Runblogger

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:

Running Destination: Woodstock, VT

noreply@blogger.com (Peter Larson) — Thu, 16 May 2013 21:46:00 +0000

My wife and I don’t often travel without our kids. In fact, the last time we went away together alone was over 5 years ago! However, now that my youngest son is old enough to not need constant parental attention, I proposed the idea of a two-night getaway to celebrate both Mother’s Day and my resignation from my job as a college professor (tomorrow will likely be my last day at the office).

Last summer I crewed for my friend Nate at the Vermont 100 Ultramarathon. I was struck by the utter beauty of Vermont’s horse country, and a leg of the race passed through the town of Woodstock. I knew I needed to make a return trip to Woodstock with my wife, and this seemed like a perfect opportunity. It’s not too far from where I live in New Hampshire, and the tourist season in the area doesn’t kick-off until Memorial Day weekend (meaning we could actually afford to stay in-town due to the off-season lodging rates).

Woodstock is a classic New England town. Quaint, quiet, perched along a river, and with a picturesque downtown full of shops and cafes. Covered bridges are dotted about the area. It almost feels like you’ve been dropped into a movie set that’s trying to put everything that comes to mind when you think “New England” into one place.

My wife and I pretty much have three things we look for when we travel. Good food, good beer, and opportunities to exercise strenuously (preferably options for hiking, running, and yoga). We’re not particularly picky about hotel rooms and amenities – let us work our butt’s off all day and end the evening with a good meal and we’re happy. However, when I first laid eye’s on the Woodstock Inn last summer I was drawn to it– I had to stay there.

Woodstock Inn

The Woodstock Inn is nice. Really nice. And really expensive if you stay there during tourist season. One of the nice things about living close to places that others like to visit on vacation is that we can easily go during the offseason when hotels are mostly empty and prices are cheap. I was able to get a room for half of the in-season rate, and a full breakfast in the Inn’s Red Rooster restaurant was included (it was too expensive for us to eat in the Red Rooster for dinner – very fancy). The Inn also included free admission to the health center (and yoga classes for my wife) and free entry into Billing’s Farm & Museum (great for kids). The combined savings almost equaled the cost of a night’s stay, so it was a pretty good deal (and breakfasts were phenomenal!).

For dinner, we ate both nights at the tavern in the Inn. It was much cheaper and more our style.

Breakfast “Appetizer” at the Red Rooster

For a runner, Woodstock is a great destination because there are numerous trails that are accessible within easy walking distance from downtown. In fact, the Marsh-Billings-Rockefeller National Historical Park is located right next to town, and there are a number of entrance points that are just a few minutes away by foot from the Woodstock Inn. The park is home to 20 miles of carriage roads and trails. We hiked the trails yesterday, then I felt compelled to make a return trip by myself today while my wife was at her yoga class.

My route today started at a covered bridge (where else!) crossing over the Ottauquechee River:

Ottauquechee River

I chose to run a switchback trail to the top of Mt. Tom to access the park and carriage trails. It’s a short, steep, rocky ascent that is for the most part runnable except for the last little bit:

Trail to top of Mt. Tom

I caught a rock with my foot and took a nice spill about halfway up. Mashed my knee pretty good and it’s now stiffened up quite a bit – figures I’d do something like this a week and a half out from my marathon!

The top of Mt. Tom offers some nice views of Woodstock, and is the access point to the Marsh-Billings-Rockefeller carriage roads.

Woodstock from the top of Mt. Tom

Marsh-Billings-Rockefeller Park Carriage Trails

I ran about 5 miles on the carriage trails, which are gravel covered and well cared for (forgot to bring trail shoes, and the Mizuno Cursoris worked just fine) – I maybe saw two other people the entire time I was out there (seemed like most of the visitors to Woodstock this time of year were retirees). I could have done a lot more on the trails but was pressed for time since we had to check out of our room by noon. Finished up with a few miles on the roads back to the hotel. Total run was 10.2 miles and felt like I had strong legs for the first time in weeks. It was a wonderful day.

We’ve already vowed to come back to Woodstock with our kids, likely camping the next time (more our style – the VT 50K is in the area and is at the top of my list of options for a fall race). The town has a very well-to-do feel about it, which sort of contrasts with the abundant outdoors activities available in the area – it’s a very different place than Stowe, VT or North Conway, NH where there is a more overt outdoors sports vibe. But if your goal is peace, quiet, and an idyllic setting near lots of trails, it would be hard to do better than Woodstock.

Marathon Training: Respect the Heat

noreply@blogger.com (Peter Larson) — Tue, 14 May 2013 12:34:00 +0000

Image via Nasa.gov

I’m at the two week countdown to marathon day and my confidence heading into the race is at the lowest point that it has been this training cycle. My major goal for last week was to get in a final, solid 20+ mile training run. Well, I ran 20 miles last Tuesday, and it was far from solid. In fact, it bordered on disastrous.

I’ve never had a good experience in a Spring marathon. Boston 2011 left me in the med tent at the end, and both previous times I’ve run the Vermont City Marathon resulted in me hitting the wall hard around the big hill at mile 15. I think the reason is twofold. First, my training is typically lousy through the winter (due to work and weather) and I enter the marathon buildup with an inadequate base. Second, I start the training cycle in cool weather and finish it in the relative heat of late Spring. I’ve come to realize that I am really sensitive to the change in temperature, and I need quite a long acclimation period before I can handle running long in warmer weather.

The plan last Tuesday was to get out as earlier as possible since the forecast was calling for the warmest day of the year so far. Unfortunately the morning wound up being busier than expected and I didn’t leave the house until around 11:00 AM with temperatures nearing 80 degrees Fahrenheit. Being the stubborn runner that I am, I opted to go for it anyway and set out for the 21 mile run that Caleb had put on the schedule.

My legs have felt dead for a few weeks now, but I felt ok at the start of the run. Not great, just ok. Given that it was going to be warm, I opted to wear a hydration pack and bring along a few gels. I planned to stop back home at about the midpoint for some sports drink, and the first 12 miles were fairly uneventful aside from the fact that I was tired, hot, and getting really hungry. I stopped at the house around mile 12 and had half a peanut butter and jelly sandwich and some Powerade. Shortly after heading out again things started to go badly. Here’s how I described the run on dailymile:

“This one was a complete mess. I made the epically stupid decision to run at mid-day on one of the hottest days of the year so far here in NH. By mile 14 I was reduced to a walk-jog mess, but was determined to get in the full 20 (finished the run at an average 9:37 per mile pace). In retrospect I probably shouldn't have pushed it because I think I ran myself into heat exhaustion. Started cramping in places I've never cramped before after I stopped (neck, abs...) so think it was salt/hydration related and not just neuromuscular fatigue. Cooled off in the kiddie pool with some cold water, cramping the entire time, and it was intensely painful. Had some salty bouillon on the couch and fell asleep for about an hour, felt better when I woke up. Need to work on strategies for running long in heat, don't ever want to feel like this again. On a positive note, the Saucony Kinvara 4 worked well, my feet are about the only part of me that doesn't hurt :)”

So yes, miles 14-20 were a total mess. I’m pretty sure the heat was the major factor. I was caked in salt by the end of the run, and the cramping was quite unlike anything I’ve experienced before. Bad day all around, and not how you want to head into your taper. I’ve taken it super easy over the past week so I don’t totally wreck myself, we’ll see what happens…

So now I’m left to figure out how to approach the race in two weeks. My original plan was to just go easy since I knew I’d be doing a rapid and inadequate buildup, but a really solid 18 miler several weeks back got me to thinking about pushing it a little harder. That may have been my big mistake as things started to fall apart shortly thereafter. Not sure if I pushed the training too hard too soon, or if the heat is the really big factor. Probably a bit of both.

