Run blog today

Even if you're a two-wheeled athlete, I posted on my running blog for anyone interested in speed work -- look for more posts on this as I try to get back on the track and make my slow legs slightly less slow.

http://experimentalharrier.blogspot.com/2012/08/first-day-of-speed-work-trying-not-to.html

Off season triathlon training -- to run or to bike?

I've been asked about off season training for triathletes a few times in the last few weeks. A few athletes have come in after 4 and 5 hour rides, and when I asked them what races they had coming up, they rattled off either a half-iron or full sometime next summer.

How come the 5 hour rides now? -- "Doing some bigger builds to get stronger on the bike"

Okay, I can buy that. Plus, the weather has been incredible here, so I can understand wanting to get out on the bike more. My only hesitation is that these people are good cyclists -- not great, not headed to the Tour de France, but good solid bikers. They typically cover the 112 miles on the bike in 5:15-5:30 or so. And, like many triathletes, they are mediocre runners -- above 4 hours for the marathon leg.

So here's my hangup -- triathletes are always strapped for time, and need to make the best use of their training days, especially those of us who work and have families, etc.

If we really want to improve the most, how should we go about it? If we do a little simple math we can find the right thread to pull.

It doesn't take long in the sport of triathlon to understand that winning a triathlon because of a great swim is about as rare as, well, a triathlete eschewing a wetsuit voluntarily in a race. There's just not enough time to be made up in the swim. Which isn't to say that the off season isn't a great time to work on your swim form -- getting out of the water having wasted less energy than your opponents is a great way to start a race.

So that leaves the bike or the run. Which one holds the most potential for improvement? Well, that's going to depend on the athlete. But if we do a simple experiment, like taking the first 5 finishers in an age group for an ironman, and finishers number 70-75 in the same age group, and average their bike and run times. We can then take those times and compare bike and run to see if there is a more significant gap in one or the other.

I mined data from two separate Ironman races on two different ends of the globe. Race #1 is Ironman Western Australia, and race #2 is Ironman Cozumel.

Looking at the mens 30-34 age group I took the top 5 finishers times, and then the 70th through the 75th.

Here's what I found:

Ironman #1 the top five bike average was 4:45, run average was 3:13
finishers 70-75 bike average was 5:29, run average was 4:10.

Ironman #2 the top five bike average was 4:58, run average was 3:16
finishers 70-75 bike average was 5:37, run average was 4:10.

That means in race #1 the 70-75th places biked 15% slower, but ran 29% slower than the 1stthrough 5th finishers. A 44 minute difference in bike, but a 57 minute difference in run.

Race #2 they were 13% and 28% slower respectively. A 39 minute difference in bike, and a 54 minute difference in run.

It's clear that most people ride well enough, and the place to spend some time to improve on is in the run -- for most of us.

If we look further down the finishers list the disparity gets even larger. Looking at the same races, same age group, but now finishers 175-180 we find for race #1 that they were 35% slower on the bike (+101 minutes) and 81% slower on the run (+158 minutes), and in race #2 they were 38% slower on the bike (+114 minutes) and 70% slower on the run (137 minutes).

I will completely stipulate that many athletes merely need to spend more time just getting better aerobic efficiency overall, and the easiest and usually the least injury prone way to do that is to bike more, but this definitely shows some major gaps in running efficiency.

If you're new to triathlons and you can run a sub 2:45 stand alone marathon, then you're probably fine biking a bunch this off season. If not, then this might be a good time to bring down that marathon time and work on your running efficiency.

"Barefoot" running shoes -- my $.02

It seems every time I look at a running or triathlon magazine these days, there's an article about barefoot running technique.  The book by Christopher McDougall Born to Run has created so much pop culture force behind it that it has nearly become mainstream.  Meaning even people outside the running or endurance sport circles consider running in minimalist shoes to now be the norm.

In fact, the evidence for "barefoot" running technique has been around for many years, and many of us who frequently keep up with the newer research trends have been aware of it for some time now.

I began my transition to minimalist shoes about 4 or 5 years ago.  Notice I didn't say I switched to them -- it took me roughly 8 months to make the move full time (i.e. when I could run a marathon in them).  Switching too soon is the number one mistake amongst runners, and is the reason why physical therapist, orthopedic surgeons, podiatrists, etc, have seen a huge uptick in running related injuries as a result of people switching to lower profile shoes.

I won't get into the why and how of what makes people fail and injure themselves -- suffice it to say that they either aren't a good candidate for running in minimalist shoes (Yep, that's right, not everyone can or should run in them) or they tried to run too much too soon in them.

Today I'd like to share my experience with the different shoes I have had in the last half-dozen years or so.

