness for running shoes, I began to take notice of every running shoe that I would see while I worked out at a local gym. One particular day, I noticed one with a “funky looking” curvy M on the side of the shoe, and I had to look it up on the internet when I got home to find out that it was a Karhu. At the time, I didn’t know anything about Karhu, their history, or their shoes (or that I would be asked to do a review for their Flow 3 Trainer shoe a few years later)!

Karhu History

It wasn’t until Pete asked me if I would be willing to do a review of a more “conventional trainer” from Karhu that I started looking into them as a company. The Karhu brand has actually been around a very long time, having been founded in 1916 in Helsinki, Finland by a company named Ab Sport Artiklar . Their original products were javelins, skis, and discuses; but they eventually began to also make running spikes for a variety of Finnish athletes. In 1920, the company name was changed to Karhu, which is Finnish for bear. An elite group of Finnish runners, who became known as the “Flying Finns”, garnered recognition for Karhu shoes by dominating tracks all over the world. Paavo Nurmi, the World famous Finnish middle and long distance runner, won 9 Olympic GOLD medals in just eight years, many times while he was wearing Karhu running spikes.

In 1932, Karhu factory workers Matti Järvinen (javelin) and Lauri Lehtinen (5000m) won gold medals at the Los Angeles Olympics. In the 40s, Karhu did its part in defending Finland during WWII; providing uniforms, tents, boots, & skis for the Finnish army. In the 50s, 15 athletes wore Karhu spikes while winning gold medals for their countries, including the legendary (and one of my personal running idols) Emil Zatopek. Ironically, Karhu ended up selling it’s 3 stripes trademark to Adidas for a whopping 1600 euros and two bottles of good whiskey! If they only knew how much those 3 stripes would be worth in later years...

In the 60s, Karhu officially registered its famous M-symbol and developed its first “training” shoe for track and field athletes. Legendary track coach Arthur Lydiard got on board and visited the Karhu factory, praising the fit and quality of the new Karhu training shoe, which was called the “Trampas”. In the 1970s, Karhu continued to innovate and developed the first patented “air cushion” midsole for running shoes (even before Nike ever did). Steve Prefontaine wove himself into the Karhu story when he invited a group of Finnish athletes to go on a racing tour with him in 1975, and those athletes brought along the new Karhu Air Cushioned model, known as the “Champion”.

The 80s saw the first initial development of what Karhu is best known for currently, which is their “Fulcrum” technology. While most other brands continued to build up their shoes with air & gel cushioning, Karhu decided to remove the air cushion from their shoes in 1986 and replace it with the “Fulcrum”. Karhu continued to innovate over the years in other various ways, but I think it is time to move on to the uniqueness and idea behind the “Fulcrum” technology that Karhu employs.

Unique features & philosophies

The best way for me to describe the Karhu “Fulcrum” is that it is “triangular-ish” wedge of a harder durometer EVA foam in the midpoint of the sole, between the heel and the forefoot. The idea is that this fulcrum will propel you forward onto your forefoot and into toe off with higher efficiency than standard shoe. You can see the blue fulcrum wedge in the photo below.

Karhu has conducted extensive testing and R&D work on their Fulcrum technology, and the data they have gathered is actually quite impressive. Their data shows that runners equipped with their Fulcrum technology shoes have less vertical oscillation during their run which results in a more efficient forward movement. They also claim that the Fulcrum allows for better foot and leg positioning which reduces overstriding and the braking forces associated with it. And of course, you can’t forget the big dirty word in running shoes these days: pronation. Karhu claims that their design “reduces the pronation angle and velocity due to naturally centered movement over the fulcrum”. This one I’m not 100% sure about, and think it might just be marketing-speak, but this is what Karhu claims. See the video below for some testing that Karhu did to evaluate the effect of their Fulcrum technology on a runner’s vertical oscillation.

Karhu has a number of other videos demonstrating the independent testing they had done at the University of Jyväskylä to validate their claims about the fulcrum technology. http://www.karhu.com/technology/

Initial thoughts (from unboxing)

Upon receiving shipment of the new shoes (Disclosure: the shoes reviewed here were provided free of charge by the manufacturer for review purposes), I opened the shipping box to find this:

Like, most shoe companies, Karhu does a nice job with the marketing and branding on the outside of their shoe boxes. The first thing that jumps out at you is the image of a bear with the Karhu “M” logo through the middle of it. If you remember your Karhu history lesson earlier, you would recall that the word Karhu means “bear” in Finnish. A number of other slogans and phrases adorn the sides of the box, keying on some Karhu history as well as their current marketing “method”:

Finland’s legendary 1916 running brand
Efficiency: the hallmark of Finnish design (and a nice QR code to scan for more info)
Move forward
Since 1987, Karhu’s fulcrum technology has been creating more efficient runners by minimizing vertical oscillation and transforming wasted energy into smoother, faster gait cycle
Image of the vertical “oscillations” that the competition’s shoes introduce into the runner’s gait, compared to the smoothed out motion of a runner in Karhus
A line “graph” depicting where this shoe falls on the scales for “body type” and “stride efficiency”. The Flow 3 is listed as a “mid/light” body type and “performance” for stride efficiency

You may think that all of this wording and marketing on the outside of the box is too much, but I feel that it is a nice touch and excellent attention to detail; especially in the United States where Karhu is not a household brand name. I think that by putting their distinctives on the outside of the box, it helps potential buyers to know what sets their shoes apart from other brand’s designs.

After I finished looking over all of the branding and marketing on the outside of the box, I eagerly opened it to examine the shoe awaiting inside! The first thing you see when you open a box of Karhu shoes is a nice brochure that explains their company history and the design facets that make their shoes “more efficient” than those of their competitors.

The brochure also smartly includes photos of all of their current models, just in case you end up loving this pair so much that you want to try out other Karhu models!

After a quick perusal of the brochure and a few more product photos, I set it aside and peeled back the tissue paper to reveal my prize inside. And what I was greeted with was none other than a fantastically styled and eye-catching bright yellow/green shoe with light blue accents. I personally like my shoes a bit on the gaudy side, so I was very happy to see that this new test pair meets my “attention grabbing” quota!

I picked up the shoe to give it a closer inspection and found it to be pretty light just from my initial hand holding guestimate. When I flexed it, I initially thought it felt like it had a pretty rigid sole. Much to my liking, the upper is very minimal and airy. It has some basic stitching, but not very many overlays adding any additional structural support to the upper. You can see from the photo that the trademark mountain “M” logo adorns the side of the shoe and also a very small bear icon in the middle of a small piece of mildly reflective material. The lacing on the upper is pretty standard symmetrical style, with six “normal” eyelets on each side and one extra eyelet a little further back and down around the ankle for those of us that might like to use this extra eyelet to counter any problems with heel slip.

The “Fulcrum” technology is very evident from the light blue section of foam in the midsole. And just in case you don’t quite notice the Fulcrum just from the different colored blue foam, Karhu nicely puts the word “Fulcrum” right in the middle of it! Pressing on the blue foam with my finger, I could tell right away that the blue foam is a harder durometer than the rest of the (yellow) foam which makes up the remainder of the midsole. Karhu made the center of the Fulcrum wedge a nice shiny and highly reflective silver material, which I am a huge fan of since I do most of my running in the dark at very early morning hours.

Taking a look at the side profile of the shoe, I could see that the heel seems slightly undercut, in a similar fashion to the Brooks Pure and New Balance Minimus shoe lines. The toe is slightly upward sprung, but really not too much. The sole itself is a mix of nice durable rubber in the forefoot and heel areas, and exposed yellow EVA from the midsole filling in the area under the arch. It appears that the vast majority of the sole is going to make good contact with the ground, with very few “voids” or “pockets” in the sole of areas that would just be air. It seems like this large volume of foam and rubber making ground contact is going to offer really nice traction out on the road, even when the terrain is wet. But I wouldn’t find be able to verify that fact until after I took the babies for a few test runs!

After a fairly thorough inspection of the outside of the Flow3 Trainer, I decided that I would slip it on and give it a quick “foot feel” test. I looked inside the shoe just before sliding my foot in, and noticed that Karhu continued to do a nice job with marketing of their Fulcrum technology on the insole itself. I also noticed two little “pods” of cushioning that stuck out from the sides of the heel color, I was guessing these were to help keep the shoe gripping your foot and heel locked in. (When I checked this on the Karhu website, I noticed that they referred to this feature as “dual pronged memory foam heel collar”). I don’t do a lot of sockless running, but I did remove the insole and see what the shoe inner looks like for sockless running. All I can say is it doesn’t look very promising for sockless running, there is a ton of stitching along the bottom of the shoe and it doesn’t look like it would be very comfortable to run in sans socks.

So am I finally to the point where I describe what the shoes actually feel like ON MY FEET? Geez, I just get too wordy sometimes! I slipped the shoes on and they felt quite good. I didn’t feel any support or restriction on the sides of my foot, and the forefoot area was very roomy. If almost felt like the forefoot might have been a hair too wide for me, but the shoe seemed to cinch down nicely once I tightened the laces a bit. As I did this, I wondered to myself if a size 10 might fit my foot a little better with the Karhu than my normal size 10.5 that I wear in all of my other running shoes. I could feel that the heel counter was fairly stiff, but still very comfortable. And I could also feel ever so slightly the sideways “pressure” of the two memory foam pads on the heel collar. They almost seemed reassuring in feel, as if they were going to guarantee that my heel didn’t slip out while running. The material on the inside of the heel and tongue areas was very soft and quite comfortable. The tongue felt pretty nicely padded, but it was not overly fat/thick, like I have seen in some other running shoes.

Shoe details and specs

I covered some of these details in my initial thoughts above, but I’ll quickly run through some of the specifications of the Karhu Flow3 Trainer for those of you that are hyper analytic shoe nerds like me. I pulled some of this information from the Karhu website, and also from the Running Warehouse website.