I’ve come back around to just heading into the race with a plan to have as much fun as possible. That’s how I approached Disney back in 2010 and it was probably the most enjoyable race that I’ve run. I’m not shooting for a PR (that was never part of the plan) so there’s no point in running myself into the ground and dealing with an extra long recovery. If the forecast is hot on race day I’ll need to go really easy since it’s clear to me that I’m still not ready to run long in the warmer weather. I’ve solicited some advice on Facebook about using S-Caps or Salt Stick and I think I may give that a try.

I’m reminded once again that marathon training is hard, and I’m trying to figure out what to do in the Fall in terms of races. I don’t think I’ll be doing a road marathon. I had a blast training hard for the half-marathon last summer (I like shorter and faster better than longer and slower on the roads), but I’m also suffering a bit of peer-pressure about running the Vermont 50K in September. Decisions, decisions…

On an unrelated note, my blogging has been minimal the past few weeks since I’ve had to prioritize packing up my office and lab, and tying up loose ends at the day job. My contract is up at the end of this week, so expect a return to normal posting soon. Tons of reviews to get through!

Skechers GoBionic Trail: Photos and Review Link

noreply@blogger.com (Peter Larson) — Tue, 07 May 2013 14:22:00 +0000

Over the past few years I’ve had the opportunity to do pre-release product testing and development work with the performance footwear team at Skechers. It’s been an incredibly fun process, and getting to see suggestions that you make find their way into a shoe released on the market is quite a kick!

I’ve been given the go-ahead to talk about the newest release from Skechers, the GoBionic Trail. I had quite a bit of input on the GoBionic road shoe, and was excited when I heard they would be creating a trail version. When I received my first early production pair, it did not disappoint. Soft feel underfoot, wide toebox, luggy sole, and 4mm drop with the insole (zero drop without).

Given that I’m mostly a road runner, I largely kept to the sidelines on development feedback for the GoBionic Trail – runners like my friends Nate and Caleb are much more qualified to comment on a shoe designed for long miles on trails. However, based on the runs I have done in the shoe I’d rank it among the best of the trail shoes I personally have worn for the type of running I do (mostly mixes of light trail and road).

My coach Caleb Masland wore the GoBionic Trail to a victory at the HAT 50K back in March, and he just posted his review of the shoe along with some comments on his role in the design process. Here’s a snippet of what he had to say about using them in the race:

“I wore these shoes (actually, the final test round version) when I ran the HAT Run 50k this March. That race features a combination of single track, grass, pavement, gravel, and 4 deep stream crossings. I picked these shoes because they are versatile. They feel as good on hard roads as they do on trails, and they grip in the mud just as well as any other shoes. I was very pleased with their performance, and I credit a good shoe choice as one of the reasons that I was able to win the race.”

You can read Caleb’s full review of the Skechers GoBionic Trail here.

The shoes should be available on-line in a few weeks, and I hope to get some additional miles on them after my marathon in a few weeks. I will say that Caleb’s review matches my experience, but I hope to get Nate to review them either here or on his own blog for a slightly different perspective (i.e., suitability for a 100 mile race).

For now, head on over to Caleb’s GoBionic Trail review for more details.

Marathon Training Update: A Lesson in Perseverance From My Son

noreply@blogger.com (Peter Larson) — Sun, 05 May 2013 15:16:00 +0000

Some weeks life aligns in such a way that running becomes secondary to other, more important/essential pursuits. Such it was that what was supposed to be the final big week of this marathon training cycle aligned with my final week of classes, final exam prep, and office/lab clean-out and packing. I’m giving a final exam to my Exercise Physiology class tomorrow, and my goal is to be fully moved out by the end of the coming week. So far I’m making slow but steady progress – it’s amazing how much stuff I’ve accumulated in the past 10 years!

Needless to say, I prioritized tying up my multitude of loose ends at the day job over running during the week (and blogging for that matter), and managed only about 10 miles total. In a way this was maybe a good thing given how fried my legs were last weekend.

I also knew that this weekend was going to be shot as well. Today my wife is at all day yoga-teacher training so I’m hanging with the kids (i.e., no long run possible). Yesterday I took my oldest son to compete in his first Taekwondo tournament. It was an all-day event, and I got to watch him take home a gold medal in board-breaking for his age group, and a bronze in sparring. I couldn’t have been more proud!

Jump Turning Back-Kick For The Gold!

The highlight of the day for me came after he lost his first sparring match in sudden-death overtime. He was broken up and in tears, and told me he just wanted to go home (he’s an incredibly competitive kid, and the loss stung). We had a talk about how doing your best is all that really matters, and I told him how proud I was that he was brave enough to take on the challenge that sparring presents. It takes guts for a kid his age to want to spar, and as a Taekwondo practitioner myself the thought of participating in an event like this scares me (as a runner, I also fear hurting my feet…). In fact, I may have been more nervous than he was – watching your kid fight is pretty tough, but he was really excited to do it. He pulled himself together and came back to win his second match 9-5. He looked at me after they pronounced him winner with eyes beaming. It was an incredible feeling.

Ready to Fight

Sizing Up His Opponent

Pep Talk Between Rounds

My son learned a life-lesson that will stick with him for a long time, and it’s one that we runners know all to well – defeat will happen on occasion, but you need to put it behind you and come back even stronger next time. Anders came back from his loss to win a medal, whereas if he had given up and gone home he would not have placed.

This lesson is one that I will carry with me into the coming week as I look to put a lousy training week behind me and come back to tackle my final 20+ mile run on Tuesday. Anders will also be on my mind come mile 20 of the marathon in a few weeks– I think I have found my source of strength for when the going gets tough. Last week is now behind me, it’s time to push forward!

Showing Off the Hardware!

For those who have been keeping an eye on my training plans, here’s what Caleb has prescribed for the coming week taking into account my lousy training week last week:

Monday: OFF or short run (Final Exam day)

Tuesday: 21 total miles. Run 10 miles at normal easy long run pace. Stop and put on your marathon race shoes, then run 3 x 3-mile @ MP (again, either moderate effort or shoot for PR MP) with 1 mile easy in between MP segments. So, you will finish the workout with the last 3 miles at MP. This is to simulate the late-race feeling as much as possible. Fuel on planned marathon intervals throughout this long workout. I also like to wear my race day singlet and shorts for this run, to make it as much of a dress rehearsal as possible.

