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

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.

Read More...

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

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?

Read More...

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

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:

Read More...

Running Destination: Woodstock, VT

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.

Read More...

Read more »

Marathon Training: Respect the Heat

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!

Read More...

Skechers GoBionic Trail: Photos and Review Link

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.

Read More...

Marathon Training Update: A Lesson in Perseverance From My Son

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.

Read More...

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

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/.

Read More...

Dirty Runner: Montrail FluidFlex Trail Shoe Review

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.

---

Read More...

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

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!

Read More...

Saucony Fastwitch 6 Racing Flat Review

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:

Read More...

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

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!

Read More...