Upper - Super airy and lightweight (my words), “anatomically sculpted air mesh” according to Karhu.
Cushioning - Combination of 56 durometer CMEVA (compression molded EVA) foam for midsole and 70 durometer EVA for the Fulcrum.
Heel-toe drop - Running Warehouse lists this shoe as 13mm forefoot & 18mm heel stack heights, for a 5mm drop value
Weight - 8.3oz in a size 9 according to Running Warehouse. I measured my size 10.5 at 9 ounces on my postage scale
Sole - Wearable EVA outsole with compression molded rubber in key abrasion areas (i.e. forefoot and heel)
Tongue - anatomically mapped around the instep with a soft touch logo top
Insole - Full length EVA padded lasting board stitched directly to the upper
Reflective details - small reflective bear logo on both sides of the upper, and a small wedge of reflective material in the middle of the fulcrum in the midsole
Heel cup/counter - fairly firm (my words) heel cup that is lined with soft moisture wicking material and includes two small memory foam “prongs” on each side to lock the heel in place
Lacing - standard symmetrical lacing with 6 “regular” eyelets and 1 additional that is farther back towards the heel
Sizing (accuracy) - Running Warehouse lists the sizing as “standard”, but I found my 10.5 to be a little bit too long. I ended up being able to cinch down the laces to take care of it, but this does cause some of the upper material that is just in front of the laces to “bunch together”
Flexibility - out of the box I thought they felt pretty stiff, but out on the run they seemed very flexible front to back. There doesn’t seem to be much flexibility side-to-side though.
Ground feel - ground feel on these shoes is excellent. Even with 13mm forefoot padding, I could really feel all different aspects of the surface I ran on.
Fulcrum - 70 durometer EVA molded into the center of the midsole to help reduce braking forces, toe off efficiently, and propel the runner forward
Color availability & look - The Flow3 trainer is available in a fog (grey) & light blue combination and also in a screaming yellow & light blue combination. I received the screaming yellow version, and I personally think they look fantastic.

Run performance and conclusions

And now I am finally getting to the part you are waiting for, to describe how they performed on the run! As of this writing, I have put 75 miles on my pair in a variety of conditions as well as run types. I did about 20 miles on a treadmill, and all of the remaining miles were done outside; all on roads. I have used them for lots of 3-7 mile runs, as well as one run that was just about 10 miles. Outside, I have run them in snow, rain, and dry pavement. Unfortunately, it has been a VERY wet spring where I live in Michigan, so I have not had any opportunity to try them on trails yet. Based on all of these runs, here are my observations and opinions.

Ground feel in these shoes is VERY good. On a number of runs, I ran along and tested out various sections of the road to see if I could feel them. I could feel everything from a tarred over crack in the pavement to small pebbles that were laying on top of the pavement. Depending on the kind of running shoe you prefer, you may view this ground feel as a good point or bad point. I believe that there is a time for cushioned shoes, but for the type of running that I think these shoes are intended for, the ground feel is an advantage.

The Flows are very light and feel like a “quick” shoe to me. I assume this is due to their close to the ground 13mm forefoot cushioning, and racing-flat style of design. I find it easier to run with a higher cadence in the Flow3 than I do most of my other shoes that are more cushioned with a higher heel-toe drop. They feel very flexible out on the road, which I have heard is sometimes a rare feature in racing flats; as a lot of flats tend to have stiffer soles.

From a stability standpoint, I found these shoes to offer a really nice stable base and also excellent traction even in wet pavement. I think that the large amount of sole material that is flat to the ground and making contact adds to this feeling, and the combination of exposed foam and rubber seems to work very well for grip (in both wet and dry conditions) and also for durability.

From a foot comfort standpoint, I felt very good in these shoes. Even with the minimal amount of cushioning, my feet never had any hot spots or soreness. The toe box is plenty large and offers lots of room for splaying. The only thing I noticed from a lesser cushioning standpoint is that I had some calf soreness after I did about 6 consecutive runs in them; which I think could be from the lower heel-toe drop than I am used to and possibly also from the lower amount of padding. As a side note, I have always had some problems going to minimalist shoes and sore/tight calves is a common issue that I have; so I don’t blame this on the shoes but it is more of a person “body” problem for me.

The one main thing I was curious about with these shoe is the effect of the “Fulcrum technology” and if I would be able to notice it at all. Upon first just putting the shoes on inside my house, I couldn’t really feel any huge difference, and even out on the run, I think the effect of the fulcrum feels very subtle. One thing that I noticed on many of my runs in these shoes is that they seem to encourage a nice forward lean and make you feel like you are “throwing yourself” forward. I’m not really sure how to explain it in words, but I think this is the intended effect that the Karhu designers were going for with the fulcrum. On the positive side, I never felt any sort of weird bumps or pressure on my arches like I have heard from some of the Brooks Pure line shoes and also the Sketchers GoRun series early models.

Another item that I found REALLY interesting with these shoes is that it almost felt difficult for me to run slow in them. Time and again, I would attempt to take them out for a nice slow easy run, but many times I ended up running faster than I had planned. I attempted to look at my HR data to see if I could have any real world support for Karhu’s claims that the fulcrum actually improves runner’s efficiency; but I didn’t see anything really obvious. Due to the fact that my runs were in such a variety of conditions, distances, and paces; it was hard to quantify the effect on heart rate efficiency.

Here is a photo showing current wear after 75 miles, I think they are holding up very well and will last for many more hundreds of miles

My final conclusion and recommendation is that this is an excellent shoe, and could be just the model you are looking for if you want something light, fast, and close to the ground. Karhu says that it could be used as a daily trainer, but I will stick to using this shoe for shorter faster workouts instead of my weekend long runs. Again, this may vary depending on how your body handles less cushioned shoes. So I think this would be an fantastic choice for a racing shoe or a weekly workout shoe. Its design and features all come together to make a really smooth and efficient ride that will propel you forward on your way to your next PR!

As one final bonus, Karhu is currently offering a 60-day guarantee on the Flow models. Their website says “If they aren’t the most efficient pair you’ve worn, return them within 60 days for your money back” http://www.karhu.com/flow-guarantee

The Karhu Flow Trainers are available for sale at Running Warehouse and Amazon.com. They can also be purchased directly from www.karhu.com.

Running Podcasts: Two Interviews With Physical Therapist Jay Dicharry

noreply@blogger.com (Peter Larson) — Sun, 02 Jun 2013 23:50:00 +0000

I’m flying out to Portland, Oregon on Tuesday for a footwear insights meeting hosted by Merrell, and one of the reasons I’m excited about it is that I get to hang out again with my friend Jay Dicharry. Jay is a physical therapist who recently made a jump from heading up the gait lab at the University of Virginia to a private PT practice in Bend, Oregon (Rebound Physical Therapy). When it comes to information on form, footwear, and injury management, Jay is one of the first people Iook to for advice.

I recently listened to interviews with Jay on two separate podcasts, and I thought I’d share them here since he is a wealth of knowledge on all things running and his philosophy on form and footwear very closely aligns with my own (he is a recurring “character” in my own book).

Here are the podcasts:

First, Jay did an interview with the folks over at Trail Runner Nation. Jay covers a lot of ground in the interview, and the title “Make running more fun!” is excellent advice! You can listen on-line here, or download the podcast from iTunes.

The second podcast is a slightly shorter interview with Jay conducted by Mark Kennedy of Healthynomics. You can listen on-line here, or download the interview from iTunes.

And if you haven’t read it already, I highly recommend picking up a copy of Jay’s book (see cover above), Anatomy for Runners.

Enjoy!

Mini-Review Roundup: RunGuard Anti-Chafe, Energy Bits, Sport Science Shirt, Zensah Reflect Sleeves, VFuel Gel, PocketFuel

noreply@blogger.com (Peter Larson) — Thu, 30 May 2013 19:12:00 +0000

There are some running products that warrant a long review (e.g., shoes, electronics), and there are others that can be adequately critiqued in just a few paragraphs (most apparel, nutrition products, etc.). Over the past several months Nate and I have received a number of products to try out that fit into the latter category. Rather than post a bunch of really short reviews, we figured it would be more efficient to do a mini-review roundup of products we’ve tried and liked. Here goes!

First, some mini reviews from Nate:

RunGuard Anti-Chafe Stick

RunGuard Anti-Chafe Stick - One of the hardest things about running Ultramarathons is chafing. On my first 100 I started chafing at mile 9. It was the single hardest thing to deal with for the remaining 91 miles. Like most runners, I have used Bodyglide for years. I have also used Toms Blister Shield, Vasoline, Bagbalm and other products, but have still suffered with chafing. I get it under my armpits and in my crotch (sorry..) where the seams of my legs meet my man-bits. Its not fun...unless you like the idea of feeling like somebody attacked you with a cheese grater while trying to run for hours and hours.

Run Guard is made by the company that makes nip-guards, which are special "bandaids" for your nipples. The anti-chafe stick comes in two types, original and sensitive. I absolutely love the sensitive type. I have had zero problems while using it. It stays on longer than Bodyglide and has a nice smooth feel that doesn't get sticky. It is now a permanent fixture in my run kit. Give it a try! You can read about it and order it at their website, www.runguards.com. RunGuard is also available for sale at Amazon.com.

Energy Bits

Energy Bits - If you’re a runner and use Twitter, chances are you see lots of posts from Energy Bits and EB users. Energy bits are little pill-like tabs of Spirulina algae, a great source of protein. As with many supplements, there are users who swear that they are the second coming of the Messiah.

I received a free trial of about 50 "bits" and used them on a long run. Feeling like I actually got a bit of a boost from them, I bought a full bag with a discount that was extended by them. I have used them several times and honestly can't tell any difference when I use them. There is no doubt in my mind that they are a healthy way to get plant based protein, I just don't seem to feel any benefit from using them and can't justify the relatively steep price. Others swear by them. Ask them for a free trial and make your own conclusions. Whether they work, or produce a placebo effect really doesn't matter if you feel that they make you faster and stronger. That's a good enough reason to use them for most. For more, visit www.energybits.com.

Next, some mini-reviews from Pete:

Sport Science Smarter T-Shirt

Sport Science Smarter T-Shirt – There was a time before I became a runner that I almost exclusively wore cotton T-shirts. However, it doesn’t take long for a new runner to realize that cotton shirts are just a really bad idea. They get soaked, and stay soaked when you run. They chafe. Bloody nipples may result.