Wednesday: Short clearance run. 4 miles with 5 x 30 seconds strides.

Thursday: Non-run day.

Friday: Easy run with strides. 7-8 miles with 10 x 20 seconds hard (40 seconds in between the hard segments).

Saturday: Non-run day.

Sunday: 13-14 miles, very easy.

No Meat Athlete’s Matt Frazier on Blogging Full-Time

noreply@blogger.com (Peter Larson) — Mon, 29 Apr 2013 22:09:00 +0000

Earlier today I read a great Copyblogger interview with Matt Frazier of the No Meat Athlete blog.

Since I’ve written a bunch lately about my decision to pursue blogging as a bigger part of my own future, I thought I’d share the link to Matt’s interview here since so much of what he has to say matches my own experience. For example, we both started blogging in 2009, we both write about running, we both obsessively researched the art of blogging when we started, and it seems reading Seth Godin’s book “Tribes” influenced both of us to veer off our more traditional career paths into a future where we have more freedom and more control over what we do with our time.

I particularly liked Matt’s answer to the following question:

Why do you think you became an independent business owner and blogger, when most people just stick with the career they have, even if it’s unsatisfying? What’s different about you?

“Change — especially starting something and calling it yours — feels risky and scary. We’re wired to avoid it. Seth Godin teaches us now that what’s really risky is choosing not to start your own gig, or making the choice not to become essential in your job. But I think for most people, that’s hard to accept on a gut level, even if you believe it intellectually.

The difference for me is that the thought of spending the better part of my life doing work that doesn’t matter to me and for somebody else truly does terrify me at a deep level — way more than the choice to work for myself does (which has its moments).”

Well said Matt, I couldn’t agree more. The the ability to be my own boss and throw the bulk of my effort into pursuits that I feel are important were major driving factors in my own decision-making process to leave my day job.

You can read the full interview over at Copyblogger (a great site for those looking for tips on blogging professionally): http://www.copyblogger.com/case-study-matt-frazier/

You can follow Matt’s blog over at http://www.nomeatathlete.com/.

Dirty Runner: Montrail FluidFlex Trail Shoe Review

noreply@blogger.com (Nathan Sanel) — Mon, 29 Apr 2013 15:38:00 +0000

If you’ve read any of my past reviews you know that I have a certain ideal shoe that I’m searching for. My perfect trail shoe would be one with a minimal upper that fits like a glove over the forefoot, a wide toe box, excellent drainage, great grip, soft ride, 0-4mm heel/forefoot differential, and enough cushioning to run 100 miles.

Two years ago that shoe seemed impossible to find. Luckily, it seems like I'm not the only person who is after this style of shoe as more and more shoe companies seem to be coming out with what I call "middle-imal" trail shoe options.

One such company is Montrail, and the introduction of the new Fluid Flex seems to meet every single one of my desires (well, in a shoe at least). I’ve been super excited to try it ever since I first caught wind of it.

Montrail describes the Fluid Flex on their website as follows: “A 4mm offset, articulated midsole and toothy microlug outsole, the FluidFlex™ guarantees a close-to-ground feel that both flexes with the natural movement of your foot, and protects it at the same time.” They list it as weighing 7.6 oz and having an 11mm forefoot height and 15mm heel height. They also state that it has a "secure fit and close fitting upper." I will specifically address this shortly.

The kind folks in Montrail’s PR department had tried to get me an early production pair in November, but the limited run ended up being spoken for and to my disappointment I ended up waiting what seemed to be forever to finally get a pair. As I was pestering them relentlessly, Pete surprised me with a pair 3 or 4 weeks ago (purchased from Running Warehouse). They were a size 11 and I wear a 10.5 in most shoes. When I tried them on they seemed ok, so I ended up putting 57 miles on them before Montrail sent me a pair in my normal size. (Disclosure: the latter pair were provided as a media sample - no charge).

I’m glad I got the 10.5’s. Although the 11’s felt good just putting them on, when I actually tested them there was a lot of slop in the fit, and I kept jamming my toes against the front on long descents. The 10.5s fit much better. With all that said, lets talk about the shoe!

The upper is very minimal, with almost no structure at all. The only exception is an interesting padded section on the left and right side of the heel cup. These "bump outs" sit right below my ankle bones and do not produce any discomfort. With such a minimal heel I would guess they are there to keep your heel locked into the shoe and thereby prevent slippage, which is exactly what they do. I'm pretty sensitive to these type of things and once on the move I can't even feel them. And my heels don't slip, so I would call it a successful design.

The size 11's weigh in at 8.25oz and for some reason my size 10.5's come in at 8.3oz. But...I just weighed them and they have some dirt and grit on them. Either way, that's pretty light for a "middle-imal" shoe.

The toe box is hard for me to describe. Although it feels roomy, the angle at which it tapers puts a little bit of pressure on my pinky toe. It has not caused any blisters (I have since put over 50 miles on the size 10.5's), but the longest I have run in them is only 5 hours. I don't know if they would cause me problems over the course of 100 miles.

The Fluid Flex foam is incredible - I love the way these shoes feel underfoot. They have a flexible, soft ride that doesn't beat up my feet like true minimal shoes do. The entire sole is made of the Fluidflex material with high-wear areas covered by small, square, and grippy rubber blocks. Even though they don't have a rockplate, I have found them to be more than adequate over sharp rocks and roots. And when you have to run on the pavement they are a pleasure to be in. After 50 miles they show almost no wear. The traction has been very good, and I have tested them in everything from mud to rocks to ice and water.

Speaking of water, these shoes drain incredibly well. I have completely submerged them many times and within minutes they feel like they are dry. There is no pooling of water within the shoe at all. Considering that you can actually see through the the upper material, it’s no surprise.

There are a few things that make me hesitant to wear the Montrail FluidFlex for a 100 mile race, although I haven't ruled it out yet. First, the minimal upper doesn't wrap my foot tight enough. The asymmetrical lacing system is very comfortable, but I just can't get it tight enough to prevent my toes from hitting against the front of the shoe on long descents. I do have a low volume forefoot and have had this problem in many shoes. I don’t think this will be an issue for most people.

The other issue, which is very easily fixed, is the laces. They are terrible. They’re way too long and do not stay tied. At all. Especially when wet. I have reverted to tucking them into the front and then tying them again to keep them from coming undone. No biggie. Just replace them.

Conclusion

So, did Montrail come up with my dream trail shoe? Close, damn close! If I could just get a tad wider toebox (or maybe just a slightly different shape, more like the Altras) and get the upper to fit tighter around my forefoot it would be perfect. They feel like running on a cloud. Those of you looking for a more minimal Hoka with a much better upper will be very excited – they have that same running on a cloud feeling without all the bulk and excess squish.

The Montrail Fluid Flex is available for purchase at Running Warehouse, Zappos, and Amazon.com.

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.

Marathon Training: DNF'ing a Long Run - Is It Sometimes Better To Cut It Short?

noreply@blogger.com (Peter Larson) — Sun, 28 Apr 2013 22:30:00 +0000

I hate cutting workouts short. I’m a numbers guy, and when I have a target distance for a workout I like to hit it. However, one of the lessons I’ve learned over the past few years is that sometimes it’s better to cut a workout short when things just aren’t feeling right. Today was one of those days.

