Marathon Training: Final Prep, and a Tough Shoe Choice

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!

Read More...

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

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.

Read More...

Documentary Video: Vibram Tarawera Ultramarathon 2013

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:

Read More...

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

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

Read More...

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

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 :)

Read More...

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...