I’ve since amassed an enormous collection of tech fabric shirts, most obtained at races or Target (yes, Target is my main source of running apparel!). I’m a big fan of tech fabric, but my cats are not. They love lying on fresh laundry, and when they do that cat paw thing that cats do to get comfy, my tech shirts start sprouting strings and develop runs that can’t be fixed. Velcro is also not fond of tech shirts. I could just put my laundry away quickly, but as my wife will attest that’s not really a likely course of action.

Needless to say, I’m open to trying out shirts less susceptible to feline and velcro damage. Sport Science offered to send me one of their Smarter Basics shirts and I’ve now worn it out on several runs. The shirt is a blend of polyester and cotton, so it looks more like a typical cotton T-shirt than typical tech fabric shirts do. I like the shirt because I can wear it casually without looking like I’m about to head over to the track (which, on a given day, might actually be the case).

It’s comfortable, has a generous fit, and is a bit warmer than a typical tech shirt. On the negative side, it does retain water more than a tech shirt, but not nearly as bad as a cotton T-shirt. Think of it as a hybrid between the two. For me it’s a shirt that works well in cooler weather, probably not one I’d take out on a run in the heat of summer.

For more, visit http://www.sportsciencewear.com/. Sports Science shirts are also available for sale at Amazon.com.

Zensah Reflect Calf Sleeves

Zensah Reflect Calf Sleeves – I generally wear calf sleeves when I race if for no other reason that they feel good. I don’t know if they provide any benefit during the race, nor do I have a good sense of whether they help speed recovery (just being honest!). I wear them because I like them, and that’s a good enough reason for me.

My preferred brand for calf sleeves is Zensah. Their sleeves are made of a slightly thicker fabric than others I have tried, and I like the amount of compression that they provide. Zensah recently sent me a pair of their new “Reflect” calf sleeves, and I wore them in my marathon last weekend – no issues, though my calves were sore as heck the next day so they clearly didn’t prevent calf soreness. These sleeves are pretty much the same as the traditional Zensah sleeves I have, with the addition of some reflective markings. I have not run in the dark lately, but I suppose any added bit of reflective material can be of benefit when running at night. Very happy with these sleeves. For more information, visit http://www.zensah.com. Zensah sleeves are also available for sale at Amazon.com.

VFuel Gels

VFuel Gels - My friends at Running Warehouse recently put me in touch with VFuel, a manufacturer of energy gels that I hadn’t heard of before. VFuel sent me samples of their three gel flavors: chocolate, vanilla, and peach cobbler. I tend to prefer fruity gel flavors, so I used the peach cobbler gels in my final few long runs leading up to the Vermont City Marathon last weekend. I also used three of the peach cobbler VFuel pouches in the race (mixed with a bit of water in a flask).

VFuel emphasizes that they use natural flavoring sources – things like actual cocoa powder in the chocolate gel, real vanilla in the vanilla gel, etc. (not sure if there is actual peach cobbler in the peach cobbler gel). They also tout increased digestibility since they use a mix of maltodextrin and dextrose rather than maltodextrin and fructose as the primary carb source in the gel.

I find it really hard to review sports nutrition products since it’s tough to really nail down any befit of one over any other product. So, what I will say is that I like the taste of the peach cobbler VFuel, and it’s a bit thinner than other gels I’ve used which makes it easier to take in if you eat it right from the pouch. I had zero stomach issues in the marathon last weekend, but my stomach doesn’t tend to give me trouble often on the run. So, maybe it’s best to say that I have nothing negative to say about VFuel, which is probably the highest praise I could give to a gel. I rarely use gels on training runs, and given that they sent me two boxes of each flavor, I’ll probably be using it in every long race I run in the foreseeable future – no need to buy other gels at the moment!

For more, visit http://vfuel.com/. VFuel gels are also available for purchase at Running Warehouse – they published a group review of VFuel by their team here.

PocketFuel

PocketFuel sent me some samples of their nut butter pouches last year, and I had forgotten I had them until I was packing for my recent marathon. I brought one along with me to Vermont to eat after the race, and it reminded how good they are (and yes, turns out year old PocketFuel is still very edible).

Pocket Fuel comes in a number of flavors, but the base ingredient of each is one of several types of nut butter. I think all of the pouches they sent me were almond butter based. The nut butter is mixed with various other whole foods to produce the various flavors – it’s all natural, no chemical additives. For example, the ingredients list for the Chia Goji & Honey pouch I have in front of me includes the following:

Dry Roasted Almonds, Honey, Chia Seeds, Goji Berries, Organic Palm Fruit Oil, Natural Vanilla, Sea Salt.

The 3oz pouches I have boast 15g of protein, and they taste delicious. The chocolate espresso flavor is ridiculously good! Beware though, each 3oz pouch is 400+ calories, so you’re not going to want to down several in a day unless you’re running really long and need the fuel (they do make small sized pouches as well). I use them mostly as a snack, eating a pouch over the course of a few days. It might be kind of hard to eat Pocket Fuel in a fast-moving event like a marathon since it comes out really thick, but I could see this as an option for long hikes, or maybe an ultra where you don’t intend to run the entire distance. PocketFuel is not cheap – individual 3oz pouches cost $4.00, and each 1.8oz pouch costs $2.75.

For more information, visit http://pocketfuelnaturals.com/. PocketFuel can also be purchased at Amazon.com.

May 2013 Garmin FR10 Contest Winner!

noreply@blogger.com (Peter Larson) — Thu, 30 May 2013 14:18:00 +0000

Just a quick post to announce that I have randomly chosen (via Rafflecopter) a winner of the May 2013 Runblogger-Clever Training Garmin FR10 GPS giveaway.

There were a total of 976 entries, and the winner was:

Adam Protass!

Congrats Adam, and thanks to Clever Training for sponsoring the giveaway and providing the Garmin FR10.

Clever Training has offered to host giveaways like this on a regular basis going forward, so stay tuned for the next one. In the meantime, if you have any fitness gear needs, you can take advantage of a Runblogger 10% off discount at Clever Training by using the code RunBlogXJT at checkout. You save some cash, and purchases help to support the work done here on Runblogger.

As always, your support is very much appreciated!

Under Armour SpeedForm: Is UA Finally Getting Serious About Running Shoes?

noreply@blogger.com (Peter Larson) — Wed, 29 May 2013 21:07:00 +0000

I just got a message from a friend on Twitter pointing me to an article on Gizmodo that introduces the Under Armour SpeedForm. Under Armour is not a brand I typically think of when it comes to serious running shoes. The SpeedForm, however, looks like my kind of shoe. It has a very simple, truly seamless upper that is apparently made in a bra factory, and it weighs less than 6 ounces. Unfortunately the $120 price tag is rather high for so little shoe, which may be a stumbling block considering that many very good racing flats can be had for $40-50 less. The SpeedForm is due to be released in June, and I’m hoping to get my feet in a pair for a full review.

To read the full story about the Under Armour SpeedForm, head on over to Gizmodo.

Merrell Ascend Glove Review on the Runblogger Forum

noreply@blogger.com (Peter Larson) — Wed, 29 May 2013 13:31:00 +0000

One of the shoes I’ve been eagerly anticipating getting ahold of is the Merrell Ascend Glove. The Ascend Glove appears to be something like a trail version of the Bare Access, featuring a luggy, protective sole and 10.5mm of zero drop cushion. A contributor on the Runblogger Forum, Vitarunner, just posted a pretty comprehesive review of the Merrell Ascend Glove, and I thought I’d post an excerpt here.

“Well, if you haven’t yet noticed I’m impressed with the shoe. I love to run (right?), so using these shoes makes it so I can really just run. The extra protection and grip in the sole is SO appreciated. I feel like the Merrell folks read my mind recently. I mean in almost every instance I can get by with the Trail Glove 2, Road Glove 2 or the Bare Access 2 and I have for many miles. However, having the ability to just let fly without worrying about anything on rough terrain is a beautiful thing.

My pair has only about 70 miles on them so far. I have used them on the crushed gravel surfaces flawlessly, trails, grass, dirt of all kinds. The run up to and from on paved roads for a few miles is also smooth and comfortable. In a month or so, I will be spending a few weeks running on rough mountain trails robust with skree and other challenging surfaces. I will update this post upon my experiences there.

Although I wouldn’t want to waste those sweet Vibram nuggets on pavement- it works. This new Merrell Ascend Glove is a winner, folks!”

You can read Vitarunner’s full Merrell Ascend Glove review on the Forum here, or on his own website here.

The Merrell Ascend Glove is available for purchase at Amazon.com.

Vermont City Marathon 2013 Race Report: Executing the Plan, and A Big Thank You to Mother Nature

noreply@blogger.com (Peter Larson) — Tue, 28 May 2013 18:58:00 +0000

Over the past several months I’ve documented my training in preparation for the Vermont City Marathon (VCM), which I ran last Sunday morning. Like any marathon training cycle there were a lot of ups and downs, and a number of memorable runs (some good, some bad).

The story of this marathon training cycle for me was the meltdown I had in the final few weeks of training. As the weather started warming up, I had to abort an 18 mile long run after about 13.5 miles, and my final 20 miler turned into a walk-run mess that left me cramping in places I’ve never cramped before. Those runs were a major blow to my confidence, but I also knew that I’d had run some solid long runs in cooler weather, so my performance at VCM would likely be determined by the weather on race day. I’m happy to report that Mother Nature decided to smile on me and she served up near ideal conditions!

GEAR OVERVIEW

My big decision the day before the race was what to do about shoes (of course!). I had intended to run in the Saucony Fastwitch 6, but after chatting with a Saucony rep at the expo he indicated that the drain holes in the sole might actually be a negative if there was a lot of standing water on the ground. Drain holes can help drain water from the shoe, but can also let water in through the sole when running through puddles. I hadn’t considered that, and given the near constant driving rain we had on Saturday, it was a certainty that there would be a lot of water on the course (and there indeed was!).

I brought along two other pairs of shoes, a prototype Skechers GoBionic 2 (not an option due to water absorption by the material under the sockliner – will hopefully be fixed), and the Saucony Virrata (read my Saucony Virrata review here). I left the Kinvara 4 at home since I only did one long run in them. I made a last minute decision to go with the Virrata – I had run a bunch of miles in them this cycle and though I was a bit concerned about going zero drop in a marathon, I was more worried about soaking up a ton of water in the Fastwitch 6s. Turned out to be a good choice. My feet had no issues in the Virrata – they shed water well, never felt soggy, and I got no blisters despite my feet being damp the entire race.