6 or 7 years ago I was running in some very rigid, motion-controlling shoes.  I was a heel striker who had a pair or Nike Air Structure Triax shoes for the road, and a pair of Montrail Hardrocks with custom orthotics for the trail. 

My education as a PT had reinforced to me, in error -- it was 10 years prior--, that I needed to control my mid-foot motion when I ran to prevent injury (I was frequently experiencing ITB syndrome, plantar fasciitis, among others).  My continuing self education, formally in classes geared towards PTs and informally from just voraciously reading research articles, began to reinforce to me that perhaps there was another way.

When I was deciding what new shoe I wanted to buy I was having a little trouble.  At the time there were really no viable mass-market shoes that fit the bill -- at the time, the shoe industry was still in full swing telling us that we needed the super-duper max-flow cushioning, motion control wonder-shoe.

Then as I thought about it more, it dawned on me:  back in the 1960's and 1970's, before the shoe industry went completely haywire, shoes were simpler; usually not much more than a thin layer of rubber and a few millimeters of EVA padded the bottoms of the shoe.  We used to make fun of these "old school" shoes, since the cushion, the striping, the decals of today's shoes certainly had more pizazz, more sizzle.

So I decided that fashion aside, I just had to get some old school wonders to try out this minimalist thing.  It made sense to do this also because these older shoes can be found online for cheap -- I think I paid 40 bucks for that first pair.  If I can, when I'm experimenting with some new idea, I like to keep it simple, and not have to drop a lot of coin on it, in case it doesn't work out.

I chose three of the shoes I have used in the last 5+ years to demonstrate some of the pros and cons of the varying avenues of the minimalist shoe revolution.  I actually haven't used very many pairs of shoes in this time -- they tend to last so darn long because the proper form to run in them is not dependent on having a lot of cushioning or motion-controlling, which new shoes tend to lose the ability to do as they age and break down.  When you have a shoe that affects your gait in some way (again, by either controlling some motion or providing artificial cushioning) then that shoe is going to lose that ability over time and you'll have to buy new shoes sooner. 

Anyway, here are the three and my thoughts on them:

The Old-School dreamboats

These are the classic Saucony Jazz Low Pro, which was one of the best selling shoes of it's day -- more than thirty years ago!

I was initially a little embarassed, I have to admit, when I first ran in these shoes.  They were my first pair, and I had always worn the latest, modern marvel of shoeware, and these were a bit doofy looking.  But they grew on me, and quickly.  They have a very comfortable fit, the tread was perfect for either road or trail runs, and they have just enough strength through the sole of the shoe that they were good at resisting small rocks from gouging the underside of my feet when I stepped on one wrong.  I used these shoes for 2 years!  The EVA foam in the sole packed down in the first few months -- there was a slight depression inside the shoe where my heel rested, as well as my metatarsals (balls of the feet), and even a couple of the toes, which rather than being a negative, actually made the shoe really feel like it fit like a glove.  After 2 years of many miles, though, they "packed down" a little too much -- I began to feel more pebbles "poke through" when I ran, and so it was time to try something else.

Shortly after this the first printing of Born to Run had come out and manufacturers had begun to offer some low profile options.  I decided to go with this pair of Nike Zoom Streak XCs.  They are made for those running cross-country and track middle to long distance, but without the spikes.

I found these to be very light, having an all-mesh upper, which was great most of the time.  In the winter, however, I'd have to wear two pairs of thin socks with a vapor barrier between to keep the wind, rain and snow from abusing my feet.  The soles were nearly as resistant to poking as the Sauconys were, and the sole performed well on the road and trail.  Aside from the cold-weather short-comings, the soles did wear out faster -- there seemed to be less rubber on the underside of the shoe to protect the foam from getting torn up by the ground.  Also, the all-mesh upper, while light, was prone to tearing, and after about a year I was left with a number of holes in he shoes as you can see. So I got (only?) a year out of these and they cost me about $75, so about 4 times the yearly cost of the Sauconys.

After going back to my old school choice for a while, I recently decided to try a new generation shoe again.  I figured it had been a while, perhaps they had improved the offerings.

I went with these New Balance Minimus Trail shoes. 

They cost me about $100, and I've had them a little over a month, so I don't know what the longevity will be just yet.  They have a very comfortable, anatomic fit, but the lacing doesn;t extend as far up on the shoe as I'd like to improve the fit through the toe box.  The sole is made of a Vibram checker-board pattern of sorts, and there seems to be little to no "foam cushioning" inside them.  They're comfortable to wear, and they definitely look cooler than my previous entries (I think anyway).  My main complaint is that they are terrible at resisting small rock pokes through the sole.  The Vibram is strong, but there isn't one continuous piece of it on the underside; it has that checkerboard pattern which makes the bottom of the shoe articulate more than any other I've used.  I understand that they're going for a barefoot feel, but it makes the sole of the shoe so flexible that I jab the bottom of my foot a couple times every single run -- road or trail.

I don't know how long these are going to last.  I think I'm going to tire of their "pokiness" long before the Vibram wears out.

So for now, still my favorite, considering all of the pros and cons, are the Sauconys.  They don't look new, but the old school style is starting to grow on me (I began wearing my old ones to work on occasion).

I know there are many other options out there, so tell me, which ones have you had experience with?  Any out there that you love?  Lemme know

J

"Mid-Foot" running form and Newton Running Shoes

Here at The Bicycle Studio we are known for our bikes and bike fitting. As a physical therapist, I treat all manner of athletes and in addition to cycling I run quite a bit (most weeks more than I bike), and I have been doing Ironman triathlons for about 10 years, and marathons for about 15 years.

Today I am going to discuss running. I have been studying running mechanics and research related to running form for about 15 years now. There is a lot of information out there, not all of it good, but here I will specifically go into running shoes.

I began running for fun and competition almost 25 years ago so as far as running shoes go, I began smack dab in the middle of the running shoe revolution. Shoe companies competing for the most cushioning, or motion-controlling, or energy-returning device available. A lot of gimmicks out there and hindsight being what it is, we are beginning to see that it was solving a problem that didn't exist. In fact, the research is bearing out that these shoes may be the reason for a number of common running injuries, like plantar fasciitis, achilles tendinitis, and generalized knee pain.

The issue with cushioning running shoes is that they alter running mechanics in a profound way. Simply, they make it easier to land on your heels, and in fact with most of these shoes they make it nearly impossible to land anywhere else. I won't get too far into this as there is a lot written about this topic already -- read Born to Run, Chi Running, Programmed to Run, and Lore of Running.

The basic idea behind the mid-foot running revolution is that landing on your heel makes you land with your foot in front of you. In order to progress to the next stride your quads have to eccentrically absorb that impact as your center of gravity then passess over your planted foot and then the quads, hip extensors, and calf muscles must push off in order to propel you forward. When that heel hits the ground in front of you, you have to decelerate first and then accelerate again. It's almost as if that heel out on front of you is STOP sign, repetitively slowing you down and requiring you to expend energy to speed back up every stride. There are a lot of impact forces associated with this running style.

When you land on your mid-foot, you have to land with your foot near or exactly underneath you, so your body/center of mass naturally carries over the planted foot on the momentum you have already generated. Your legs muscles do not have to eccentrically absorb each impact because the foot is planted already far enough behind you that this momentum is enough and less knee flexion/extension occurs. Running in this way, while foreign at first, will feel like you are taking smaller steps (which you are) and has a lighter more nimble feel to it. There is a break-in period where you have to keep re-training your body to stick with this new form. Some calf muscle soreness is normal, but with consistent work it becomes more natural. I can say from personal experience you will have less overall leg soreness and fewer injuries because you have significantly reduced the jarring effect of your stride. I have been a proponent of this running form for almost ten years, and now with the book Chi Running becoming so popular, it has really become more mainstream (there was a book released years before Chi Running called Programmed to Run which touched very nicely on the issue)


The Newton running shoes embrace this "mid-foot strike" running stride in a ground-up design of their shoe to make landing on your heel less likely. It has a lower profile heel and pronounced knobs on the front of the shoe (underneath the metatarsals). When I first laced these up, I noticed they make it nearly impossible to land on your heels, which is the idea, I guess. I did a number of runs on them and I would say they accomplish this task admirably.

But I didn't like 'em.

I think because I have been working on and using this form for years may have made my transition to these shoes less revelatory. In my experience, I found when I changed to shoes with less heel cushioning (lower profile overall) my form cleaned up very nicely and I was able to pitter patter my way around the trails much lighter and easier (and with much more enjoyment). The lugs on the forefoot of the Newtons

felt intrusive, and while they likely made a mid-foot strike more likely for a newbie to this way of running, they seemed to get in the way, or at least seem superfluous. I actually developed some 4th metatarsal soreness after using them on a number of very moderate duration runs.

And then there's the cost. The ones I used were $175. I know that running shoes are quickly working there way up there in price, but these were still in the deep end of the price pool. When I made the transition to lower profile, less cushioning shoes
Idea behind the shoe, one of the added benefits of these was the low cost. I run in the throw-back Saucony Jazz Low Pro

which you can get for under $50, so the jump to a Newton was quite a leap.

All in all, I think that Newton has the right idea -- running with more mid-foot form is better, but I don't know that the shoe is entirely necessary. It does solve the problem of heel striking, but I don't think it is the only way (nor the cheapest way) to go about it.