Coach Caleb had me scheduled to run 18 miles today. I’m nearing the end of this marathon training cycle, and my taper begins next week, so today’s 18 miler and one more 21 miler next weekend were the final two really long workouts. I left the house this afternoon with a bit of apprehension since I was feeling tired, and after just a few miles I knew the run was going to be a struggle. My legs did not want to move.

I pushed on, hoping to just go easy and finish off the workout, but at the top of a big hill at mile 8 it was clear that my legs were shot. I felt like I was at mile 24 of a marathon, and it took immense effort just to keep putting one foot in front of the other.

My biggest struggle in a situation like this is mental. I get down on myself if I can’t finish a workout, and I start to worry about how I’m going to handle the race if I can’t complete 18 miles just four weeks out. It’s irrational since I’ve already had a really solid 18 miler, and a decent 20, but I have the thoughts nonetheless.

My recourse today was to focus on the purpose of the workout. The goal of a long run like this is to get me mentally prepared to run 26.2, and to get my legs physically prepared to handle the rigors of the distance. Running long forces them to continue working when tired, and that simulates the late stages of the race.

What I kept telling myself as I considered my options was that even if I cut the run short I would achieve the goal of running on tired legs. In fact, my legs were tired almost from the start, and 13 miles on tired legs might be just as good as 18 on fresh legs. I identified the three factors that were making me miserable:

1. I ran 20 miles last Sunday, then did a hard 10 miler with a fartlek in the middle on Wednesday. The 10 miler was a challenge after the 20, and I knew my legs were already fatigued earlier in the week.

2. I went to a Taekwondo class yesterday morning for the first time in a few weeks. Master Jung had us doing some intensive sparring practice, and I’m pretty sure I’ve never done any exercise quite as intense as TKD sparring. My legs were sore afterward, and the soreness lingered into today (my peroneals, hamstrings, and hip adductors in particular were all barking). I paid the price for not keeping up with my TKD workouts.

3. It was hot today. Mid-70’s F and sunny might not seem hot to some, but we had a particularly long winter in New England and I am not acclimated to running in anything remotely warm yet. I think this was only the second time this year that I’ve run in temps above 70. It takes me about 3 weeks to acclimate to warmer weather, and I’m just not there yet.

Considering the above was enough to help me overcome the mental challenge of deciding to cut the run short. I opted to shoot for 13 miles. That would give me enough time to shower and eat something before heading off to meet my 5K team (I ran another 2.5 with them). I managed 13.5 before giving in, and it was probably the single hardest run I have done this training cycle. As I sit here writing this, my legs are still completely shot. I got in 42 miles for the week, so not far off my planned total, but it does still hurt just a bit to have not gotten today’s run done. However, my thinking is that going the full 18 might have set me back for the entire week to come, so hopefully shortening things today will pay off over the next few workouts.

Caleb sent me my workouts for the week this morning:

For next week (April 29-May 5):

Easy Miles: 5, single run

Strength Routines: Taekwondo

Workout 1 (Tuesday/Wednesday): 11 miles total. 2 miles easy, then transition into 8 miles @ target MP. Since you are running conservatively in VT, you could run a moderate effort for this 8-mile section, or go all the way to PR MP if you are feeling frisky. After the longer MP segment, run 1 mile SLOW to cool down.

Workout 2 (Thursday/Friday): 9 miles, easy aerobic with 8 x 30 seconds strides after mile 7.

Long (Saturday/Sunday): 21 total miles. Run 10 miles at normal easy long run pace. Stop and put on your marathon race shoes, then run 3 x 3-mile @ MP (again, either moderate effort or shoot for PR MP) with 1 mile easy in between MP segments. So, you will finish the workout with the last 3 miles at MP. This is to simulate the late-race feeling as much as possible. Fuel on planned marathon intervals throughout this long workout. I also like to wear my race day singlet and shorts for this run, to make it as much of a dress rehearsal as possible.

My challenge right now is to figure out if how I felt today was indeed simply a result of the three factors listed above. I’m very wary of overtraining myself into misery given that I’ve had a pretty rapid mileage buildup this cycle, and I’d rather run the race on less mileage and fresh legs than more mileage and dead legs. I’m pretty confident that my aerobic fitness and speed are where they need to be, it’s my legs that I’m worried about. You can expect that I’ll be looking to Caleb for guidance!

Saucony Fastwitch 6 Racing Flat Review

noreply@blogger.com (Peter Larson) — Thu, 25 Apr 2013 17:21:00 +0000

I have a fair amount of history with the Saucony Fastwitch line. The Fastwitch 2 was my first racing shoe, and it was the shoe I wore for 2 of my first 4 marathons. It was also my first real racing flat, and it introduced me to the benefits of lightweight footwear.

Two years ago, almost to the day, I reviewed the Saucony Fastwitch 5. I was excited about the shoe because they had lowered the heel a bit, but I wasn’t a big fan of the firmness of the midsole or the ride, both of which are quite different from the softer Saucony Kinvara that I was putting a lot of miles on at the time.

It’s funny how shoe preferences can change over time. A bit over a month ago Running Warehouse sent me a pair of the Fastwitch 6 to review. I was wary of reviewing it at first because of my iffy experience with the previous iteration, and as far as I could tell the sole is identical. I’ve now put just about 50 miles on the Fastwitch 6, including three double-digit mileage runs, and I have to say that my opinion has changed quite a bit – I’m very impressed by this shoe.

The first pair of the F6’s that Running Warehouse sent was a size 10.5. It fit, but felt snug, so I sent it back in exchange for a size 11. Interestingly, this is a full size larger than I took for the Fastwitch 5. I’ve found that my standard shoe size has migrated up from a 10 to a 10.5 over the past year (not sure if my feet have gotten bigger or my tolerance for tight shoes is reduced), and I needed a bit more length in these than in other Saucony shoes. On the plus side, the fit in size 11 is fantastic, and the forefoot feels considerably roomier than in the Kinvara, Virrata, or A5. The fit is somewhat reminiscent of the Mizuno Ronin 2, which is a good thing.

Fastwitch 6 Upper

The upper of the Fastwitch 6 is composed of a really nice open mesh with welded overlays. In a world where so many shoes are now-made of non-stretchy materials, I like the old-school upper of the F6 even if it isn’t the prettiest shoe on the market. It breathes incredibly well, and the stretch allows me to move my toes around without a great deal of restriction. Super comfortable in terms of fit.

Internally, the upper feels a bit scratchy against bare skin, and I’ve hesitated to try running sockless in them as a result. In contrast, the material inside the ankle collar is super-soft and comfortable. Since the shoe is designed to be a “stability flat” there is a plastic heel counter – though I prefer not having a heel counter, it doesn’t seem to bother me in most shoes, this one included. There is also noticeable arch support, so that needs to be considered for those who prefer a flat arch. Running without the insole is not a good option since the footbed is covered by a scratchy mesh which allows water to drain through holes in the sole (you can see the holes in the forefoot in the photo below).

Fastwitch 6 Sole

As mentioned above, the sole of the Fastwitch 6 is identical to that of the Fastwitch 5. Given that the sole was what I did not like about the 5, I’ve been surprised by how much I am liking the new version (wondering if it has to do with upping the sizing?). Running Warehouse reports stack heights of 18mm heel, 14 mm forefoot, and that feels about right to me. The sole is firm, responsive, and provides a degree of stiffness typical of a racing shoe. That being said, forefoot flexibility is pretty good. The sole does have a medial post, though I can’t honestly say whether it does much – I have not noticed it myself.

A big plus for those who chew through soles of shoes like the Saucony Kinvara, Virrata, or A5 is that the Fastwitch 6 has an extensive rubber outsole. As a result, I expect durability will be very good.

Performance

I’ve put about 50 miles on the Fastwitch 6, including an 18 miler and two sub-marathon pace 10 milers. The 18 miler was easily the best long run I’ve had so far this training cycle, and I’m seriously contemplating wearing the Fastwitch 6 in my marathon next month as a result (Skechers GoRun 2 and Kinvara 4 might be the other options). Both 10 milers have also been strong, and the shoe has caused me no issues. It’s a shoe that pretty much disappears on my feet.

Conclusion

The Saucony Fastwitch 6 is an incredibly versatile shoe with a generous fit in the forefoot (though you may need to size up to feel it). As a structured flat, it can be used for speedwork, long runs, and just about anything else. I’d feel very comfortable wearing it for a marathon, though personally I’d opt for something a tad lighter and stiffer in a 5K.

For someone looking to buy a first pair of racing flats, it would be a great option, and is also a good choice as a daily trainer for someone who enjoys running in a firm and relatively roomy shoe. Big thumbs up for the Saucony Fastwtich 6!

The Saucony Fastwitch 6 is available for purchase at Running Warehouse in the following colors:

Fixing My Wife: Hip Pain, Neuroma, and Hoka Oh My!

noreply@blogger.com (Peter Larson) — Tue, 23 Apr 2013 17:02:00 +0000

My wife Erin is a source of much personal frustration. The frustration doesn’t stem from any particular aspect of our relationship (thank goodness!), rather I am frustrated with her as a runner. I just can’t seem to fix her.

I have to be honest – my wife was a serious runner long before I ever was. In fact, she was a runner when I first met her in college. However, she runs for very different reasons than I now do – she’s not competitive, she hates racing, and she’s quite happy just to do her standard 3 miles as a way to relax and cut loose for a bit.

The problem with my wife is that for the past several years she has not been able to run consistently. We’re not sure exactly when her problems started, but we think it was sometime after her second pregnancy. She started having right “hip” pain after runs, and it got progressively worse to the point where she was ready to give up the sport altogether in late Fall of 2010.

I knew from filming her form that she was a horrific overstrider, and she has issues stabilizing her right foot due to a large bunion on that side (she may kill me for divulging this, but all in the name of education!). At the time she was running in traditional shoes and Nike Free 5.0’s (the old version from a few years ago), and the Free’s were caving medially in a big way on the right. I thought maybe the combo of bad form and problematic shoes might have something to do with it. She thought maybe it was caused by holding our son on one side all the time (quite possible). I wondered if maybe it also had something to do with her yoga practice (it was made very clear to me that stopping yoga was not an option). If the alterative was not running at all, I suggested we try rebuilding her from from the ground up.

I bought Erin a pair of hot pink Vibram Fivefingers and put her on an extremely gradual buildup on the treadmill during the winter of 2010-2011. All was going really well – she was running pain-free on the treadmill, and she didn’t seem to be having much trouble adapting to the minimal shoes. This was very encouraging to both of us.

Unfortunately, problems with the hip started to re-appear when she started running outside again in the Spring. She continued running sporadically, but never in complete comfort. It was clear that whatever was causing the problem was ticked off by the move from the treadmill to running outdoors. I wondered if maybe trying a minimal shoe with a bit more cushion might help. That turned out to be a mistake – one run in a new pair of transitional cushioned shoes and she was in worse pain than ever. She called me a fraud of a shoe expert, and any running shoe with significant cushion now scared her.

Toward the end of 2011 (I think) she went to see my friend Brett who had developed a reputation for success in treating local runners with various injuries. He did some manual therapy and identified a few problem spots. The gluteus medius seemed to be the problem on the right side, along with a ligament issue in the pelvis and some tightness in the quadratus lumborum. Manual therapy seemed to help, but the pain jumped around from place to place for quite a long time. She continued to run, but still experienced hip area pain most of the time. What finally seemed to help was Brett’s suggestion to start incorporating sets of walking lunges at the end of each run. Her pain started to progressively lessen and we though we might be onto something.

As seems to happen so often with somebody who is injury prone, it wasn’t long before another problem cropped up. Erin had gone for a run on the trails behind our house and came back complaining that her foot hurt. She said she stepped on a rock awkwardly and I worried that maybe she had broken something in her foot (she was wearing trail shoes with a rock plate…go figure!). Over the ensuing weeks and months the foot pain would crop up any time she walked a long distance or ran, and I began to fear that she had a stress fracture. She had X-Rays which came back negative, went a period of about 5 weeks without running, and when she came back to it after the time off the pain immediately returned in her foot.

Eventually she mentioned to Brett that she periodically had numbness in her middle toes, and that this had been an issue long before stepping on the rock (I recall her complaining about it from time to time, but it had skipped my mind). He diagnosed her with a neuroma in the right foot. A this point she was walking and running almost exclusively in Altra Intuition 1.5’s because they made her feet hurt the least (I assume because they let her foot spread out so the bones wouldn’t squeeze on the neuroma). She also got a pair of Correct Toes from Brett with the thought that they might space things out even more and she was using those on runs as well. She was managing to run, but the foot still hurt. I thought maybe a softer shoe might be worth another shot, but one run in the Skechers GoRun 2 caused her knee to start barking, and that was that.

I had been joking with Erin that since we’d tried almost every other type of shoe out there, I was going to get her a pair of Hokas. She thinks they look ridiculous and makes fun of mine all the time (I’ve only run in them once myself). But, one day my friend Nate came by and told her that he’d heard of people who have had success dealing with neuromas by running in the Hokas. As is typical, advice from non-husband is more likely to be heeded than advice from husband, and she told me to go ahead and buy her a pair.

Well, Erin has now done three runs in the Hoka One One Bondi B 2's.I’m happy to report that they are the first three runs she has done in a long time that have not resulted in any foot pain. Her hip seems to be doing well too, with only a very minor twinge reported after one run (she continues to do her post-run lunges).

I think this story is also worth telling since to me it shows how difficult it can be to find the right shoe for some people, and also how chronic injuries can sometimes be really hard to resolve. We tried traditional shoes, we tried minimal, we tried stuff in between. We tried form change (she is no longer an overstrider, in fact she may have gone to far in the other direction) and various kinds of strength work. The Hokas along with post-run lunges seems to be working for now, so we’re going to stick with it and see how things progress.

I have no idea if this pattern will hold, but I’m keeping my fingers crossed – I need to prove to her that I’m not a fraud!

(Update 5/21/2013: It’s been a month since I posted this, and I’m happy to say Erin has continued to run in the Hokas 2-3 times per week and has not had any pain in her foot. It’s the longest stretch of pain-free running she’s experienced in quite a long time. Keeping my fingers crossed that it continues!)

Leaving Academia: One Chapter Ends, Another Begins

noreply@blogger.com (Peter Larson) — Mon, 22 Apr 2013 18:08:00 +0000

One day last summer I had lunch with my friends Nate and Brett at a local burrito joint. During the course of our conversation the topic of my uncertain future had come up. Nate, an entrepreneur who followed his passion for motorcycles into a new career, said something that really stuck with me. I don’t remember his exact wording, but it was something along the lines of “the best way to move forward is to cut the ties that are holding you back.” Nate’s words have been on my mind a lot over the past seven months, and I’m excited (and a bit frightened…) to say that my ties have now been cut.

Last Monday was a day I will never forget. Everyone will remember it as the day that the bombs went off at the Boston Marathon, and I’ll remember it for that as well. But, just a few hours prior to the tragedy, as the elite women were nearing the finish line, I was pressing the send button on an email to the Dean of my college announcing my intent to resign my faculty position at the end of my current contract (May 18). I had decided to quit a secure job to pursue my passion. Needless to say, it was a very emotional day…

My decision to leave academia was a long time in the making. I don’t recall exactly when the thought first entered my mind, but the momentum started to build rapidly last summer. Just before Christmas I requested and was granted a one-year, unpaid leave of absence so that I could contemplate my future and test the non-academic waters a bit. That gave me some time, but over the past few months I’d come to realize that a leave of absence was only delaying a decision that my heart had already made. It was time for a change.

Deciding to leave a tenured faculty position was not easy. In fact, it was terrifying. Having a tenured position is what most people in my line of work dream of, and most stick with it for life. It’s hard to let go of security and a stable paycheck, but I came to realize that happiness means more to me than security or money. I kept asking myself if I’d be happy doing the same thing for the next 25 years, and the fact that the answer was never yes was telling.

There were a lot of factors that went into making the final call. I’ve come to realize that though I love teaching, I’m not in love with academia. I’ve studied or worked in colleges and universities for the past 20 years, and I’m feeling a growing sense of dissatisfaction with the state of higher education. I don’t enjoy committee work, and I can’t stand academic politics. I don’t like that education is becoming more and more of a business where the bottom line matters above all else. The cost of a college education scares the heck out of me, and I can’t help but wonder if there is a better way of doing things (I’m intrigued by the thought of teaching a few classes as an adjunct at a local community college). I’ve come to hate the fact that I spend over an hour a day commuting in my car, and even more hours sitting in a chair in front of an office computer. More than anything I hate spending my days far away from my family. I could go on and on, but no need to air any more dirty laundry.

Perhaps bigger than any of the negatives that forced my decision is the fact that I’m incredibly excited about the options I have going forward. When I started this blog, I had no idea of the opportunities that it would open up for me. I had no idea that it would become an avenue to support my family. And I had no idea that it would allow me to continue teaching, just in a different way than in a traditional classroom lecture. I’ve fallen in love with writing, and I’ve come to realize that what makes me happy is helping others to get active and stay active. The latter has become my passion, and is the center that links all of my future activities together.

So what exactly is it that I will be doing with myself as I move forward? There are three main directions I’m pursuing, all running related, and all with a central goal of getting people active.

1. Websites. I’m going to continue to write here on Runblogger, and this will likely consume the biggest chunk of my time (it already does!). We are also nearing a launch for our Run Radar site, so I’m excited about getting that up and running.

2. Coaching. A few weeks ago I started coaching a beginner 5K group through my town rec with a friend I met through a running workshop I co-taught last summer (Erin Girzone). I never realized how rewarding something like this could be. The experience has made me realize that a coach is very much a teacher, and I’ve spent several workouts talking about exercise physiology with other adults out on the track (teaching on the track is way more fun than in a classroom!).

Erin and I are already planning on running our beginner 5K program again in the Fall, and are talking about building programs for longer distances as well for those who want to continue on from the 5K. We are focused on working with total beginners for now, as well as those looking to make a first attempt at a longer distance race. Our approach is comprehensive (form, footwear, strengthening, etc.) and extremely gradual, and is seems to be working well so far.

In addition to the 5K program, I’ve also been invited to be part of the coaching team at one of the Craftsbury Running Camps in VT this summer. Super excited about that!

3. Clinical Work. My friend Brett Coapland has invited me to join his clinic (Performance Health Sport and Spine Therapy) as an exercise physiologist/gait analyst/form coach/shoe guy. I’ve worked informally with several of Brett’s patients over the past year and have very much enjoyed doing so – I’m so used to teaching students about the human body that it’s been a refreshing change to actually use my knowledge in an applied way. I will be working out of his offices at least a few days per week to start beginning next month, and we have a lot of big ideas about where this could go!

And so, off I head down a new path, and I couldn’t be more excited. I’m giving up a salary, but refocusing on things that I love which should be able to support my family. And I will find my way!

Marathon Training Update: April 14 to April 20

noreply@blogger.com (Peter Larson) — Sun, 21 Apr 2013 23:22:00 +0000

I’m going to keep this one short since this has been an eventful week on multiple fronts. My main goals for the week was to get in a solid mid-distance run during the week and a strong 20 mile run today - everything else was secondary. The plan at the outset was for it to be a step-back week, but I stepped it back a bit more than Caleb had planned to ensure I could get in the 20 miler without too much trouble.

Workout Summary:

Monday: Planned off day.

Tuesday: 3.03 miles at 8:19 pace. Easy run in the adidas Energy Boost. Too much heel for my taste, but better than previous runs in the shoe. Definitely built for a pronounced heel striker, so not a good match for me.

Wednesday: 9.03 miles at 7:46 pace. Solid 6 mile progressive run, followed by 3 easy. Didn't feel great out there, but got it done. Saucony Fastwitch 6 on the feet. Splits:
1 08:41.7
2 08:09.9
3 07:41.1
4 07:22.7
5 07:02.7
6 06:45.5
7 08:05.9
8 08:06.3
9 08:03.6

Thursday: 2.6 walk-jog miles with my 5K Yes I Can! team.

Friday: Family in town, took the day off.

Saturday: Family in town, took the day off.

Sunday: 20.05 miles at 8:10 pace. Ran 20 miles in 2:43:39. Got it done, but it hurt a bit in the last 5 miles. Kept the pace steady throughout, finished strong with a 7:24 mile 20. Saucony Virrata on the feet – love the shoe, but calves were sore at the end so may opt for a 4mm heel lift for the marathon. Stopped mid-way for a gel and 16oz of Nuun. Sick of the wind!!! Splits:

1 08:29.2
2 08:08.7
3 08:13.9
4 08:15.2
5 08:22.9
6 08:15.8
7 08:16.0
8 08:14.5
9 08:17.6
10 08:17.8
11 08:12.3
12 08:21.1
13 08:02.8
14 07:59.3
15 07:59.3
16 08:07.1
17 08:11.2
18 08:12.7
19 08:04.5
20 07:23.9
21 :23.7

Low mileage week, but glad I got in a solid 20 miler.

Caleb’s plan next week (April 22-28):

Easy Miles: 5, single run

Strength Routines: Taekwondo

Workout 1 (Tuesday/Wednesday): 10 miles total. Warm up for 25 minutes, then run one fartlek cycle:
- 6 minutes on (at moderate/hard effort)
- 2 minutes recovery
- 5 minutes on
- 2 minutes recovery
- 4 minutes on
- 2 minutes recovery
- 3 minutes on
- 2 minutes recovery
- 2 minutes on
- 2 minutes recovery
- 1 minute HARD

Cool down to reach mileage for the day.

Workout 2 (Thursday/Friday): 10 miles total. Warm and cool distances are up to you. Meat of the workout is 6 x 2k. Run paces between MP and HMP for the first 4, then push hard for #5, and then ease back to MP/HMP for the last rep. 2:00 jog recoveries in between repeats.
Long (Saturday/Sunday): 18 miles with some quality. Run the first 10 easy, then for the remaining 8 miles run the first 60 seconds of each mile at a moderate to hard effort, and run the remainder easy. Be sure to fuel like a marathon for this one, so you don't bonk late in the run!

Video: Boston Tribute at Fenway Park

noreply@blogger.com (Peter Larson) — Sat, 20 Apr 2013 23:47:00 +0000

It just hasn’t felt right to post normal content this week. Though I’m not from Boston, I grew up in Connecticut and now live in New Hampshire. My wife was born in South Weymouth, and my sister lived for several years in Somerville. I grew up going to games at Fenway with my family, I cried my eyes out on that fateful day in 1986 when Buckner let the ball roll between his legs, I cursed Aaron Boone in 2003, and I celebrated in 2004 when my dream of finally watching the Red Sox win a World Series came true. New England is my home, and Boston is the de facto capital of this region.

This week feels like it has lasted for months. It started with triumph as I watched the winners of the Boston Marathon race down Boylston St. while tracking the times of friends who were running in the race. It quickly morphed into tragedy, and a mad scramble to make sure that those same friends (and many of my students) were all ok. It ended with justice. It’s been quite a ride.

This afternoon at Fenway Park they played a tribute to the events of the week on the big screen. It’s a moving and emotional video, and I thought I’d share it here in case you haven’t seen it. Next week as things start to once again return to normal, we should always remember what happened, and keep those who were injured or who lost their lives in our thoughts and prayers.

Keep strong Boston!

Boston

noreply@blogger.com (Peter Larson) — Tue, 16 Apr 2013 17:07:00 +0000

I was not in Boston on Marathon Monday. I’m mostly thankful for that, but part of me wishes I had been there since so many people that I know and care about were suffering through the events that took place yesterday.

In talking with other runners over the past 24 hours, the common thing that we all feel is that our family has been attacked. It’s a family that includes not only those of us who run, but also those who gather to watch us achieve our goals.

The road to Boylston Street is long and hard. Our friends and families support us along the way to that finish line, both in the months leading up to the race as we slog through long winter training runs, and on race day when they wait, sometimes for hours, for us to cross the finish line into their waiting arms. Finishing Boston is the culmination of a lifelong dream for many, and it is a moment to be shared with those we love.

The thing that I can’t get out of my head right now is that the Boston Marathon bombing took the life of an 8 year old boy. A boy who was watching his dad finish the race. Thinking about this is agonizingly painful.

I have a 9 year old son, a 7 year old daughter, and a 3 year old son. When I ran Boston in 2011, I suffered through much of the second half of the race. But, I knew my family would be waiting on the sidelines somewhere in the final mile. The thought of seeing them kept me going. I finally did see them after I emerged from an underpass, and it gave me the mental boost that I needed. I wound up in the medical tent after crossing the finish line (shortly after the photo above was taken), and all I wanted to do was to be able to get out so I could find them.

Whoever committed this crime took the life of a son watching his father accomplish something amazing. It injured his daughter and his wife. And I can’t help but feel as if under different circumstances that could have been my kids, or my wife standing there on the sidelines. I’m sure anyone who has run Boston feels the same way.

My heart goes out to the family of Martin Richard and all of the others who were injured (or worse) for doing nothing more than supporting their friends and families on an otherwise great day in the city of Boston. May those who lost their lives rest in peace.

Marathon Training Update: April 8-14

noreply@blogger.com (Peter Larson) — Mon, 15 Apr 2013 00:19:00 +0000

After a great week of training last week, the current week started out well then fizzled a bit toward the end. I could feel fatigue starting to set in – hard training and an insane schedule for me and my wife were taking a toll. Opted to ease off a bit, and I think it was the right choice.

Workout Summary:

Monday: Planned off day.

Tuesday: 4.04 miles at 8:35 pace. Slow and easy was the intent. Nike Free 3.0 v5 on the feet.

Wednesday: 10.05 miles at 7:34 pace. Nailed this one! Two miles warmup, 5 miles at marathon PR pace, one mile at half marathon pace, then threw in a mile at just above 5K pace to finish strong. One mile easy to cool down at the end. Saucony Fastwitch 6 on the feet, impressed by them once again!

Thursday: 4.1 miles at 8:28 pace. Easy run before the track workout for my 5K Yes I Can! group. Probably added another 1.5 walk run miles, but didn’t track them. Nike Free 3.0 v5 on the feet.

Friday: Unplanned off day. Weather was awful (sleet), and I was feeling very fatigued. Decided to skip my 9 miler and sub an easy 5 the next day instead.

Saturday: 5.1 miles at 7:49 pace. Was feeling much better and this was a solid run. Nike Free 3.0 v5 on the feet – really liking the update.

Sunday: 16.51 miles at 8:01 pace, then 2.25 miles walk-jog. Was supposed to do 18 for the long run with a strong finish, but my left soleus started to knot up around mile 9 (in the midst of a dark and windy hail squall, very ominous…), so I cut it short a bit. Plus, I knew I had at least 2 more miles coming with my 5K group. I think I ticked my calf off during an intensive foam rolling session earlier in the week. Still happy with the pace, but once again the weather was miserable - nothing like running in hail! Nike Free 3.0 v5 on the feet, great shoe but not sure it was the best choice for a run of this length over hills. Track run with the 5K group was fantastic, I’m loving co-coaching this group!

Plan for Next Week

I think I’m going to try and move my long run day to Friday this week. My work/5K coaching/running schedule combined with my wife’s Yoga teaching schedule has led to a bit of a revolving door marriage of late – I come home, she goes out, and vice versa. Weekends in particular have been tough, and we are trying to find ways to set aside more family time until things settle down in in June. My goal is to get all of the workouts below in, just need to find the right schedule.

Here’s what Caleb sent along last night:

Step-back week! 40 miles total.

For next week (April 8-14):

Easy Miles: 7 (would actually recommend 2 shorties instead of a single run, but you can take an extra rest day, too, if you want)

Strength Routines: Taekwondo

Workout 1 (Tuesday/Wednesday): 9 miles total. Progressive to ~PR HMP for the first 6 miles, then 3 very easy to cool down.

Workout 2 (Thursday/Friday): 9 miles total. 2 easy with 5 x 20 seconds strides, then 6 miles @ PR MP, then 1 mile SLOW to cool down

Long (Saturday/Sunday): 20, very steady easy effort the entire way with fueling on planned marathon schedule

Of all things this week, the long run is the most important. We're getting down to the point where we want to be absolutely sure the long miles happen so that you will be strong over the final miles in the race 6 weeks from now.

Altra Instinct Jr.: Wide, Flat Shoe For Kids Coming Soon

noreply@blogger.com (Peter Larson) — Sat, 13 Apr 2013 14:43:00 +0000

I’ve known the guys who started Altra Running for a long time. In fact, I had some conversations with one of the founders before they even launched their first shoe. One of the things they told me way back then was that they wanted to bring a wide, flat shoe for kids to the market. Well, it looks like the wait will soon be over – in July Altra will be releasing the Instinct Junior in youth sizes 1-6 (perfect for my two older kids!).

The Instinct Jr. will have a wide toebox as is typical of other Altra shoes, and it looks like it matches an Altra Instinct 1.5/Torin style upper with the more flexible sole of the Altra Superior.

I can’t tell you how happy it makes me to see more shoes like this coming out for children - my hope is that they sell well so we can get them in smaller sizes too. My 3yo has been wearing a pair of Merrell Flux Gloves for almost a year, and it’s a fantastic shoe, but it looks like it is no longer available. Here’s hoping Altra will come to the rescue!

Asics Gel Lyte33 v2 Running Shoe Review

noreply@blogger.com (Peter Larson) — Wed, 10 Apr 2013 15:16:00 +0000

It’s been a long time since I’ve worn an Asics shoe. Back when I first started running I had a pair of the 2100 series that I liked, but since moving to more minimal footwear Asics has simply not had a lot to offer a runner with my preferences aside from a few racing flats (e.g., Hyperspeed, Piranha).

A bit over a year ago Asics introduced its “33” series, presumably to compete with the lightweight, stripped down offerings from competitors like Brooks (PureProject) and Saucony (Kinvara/Mirage/Cortana). Most of the shoes in the 33 series represented a fairly mild departure from more traditional running shoes, and only one caught my eye as something that might appeal to me as a minimally-oriented runner – the Gel Lyte 33.

Over the past year I’ve heard good things about the original Asics Gel Lyte33. In his 2012 Shoe Award post, John Schrup over at Rogue Rundown labeled it as the “Best Shoe That’s Aaaalllmost there…”, but he complained about the upper and narrow fit. I respect John’s opinion on shoes since we seem to have similar taste, so I took a pass on the original Lyte33. In his review of the original, John commented that the upper and fit were supposedly being addressed in version 2, so when I was offered the opportunity to test them out I agreed (Disclosure: the shoes reviewed here are media samples provided free-of-charge by the manufacturer). Turns out the new version is a complete makeover, and you can find a rundown on the updates from the folks at Rogue as well.

I’ve now put over 40 miles on the Gel Lyte 33 v2’s, including multiple double-digit long runs (max of 16 miles in one run), and I have to say that I really like the shoe.

Based on my preferences, I would classify the Lyte33 as an easy run/long distance shoe. It’s lightweight but not skimpy (mine weight 9 oz in a size 10.5), it’s well cushioned (Running Warehouse reports stack height at 24mm heel, 17mm forefoot), and it fits very comfortably on my feet. In fact, “comfortable” is probably the best single word I could use to describe the shoe – this is not a shoe that I think of as being “fast” or “responsive.” It’s not a shoe I would wear for my next 5k, or even in a half marathon. It’s a shoe for wearing when you want a soft, plush feeling underfoot.

The upper of the Lyte33 v2 is pretty substantial. It’s not really so much that it’s overstructured because it’s not, it just seems like they have used a lot of material to construct it. Asics could probably cut a bit of weight from the shoe by simplifying the upper a bit and removing some of the excess material. The interior feels very soft against a bare foot, and I haven’t had any hotspots or abrasion while running in them (this is pretty rare for me!). I also very much like the fact that there is no rigid heel counter, and the cushion around the ankle collar feels great. Arch support in the shoe is not extensive – it comes mostly from the contour of the sockliner, and when you take that out the arch actually feels pretty flat.

The sole of the Lyte33 is very well cushioned, and it has a softness reminiscent of the Brooks Launch, Saucony Virrata, or Skechers GoRun 2. This is not a firm shoe, and thus works very well for me for long distances (I like a soft shoe for easy runs and distance). Forefoot cushioning is excellent, which is also a plus. The outsole appears to be durable carbon rubber on the heel, and a softer rubber under the forefoot. This makes the sole slightly more noticeable underfoot at initial ground contact, especially when compared to a shoe that has a sole mostly composed of exposed EVA. The tradeoff is that I expect durability should be better in the Lyte33 compared to a shoe like the Saucony Virrata.

One of the technologies that Asics is promoting in some of their new shoes is called FluidAxis. It is intended to allow the sole to flex in the direction of sub-talar joint movement rather than simply longitudinally. You can see the flex grooves in the heel the cross diagonally over the sole – that’s the FluidAxis. The shoe does not flex particularly easily along these groves when manipulating it by hand – I don’t think they’re deep enough to be really effective. I also am not a great subject to test this aspect of the shoe since I’m not a hard heel striker. I tend to contact slightly to the heel side of midfoot, but having run on a force treadmill my pressure profile more closely matches that of a midfoot strike. As such, my stride wouldn’t make much use of the flex grooves back in the heel.

One final comment about fit – I had heard repeatedly that the original Gel Lyte33 was a pretty narrow shoe. I’m happy to report that the Lyte33 v2 is plenty roomy on my feet, I’d go so far as to call the forefoot spacious. I definitely feel like it has more room than the Saucony Kinvara or Virrata, though I would still opt for either of the latter for a marathon due to their lighter weight and the fact that I like the way a less prominent outsole works with my stride.

Conclusion

My personal feeling is that shoes like the Gel Lyte33 (along with the Brooks PureProject, Saucony Kivara/Mirage) should be the new center of the running shoe spectrum. It would be a great place to start as a runner since it would feel familiar and well-cushioned, but it’s a lot less shoe than more traditional models. It’s also a great choice for someone used to more traditional shoes who wants to try something less without making too big a jump to more minimal footwear. And at an MSRP of $90, it’s a reasonably price shoe on the current market.

For me, the Lyte33 works very well as an easy run/distance shoe, and for that reason it’ll likely retain a spot in my rotation.

The Asics Gel Lyte33 is available for purchase in selected colors at Running Warehouse.

It is available in a wider selection of colors at Zappos.(see below)