Saucony Virrata – My Race Day Weapon of Choice

Here’s the rest of my gear rundown:

Socks: Injinji Lightweight No-show Toe Socks. I’ve used Injinji socks for my last several marathons and they’ve made a huge difference in preventing toe blisters for me. They did so again – despite the rain and wet feet, no toe blisters from the race. The lightweight socks are super thin, which is my preference for socks these days.

Calf Sleeves: No idea if they provide any real benefit, but I usually wear calf sleeves when I race. I like Zensah sleeves, and was recently sent a pair of Zensah Reflect sleeves to try out. Nice compression and very comfortable.

Shorts/Shirt: Team Wicked Bonkproof gear! Big thanks again to Caleb Masland for coaching me through the training cycle!

Arm Sleeves: An old pair of Nike sleeves that I had. Didn’t plan on wearing them, but figured any added warmth from additional layers would be helpful.

Jacket: Merrell Torrent Shell. My other last minute decision – to wear a jacket or not to wear a jacket? Given the temperature and the rain, I decided to err on the side of layering, and the Merrell Torrent Shell is super thin and light. If need be I could take it off and tie it around my waist. Glad I wore it, actually felt plenty warm for most of the race. Never wound up taking it off. It got wet, but it dries fast and doesn’t soak and gain weight.

Gloves: Old pair of lightweight Brooks gloves. Took them off and carried in-hand for the final few miles.

GPS: Garmin FR10 (review sample from Clever Training) and Garmin FR610 (my watch). The FR10 actually measured the distance more closely than the 610. Not bad for an entry level GPS watch (review coming).

Gels: Running Warehouse connected me with VFuel and they sent me out some samples to try, so I went with their Peach Cobbler gels for the race. Mixed three gels in a Hydrapak Soft-Flask, then filled up the remainder of the space with water to thin it out. This has been my practice in my last several marathons and it works really well for me. I hand-hold the flask (it’s small) and take small sips through the first half of the race, and when the flask is empty it packs down small into a little belt pouch that I use to carry a few additional gels. I find it much easier to sip watered down gels than to take them straight from the pouch while running (though VFuel is a bit thinner out of the pouch than most gels). The peach VFuel tastes good, and I had no stomach distress at all during the race. Very happy with how it performed (Running Warehouse recently posted a group review of VFuel as well). Took one additional GU from an aid station around mile 14. No gels after that – just Gatorade from some of the aid stations, a slice of orange, and a slice of watermelon.

RACE GOALS

I knew going in that I wasn’t in PR shape, so that wasn’t even on my radar. Given that, my goals for the race were threefold:

1. Finish without hitting the wall. I’ve run this race twice before and both times I crashed at Battery hill at mile 15. In fact, I’ve managed to avoid the wall in only 2 of my previous 8 marathons. Cool weather and good pacing would be key.

2. If I managed to avoid the wall, I was pretty confident I could run a personal VCM course PR. My previous times at VCM were 3:43:38 and 3:36:12.

3. Run sub-3:30. Given that it’s been two years since my last marathon, and I built up my mileage pretty rapidly over about 12 weeks, I trained to be able to run the marathon at a conservative pace of around 8:00/mile. Slower than that would have been a disappointment.

PRE-RACE FOOD/DRINK

Had two bananas and a bagel with peanut butter and cream cheese for breakfast, all finished at least 1.5 hours before race start. One cup of regular coffee, some OJ, couple sips of water. Went real easy on the pre-race hydration given my past issues with overhydrating. Had one mini Clif-bar right before the race started.

Vermont City Marathon Elevation Profile – Recorded by Garmin FR610

RACE RECAP

Everyone who ran VCM in 2013 will remember it for the cold, rain, and wind. The temperature was in the low 40s Fahrenheit at the start, with the wind making it feel much cooler. Light drizzle alternated with steady rain throughout, though it eased up toward the end of the race. I actually felt like the weather was more of a positive than a negative as nearly all of my race PR’s have come in cold weather.

My plan going into the race was to go easy for the first few miles, then settle into a comfortable pace and see where it took me. The big challenge in any race is to not go out too fast, and in the marathon this is absolutely critical. I didn’t get a chance to do any kind of warmup, and my legs were cold at the start. Pushing the pace from the start would have been dangerous, so I remained disciplined and held back when the gun went off. Let everyone go, then catch as many as possible later on was the plan. I skipped the first few water stops, again part of my plan to go easy on hydration.

I was feeling really tight for the first few miles, but I knew from experience that it would take at least a few miles to warm up the legs, and that this would probably be prolonged a bit more by the rain and cold. Sure enough, around mile three I started to loosen up and the roughly 7:45/mile pace I had settled into was feeling smooth. Made a brief pit stop during mile 5 (apparently I was still plenty hydrated despite my limited intake of liquids prior to the race!), and did a good job resisting the urge to cruise on the long downhill from miles 3-7.

Splits for miles 1-7:

1	07:58.3
2	07:39.9
3	07:43.2
4	07:33.8
5	08:09.9
6	07:40.1
7	07:43.2

Between miles 7-8 I ran for a bit with a female barefoot runner who was moving along really well. We chatted for a few miles, then she took off when we reached the top of the hill back in town and I never saw her again (looks like she beat me by about 5 minutes!)

I started to feel a little tightness in my calves around mile 8, and was worried that maybe the zero drop Virratas were a bad choice. Fortunately the soreness never progressed to pain, and the tightness subsided a bit later in the race.

My goal as I approached the halfway point was to be consistent and to stay disciplined about my pacing. I was running more by consistent effort than consistent pace, so I’d speed up just a bit down hills, and slow a bit on the ups. Pace continually hovered around 7:45/mile and it was still feeling smooth. Mile 15 remained in the forefront of my mind – Battery hill crushed me twice before, and I was determined to not let it beat me again.

I crossed the 13.1 mile marker in 1:42:34, on target to meet all three of my goals and then some. I was pretty confident I could keep it up.

Mile 14 was a bit slow because the wind was whipping along the lakefront, and at one point waves were crashing over a concrete wall onto the trail we were running along. It was the only time I really felt that the weather interfered with the race.

I was still feeling strong heading toward Battery, and I ran up the big hill without issue – in fact, I passed a bunch of people on the way up. I’d run a ton of hills in this training cycle and it clearly paid off in a big way.

Splits for miles 8-15 :

8	07:49.7
9	07:53.8
10	07:32.7
11	07:41.1
12	07:50.3
13	07:42.7
14	08:00.4
15	08:03.7

When I hit the top of the hill I got a bit of an adrenaline boost – I didn’t crash, and the rest of the course was mostly downhill. It was just a matter of holding pace. I got a bit overly ambitious in miles 18 and 19 – the thought of picking it up and shooting for 3:20 crossed my mind. I wisely reeled it back in and decided to not risk the race by getting greedy with my time. A 10 minute course PR was a pretty strong possibility if I could just hold the 7:45-7:50 pace I had been running pretty consistently throughout.

The challenge with the late miles of VCM is that a lot of it is straight along roads that are pretty flat. I like a bit of up and down in marathons, and the long flats tend to grate on me a bit. I kept plugging away, started taking Gatorade at the aid stations since I was done with gels (had been having a few sips of water at each station starting around mile 5, but not a lot), and passed through miles 20-22 still feeling pretty good.

Splits for miles 16-21:

16	07:44.4
17	07:41.6
18	07:25.7
19	07:30.7
20	07:44.9
21	07:47.1

The challenging portion of the race for me really started around mile 22. Though I was mentally lucid and not feeling depleted, my legs were starting to tighten up. Nothing atypical of late marathon soreness, but it took focus to keep moving along at sub 8:00/mile pace. I’d feel my pace slip a bit, then have to give myself a little push to kick it back into gear. The last several miles of VCM are tough because they are along a bike path that is flanked by trees on both sides. It’s a long, relatively flat stretch without a lot of spectators where you really can’t see that far ahead of you. It’s challenging to maintain pace on that trail, and I could tell a lot of the other runners were having a similar mental struggle (there were surprisingly few people walking though, probably a testament to the cool weather).

I kept my eye on my watch, dumped some cold water on my head at each aid station I passed on the trail, and kept plugging away. You emerge from the trees shortly before the final stretch to the finish, and the crowds at that point were out in full force. I caught a second wind, and ran the final 0.2 faster than I ran any other portion of the race, even sprinted the final bit to the finish – good thing too, as I crossed the finish line in an official 3:24:59. One second to spare for my third sub-3:25 marathon! It was over a 10 minute PR on the course, and all three goals were fulfilled!

22	07:57.4
23	07:57.9
24	07:54.0
25	07:55.3
26	07:50.2
Final 0.2+	6:41 pace

I caught up with my friend Alett in the finishing chute and chatted for a bit – her husband Hugh had gone sub-3:00 and got his BQ. I watched a woman get wheeled by who was shivering violently and uncontrollably – possible case of hypothermia, which I suspected might be an issue for some on the day. I felt surprisingly good – no cramping, not particularly cold, and clear-headed. My hips, quads, and calves were sore, but I was otherwise fine – a relatively comfortable post-marathon experience for me, which is pretty unusual.

The finish area was a muddy mess, and my wife wasn’t able to find parking and was driving around the city. I opted to skip the post race food and met her down the road a bit and we headed back to the hotel for some lunch and a swim (my immediate post-marathon recovery involved spending an hour holding a 3-year-old in a pool, not relaxing at all, but fun nonetheless!).

Vermont City Marathon – My Pace Chart from SportTracks

FINAL THOUGHTS

I was content and really happy with the way things went in the race - I met my goals, re-connected with the marathon, and proved to myself that a couple of lousy long runs to end a cycle don’t necessarily mean that you’ve lost your ability to run long. I learned once again that disciplined pacing and sticking to a plan is key for me to have a good marathon, and I executed my fueling/hydration plan to perfection.

Everything fell into place on Sunday, and I’m ready to head into summer with a solid race under my belt. My big decision now is what to do about Fall – go for a marathon PR, or switch things up and try my hand at another trail 50K…I’ve got some thinking to do!

Below is my race summary from Garmin Connect:

Is Heel Striking Evil?: More Evidence that All Heel Strikes Are Not Equal

noreply@blogger.com (Peter Larson) — Fri, 24 May 2013 13:53:00 +0000

We humans like tidy little categories. With running shoes we like to take the diversity of options out there and categorize things as neutral, stability, motion control, lightweight, minimal, etc. without considering that shoes within each category are sometimes so variable as to make the category as a whole meaningless. For example, the business world includes both the Nike Free Run+ 5.0 and the Vibram Fivefingers in the same category (minimal/barefoot), which makes little sense either structurally or functionally (it’s a marketing category if anything).

The same approach is applied to the running foot strike – we classify foot strikes as forefoot, midfoot, or heel, but the reality is that there is a huge amount of variation within each of these categories. For example, some forefoot strikers bring the heel down after contact, others don’t. The distance of the foot from the center of mass at initial contact varies. Joint angles vary.

I’ve long said that all heel strikes are not created equal. Some people land with the foot angled 45 degrees to the sky with a virtually locked knee, others touch down just slightly back toward the heel with a more or less vertical shin. There are lots of variants in between.

Below is a photo compilation of foot strike variation from slow motion video (300 fps) that I shot at the 2009 Manchester City Marathon. You can see variation from heel strike down to midfoot as you look from top to bottom (I trimmed off the forefoot strikers to reduce the image size) – all are at the first moment of foot contact with the ground:

What you can see above is a lot of variation in foot dorsiflexion at contact, shin orientation, knee angles, and so on.

What we’ve lacked until now is a good sense of how the different flavors of heel strike differ in terms of the way forces experience during running. I was reading through a summary of studies to be presented at the upcoming ACSM meeting on Steve Magness’ blog (great post, check it out here) and came across a study titled “Influence of Different Rear Foot Strike Strategies on Impact Force During Running.” This study was conducted by John Mercer and Sarah Horsch at UNLV – it is currently only an abstract, so one must keep that in mind, it has not been published in a journal yet.

What Mercer and Horsch did was instruct runners to run over a force plate with either “an obvious heel strike (OHS) or subtle heel strike (SHS).” Instantaneously forced stride change studies like this need to be interpreted with caution, but what they found was that at a constant speed the runners exhibited an impact force in both conditions about 85% of the time, but that impact force was significantly higher in the obvious heel strike condition (1.68±0.54 BW for OHS vs. 1.55±0.44 BW for SHS; p<0.05). They conclude that “The unique observation of this study was that impact force was influenced by foot strike patterns that would both have been considered rear foot strike patterns.”

The significance here is that it shows that impact force can vary significantly even within a single foot strike category. You might look at the heel striking data and say “Well, forefoot strikers usually have no impact, so that must be the way to go.” Not necessarily. In a study where runners were told to forefoot strike without letting the heel come down, their tibial acceleration was actually higher than when they landed on their heels (study PDF here). Jay Dicharry often makes the point that in his clinic he sees forefoot runners with high impact, and heel strikers with low impact. And, another Abstract from the ACSM meeting reports no difference in self-reported injury rates between confirmed heel-striking and non-heel-striking US Army soldiers. This contrasts with an earlier finding that forefoot-striking Harvard runners were less prone to injury.

So even among forefoot strikers there is variation, and we have no consistent and conclusive evidence that one foot strike type is better than another from an injury prevention standpoint. What’s more, we really have no idea at what magnitude impact force becomes a problem. In fact impact force magnitude has not reliably been linked to injury as far as I’m aware. Rather, impact loading rate, which is the speed at which the force is applied, has been linked to stress fracture risk. Mercer an Horsch did not report on loading rates in their abstract. It might actually be the case that some impact is a good thing for stimulating bone strength via remodeling.

So, the point I’m trying to make here is that saying “heel striking is bad” makes little sense since foot strike categories encompass a lot of variation. Some kinds of heel striking might be bad, other kinds might be just fine. You could be a forefoot striker and be exposing your tibia to more shock than if you were heel striking. There’s more to the running stride than simply which part of the foot first contacts the ground, and this is why I’ve moved away from focusing on foot strike except in certain very specific cases (e.g., I think a forefoot strike might help runners suffering from anterior compartment syndrome or chronic anterior shin splints).

As always, things are more complicated than a one size fits all prescription. Each individual is a bit different and needs to be handled accordingly.

(If you’re interested in a drier take on foot strike by me, here’s an article I wrote for Lower Extremity Review)

Marathon Training: Final Prep, and a Tough Shoe Choice

noreply@blogger.com (Peter Larson) — Thu, 23 May 2013 19:52:00 +0000

I’ll be running the Vermont City Marathon this Sunday, and I’m amazed at how calm I am given the amount of uncertainty that I’ve been experiencing lately. My past several weeks of training have included multiple lousy long runs, and I’ve had general sense of deadness in my legs that I’ve had a hard time shaking. There have been glimmers of hope as well – I ran an awesome 10 mile trail run on a cool day in Vermont last week, and it reminded me what a big role temperature is playing in the quality of my runs right now. When it’s warm I suffer, when its cool I feel good. I still have not acclimated well to running on the warmer days.

Fortunately, the current forecast for Burlington this Sunday is a high of 51 degrees with a 50% chance of rain. As long as the rain isn’t too heavy, this is pretty much ideal marathon weather for me. That combined with the fact that I had some pretty solid 18-20 mile runs earlier in this training cycle gives me hope that the race won’t be a total mess. I plan to approach it like I did Disney 2010 – don’t stress about pace, go easy and have fun in the first half, and pick it up in the second half if the legs feel ok. Disney 2010 was probably my most enjoyable marathon because I didn’t stress, I went in without any real plan (didn’t even look at the course map ahead of time), and I had a blast. It’s the only marathon I’ve ever run where I got progressively faster as the race went on. I know a PR is out of the question this weekend, so no point in running myself into the ground. I’ll be happy if I can finish the race without hitting the wall, always a challenge for me!

Saucony Fastwitch 6 – Current Frontrunner for Marathon Day

I’ve run 10 easy miles so far this week, with probably another 10 or so spread over the next three days. I’m as ready as I’m going to be at this point. My biggest dilemma right now is footwear. I still haven’t firmly settled on a shoe. The frontrunner is the Saucony Fastwitch 6, if for no other reason than my two best long runs this cycle have come in them. Darkhorses are the Saucony Kinvara 4 (did my final 20 miler in them and my feet were fine, the rest of my body not so much…), and a prototype Skechers GoBionic 2 I’ve been running in the past few weeks. The Skechers GoRun 2s were near the top of my list of possibilities for awhile, but I think they’re just a tad too soft for me for the distance. I’ll probably just bring all three pairs and choose at the last minute.

After Sunday I look forward to running for fun for a bit, and I’m seriously considering running the VT 50K in the Fall. I need a change from road marathons, and my run in VT last week reminded how much I love being in the woods. We’ll see!

Nike Free 3.0 v5 Review: Redemption For One Of My Favorite Shoe Lineages!

noreply@blogger.com (Peter Larson) — Thu, 23 May 2013 15:30:00 +0000

After a phenomenal debut, the Nike Free 3.0 line entered a steady downward spiral, culminating in one of the worst shoes I have worn since I started reviewing running shoes back in 2009. The Free 3.0 v4 had a nice, updated sole, but the NanoPly upper felt like it had been made from remnants of a ziploc freezer bag. It didn’t have any give, leading to a very tight fit, and it didn’t breathe. At all. It was a shoe built for fashion, not function.

I’m happy to announce that Nike has redeemed themselves with the Free 3.0 v5. It’s a shoe worthy of the lineage to which it belongs, and is probably the best Nike Free of any flavor that I’ve worn since the original Free 3.0 (Disclosure: the shoes reviewed here were provided free-of-charge for review purposes by Running Warehouse).

Nike Free 3.0 v5 Upper

The big change from Free 3.0 v4 to v5 is the upper. Nike wisely ditched the NanoPly disaster and replaced it with a stretchy mesh. The result is an upper that has a ton of give and one that allows what is otherwise still a fairly narrow shoe to accommodate my average width feet quite comfortably. No longer do my feet feel like frozen steaks in shrink wrap!

The mesh is stretchy enough that I can wiggle and spread out my toes easily, which makes for a much more enjoyable experience when wearing them for a long period of time (e.g., all day at work). I took the photo below while attempting to spread my toes as widely as possible, you can see them pushing the mesh out easily on both sides:

Forefoot Mesh is Very Stretchy!

In the photo below of my well-worn pair, it almost looks as if the upper has molded to my foot shape a bit:

The upper mesh consists of two layers, the outer layer is very open and stretchy, and the inner layer is a closed mesh that effectively keeps debris out of the shoe (a potential problem with a shoe that has very open mesh). Given the form-fitting yet stretchy nature of the upper, the inner closed mesh does make the shoe run a bit warm on a hot day, but breathability is massively improved from v4.

Comfort is excellent both with and without socks, though I do get a bit of abrasion near the base of the outer lace row. It has not resulted in a blister, and only occurs when I don’t have socks on. I’m ambivalent about the bootie design of the shoe – generally I prefer a more traditional tongue since it allows for better adjustment of fit and lacing, but the bootie in the v5 has not caused me any trouble. There is minimal structure to the upper – no heel counter, no hard overlays, etc. Internally, arch support is present, but is mostly due to the sockliner angling up under the arch.

Nike Free 3.0 v5 Sole

The sole of the Nike Free 3.0 v5 is unchanged from v4. It has the typical grooves/siping found in all Nike Free shoes, which allow for excellent flexibility. Rubber outsole pods are only placed under the lateral heel and the big toe, though wear of the exposed midsole does not appear excessive – I have about 45 miles of running on mine, and wear them casually frequently (often all day). The soles are a bit discolored, but are holding up well so far:

Nike Free 3.0 v5 Sole

Nike Free 3.0 v5 Sole After 45+ Miles of Running and Extensive Casual Wear

The lack of extensive outsole makes for a lightweight shoe, and my size 10’s come in right around 8oz. Sole dimensions reported by Running Warehouse are 21mm heel, 17mm forefoot, making it a 4mm drop shoe.

The Free 3.0 v5 is a pretty soft shoe. One of my favorite things about the original Free 3.0 was that it made me feel like a ninja – the soft sole and lack of rubber silenced my footfalls. This shoe has this same property – if I’m coming up behind someone walking their dog on the sidewalk I often have to make some noise to let them know I’m about to pass. I’ve startled enough people in my time to realize that most don’t like to have someone running fast overtake them without some warning that they’re there (it’s a challenge when they’re wearing headphones and I can’t jump into the road due to traffic…).

I’ve enjoyed running in the Free 3.0 v5 so much that I briefly considered wearing them for my Spring marathon (coming up this weekend – still undecided on shoes…). I wore them for a 16.5 mile long run over hills as a test, and wound up developing a knot in my soleus about 9 miles into the run. Not sure if the shoes were the culprit, but it scared me off of trying to use them in a long race. I can typically handle zero drop shoes just fine for longer than 10 miles, so I’m wondering if the low drop combined with an extremely flexible, soft sole might be the problem. Don’t know. May have to give them another try on a moderate-length long run and see if it was just a fluke.

Conclusion

For me, the Nike Free 3.0 v5 is a fantastic shoe for easy runs and distances up to about 10 miles. They’re also great as a casual, low-drop shoe (which is what the vast majority of people buying them will be using them for). In my opinion, they’re too soft and lack responsiveness for speed work. Be aware that despite the stretchy upper, it is a fairly narrow shoe (I went up a half size), so those with wide feet should look elsewhere.

All in all, I’m quite impressed with the Free 3.0 v5. It’s one of the best shoes I’ve worn so far this year, and a pleasant surprise given my experience with the previous iteration. Big thumbs up!

The Nike Free 3.0 v5 is available for purchase in a variety of men’s and women’s colors at Running Warehouse.

Documentary Video: Vibram Tarawera Ultramarathon 2013

noreply@blogger.com (Peter Larson) — Wed, 22 May 2013 13:34:00 +0000

I received an email this morning from Aaron Smart, who co-produced a the official documentary video account of the 2013 Vibram Tarawera Ultramarathon in New Zealand. The documentary was just released, and you can view it below – looks like a beautiful race, and further enhances my lean toward running a trail 50K this Fall!

Have a look:

Clever Training: New Partnership, 10% Gear Discount, and Garmin FR10 Giveaway

noreply@blogger.com (Peter Larson) — Tue, 21 May 2013 21:41:00 +0000

I’m happy to announce a new partnership with Clever Training. If you’re not familiar with them, Clever Training specializes in carrying gear for runners, swimmers, and cyclists, with a particular emphasis on fitness electronics (think GPS watches and the like).

The folks at Clever Training contacted me several weeks ago about developing a relationship, and after talking with them we were able to work out an agreement whereby Runblogger readers can get 10% off any item that they carry in their on-line store (with some exceptions for current sale items – for example, they have a current sale running with some great prices on several popular GPS watches). I get a small commission for each sale, so purchases help to support the work that I do here on Runblogger. This discount works on regularly priced GPS devices and other electronic gadgets, so it can provide a significant savings on an expensive purchase should you be in the market for a new toy!

To take advantage of the 10% discount, simply visit Clever Training and enter the code RunBlogXJT in the coupon field of the Shopping Cart. You can also click through the banners in my right sidebar or at the bottom of each post and use the code to take advantage of the discount. As always, your support is very much appreciated and helps me to keep the site going (especially now that writing this blog is my full-time job – I need all the help I can get!).

One attractive part of the offer that Clever Training presented me, and one which makes it a bit different than some of the other discounts I advertise, was that they agreed to host periodic giveaways for Runblogger readers. As part of the kickoff of our partnership, they offered up a Garmin Forerunner 10 GPS watch for a giveaway. Expect more to come!

To enter the Clever Training Garmin FR10 giveaway, use the Rafflecopter form below:

a Rafflecopter giveaway

Be Careful About Converting Your Experience into a Prescription for All Runners

noreply@blogger.com (Peter Larson) — Tue, 21 May 2013 14:34:00 +0000

One of the big challenges I face in writing this blog is trying to remain objective given that I have personal biases stemming from my own experience. For example, I review, promote, and like running in more minimal shoes and don’t foresee myself ever going back to more traditional models. However, I try hard to resist the urge to convert this personal preference into a general recommendation for all runners. It’s challenging at times, and I sometimes I may project this preference more strongly than I should, but I recognize that other people have had positive experiences running in motion control, and others have had great success running barefoot. Different strokes for different folks, the important thing is finding what works for you.

There are lots of examples of where I see people making general claims relating to running that stem from their own experience, and it’s important to remember that your individual experience is related to the specific circumstances that you face. It may not be generalizable to all. I’ll give some examples.

In response to my post yesterday about the Army study showing no difference in injury rates between traditionally and minimally shod runners I got some comments along the lines of “Going minimal fixed my injuries, this research in bunk!” I have no doubt that many individuals have had great success going minimal and have used it as a tool to overcome long-term injury. That’s great! And these stories are important because they give us some insight into strategies that might work when a runner encounters a particular injury. But, I also know people who have gone minimal, broken their foot, and returned to more cushioned shoes (and yes, I understand that they may have transitioned to quickly, but they might also just be more susceptible to bone damage…). I also have friends who are much faster than me that have run in motion control shoes with success for much of their running career. The point is that, yes, your story is important, but it may not be reflective of the experience of other people out there. People are highly variable – we vary anatomically, physiologically, and our life experiences and circumstances differ. Why would we expect the same solution to work for every person?

Another example I see often comes from the clinical environment. Some clinicians have reported seeing a big uptick of injured minimalist runners showing up in their clinics and thus minimalist running is deemed dangerous. However, I’m sure they also see quite a few injured traditionally shod runners as well. Minimalist running is a relatively new phenomenon (and yes, I know someone will comment that traditionally shod running is what’s really new in the longer span of human history, but it’s the norm in the professional experience of most clinicians practicing right now…). Any time something new appears on the scene you are likely to see an uptick in injuries related to the practice. I’d wager that clinicians have seen an uptick in yoga or crossfit related injuries in recent years as well. Does that make those practices bad or dangerous? (I’m sure I may get some colorful responses to that question!)

The problem for clinicians is that they see people who are injured. If you’re not injured, you don’t go to the doctor or therapist. If you take up minimal running and your knee stops hurting, you no longer show up in the clinic. Docs deal with the bad cases. The importance of studies like the Army study (presuming it gets vetted through peer review and published) is that it suggests that when you look a broader sample of minimal shoe wearers, they tend to not get hurt any more or less than traditionally shod individuals. However, when they do get hurt it may be in new and different ways, which makes sense since tissues are stressed differently when you wear minimal shoes. The importance of clinical experience is that clinicians can give us a sense of which injuries are more common among this new population. They are on the front lines dealing with the wounded. For example, it seems that with minimal running we more frequently see things like metatarsal stress fractures, calcaneal fractures, plantar fascia tears, etc. Clinicians help reveal these patterns, and can help develop strategies to minimize risk and effectively treat the problems when they arise.

I’ll add one more example that is a slight bit different. I was reading through a Facebook conversation the other day in which a comment was made along the lines of “the only way to get faster is to run more.” The implication seemed to be that shoes and form aren’t that big a deal. Someone else responded that this may be true, but that you can only run more if you can do so without getting injured. And, avoiding injury may have a lot to do with managing footwear, mechanics, etc. Even better, I had a guy on Twitter tell me the other night that I was a “hobby jogger minimalist pumper” and that to combat overstriding people need to stop “slow-twitching” themselves to death and start working more on top end speed. I can guess what might happen if I tried having my couch to 5k group running sprints instead of the slow buildup approach we are taking…

The problem here is that it can be hard for people who are in good physical condition and not susceptible to injury to recognize what a battle it is for some to simply be able to run more or run faster. I can use myself and my wife as an example. I’ve been lucky to have not suffered a serious injury in the 6 years that I’ve been a serious runner. I’ve had my share of aches and pains, but nothing that’s required more than just a few days of rest to resolve. I can generally increase my mileage and do speed-work without running into major trouble. And yes, increased mileage makes me capable of running faster races. I can also seemingly run in most any shoe, or even barefoot, without much trouble. I’m lucky like that.

My wife on the other hand has been more or less unable to run regularly for several years. Chronic hip pain and foot pain have been her nemeses (you can read more about her story here). Running more miles is not going to make her faster, it’s going to make her hurt. She’ll break, and won’t be able to run at all. We had to address the underlying mechanical problems, and yes, footwear, to get her right enough to even be able to run a few miles without pain. She’s now able to run 2-3 times per week, 3 miles at a time due to a combo of strengthening exercise prescribed by a doc and Hoka One One Bondi 2shoes prescribed by my friend Nate. The Hokas are the only shoes we have tried that allow her to run without foot pain, and we have tried a lot. As a minimalist, it pained me to discover that an ultra-cushioned shoe was the answer, but having her be able to run is more important to me than validating my personal preferences in footwear.

My wife is now at a point where running more might be possible, and increased speed might result, but it took a heck of a long time to get here. Downplaying the role of biomechanics and footwear because your experience is that they don’t matter much makes little sense.

So, I’ll finish by saying that yes, your opinions and experiences are important, and you should share them. We all learn from hearing about works for others, and it lets us have productive debates. But, be careful in thinking that what you have observed or experienced is broadly generalizable. It may be, it may not be. Sometimes you may just have to swallow you pride and recognize that Hokas will let your wife run without pain. And that makes for a happy household :)

Army Study: No Difference in Injury Rates Between Traditionally and Minimally Shod Soldiers

noreply@blogger.com (Peter Larson) — Mon, 20 May 2013 13:39:00 +0000

I was poking through the abstracts of presentations for the upcoming meeting of the American College of Sports Medicine the other night and came across one for a study comparing injury rates between traditionally and minimally shod US Army soldiers.

Titled “Injury Risk and Performance among Soldiers Wearing Minimalist Running Shoes Compared to Traditional Running Shoes,” the study was carried out by a team of researchers from the Aberdeen Proving Ground in Maryland led by Tyson Grier. Among the co-authors is Bruce Jones, who was a member of the team that conducted a series of studies showing that assigning shoes to soldiers based on arch shape was no more effective than simply assigning them all stability shoes by default.

It’s worth emphasizing that this is an abstract of a presentation, not a peer reviewed journal article, so it has not yet been vetted by the scientific community. But, since I am familiar with previous work from members of this group I suspect it will wind up in a journal soon.

Here are the methods of the study as reported in the abstract:

METHODS: Participants were men in a U.S. Army Brigade Combat Team (n=1332). Physical characteristics and Army Physical Fitness Test (APFT) data were obtained by survey. Fitness performance testing was administered at the brigade and the types of footwear worn were identified by visual inspection. Injuries from the previous 24 months were obtained from the Defense Medical Surveillance System. Shoe types were categorized into 2 groups: TRS (cushioning, stability, motion control) and MRS. A T-test was used to determine mean differences between personal characteristics and fitness performance metrics by shoe type (MRS vs. TRS). Hazard ratios (HR) and 95% confidence intervals (95%CI) were calculated to determine injury risk.

You’ll note that the study looked at a very large sample of over 1000 soldiers. I’m not entirely sure what criteria were used to differentiate minimal vs. traditional shoes, but I don’t fault the authors since an abstract rarely gets into that level of detail and I assume that information will come in the presentation or the journal article when it is published. I’m also not clear if the soldiers were wearing the particular shoe types for the entirety of the 24 month tracking period. A strength of the study is that they are not relying on self-reported injury information – it comes from the Defense Medical Surveillance System.

Here are the results:

RESULTS: A majority of the Soldiers wore cushioning shoes (57%), followed by stability shoes (24%), MRS (17%), and motion control shoes (2%). Soldiers wearing MRS were younger than those wearing TRS (24.3±5.4 years vs. 25.3±4.8 years, p<0.01), performed more push-ups (69.1±13.5 vs. 64.2±13.4, p<0.01), more sit-ups (71.6±11 vs. 68.3±12.1, p<0.01), ran faster during the 2 mile run (14.5±1.5 vs. 14.8±1.6, p=0.01), excelled on the vertical jump test (23.5±4.2 vs.22.6±4.4, p<0.01), performed more pull-ups (7.7±5.2 vs.6.2±4.4, p<0.01), completed the 300 yard shuttle run faster (70.1±8.1 vs.71.8±9.1, p=0.03), and scored higher on the Functional Movement Screening test (17±2.2 vs. 16.3±2.5, p<0.01). When controlling for personal characteristics, physical fitness, and a history of prior injury, there was no difference in injury risk in the previous 12 months between Soldiers wearing MRS compared to Soldiers wearing TRS (HR (MRS vs.TRS) 95%CI): 1.03 (0.80-1.33, p=0.82).

In light of the post I wrote yesterday on shoe sales and what runners are wearing, it’s worth noting the discrepancy between minimal shoe use among the soldiers versus other shoe types. 17% were wearing minimal shoes, only 2% were wearing motion control. Minimal shoe use was not far behind use of traditional stability shoes (24%) in this military population.

If you’re a minimalist advocate you might love the following statement from the results: “Soldiers wearing MRS were younger than those wearing TRS, performed more push-ups, more sit-ups, ran faster during the 2 mile run, excelled on the vertical jump test, performed more pull-ups, completed the 300 yard shuttle run faster, and scored higher on the Functional Movement Screening test.” I wonder how long it will take for this line to wind up in shoe company marketing materials. It’s important to remember that correlation does not equal causation, and this result does not mean that they excelled in these areas because they wore minimalist shoes. It could simply mean that younger, fitter, more athletic soldiers prefer minimal footwear.

The result that may be of most interest in light of the great footwear debate of the past few years is the fact that when they controlled for the various differences between the groups, there was no difference in injury risk between the soldiers wearing the traditional shoes and those wearing minimalist footwear.

This result will be likely spinned in one of two ways depending on the bias of those reporting it.

Minimalist skeptics will say: These results show that the minimalist advocates are full of it, and minimalist shoes are no cure-all. They would be right (at least regarding the second part).

Minimalist advocates will say: These results show that all of the cushioning and “technology” jammed into traditional running shoes provides no benefit over a simpler, more minimal pair of shoes when it comes to injury prevention. The marketing hype is a bunch of bunk. They would also be right.

Here’s what I would say if these results hold and the study gets vetted and published:

Those saying that minimal shoes are too dangerous have no leg to stand on. They don’t appear to be any more dangerous than traditional shoes. Those touting minimalist shoes as the one and only way are also wrong. Soldiers wearing them got hurt at rates equal to those in traditional shoes, and some people appear to do just fine in traditional shoes. It would be nice to see a similar study focused solely on runners, but I’m pretty sure this is the biggest study we have on the subject so far, and soldiers presumably do a fair amount of running (if I’m wrong, feel free to correct me).

What I keep coming back to is that each runner is an individual, and their needs must be considered on an individual level. Some will do well in traditional shoes, some will do well in minimal shoes. People will get hurt in both. The challenge is figuring out what type of shoe will most benefit each individual – this is where knowledgeable coaches, therapists, running store employees, etc. are so valuable. They handle the n=1, and for the runner in pain, that’s all that matters.

2013 Running Shoe Sales Data: What Do They Tell Us About What Runners Are Wearing?

noreply@blogger.com (Peter Larson) — Sun, 19 May 2013 16:48:00 +0000

The Dollar Sign (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Last week Scott Douglas published an article on Runnersworld.com with the title “Sales of Minimalist Shoes Plummet.” I’ve seen this article referenced a number of places over the past week, and I wanted to add a few comments.

The data that Douglas referenced come from a SportsOneSource 1st Quarter 2013 summary report. According to the report, “SOS collects point of sale data from most of the major U.S. Sporting Goods, Athletic Footwear and Running and Outdoor specialty retailers.” This is an important point since it shows that the data do not necessarily reflect what actual runners are buying, but rather a broader view of sales out of multiple retail channels (presumably including things like big box sporting goods stores and mall shoe stores in addition to running specialty stores). From a business perspective this makes sense – most running shoes that are purchased are probably not actually used for running, and running shoe companies would not be nearly as profitable if they catered only to hard-core runners. So the SOS data are a good indicator of the broader picture of what people are buying, but not necessarily a good indicator of what runners are actually wearing out on the roads.

Regarding running, here is what the report had to say:

“Running, declared dead by the stock market, continues to accelerate. Sales of Running shoes grew in the high singles for the period. The conventional categories have rebounded nicely.

Stability improved in the mid-teens, Motion Control more than +25% and Cushioning in the mid singles. Lightweight, which remains the largest sub category, grew in the low teens.

One casualty of the return to more conventional (but lighter weight) shoes has been the Minimalist/Barefoot trend. Net of Nike Free, Minimalist/Barefoot declined in the low teens and represented only about 4% of total Running. It appears this fad is pretty much over.

The core Running brands all had strong sales increases. Under Armour Running doubled for the year so far. Brooks and Mizuno improved about 40%, Asics about 25% and Saucony in the low teens.

Nike (60% share) Running grew in the high teens. Adidas and Reebok both declined sharply. Last year to date, Reebok had 10% market share in Running; this year their share was 3%.”

One might look at these data and conclude that minimalism is dead – when Nike Free is removed (because SOS doesn’t consider them to be a shoe used much by runners), minimalist/barefoot sales represented only 4% of sales in the running shoe market. This is indeed a small number, and the trend is that sales have been decreasing of late.

My question is how the minimalist/barefoot category is defined if Nike Free is included, and that gets to my issue when trying to interpret much of the sales data that is out there. I don’t know what is included in these categories, or how they are defined. If the Nike Free Run 5.0 is included in the minimalist/barefoot category, then the definition must be pretty broad and would have to include competitors like the Saucony Mirage/Kinvara, the entire New Balance Minimus range, all of the Brooks PureProject, etc. Judging by which of my reviews get the most traffic (top 5 reviews so far this year in terms of # of hits are of the Brooks PureCadence, Saucony Kinvara, Skechers GoRun 2, Saucony Virrata, and Brooks PureFlow), shoes like the Kinvara/Mirage and Brooks PureProject are among the most popular out there right now among runners. When I was at Saucony HQ a few months ago they told me the Kinvara is one of their top selling shoes. I’d guess that the PureProject is doing quite well for Brooks too. My guess would be that most of those shoes are in the “lightweight” category that is mentioned in the report, which is where I’d see the Nike Free fitting in (Nike Free is amply cushioned and all but the Free 3.0 are above 4mm drop).

If barefoot/minimalist category consisted of zero drop, minimal cushion shoes like the zero drop NB Minimus, Merrell Barefoot line, and Vibram Fivefingers, then the data make much more sense. Vibram Fivefingers sales seem to have dropped off a cliff, and if my observations at any number of races are any indication, the number of people running regularly in shoes like this has never been very big (even if sales numbers were high). It’s a niche for sure. I view shoes like these as a full time option for some, but as a tool to be used in a mix of footwear for most.

To me, the most important line in the SOS report is the following: “Lightweight, which remains the largest sub category, grew in the low teens.” The lasting impact of the barefoot trend of the past few years will be that it opened up a new category of running shoes that has now eclipsed traditional neutral and stability shoes in total sales (recognizing that defining limits to these categories is a very tricky business since shoes are more on a spectrum now than they are easily divided into neat little categories).

Running shoes have gotten lighter, low drop shoes like the Kinvara and PureProject have done very well, and design elements from barefoot-style shoes have transferred into other categories (e.g., wide toeboxes, zero drop soles in amply cushioned shoes, etc.). The market has shifted toward lighter, simpler shoes, which I think is a very good thing, and variety has increased dramatically, which is even better as it gives each runner more options to choose from when trying to find the perfect match.

When I went to a run specialty store for the first time back in 2007, my options were pretty much limited to a selection of relatively heavy (>10oz) 12mm drop shoes from each manufacturer that fit nicely into either the neutral, stability, or motion control categories. Those days are gone, the market has shifted and science has shown that the old model of fitting shoes wasn’t all that effective. We are now in the midst of trying to figure out how best to fit runners given the variety that now exists.

To give a more honed in view of what runners are buying than what the SOS report reveals, we can take a look at sales data from Leisure Trends Group, which provides reports specifically on sales at run specialty stores (recognizing that even at specialty stores a lot of non-runners are buying the shoes). Let’s take a look at data from February 2013, which is the most recent month for which a complete dollar breakdown by category is provided. Here are sales in dollars by category for running shoes, along with the trend relative to the same month last year:

Stability: 20 million dollars (-7%)

Neutral/Cushion: 18 million dollars (-8%)

Minimalist: 4 million dollars (+2%)

Motion Control: 2 million dollars (-23%)

Race Shoes: 2 million dollars (+7%)

Trail Shoes: 1 million dollars (-25%)

The big losers at run specialty in February were motion control and trail shoes, both of which dropped over 20% relative to Feb 2012. The only categories that increased were minimalist and racing flats. By these numbers minimalist shoes are about 8.5% of sales at run specialty. Still low, but twice the value reported by SOS, and double the sales of motion control. If you add racing flats to minimalist (many minimalist runners purchase racing flats because they tend to have similar design characteristics and are often cheaper), then you have about 13% of the market. Leisure Trends does not appear to break out “lightweight” as a category, and I again don’t know how they define minimalist, so it’s hard to know exactly what is included in these categories. Are the Brooks PureCadence and Saucony Mirage in the “Stability” category? I don’t know.

So what can we conclude from all of this about what runners are putting on their feet? Here’s how I would interpret the data:

1. Barefoot-style shoes like the Vibram Fivefingers and Merrell Barefoot are and will continue to be a very small niche. It’s hard to know from general sales data how much of the recent decline in sales is due to curiosity about toe shoes having died off, and how much is due to the category as a whole dying away. Some will find zero-drop, minimally cushioned shoes to be an answer to their problems, others will try them and have trouble. I value them as casual shoes and training tools, but I prefer shoes with a bit more cushion for most of my running. I think the category will, and should, remain, but will never dominate the market.

2. Lightweight is where it’s at right now. The Nike Frees are killing it in terms of sales, and I would dispute the claim that people aren’t running in them – spend five minutes on any college campus and you will see them on the feet of many of the students running about (I had one student this semester who said she owned like 8 pairs and ran most of her marathon buildup in them). I have several women in my beginner 5K group who are running in them. Yes, they are popular as fashion shoes, but they are decent running shoes as well.

I myself made the jump all the way to barefoot-style shoes, and have migrated back a bit to a sweet-spot that includes light, low-drop shoes with some cushioning. Shoes like the Saucony Kinvara/Mirage and Brooks PureProject are often my first recommendations to runners as they are a good starting point from which people can migrate either upward or downward to find their own sweet spot. My hope is that this category represents the new center of the running shoe spectrum.

3. Motion control shoes are dying away as a shoe choice for runners, but like ultraminimal they have a place for those who have had success in them.

4. Traditional categories are still doing well, and there’s nothing wrong with that. A lot of runners have had long-term success in traditional shoes, and some who have tried more minimal shoes have not found them to be a good fit and have gone back to more traditional models. Top selling shoes are still traditional models like the Brooks Adrenaline, Asics Nimbus, Saucony Guide, etc. I don’t enjoy running in shoes in this mold, but I also don’t see any compelling reason why somebody who has had long-term success in a shoe like this should make a switch.

5. We are blessed by variety. This is the lasting benefit that has come out of the minimalist/barefoot trend. We now have more variety than ever, and the most pressing issue now is how to choose. It remains an exciting time to be a shoe geek!

If you work in running specialty retail, I’d love to hear your thoughts from the trenches – what’s hot right now and where do you see the market going in the future?

Merrell Proterra Sport Review: A Nice Hiking Shoe That Needs a Bit More Flex

noreply@blogger.com (Peter Larson) — Sat, 18 May 2013 21:44:00 +0000

There was a time when I used to hike a lot. I spent a summer working in Great Smoky Mountains National Park and got to the point where I could almost run up mountains with a frame pack filled with wooden boards on my back (I worked on a salamander survey crew and we used boards to create hiding spots/homes for them). I appreciated the value of a good hiking boot, particularly one that was waterproof, and had a pair of Vasques that I absolutely loved (don’t recall the model, didn’t care much in those days). I brought that same pair of boots on a cross-country trip with my then girlfriend (now wife) as we traveled across the US and Canada for six weeks, hiking in about 15 national parks along the way.

Then I had kids.

Since my oldest son was born back in 2003, long hikes have been few and far between. We do manage a few every summer, and after my Vasques finally bit the bucket I bought a pair of Garmont boots that wound up tearing the heck out of my heels every time I wore them. I’ll never forget the bloody mess they created on a hike from the Von Trapp Lodge in Stowe, VT. I haven’t worn them since.

After becoming a runner, and then discovering more minimal shoes, I’ve grown accustomed to hiking mostly in lightweight trail running shoes. They keep me close to the ground, rock plates handle most anything I typically encounter on a trail just fine, and I’m generally not doing anything too long or intense so super rugged boots are usually unnecessary.

I was excited last Fall when I was at Merrell HQ in Michigan and they told me about how they were trying to re-engineer the hiking boot with lessons learned from their Merrell Barefoot line. They introduced me to the Proterra Sport and the Proterra Mid Sport. Both are considered “speed-hiking” shoes, which are kind of a cross between a hiking boot and a trail running shoe like the Merrell Mix Master. I was intrigued by the concept, and received pairs of each to try out earlier this year.

The Proterra Sport and Proterra Mid Sport are similar shoes, with the Mid having a higher ankle collar. I’ve spent most of my time so far in the lower cut Proterra Sport.

Compared to most shoes that I wear, the Proterra Sport feels like a tank – my pair in size 10 weigh in at 13.8 oz on my scale. While walking in them I feel like I can crush anything in my path, much like Godzilla smashing down buildings. I suppose this is a good thing if you want protection on the trail. The rigid sole also feels super stable – it provides a nice, wide base, and at 4mm drop it doesn’t feel liking I’m wearing a pair of high-heeled shoes. It also has an inverted lug design that they were really excited about when unveiling the shoe last fall – I can’t say whether or not this is better or worse than a traditional lugged sole, just different.

In terms of fit, the Proterra is a super comfortable shoe, and a nice departure from many other hiking boots I have worn. The forefoot is wide and squared off – it fits kind of like a Keen shoe. Plenty of room to move the toes around. Since the upper is a synthetic mesh it breathes well, thought it is not waterproof (I did wear it a bunch this winter and it handles snow pretty well without getting soaked).

In most respects Merrell has created a hiking shoe that pulls some of the best aspects of minimalism into the hiking shoe niche. The wide forefoot and 4mm drop sole in particular are great. Where I have run into problems is with the rigidity of the sole.

There was apparently some debate about whether to include a shank in the sole. My knowledge of boot design is rudimentary relative to my knowledge of running shoe design, but my understanding is that a shank functions to increase rigidity and supports the sole under the arch. Shanks are common in work boots and hiking boots – for more on the function of a shank see this article from the Outside Gear Guy. The “molded TPU arch shank” in the Proterra may be part of my problem with the shoe.

My issues with the Proterra manifested on a 7 mile hike last week in Vermont. My wife and I were climbing a rocky switchback trail, and I started to feel a telltale abrasion on the backs of my heels. Blisters were in the works, and we were only a mile and a half into the hike. The problem was obvious – the rigid sole doesn’t flex well, and every time I pushed off my forefoot the back of the shoe levered down, then when I took the next step onto my heel the heel pushed back up. The result was rubbing and abrasion at the back of the heel.

Given that I’m running a marathon in a week, the last thing I needed was bloody, open sores over my Achilles insertion point on each foot. I went into panic mode and tried tightening the lacing to hold the shoe in place with a better lockdown. That actually made things worse. I went the other direction and loosed them up as much as I could. The heels still continued to slide up and down relative to my skin, but there was enough space now that the abrasion stopped. I kept them really loose for the remainder of the hike and managed ok. I think this is exactly the same problem I had with the Garmont boots I used to have. Rigid soles don’t work well for me, and I won’t tolerate blood and pain to break a shoe in.

This phenomenon is not unique to hiking boots. A running shoe with an inflexible sole can cause the same problem. The original Altra Lone Peak was criticized for this, and early releases of the Altra Torin (which has a thick sole) were missing a set of lace holes which prevented a good lockdown of the heel. I value flexibility greatly as it helps me avoid heel abrasion, and it’s a problem I have rarely had since going minimal.

It might be the case that a good break-in period would increase the flex in the sole and help me avoid this problem, but I’m hesitant to risk blistering on my heels since it makes both walking and running miserable for several weeks (if you’ve got a lot of miles on the Proterra, I ‘d love to hear about whether flexibility increases as they break in). I could also continue to wear them really loose, but that might not be the best option for someone wanting stability in a hiking shoe.

My advice to Merrell would be to keep most everything about the shoe the same, but remove the shank from the sole and attempt to increase flexibility. The heel counter is also not well padded, which increases abrasion, so adding a bit more padding behind the heel might be of benefit.

I like what Merrell is trying to do with the Proterra, but for me it remains just a bit off from being a shoe I’d choose for a long hike. I need to give the Proterra Sport Mid a try and see if the higher ankle collar locks my foot down a bit better to prevent the abrasion. On the positive side for Merrell, my current preferred hiking shoe if I needed something a bit more than a trail running shoe would be the Merrell Mix Master Mid. It’s basically a waterproof, beefed up version of the Mix Master 2 trail running shoe, and it shares its flexible sole and rock-plate. There is a new version called the Mix Master Mid Tuff that I have not tried yet, and the original Mix Master Mid is on clearance at 6pm right now for $76.99 (as of May 18, 2013).

The Merrell Proterra Sport can be purchased at Amazon.com and Zappos.MSRP is $100.

Below are available color options for the men’s Proterra Sport at Zappos: