While the search for the right groove continues, here at Team BHI, it seems there's been an omission. Those runs mentioned last week were conducted in new shoes.
The Winter Jubilee Fairy brought a pair of Merrell Road Gloves (color: black/lime zest) in recognition of my vast good deeds for the year 2012. Barefoot Josh had recommended them for a good, all around minimal shoe. Of course, he may be getting paid to say such things, but I do like the shoes so far.
I've always been a bit leery of Merrell shoes. A few years back, I had gotten a pair of their boots, and the fit was all wrong. They really crunched my toes. I was worried the same would be true of these running shoes.
Despite anecdotal evidence to the contrary, the photos of the shoes online made them look a bit narrow and pointy in the toe box. I didn't want to shell out out $110 to find out these shoes are uncomfortable, which made them a perfect gift idea. ("Hey, get me something I'm worried I'll hate.")
Thankfully, the anecdotal evidence proved correct. The toe box is quite wide and comfortable. The narrowness is either a result of trick photography or design elements to make the shoe look like a regular running shoe. (Unlike, say, the Altra Samsons, which look a little goofy.)
The soles are thin and fairly flexible, though maybe a bit stiffer than my other minimal shoes. The treads are a bit more aggressive than my other road shoes, which I hope will be suitable for some trail running. The majority of terrain they've encountered so far has been wet pavement or snow-covered ground. The contoured shape of the sole seems to cut down on the slapping sound I tend to get from my Altras or Invisible Shoes.
Overall, these shoes are comfortable and appear suited for some serious running, if I should happen to do any of that ever again.
Showing posts with label shoe views. Show all posts
Showing posts with label shoe views. Show all posts
Wednesday, January 9, 2013
Tuesday, May 8, 2012
Review: New Balance Minimus Zero Trail
Back in March, my running shoe arsenal achieved full minimalism with the addition of the New Balance Minimus Zero trail shoes (model MT00). Hitherto, my trail shoes were the grandfather of the MT00s and predecessor of the Minimus line, the MT101s.
While fairly light compared to more traditional trail shoes, the MT101s are almost twice as heavy as the MT00s, which are the lightest shoe I own, weighing less than 5 ounces. The MT101s also featured a 7-millimeter heel-drop, whereas the MT00s are zeroed out. Finally, the late-model shoes featured a stiff sole with a "protective" rock plate to avoid punctures, but these new shoes are just asking to get punctured with their extra bendable soles.
Here's how the MT00s looked right out of the box ...
And here's how they look now ...
And here's what the soles look like ...
And here's the standard minimalist shoe roll-up test ...
In the last photo, you can see the small hole near the big toe from when I tripped (but did not fall) over a tree stump. The mesh is of the rip-stop variety, so the hole should get no bigger. (We'll see about that.)
These shoes have now traveled more than 60 miles, over Midwestern terrain, mostly single-track trails and including one race. The wet soil this time of year provides perfect testing conditions for judging traction and draining capabilities--both are superb.
In my First Taste impressions, I was concerned about running without socks with the seemingly abrasive interior of the shoe. So far, it hasn't been much of a problem, with the exception of a small blister on my right instep after one of my first warmer weather runs. As summer approaches, this concern will be completely vetted, as I log longer miles in hotter temperatures.
Quite frankly, I love these shoes. The MT00s rank well with my 3F testing points, providing a zero-dropped sole, extreme flexibility and a comfortable amount of ground feel. They go on my feet and then get out of the way.
The toe box is wide enough for my feet, although I've read some complaints that the shoes were too narrow. However, I believe New Balance could have made the toe more rounded, as I find it to be a bit long at times (see the part where I tripped over a tree trunk).
Furthermore, whatever the upper material is, it's perfect for muddy trails. The muck doesn't cake on, so you don't feel like you're running with Mob-style cement shoes, and it rinses off afterward with just warm water. You should have seen how gross they looked after last Tuesday's trail run, but look at them now!
The MT00s retail for $109.99, which yes we can all complain about minimalist shoes with maximal prices, but that's the nature of the shoe business. If you don't like it, go barefoot--it's fun.
[Drunkard's note: Bought these with my own dollars from Second Sole in Akron, but I did get a bit of a discount because they didn't have another pair of shoes I wanted to try in stock.]
While fairly light compared to more traditional trail shoes, the MT101s are almost twice as heavy as the MT00s, which are the lightest shoe I own, weighing less than 5 ounces. The MT101s also featured a 7-millimeter heel-drop, whereas the MT00s are zeroed out. Finally, the late-model shoes featured a stiff sole with a "protective" rock plate to avoid punctures, but these new shoes are just asking to get punctured with their extra bendable soles.
Here's how the MT00s looked right out of the box ...
 |
| Brand new and full of potential. |
 |
| Not so shiny. |
 |
| Traction without substance. |
 |
| Inception shoe is a shoe within a shoe. |
These shoes have now traveled more than 60 miles, over Midwestern terrain, mostly single-track trails and including one race. The wet soil this time of year provides perfect testing conditions for judging traction and draining capabilities--both are superb.
In my First Taste impressions, I was concerned about running without socks with the seemingly abrasive interior of the shoe. So far, it hasn't been much of a problem, with the exception of a small blister on my right instep after one of my first warmer weather runs. As summer approaches, this concern will be completely vetted, as I log longer miles in hotter temperatures.
Quite frankly, I love these shoes. The MT00s rank well with my 3F testing points, providing a zero-dropped sole, extreme flexibility and a comfortable amount of ground feel. They go on my feet and then get out of the way.
The toe box is wide enough for my feet, although I've read some complaints that the shoes were too narrow. However, I believe New Balance could have made the toe more rounded, as I find it to be a bit long at times (see the part where I tripped over a tree trunk).
Furthermore, whatever the upper material is, it's perfect for muddy trails. The muck doesn't cake on, so you don't feel like you're running with Mob-style cement shoes, and it rinses off afterward with just warm water. You should have seen how gross they looked after last Tuesday's trail run, but look at them now!
The MT00s retail for $109.99, which yes we can all complain about minimalist shoes with maximal prices, but that's the nature of the shoe business. If you don't like it, go barefoot--it's fun.
[Drunkard's note: Bought these with my own dollars from Second Sole in Akron, but I did get a bit of a discount because they didn't have another pair of shoes I wanted to try in stock.]
Tuesday, April 17, 2012
Review: Altra Samsons
After a month of testing, my Altra Samsons are finally ready for a more thorough review. However, these shoes are not through with their trials, as I plan to use the Samsons as my primary road running shoe during my training for (and likely running of) this year's Akron Marathon.
Considering my mileage is not high volume this time of year, the Samsons have only logged more than 20 miles, mostly on roads and sidewalks of varying types of material and varying states of decay.
My 3F criteria form the primary basis for my review, but weight, comfort and aesthetics also play a significant role in my opinion of Altra's latest zero-drop, minimal shoe.
Flat
The first F is how flat the shoe is, and all of Altra's offerings feature a zero-drop platform -- that is, no height differential between heel and toe -- which allows me to maintain a more forefoot landing with my stride.
Flexible
The second F deals with flexibility. As you can see from the requisite fold-up-the-shoe photo, the Samson easily rolls into a ball. However, Altra added a layer of EVA to the sole, which makes it a bit stiffer than the Adams, the Samsons' brother shoe.
Feel
The final F concerns ground feel. Basically, how thin is the shoe? With the aforementioned layer of EVA, the stack height of the shoe is a bit higher than the Adams, which results in less ground feel. Without the insole, there is still a good amount of feedback, but not as much as I enjoyed in the Adams. The reduced ground feel means I have to be more cautious of stomping my feet -- a concern with any shoe. Stack height of the Samsons with the insole is 10 mm and 7 mm without.
Weight
The Altra website says the Samsons weigh in at 6.5 ounces, but the Minimalist Running Shoes blog has them 8.5 ounces. Obviously, the bigger the size, the more it will weigh. Considering my giant 11.5 sized feet, I'm guessing my Samsons are closer to 8.5 ounces, which will make them the heaviest shoes I've worn for the Akron Marathon in a couple years.
Comfort
My only complaint about the Adams was the placement of the cinching strap near the toebox, which resulted in chaffing my pinkie toes. The Samsons eliminate that problem with a traditional lacing system. Voila! Best shoe ever, right? Well, not quite.
I prefer to run sockless most of the time, and the ground response of the Samsons is best without the insole. However, the BareSole footbed is comprised of a rubber-like material that seems to cause hotspots under my big toes. Sockless is fine with the insole, but then I lose ground feel. Basically, I'm stuck with the choice of socks vs. feel.
The upper of the Samsons is a thicker mesh than most running shoes. The material none abrasive and seems plenty breathable, but it adds a bit more structure than I'd like. The plastic strip up the side toward the heel seems a bit much. I see no reason to bulk up the shoe in this regard.
Aesthetics
In the war between form and function, I'm a proponent for the function side. However, I can't deny my superficial response to how the Samsons look. Mrs. Viper has a euphemism for ugly babies; she says they're "going to be smart." These shoes? Yeah, smart. The design is simple, which I applaud. So many shoes these days look like somebody threw a bunch of fabric into a blender with a box of crayons and hoped for the best.
I prefer simple, but there are two aspects of the Samsons that I don't like. First is that plastic strap I mentioned. It's too thick. It would be better if it were slightly transparent and constructed of a lighter material, perhaps a Scotch-Brite fabric instead of plastic. Second is the gray toe decor, which just looks like cheap fabric paint. To me, it throws off the shape of the shoe. These are minor complaints, and they won't stop me from running in these "smart" shoes.
Bottom Dollar
The Samsons are available online at the Altra website for $99.99. These shoes offer a great alternative to the Vibram FiveFingers, Merrell Trail Gloves, New Balance Minimus, and the like. The Samsons have become my primary shoe for road running, and they would be good for trails where traction is not a concern. Despite the socks vs. insole conundrum, these are among the most comfortable shoes I've ever owned. I'm looking forward to packing on the miles in them over the next several months.
[Drunkard's note: Altra provided these shoes for free in return for a review. The opinions stated here are my own.]
Considering my mileage is not high volume this time of year, the Samsons have only logged more than 20 miles, mostly on roads and sidewalks of varying types of material and varying states of decay.My 3F criteria form the primary basis for my review, but weight, comfort and aesthetics also play a significant role in my opinion of Altra's latest zero-drop, minimal shoe.
Flat
The first F is how flat the shoe is, and all of Altra's offerings feature a zero-drop platform -- that is, no height differential between heel and toe -- which allows me to maintain a more forefoot landing with my stride.
Flexible
The second F deals with flexibility. As you can see from the requisite fold-up-the-shoe photo, the Samson easily rolls into a ball. However, Altra added a layer of EVA to the sole, which makes it a bit stiffer than the Adams, the Samsons' brother shoe.Feel
The final F concerns ground feel. Basically, how thin is the shoe? With the aforementioned layer of EVA, the stack height of the shoe is a bit higher than the Adams, which results in less ground feel. Without the insole, there is still a good amount of feedback, but not as much as I enjoyed in the Adams. The reduced ground feel means I have to be more cautious of stomping my feet -- a concern with any shoe. Stack height of the Samsons with the insole is 10 mm and 7 mm without.
Weight
The Altra website says the Samsons weigh in at 6.5 ounces, but the Minimalist Running Shoes blog has them 8.5 ounces. Obviously, the bigger the size, the more it will weigh. Considering my giant 11.5 sized feet, I'm guessing my Samsons are closer to 8.5 ounces, which will make them the heaviest shoes I've worn for the Akron Marathon in a couple years.
Comfort
My only complaint about the Adams was the placement of the cinching strap near the toebox, which resulted in chaffing my pinkie toes. The Samsons eliminate that problem with a traditional lacing system. Voila! Best shoe ever, right? Well, not quite.
I prefer to run sockless most of the time, and the ground response of the Samsons is best without the insole. However, the BareSole footbed is comprised of a rubber-like material that seems to cause hotspots under my big toes. Sockless is fine with the insole, but then I lose ground feel. Basically, I'm stuck with the choice of socks vs. feel.
The upper of the Samsons is a thicker mesh than most running shoes. The material none abrasive and seems plenty breathable, but it adds a bit more structure than I'd like. The plastic strip up the side toward the heel seems a bit much. I see no reason to bulk up the shoe in this regard.
Aesthetics
In the war between form and function, I'm a proponent for the function side. However, I can't deny my superficial response to how the Samsons look. Mrs. Viper has a euphemism for ugly babies; she says they're "going to be smart." These shoes? Yeah, smart. The design is simple, which I applaud. So many shoes these days look like somebody threw a bunch of fabric into a blender with a box of crayons and hoped for the best.
I prefer simple, but there are two aspects of the Samsons that I don't like. First is that plastic strap I mentioned. It's too thick. It would be better if it were slightly transparent and constructed of a lighter material, perhaps a Scotch-Brite fabric instead of plastic. Second is the gray toe decor, which just looks like cheap fabric paint. To me, it throws off the shape of the shoe. These are minor complaints, and they won't stop me from running in these "smart" shoes.
Bottom Dollar
The Samsons are available online at the Altra website for $99.99. These shoes offer a great alternative to the Vibram FiveFingers, Merrell Trail Gloves, New Balance Minimus, and the like. The Samsons have become my primary shoe for road running, and they would be good for trails where traction is not a concern. Despite the socks vs. insole conundrum, these are among the most comfortable shoes I've ever owned. I'm looking forward to packing on the miles in them over the next several months.
[Drunkard's note: Altra provided these shoes for free in return for a review. The opinions stated here are my own.]
Wednesday, March 21, 2012
First Taste: New Balance Minimus Zero Trail
As I alluded to last post, I have added yet another pair of shoes to my arsenal. The New Balance MT00, the trail version of the company's Minimus Zero lineup, a zero-dropped version of its predecessor. The MT00s replace my MT101s (a predecessor to the predecessor) and makes my entire running shoe collection minimal and flat.
I've been lazy and haven't taken any more photos, so that'll have to wait until the fullblown review, after I log some serious mileage in the shoes.
Thoughts Out of the Box
These are my lightest shoes, weighing 4.4 ounces, and are quite bendy. New Balance got clever with the soles, providing traction without mass. The mesh is so thin you can see through it, and the rest of the upper is an ultra light space age material.
The shoes are comfortable to wear. The mesh is rough, but felt comfortable enough without socks. However, going sockless on the run will wait until after my race this weekend, as I don't want to risk a blister. The tongue of the shoe is almost a joke it's so thin, and it tends to fold over itself. There is no insole, but a comfortable footbed.
I found the toe box to be sufficiently wide for my feet, but I have read others complain about the shoe being too narrow. On the contrary, I found the shoe to be a bit too long. New Balance could round off the toe a bit to make the shoe a little more ergonomic, a la the Altras or Merrells.
First Run
I wore these shoes for my accidentally too longseven eight-miler last Saturday. I had read that the Minimus Zeros might be too minimal for more technical trails, so I tried them on one of the rougher spots in the area: the Ledges Trail. The terrain is full of rocky outcroppings and snaggly roots to step on.
While the MT00s provided plenty of ground feel, there was plenty of protection. The real test will come when I head out to the Pine Lane section of the Buckeye Trail, where there is a long stretch of latticed roots that are notoriously difficult to traverse.
The light mesh proved to be quite breathable, and the shoe drained well, as there were abundant muddy puddles throughout my run.
Testing Points
My preference is to run sockless, and I'm concerned about the mesh. Even though it felt fine walking around, it could be abrasive on the run. There are plenty more technical trails in the area, and I'll be searching for the limits of this shoe's durability. I'm a bit concerned about the long toebox and the possibility of catching it on uneven terrain.
My first impressions were solid, and I'm happy I went with the New Balance, as I've had good luck with the company's shoes in the past. I bought these shoes with my own dollars from my local store, Second Sole.
|
| New Balance MT00, MSRP: $109.99 |
Thoughts Out of the Box
These are my lightest shoes, weighing 4.4 ounces, and are quite bendy. New Balance got clever with the soles, providing traction without mass. The mesh is so thin you can see through it, and the rest of the upper is an ultra light space age material.
The shoes are comfortable to wear. The mesh is rough, but felt comfortable enough without socks. However, going sockless on the run will wait until after my race this weekend, as I don't want to risk a blister. The tongue of the shoe is almost a joke it's so thin, and it tends to fold over itself. There is no insole, but a comfortable footbed.
I found the toe box to be sufficiently wide for my feet, but I have read others complain about the shoe being too narrow. On the contrary, I found the shoe to be a bit too long. New Balance could round off the toe a bit to make the shoe a little more ergonomic, a la the Altras or Merrells.
First Run
I wore these shoes for my accidentally too long
While the MT00s provided plenty of ground feel, there was plenty of protection. The real test will come when I head out to the Pine Lane section of the Buckeye Trail, where there is a long stretch of latticed roots that are notoriously difficult to traverse.
The light mesh proved to be quite breathable, and the shoe drained well, as there were abundant muddy puddles throughout my run.
Testing Points
My preference is to run sockless, and I'm concerned about the mesh. Even though it felt fine walking around, it could be abrasive on the run. There are plenty more technical trails in the area, and I'll be searching for the limits of this shoe's durability. I'm a bit concerned about the long toebox and the possibility of catching it on uneven terrain.
My first impressions were solid, and I'm happy I went with the New Balance, as I've had good luck with the company's shoes in the past. I bought these shoes with my own dollars from my local store, Second Sole.
Tuesday, March 13, 2012
First Taste: Altra Samsons
The good people at Altra saw fit to send me a pair of the company's latest minimalist offering in its all zero-drop line of running shoes: The Samson. (It's sister model is called Delilah, designed specifically for women's feet.)
The Samsons are basically a laced version of the Adams, which I've been running in since last September. My biggest beef with the Adams were the cinching straps, but that problem is resolved with the Samsons.
Thoughts Out of the Box
The Samsons weigh slightly more than the Adams at 6.5 ounces and feel a bit sturdier. The upper is a thicker mesh than found on many other shoe brands, but is perfectly breathable. The decor of the upper, the orange logo and silvery patterns, add little heft and, along with the wide toe-box, allow the foot to move freely inside.
The Adams came with three insole options, whereas the Samson have a redesigned "Strengthen" insole and the "BareSole" footliner for two insole options, which is just as well, because I found the "Support" insole to bee too much squishyness underfoot with too little ground feel.
It has become customary now to test a minimalist shoe's flexibility by rolling into a ball. While the Samsons pass the test, they were a bit tougher to roll up than the Adams, and according to the Altra website the midsole is stronger than in its predecessor. This will be the main area of observation as I continue to test these shoes.
First Run
My first run was a short neighborhood route, where I ran over varying surfaces such as pavement, brick, asphalt -- all in varying degrees of decay and strewn with debris. The Samsons allowed good ground feel, but I have yet to try the shoes without the insoles.
Walking About
I've had more opportunity to wear these shoes out and about. They're slipper-like in comfort, and my feet haven't gotten tired trekking around airports, as I am currently on a business trip (ironically, in Salt Lake City, just 40 minutes south of Altra's headquarters in Ogden, Utah).
Testing Points
Over the next month, I'll thoroughly test the Samsons for a more thorough review, as I've done with past shoes. My main observations will center on the my 3F criteria (remember, that's flat, flexible and ground feel). I'll try these on all sorts of terrain and at all sorts of distances.
My first impressions have me looking forward to putting these through my slow paces. If all tests out, I hope these will be my shoes for the next Akron Marathon. Anybody know of any good running spots in SLC?
The Samsons are basically a laced version of the Adams, which I've been running in since last September. My biggest beef with the Adams were the cinching straps, but that problem is resolved with the Samsons.
|
| The Samson, MSRP: $99.99 |
Thoughts Out of the Box
The Samsons weigh slightly more than the Adams at 6.5 ounces and feel a bit sturdier. The upper is a thicker mesh than found on many other shoe brands, but is perfectly breathable. The decor of the upper, the orange logo and silvery patterns, add little heft and, along with the wide toe-box, allow the foot to move freely inside.
The Adams came with three insole options, whereas the Samson have a redesigned "Strengthen" insole and the "BareSole" footliner for two insole options, which is just as well, because I found the "Support" insole to bee too much squishyness underfoot with too little ground feel.
It has become customary now to test a minimalist shoe's flexibility by rolling into a ball. While the Samsons pass the test, they were a bit tougher to roll up than the Adams, and according to the Altra website the midsole is stronger than in its predecessor. This will be the main area of observation as I continue to test these shoes.
|
| Rolled up, but tougher to do so. |
My first run was a short neighborhood route, where I ran over varying surfaces such as pavement, brick, asphalt -- all in varying degrees of decay and strewn with debris. The Samsons allowed good ground feel, but I have yet to try the shoes without the insoles.
Walking About
I've had more opportunity to wear these shoes out and about. They're slipper-like in comfort, and my feet haven't gotten tired trekking around airports, as I am currently on a business trip (ironically, in Salt Lake City, just 40 minutes south of Altra's headquarters in Ogden, Utah).
Testing Points
Over the next month, I'll thoroughly test the Samsons for a more thorough review, as I've done with past shoes. My main observations will center on the my 3F criteria (remember, that's flat, flexible and ground feel). I'll try these on all sorts of terrain and at all sorts of distances.
 |
| Altra brothers: comparing the Samson and Adam, with Strengthen insoles. |
Thursday, October 6, 2011
Review: Altra Adams
Altra Running touts three primary attributes that set its shoes apart from other products on the market: zero drop heel-to-toe ratio, foot-shaped soles, and gender-specific models. The Adams (or Eves for women) are Altra's minimalist offering, weighing 4.7 ounces with a 3.4-millimeter rubber sole.
The Adams feature a Velcro closure system instead of laces and feature a breathable stretch and mesh upper. With two removable insoles, the shoes offer three cushioning options: 1.) the seamless foot bed, which provides you with the most ground feel with just the rubber sole between your foot and the ground; 2.) the flat "Strengthen" insole, which gives you a little cushioning; and 3.) the molded "Support" insole, which contours the sole and provides the most cushioning of the three choices.
My pair of Altra Adams arrived at the beginning of September, and my first impressions were very positive. In the past month, I've logged 87 miles in the shoes, including the Akron Marathon. I've run long and short distances, and in dry and wet conditions. I've run on roads, multi-purpose paths, and rough trails. The only thing I haven't dealt with (yet) is snow.
The fit of the Adams is similar to a water shoe, slipper-like and flexible. The extra wide toe box feels a bit loose, but is unnoticeable after a few miles of adjustment. My first run in these shoes was on the Buckeye Trail, and I kicked more than a few tree roots.
However, now I've completely acclimated to running in the Adams and enjoy how comfortable my toes feel without being constricted and allowed to fully splay. (I can stretch my toes as wide as possible and just barely touch the edges of the toe box.)
Traction is solid, but can get a bit dicey on muddy terrain. Take it slow on wet trails.
What I Love
The ride of the Adams is exactly what I've been looking for in a minimalist shoe. The shoes are light weight, thin and comfortable. They meet my 3F criteria of flat, flexible and providing lots of ground feel. The Adams are quite comfortable without socks, but I've worn them comfortably with wool socks (and no insole) in the recent cold weather.
The philosophy of Altra is refreshing. This company isn't just placating the "minimalist/barefoot" crowd with a couple products to cash in on the trend. They promote learning to run with good form, and all their products reflect that message. They get it.
What I Hate
The cinching straps work fine in securing the Adams to my feet, but the placement of the lower strap caused a blister during rainy run prior to the marathon. I would much prefer laces.
I knew from the get-go that I wouldn't use the "Support" insole much. However, in the interest of a thorough review, I ran four miles last night with the insole. It's just too springy. I noticed a tendency to stomp more, as my foot seemed to seek the ground feel it has grown used to receiving. While this insole is not for me, it may be beneficial to runners who are new to minimalist shoes. (The "Strengthen" insoles have proven to be a nice blend of cushioning and ground feel.)
Who Should Buy
The Altra Adams are a good choice for any runners seeking a minimal shoe. With the two insole options, these shoes would be helpful to new converts to the minimalist movement. Barefooters who run in cold climates might find the Adams a good tool when some protection from the elements is necessary. And finally, runners interested in the Vibram Five Fingers but unsure about the individual toe sockets will find the Adams a worthy alternative.
A New Hope
If you dislike the notion of Velcro straps instead of laces, worry not. Altra is releasing a laced version, to be called the Samson and Delilah, in early 2012, according to Minimalist Running Shoes. In case Altra is curious, no, I wouldn't mind a free pair to review, kthanksbye.
[Drunkard's note: The Altra Adams were purchased by me with a 40-percent discount coupon provided by Altra. Listed price is $99.99. I was not asked or paid to write this review. The opinions expressed in this blog post are mine.]
 |
| The Altra Adams right out of the box. |
My pair of Altra Adams arrived at the beginning of September, and my first impressions were very positive. In the past month, I've logged 87 miles in the shoes, including the Akron Marathon. I've run long and short distances, and in dry and wet conditions. I've run on roads, multi-purpose paths, and rough trails. The only thing I haven't dealt with (yet) is snow.
The fit of the Adams is similar to a water shoe, slipper-like and flexible. The extra wide toe box feels a bit loose, but is unnoticeable after a few miles of adjustment. My first run in these shoes was on the Buckeye Trail, and I kicked more than a few tree roots.
However, now I've completely acclimated to running in the Adams and enjoy how comfortable my toes feel without being constricted and allowed to fully splay. (I can stretch my toes as wide as possible and just barely touch the edges of the toe box.)
Traction is solid, but can get a bit dicey on muddy terrain. Take it slow on wet trails.
What I Love
The ride of the Adams is exactly what I've been looking for in a minimalist shoe. The shoes are light weight, thin and comfortable. They meet my 3F criteria of flat, flexible and providing lots of ground feel. The Adams are quite comfortable without socks, but I've worn them comfortably with wool socks (and no insole) in the recent cold weather.
The philosophy of Altra is refreshing. This company isn't just placating the "minimalist/barefoot" crowd with a couple products to cash in on the trend. They promote learning to run with good form, and all their products reflect that message. They get it.
What I Hate
The cinching straps work fine in securing the Adams to my feet, but the placement of the lower strap caused a blister during rainy run prior to the marathon. I would much prefer laces.
I knew from the get-go that I wouldn't use the "Support" insole much. However, in the interest of a thorough review, I ran four miles last night with the insole. It's just too springy. I noticed a tendency to stomp more, as my foot seemed to seek the ground feel it has grown used to receiving. While this insole is not for me, it may be beneficial to runners who are new to minimalist shoes. (The "Strengthen" insoles have proven to be a nice blend of cushioning and ground feel.)
Who Should Buy
The Altra Adams are a good choice for any runners seeking a minimal shoe. With the two insole options, these shoes would be helpful to new converts to the minimalist movement. Barefooters who run in cold climates might find the Adams a good tool when some protection from the elements is necessary. And finally, runners interested in the Vibram Five Fingers but unsure about the individual toe sockets will find the Adams a worthy alternative.
A New Hope
If you dislike the notion of Velcro straps instead of laces, worry not. Altra is releasing a laced version, to be called the Samson and Delilah, in early 2012, according to Minimalist Running Shoes. In case Altra is curious, no, I wouldn't mind a free pair to review, kthanksbye.
[Drunkard's note: The Altra Adams were purchased by me with a 40-percent discount coupon provided by Altra. Listed price is $99.99. I was not asked or paid to write this review. The opinions expressed in this blog post are mine.]
Tuesday, September 6, 2011
First Impressions: Altra Adams
Ever since I became interested in minimalist running shoes and running barefoot, I've been looking for the perfect shoe. What I have sought is a shoe that meets the "Three F's" criteria: flat, flexible and ground feel.
Before the minimalist/barefoot fad hit the shoe industry, there weren't many options. I started with racing flats, Brooks T6 Racers, which I bought at the 2009 Akron Marathon Expo. I even tried making my own shoes. At the end of last year, I bought a pair of Vibram KSOs and got the New Balance MT101s as a gift. And finally, I received a pair of Invisible Shoes to review.
The Brooks were a good starting place. The thinner soles were flexible and provided a small amount of ground feel, but the heel lift is too high. After a few miles, it's all too easy to revert to a heel strike. The shoes have shepherded me through some great race performances and more than 720 miles, but now are perhaps ready for retirement.
The Vibrams meet the Three F's, but they're just not that comfortable for long mileage. My feet blister after just five miles, as the recommended tight fitting doesn't allow for my feet to swell during runs. These shoes are now only relegated to winter running.
The New Balance MT101s are somewhat flat, but nowhere near flexible. While the rock plate protects the feet from rough and jagged terrain, the resulting lack of ground feel makes them good for trails and not much else. I may take them to our local cobbler to zero-out the heel lift.
The Invisible Shoes and my homemade huaraches meet the Three F's as well, but the open sandals won't be suitable for cold weather running.
The search continued.
Back in July, I came across this post at Minimalist Running Shoes, reviewing the Altra Adams. The review asked if this shoe would be "the Vibram Five Finger killer."
From the looks of it, the Adams seemed to meet all the criteria I was looking for, plus provided a more ergonomic design that would allow my toes to splay. Basically, they seemed like the Vibrams, only without the individual toe sockets.
Altra currently offers six models of shoes, three for men and three for women, and all offer a flat "zero drop" sole. All of the company's shoes provide a wide toe box and a foot-shaped sole. I also like how Altra has designed shoes to suit each gender, and promotes learning how to run with good form. This company seems to get it.
Since Altra is a relatively new company, I decided to see if I could finagle a free pair of shoes to review by e-mailing co-founder Jeremy Howlett, Altra's vice president of marketing. Instead of shoes, he sent me a coupon code to pre-order a pair of the then-unavailable shoes.
I waited for a month, but on Friday the Adams finally arrived.
Altra's box and included product literature recommend that you ease into running in these shoes. And so my first run in the Adams was an 18-miler on the Buckeye Trail. A nice slow transition. Without socks.
The Adams come with three insole options: the flat and lightly cushioned "Strength" insole, the molded "Support" insole, or the "SeeNoSeam" stitchless footbed.
I started the run with just the 3.4-millimeter rubber sole between me and the trails. After 10 miles, I returned to my car and inserted the Strength insole. The slight cushioning reduced but didn't eliminate ground feel.
With the wide toebox, the shoe almost feels too loose at first, but I adjusted to this sensation pretty quickly. There was no discomfort from running without socks, even though I'd been getting blisters from all of my other shoes this year. The Velcro straps and the "HeelClaw" kept the shoes in place.
During my second loop of the trail, I mashed my left toe repeatedly on tree roots. The Adams don't offer much protection from not lifting your feet, a minor drawback when you're too tired to run correctly.
The fit is very comfortable. My toes can fully splay with barely touching the sides of the shoe. The upper seems to breathe well, and is quite comfortable without socks. The insole options offer some versatility, providing a little cushioning for those who want it.
After 18 miles, I've already determined to wear the Adams for the Akron Marathon.
After I've logged 100 miles in these shoes, I'll return with a more thorough review.
Before the minimalist/barefoot fad hit the shoe industry, there weren't many options. I started with racing flats, Brooks T6 Racers, which I bought at the 2009 Akron Marathon Expo. I even tried making my own shoes. At the end of last year, I bought a pair of Vibram KSOs and got the New Balance MT101s as a gift. And finally, I received a pair of Invisible Shoes to review.
The Brooks were a good starting place. The thinner soles were flexible and provided a small amount of ground feel, but the heel lift is too high. After a few miles, it's all too easy to revert to a heel strike. The shoes have shepherded me through some great race performances and more than 720 miles, but now are perhaps ready for retirement.
The Vibrams meet the Three F's, but they're just not that comfortable for long mileage. My feet blister after just five miles, as the recommended tight fitting doesn't allow for my feet to swell during runs. These shoes are now only relegated to winter running.
The New Balance MT101s are somewhat flat, but nowhere near flexible. While the rock plate protects the feet from rough and jagged terrain, the resulting lack of ground feel makes them good for trails and not much else. I may take them to our local cobbler to zero-out the heel lift.
The Invisible Shoes and my homemade huaraches meet the Three F's as well, but the open sandals won't be suitable for cold weather running.
The search continued.
Back in July, I came across this post at Minimalist Running Shoes, reviewing the Altra Adams. The review asked if this shoe would be "the Vibram Five Finger killer."
From the looks of it, the Adams seemed to meet all the criteria I was looking for, plus provided a more ergonomic design that would allow my toes to splay. Basically, they seemed like the Vibrams, only without the individual toe sockets.
Altra currently offers six models of shoes, three for men and three for women, and all offer a flat "zero drop" sole. All of the company's shoes provide a wide toe box and a foot-shaped sole. I also like how Altra has designed shoes to suit each gender, and promotes learning how to run with good form. This company seems to get it.
Since Altra is a relatively new company, I decided to see if I could finagle a free pair of shoes to review by e-mailing co-founder Jeremy Howlett, Altra's vice president of marketing. Instead of shoes, he sent me a coupon code to pre-order a pair of the then-unavailable shoes.
I waited for a month, but on Friday the Adams finally arrived.
Altra's box and included product literature recommend that you ease into running in these shoes. And so my first run in the Adams was an 18-miler on the Buckeye Trail. A nice slow transition. Without socks.The Adams come with three insole options: the flat and lightly cushioned "Strength" insole, the molded "Support" insole, or the "SeeNoSeam" stitchless footbed.
I started the run with just the 3.4-millimeter rubber sole between me and the trails. After 10 miles, I returned to my car and inserted the Strength insole. The slight cushioning reduced but didn't eliminate ground feel.
With the wide toebox, the shoe almost feels too loose at first, but I adjusted to this sensation pretty quickly. There was no discomfort from running without socks, even though I'd been getting blisters from all of my other shoes this year. The Velcro straps and the "HeelClaw" kept the shoes in place.During my second loop of the trail, I mashed my left toe repeatedly on tree roots. The Adams don't offer much protection from not lifting your feet, a minor drawback when you're too tired to run correctly.
The fit is very comfortable. My toes can fully splay with barely touching the sides of the shoe. The upper seems to breathe well, and is quite comfortable without socks. The insole options offer some versatility, providing a little cushioning for those who want it.After 18 miles, I've already determined to wear the Adams for the Akron Marathon.
After I've logged 100 miles in these shoes, I'll return with a more thorough review.
Wednesday, July 13, 2011
Near the Tipping Point
In the last couple weeks, I've rambled on about my dissatisfaction with my current shoe rotation, the Vibram KSOs and New Balance MT101s. While these shoes are OK, they don't make me excited about getting out for a run. What's more, these two minimal-ish shoes still aren't as comfortable as my old, stinky-to-high-heaven Brooks T6 Racers.
I've also not been running as far as I should be for my Akron Marathon training. A serious dose of demotivation and the compiled effects of minimalized mileage during the winter have set me back to the point that I still haven't completed a double-digit long run, although I have run some tough eight-milers on trails that have been similar in effort to longer flat runs. (Or so I tell myself.)
Furthermore, barefoot running has continued to evolve into a primary interest. Although I have preferred to run mostly on trails, where I don't have the skills to go with bare feet or patience to learn said skills, I still am forced to run around the neighborhood on occasion. These urban runs are just so much more enjoyable without shoes -- except for when I burn my soles on hot pavement.
All this is pointing me toward a whole-hog changeover to barefoot running. I figure if I'm not running as far or fast as I have in past years at this point in the year, I might as well test my limits in other ways. Why not, right?
Another run on the par course earlier this week -- done barefoot -- alerted me that I will still require shoes at times. However, smart planning will allow me limit those occasions and expand my tolerance for tough terrain.
Those of you who remember the hippy shoes will be happy to know that they will be making a return to this blog. As for my other shoes, consider them on hiatus after tonight, when I go for my last shod run and begin a barefoot streak. Wish me luck, or stay tuned for my hilarious failure. Cheers!
I've also not been running as far as I should be for my Akron Marathon training. A serious dose of demotivation and the compiled effects of minimalized mileage during the winter have set me back to the point that I still haven't completed a double-digit long run, although I have run some tough eight-milers on trails that have been similar in effort to longer flat runs. (Or so I tell myself.)
Furthermore, barefoot running has continued to evolve into a primary interest. Although I have preferred to run mostly on trails, where I don't have the skills to go with bare feet or patience to learn said skills, I still am forced to run around the neighborhood on occasion. These urban runs are just so much more enjoyable without shoes -- except for when I burn my soles on hot pavement.
All this is pointing me toward a whole-hog changeover to barefoot running. I figure if I'm not running as far or fast as I have in past years at this point in the year, I might as well test my limits in other ways. Why not, right?
Another run on the par course earlier this week -- done barefoot -- alerted me that I will still require shoes at times. However, smart planning will allow me limit those occasions and expand my tolerance for tough terrain.
Those of you who remember the hippy shoes will be happy to know that they will be making a return to this blog. As for my other shoes, consider them on hiatus after tonight, when I go for my last shod run and begin a barefoot streak. Wish me luck, or stay tuned for my hilarious failure. Cheers!
Monday, November 1, 2010
Bottled Up and Ready to Go
Finally, the beer is in its final delivery vessels. In just four short weeks -- though, I'll likely crack one open after two -- the Enthusiast and I will be able to drink our porter.We have 47 bottles. We started filling the 48th, but it was a bit short so we decided to just drink it then and there to get a good taste for what we're in for. It was the Enthusiast's first sampling of the brew. (I've had plenty from gulping it through the siphoning tube.) Her enthusiastic reaction: "It's really good!"
The porter is reading at about 5.25 percent ABV right now, a little lower than I expected. But the taste is enjoyable, even in the warm, flat state it was in last night.
Short Month
Have you guys seen October? It seems to have gone missing, and me having only ran 10 miles the whole month. That may be a new record low.
Falling for Gimmicks
Early last month, I was sure I had found my new running shoes. I had been reading about New Balance's upcoming Minimus line of minimalist running shoes. This model is due out early 2011, but its predecessor is available now: the MT 101s.
.jpg)
Dollars from my most recent paycheck were earmarked for this purchase, but then I tried on a pair of Vibram FiveFingers KSOs.My thinking was that I would ask for the Vibrams for Christmas. I convinced myself that these are gimmicky shoes, but I still wanted to try them. I was surprised by how comfortable the KSOs were, and the Enthusiast coaxed my repressed, inner spender to open my wallet.
Of all the new "barefoot shoes" available now, the Vibrams seem to be the closest to what I want for the lowest price. (Have you seen those $160 Terra Plana shoes?) I wanted to be able to continue barefoot-like running through the winter, and I'm hoping these will do the trick.
Return of the Run, I
With new shoes comes new motivation. My first run in the Vibrams had to wait until this morning. My body was a bit shocked by how cold the temperature was. Did you know that it's fall?
My feet felt a little strange with the snug fit of the FiveFingers. The little bit of padding really does have an impact on the difference between true barefooting and running in "barefoot shoes." As Barefoot Josh has said, there is a very wide gap between the two. I was careful not to pound my feet, paying close attention to my form. With just one run, I already like them better than my aqua socks and hippy shoes.
Wednesday, August 4, 2010
The Truth About My Shoes
Nitmos knows how to cut right through my bullshit. In his comment to yesterday's post about my new choice of running footwear, he writes, "Is this part 4 of the What Else Can I Put On My Feet -- Except Running Shoes -- To Run In series? Wake me when you get to watermelon rinds."
"There has to be one best way of running," Nike coach Alberto Salazar said recently. "It's got to be like a law of physics."
Usually, I save my rebuttals to the peanut gallery for Flashback Friday, but this one deserves its own post.
So let's cut right through the bullshit: I run better in running shoes.
So why the hell am I fucking around with bare feet and homemade sandals and other cheap-ass alternatives?
Well, for one, I'm a cheap ass. But secondly, these experiments have been good for my running -- I think.
My best running performances have so far always been in shoes, and I feel my running has only improved since I started wearing my Brooks racing flats, which I've been running in since after the 2009 Akron Marathon. In fact, I haven't worn any other running shoe since Feb. 11. Perhaps that is the date that my full conversion to minimalist running began.
I've only had a few injuries in my short running career. Some of those might have been from wearing shoes, but those injuries might just as well have been caused by poor form. And that's where my experiments in footwear have benefited my running.
But the truth remains that I run better in shoes.
Running barefoot and in huaraches and aqua socks have improved how I run: strengthening my running limbs, quickening my cadence, smoothing my form and teaching me how to feel when I run.
I stopped believing the marketing behind running shoes, but that doesn't mean I've jumped on board with the barefoot marketing. Neither the right shoe nor bare feet is the cure-all for anyone's running woes. The cure is the right form.
"There has to be one best way of running," Nike coach Alberto Salazar said recently. "It's got to be like a law of physics."
That's what I believe to be the truth. Running in a variety of footwear on a variety of terrains has helped me realize this, but I still run better in running shoes.
And no, Nitmos, this is only Part 2, because bare feet don't count as something I can put on. Next up: duct tape!
Tuesday, August 3, 2010
Amphibious Runner
Huh, nobody made a comment about my mention of new shoes in yesterday's recap. So much for trying to create a little suspense.
As you know, I've been running with a variety of footwear and sometimes without. My choices range from completely barefoot, to huarache sandals, to Brooks T6 Racers. And now, I have one more option: aqua socks.
Barefoot Josh suggested these as a good minimal shoe many months ago. But instead of buying the pair I saw at Walmart for $7, I decided to make my Hippy Shoes. The huaraches work well, but the one thing that bothers me is how much they flap. This trait is especially annoying on trails, where the toes kick up debris and I proceed to kick it, like what happened last week during my midweek eight-miler. After that painful experience, I decided to try the aqua socks.
Of course, when I went back to the Giant Store of Sprawling Doom, the only size they had left was XXL. Instead I went to Target, where they had what you see here for $9.99. The nice thing is that these aqua socks have laces, whereas the brand from the Mom and Pop Store Killer had a Velcro strap. These laces are well worth the extra $2.99.
My virginal run in the new shoes was last Friday, an easy four miles. Then I decided to test them on a longer run with more difficult terrain: nine miles out and back on the final leg of the Burning River 100.
The aqua socks have a heavy, but flexible rubber sole with zero drop off between heel and toe. I get about the same feeling for the ground as I do in the Hippy Shoes. However, the upper keeps the shoe from flapping like the huaraches, although the mesh and neoprene of the upper can feel a bit warm and sweaty after a few miles.
Monday, March 22, 2010
Almost Nearly Barefoot
On Friday, I came into some rubber. Wait. That doesn't sound right.
I mentioned last week that I ordered a sheet of industrial-grade rubber to make a pair of huaraches running sandals or, as I have since dubbed them, "Hippie Shoes."
**WARNING: Post contains naked feet.**
For the project, I also needed a hollow-point hole punch, a hammer, some lacing, scissors, a pencil, a piece of paper and a butane lighter. Altogether, I spent $9 dollars on supplies.
The hole punch ($1.97 from Pat Catan's craft store) has screw-on tips for different diameters. I used the largest attachment for a 5/8-inch hole. For lacing ($1 from Pat Catan's), I used nine feet of black and silver rayon cord.
The first step was to trace my
foot onto paper and cut it out to use as a template for the Hippie Shoes. I rounded out the nooks and crannies of my foot and made sure both feet fit inside the lines. (Flip the template over for the other foot.) You can see in the picture just how little room for error I had with the piece of rubber ($6.04 from Drillspot.com).
Next, I had to transfer the tracing to the sole material. Pencil shows up well enough on the black surface, as you should be able to see in the photo of the first foot cutout, the paper template and the remainder of the rubber sheet. The rubber I used was the same on both sides, so I didn't have to worry about flipping over the template to mark it. I just had to make sure to flip over one of cutouts when it was time to make holes for the lacing.
I asked the Enthusiast to help me mark the three holes for the lacing. I placed a cutting board under the cutouts to protect the table I was working on when I hammered the hole punch through the rubber.
The Hippie Shoes are laced similarly to flip-flops with one hole between my big and second toes and two holes by my ankle. I used the lighter and cauterized the ends of the lacing to make it easier to thread through the holes.
The lacing is anchored with a knot under the toes, strapped over the foot toward the hole at the outside of my ankle, around my heel to the hole on inside of my ankle and tied to itself on the top of my foot. That's the simple explanation. The lacing is actually doubled up. Watch this video to see how it's done.
Making the Hippie Shoes took me about 20 minutes.
On Saturday, I returned to Hampton Hills (without Dobson) for the inaugural run of the Hippie Shoes. Despite a couple adjustments to the lacing, the huaraches were perfectly comfortable. I could feel the ground very well, but the thin rubber protected my soles from anything too sharp.
Downhills were the toughest aspect of running with these sandals. I really had to concentrate on turnover to prevent the strap between my toes from chafing. And I found it impossible to run down the steps made of four-by-four lumber at some of the steepest portions of the trail. Overall, though, it was a great run, albeit very slow (12:09 per mile). Here is the post-run damage.
Fast with Company
On Sunday, I ran with Martini for the first time all year. We ran eight miles at Sand Run (plus our extension to Summit Mall). All winter and early this year, I have been focusing on shorter, faster strides and was curious to see if I could run with company without reverting to my old ways. Luckily, Martini takes pretty short steps himself, so it was easier to keep my own strides in check. We averaged an 8:28 pace, which is far faster than anything I've run this year -- at any distance. And no, I didn't wear the Hippie Shoes.
I mentioned last week that I ordered a sheet of industrial-grade rubber to make a pair of huaraches running sandals or, as I have since dubbed them, "Hippie Shoes."
**WARNING: Post contains naked feet.**
For the project, I also needed a hollow-point hole punch, a hammer, some lacing, scissors, a pencil, a piece of paper and a butane lighter. Altogether, I spent $9 dollars on supplies.The hole punch ($1.97 from Pat Catan's craft store) has screw-on tips for different diameters. I used the largest attachment for a 5/8-inch hole. For lacing ($1 from Pat Catan's), I used nine feet of black and silver rayon cord.
The first step was to trace my
foot onto paper and cut it out to use as a template for the Hippie Shoes. I rounded out the nooks and crannies of my foot and made sure both feet fit inside the lines. (Flip the template over for the other foot.) You can see in the picture just how little room for error I had with the piece of rubber ($6.04 from Drillspot.com).
Next, I had to transfer the tracing to the sole material. Pencil shows up well enough on the black surface, as you should be able to see in the photo of the first foot cutout, the paper template and the remainder of the rubber sheet. The rubber I used was the same on both sides, so I didn't have to worry about flipping over the template to mark it. I just had to make sure to flip over one of cutouts when it was time to make holes for the lacing.I asked the Enthusiast to help me mark the three holes for the lacing. I placed a cutting board under the cutouts to protect the table I was working on when I hammered the hole punch through the rubber.
The Hippie Shoes are laced similarly to flip-flops with one hole between my big and second toes and two holes by my ankle. I used the lighter and cauterized the ends of the lacing to make it easier to thread through the holes.The lacing is anchored with a knot under the toes, strapped over the foot toward the hole at the outside of my ankle, around my heel to the hole on inside of my ankle and tied to itself on the top of my foot. That's the simple explanation. The lacing is actually doubled up. Watch this video to see how it's done.
Making the Hippie Shoes took me about 20 minutes.
On Saturday, I returned to Hampton Hills (without Dobson) for the inaugural run of the Hippie Shoes. Despite a couple adjustments to the lacing, the huaraches were perfectly comfortable. I could feel the ground very well, but the thin rubber protected my soles from anything too sharp.
Downhills were the toughest aspect of running with these sandals. I really had to concentrate on turnover to prevent the strap between my toes from chafing. And I found it impossible to run down the steps made of four-by-four lumber at some of the steepest portions of the trail. Overall, though, it was a great run, albeit very slow (12:09 per mile). Here is the post-run damage.
Fast with Company
On Sunday, I ran with Martini for the first time all year. We ran eight miles at Sand Run (plus our extension to Summit Mall). All winter and early this year, I have been focusing on shorter, faster strides and was curious to see if I could run with company without reverting to my old ways. Luckily, Martini takes pretty short steps himself, so it was easier to keep my own strides in check. We averaged an 8:28 pace, which is far faster than anything I've run this year -- at any distance. And no, I didn't wear the Hippie Shoes.
Wednesday, March 17, 2010
The Minimalist in Me
I got into minimalism back in the early aughts when I began to read the likes of Raymond Carver, Amy Hempel, Gordon Lish, Mary Robison, Chuck Palahniuk and others. One of my favorite professors was a Hemingway scholar, and perhaps the "iceberg" principle was driven in too deep.
The desire to achieve more with less led me to running in 2006. All I needed was a pair of shoes. Now, I am starting to wonder if I need those.
Last year, before the weather got cold, I attempted my first barefoot runs. Soon, I will make more unshod attempts.
All this talk about natural vs. unnatural running, barefoot vs. shoes and minimal vs. stability cushioning has me shaking my head. The debate is pointless. Nobody has the facts. The arguments are based on limited studies, personal experience and opinion. So, here are mine.
I needed shoes when I started running. I need less shoe now. I will probably always need some shoe because of winters in Ohio.
Ever since the Akron Marathon, I have run most of my miles in racing flats. Because I was recovering from the race and entering winter, I ran a lot less. Easing into minimal cushioning allowed me time to strengthen my feet to handle the increased load.
Before I bought the low-profile Brooks T6 Racers, I became skeptical of cushioning. I have three other pairs of running shoes, and only one has logged fewer than 500 miles. I rotated between these shoes while training for the marathon and raced in the lowest mileage of the three. That pair now has logged 450 miles.
By continuing to run in well-worn stability shoes, I pounded the cushioning down until it was ineffective. My feet had to get stronger to make up for the decreased support. From there, I made a gradual shift to the racing flats.
Yesterday, I took yet another step into less shoe. I bought a 12-by-12 inches piece of 3/16-inch thick industrial rubber for $6.04. Here is why.
This minimalist trend has also been good to my wallet. I've spent about $75 dollars on running shoes in the last 22 months, during which I have run about 1,800 miles. And guess what? I haven't used my injury tag since June of last year, before I logged my highest marathon training mileage ever.
My advice for those who plan on running in minimal shoes or bare feet: Don't be stupid. Making a switch like this is like starting over. Your lungs, core and thighs might be ready to go out long and fast, but your feet and calves are not.
Start short and slow. Stop if it hurts.
This all goes back to being an Experiment of One. You are your own test lab. Listen to your body, not the so-called "experts."
[Drunkard's note: Yes, this can be summarized as, "I was into minimalist running before it was cool."]
The desire to achieve more with less led me to running in 2006. All I needed was a pair of shoes. Now, I am starting to wonder if I need those.
Last year, before the weather got cold, I attempted my first barefoot runs. Soon, I will make more unshod attempts.
All this talk about natural vs. unnatural running, barefoot vs. shoes and minimal vs. stability cushioning has me shaking my head. The debate is pointless. Nobody has the facts. The arguments are based on limited studies, personal experience and opinion. So, here are mine.
I needed shoes when I started running. I need less shoe now. I will probably always need some shoe because of winters in Ohio.
Ever since the Akron Marathon, I have run most of my miles in racing flats. Because I was recovering from the race and entering winter, I ran a lot less. Easing into minimal cushioning allowed me time to strengthen my feet to handle the increased load.
Before I bought the low-profile Brooks T6 Racers, I became skeptical of cushioning. I have three other pairs of running shoes, and only one has logged fewer than 500 miles. I rotated between these shoes while training for the marathon and raced in the lowest mileage of the three. That pair now has logged 450 miles.
By continuing to run in well-worn stability shoes, I pounded the cushioning down until it was ineffective. My feet had to get stronger to make up for the decreased support. From there, I made a gradual shift to the racing flats.
Yesterday, I took yet another step into less shoe. I bought a 12-by-12 inches piece of 3/16-inch thick industrial rubber for $6.04. Here is why.
This minimalist trend has also been good to my wallet. I've spent about $75 dollars on running shoes in the last 22 months, during which I have run about 1,800 miles. And guess what? I haven't used my injury tag since June of last year, before I logged my highest marathon training mileage ever.
My advice for those who plan on running in minimal shoes or bare feet: Don't be stupid. Making a switch like this is like starting over. Your lungs, core and thighs might be ready to go out long and fast, but your feet and calves are not.
Start short and slow. Stop if it hurts.
This all goes back to being an Experiment of One. You are your own test lab. Listen to your body, not the so-called "experts."
[Drunkard's note: Yes, this can be summarized as, "I was into minimalist running before it was cool."]
Wednesday, October 7, 2009
Not One to Advocate
Yes, I have tried barefoot running and will try it again soon, but I'm not about to tell you that your shoes are the devil. There are plenty of barefoot acolytes out there already doing that. My caveat for running is do what what works for me.
As I have said before, I started to run because I thought it was the cheapest option for a fitness lifestyle change I made in February 2006. My goals then, as now, were better health and fiscal responsibility. Despite some lapses into expensive technical clothing, I have tried to stay true to my financial motivations behind running.
I search for the lowest prices and I shun those who say I need to spend a fortune on a pair of shorts. I lost a lot of respect for Runner's World when its editors had such a hard time finding a running outfit for less than $100.
Sure, I buy light-weight, moisture wicking apparel, but I buy most of my gear from either Target or Joe's New Balance Outlet, where I can find almost anything for less than $20. I still wear cotton socks (if I wear socks at all), which cost less than $10 ... for six pairs. And they don't chafe because of the super high-tech design: they're seamless.
I made myself sick this summer buying an $18 Nike visor from Dick's Sporting Goods. I balked at the purchase a couple times and left the store empty handed, but after a few visits I finally decided to splurge.
I rail against Garmin not because I think such devices provide superfluous data, but because I think I can collect that data in a much cheaper way. I'm not willing to pay hundreds of dollars for something that tells me where, how far and how fast I ran.
I have used the same $25 Timex for three years. I map my routes with free online mapping programs like MapMyRun.com or trust in sometimes mismarked mile posts. Despite my frugal ways, I bet I'm every bit of a numbers geek as any overly gear-clad runner.
Shoes are the most expensive items I buy, but I try to limit my spending. I have bought only two pairs of running shoes at full price. I have sought discount prices ever since I got properly fitted for my last pair of full-price shoes.
For a while I admit I went a little shoe crazy. I acquired four pairs of shoes from August 2007 to September 2008. Two pairs were purchased and two were free as giveaways from running the Akron Marathon. But this year, I decided enough was enough.
I can't justify spending anywhere from $40 to $100 every 500 miles, as the experts and shoe companies suggest. I need to get more out of my shoes -- especially if I want to continue racing (another $20 to $90, depending on the venue and distance).
First, I ignored the mileage on my shoes. I am currently running on three pairs of shoes that collectively have 1,529 miles and counting between them, and that's after retiring one pair that started to wear through the bottom after 630 miles. With Bill Rodgers as my witness, I like that broken-in feel. These shoes got me through my strongest, fastest and most injury-free marathon training cycle. I no longer believe the hype.
Aside from those well-worn shoes, I now have two fresh pairs of soles I'm now running in. My new Brooks T6 Racers (10 miles), which were on sale at the Akron Marathon expo, and my bare feet (two miles), which were included with my birthday suit.
The minimalist trend in running shoes is something I can support because so far it has worked for me and if it continues to do so, it means I am staying true to my goals of a fit and fiscally healthy lifestyle.
I won't tell you to try barefoot running. But I will say, if you decide to try something new with your running, whatever it is, ease into it and progress with caution. Listen to your body and do what works for you.
Sip the Kool-Aid, but if it tastes funny spit it out.
As I have said before, I started to run because I thought it was the cheapest option for a fitness lifestyle change I made in February 2006. My goals then, as now, were better health and fiscal responsibility. Despite some lapses into expensive technical clothing, I have tried to stay true to my financial motivations behind running.
I search for the lowest prices and I shun those who say I need to spend a fortune on a pair of shorts. I lost a lot of respect for Runner's World when its editors had such a hard time finding a running outfit for less than $100.
Sure, I buy light-weight, moisture wicking apparel, but I buy most of my gear from either Target or Joe's New Balance Outlet, where I can find almost anything for less than $20. I still wear cotton socks (if I wear socks at all), which cost less than $10 ... for six pairs. And they don't chafe because of the super high-tech design: they're seamless.
I made myself sick this summer buying an $18 Nike visor from Dick's Sporting Goods. I balked at the purchase a couple times and left the store empty handed, but after a few visits I finally decided to splurge.
I rail against Garmin not because I think such devices provide superfluous data, but because I think I can collect that data in a much cheaper way. I'm not willing to pay hundreds of dollars for something that tells me where, how far and how fast I ran.
I have used the same $25 Timex for three years. I map my routes with free online mapping programs like MapMyRun.com or trust in sometimes mismarked mile posts. Despite my frugal ways, I bet I'm every bit of a numbers geek as any overly gear-clad runner.
Shoes are the most expensive items I buy, but I try to limit my spending. I have bought only two pairs of running shoes at full price. I have sought discount prices ever since I got properly fitted for my last pair of full-price shoes.
For a while I admit I went a little shoe crazy. I acquired four pairs of shoes from August 2007 to September 2008. Two pairs were purchased and two were free as giveaways from running the Akron Marathon. But this year, I decided enough was enough.
I can't justify spending anywhere from $40 to $100 every 500 miles, as the experts and shoe companies suggest. I need to get more out of my shoes -- especially if I want to continue racing (another $20 to $90, depending on the venue and distance).
First, I ignored the mileage on my shoes. I am currently running on three pairs of shoes that collectively have 1,529 miles and counting between them, and that's after retiring one pair that started to wear through the bottom after 630 miles. With Bill Rodgers as my witness, I like that broken-in feel. These shoes got me through my strongest, fastest and most injury-free marathon training cycle. I no longer believe the hype.
Aside from those well-worn shoes, I now have two fresh pairs of soles I'm now running in. My new Brooks T6 Racers (10 miles), which were on sale at the Akron Marathon expo, and my bare feet (two miles), which were included with my birthday suit.
The minimalist trend in running shoes is something I can support because so far it has worked for me and if it continues to do so, it means I am staying true to my goals of a fit and fiscally healthy lifestyle.
I won't tell you to try barefoot running. But I will say, if you decide to try something new with your running, whatever it is, ease into it and progress with caution. Listen to your body and do what works for you.
Sip the Kool-Aid, but if it tastes funny spit it out.
Tuesday, September 29, 2009
I Ran the Akron Marathon and All I Got Was This Stupid 18-Minute PR
The Akron Marathon is over. Now, let's look at all the swag and whatnot I raked in this weekend.
First, of course, is the medal.
I was actually a bit surprised to see the medal at the finish. Someone told me that they weren't giving away medals this year, but hats instead. This 2009 medal will probably replace the 2008 medal as my rearview mirror fob.
But we did indeed get hats.
The hats I believe actually replaced the long sleeve technical shirts that I've gotten the last two years. It says "Finisher 26.2" on the back. It's an OK hat. I don't know if it'll replace my other running hat. Maybe on really hot days.
And check out this sweet jacket.
I have lamented that Brooks was not giving away shoes this year, but I do like the jacket. In fact, I'm wearing it right now.
Speaking of shoes ...
Behold! the Brooks T6 Racer. I spied these at the expo, and I couldn't pass up the price. I've been thinking about getting minimal shoes for a while now. I took them for a spin at recovery pace on Sunday, and they feel pretty darn nice. They're as light as Champagne bubbles. Now, I just need to find another race ...
In addition to the above, my subscription to Running Times will be renewed for another year. Or until Rodale folds it into Runner's World.
All in all a pretty good haul. Cheers!
First, of course, is the medal.
I was actually a bit surprised to see the medal at the finish. Someone told me that they weren't giving away medals this year, but hats instead. This 2009 medal will probably replace the 2008 medal as my rearview mirror fob.
But we did indeed get hats.
The hats I believe actually replaced the long sleeve technical shirts that I've gotten the last two years. It says "Finisher 26.2" on the back. It's an OK hat. I don't know if it'll replace my other running hat. Maybe on really hot days.
And check out this sweet jacket.
I have lamented that Brooks was not giving away shoes this year, but I do like the jacket. In fact, I'm wearing it right now.
Speaking of shoes ...
Behold! the Brooks T6 Racer. I spied these at the expo, and I couldn't pass up the price. I've been thinking about getting minimal shoes for a while now. I took them for a spin at recovery pace on Sunday, and they feel pretty darn nice. They're as light as Champagne bubbles. Now, I just need to find another race ...
In addition to the above, my subscription to Running Times will be renewed for another year. Or until Rodale folds it into Runner's World.
All in all a pretty good haul. Cheers!
Thursday, September 3, 2009
No New Shoes
All this recent talk about barefoot running has me thinking about one thing: buying new shoes. Because apparently to run barefoot, we have to have barefoot running shoes, which mimic being barefoot, but cost just as much or more than regular running shoes. And apparently running barefoot in your regular running shoes (i.e., without socks) doesn't count.
I touched on this subject back in May. I now have three pairs of running shoes over the 500-mile mark -- one pair is over 600 miles. The only pair under 500 has just under 300 miles. This is the first year I have not bought new shoes. Two of the four shoes in my rotation were part of the Akron Marathon's giveaways in 2007 and 2008. This year, Brooks is giving marathoners a jacket instead of shoes.
Bottom line: If I want new shoes this year, I'll have to pay for them myself.
Chances are I'll need new shoes in the next six months. I've given a lot of thought to the possibility of buying into this barefoot running marketing propaganda. I like the idea from a training perspective, but it doesn't seem like a wise choice now as winter is fast approaching. Vibram FiveFingers don't look like they'll have much traction on icy terrain or much insulation from the cold.
So, I've come to this conclusion: My current shoe roster will shepherd me through the winter, and I'll wait until spring 2010 before making any sort of new shoe decision.
Besides, I'd rather save my money for a new banjo.
I touched on this subject back in May. I now have three pairs of running shoes over the 500-mile mark -- one pair is over 600 miles. The only pair under 500 has just under 300 miles. This is the first year I have not bought new shoes. Two of the four shoes in my rotation were part of the Akron Marathon's giveaways in 2007 and 2008. This year, Brooks is giving marathoners a jacket instead of shoes.
Bottom line: If I want new shoes this year, I'll have to pay for them myself.
Chances are I'll need new shoes in the next six months. I've given a lot of thought to the possibility of buying into this barefoot running marketing propaganda. I like the idea from a training perspective, but it doesn't seem like a wise choice now as winter is fast approaching. Vibram FiveFingers don't look like they'll have much traction on icy terrain or much insulation from the cold.
So, I've come to this conclusion: My current shoe roster will shepherd me through the winter, and I'll wait until spring 2010 before making any sort of new shoe decision.
Besides, I'd rather save my money for a new banjo.
Tuesday, May 5, 2009
Two over 500 and One on the Way
Talking (at great length) to myself about running shoes ...
At the moment, I rotate between four pairs of shoes.
Last night I wore my red and gray New Balance 767s for my four-mile tempo run at (attempted) 10-K race pace. The font that marks my shoe mileage on my running log turned to red, signifying that the shoes had surpassed 500 miles.
My blue and gold 767s crossed into that dangerous red territory last week during my track session.
My Brooks Adrenaline 7s, which I had retired after Cooperstown and then un-retired in February, are 33 miles from reaching the reddened 500 miles.
My Adrenaline 8s first touched pavement during my first run of 2009. Those have 417 miles until that fateful 500 mark.
Five hundred miles. It's the magical number that gurus say is the life span of your running shoes. (Or is it the shoe manufacturers who say that?)
After some fieldsobriety tests and reading this post by Vanilla and this post by Mike and this article, I'm starting to have my doubts about this 500-mile rule and the role of running shoes in general.
I chose to run in 2006 as an exercise largely because I thought it was cheap. Then I learned that I needed to buy running shoes. Then I needed a running watch. Then I needed running apparel made with technical fiber. We all know how expensive is the gear we "need."
I drew the line at socks. You all know by now that I pretty much stopped wearing socks when I run. I never understood why anyone pays $12-$30 for socks--one pair of socks.
On the occasions that I do wear socks, I wear that dreaded natural fiber, cotton. My only requirement is for my socks to be seamless, because I like to prevent blisters. These socks cost me $11 for a six-pack.
Furthermore, I refuse to bow to your Garmin god.
I don't need all this stuff. I want it. I want to feel more comfortable. I want to fit in with the other runners. I want to look the part.
Running is primal. We don't really need to wear anything to run. And no, I'm not about to start running naked. But I have considered taking one step closer to that, from sockless to shoeless. However, there's that whole problem of puncture wounds that scares me off.
I have seen the "barefoot" shoes, such as the Vibram FiveFingers, showing up at races. While I find these funky toe socks intriguing, the price of $75 a pair seems to defeat my purpose of running cheaper. I might as well stick to shoes.
But do I really need all the stability support of my current shoes?
In my quest to get faster, I have started to consider the weight of shoes. Motion control and stability support typically adds one to three ounces to shoes. What if I started wearing neutral cushion shoes? Or racing flats, for that matter? I'd be running lighter, and therefore faster.
But wouldn't I get hurt?
Our bodies are incredibly adaptable. Most runners notice the changes in their physiology that running causes, the sturdier knees and stronger calves. Our feet adapt as well.
Running has strengthened the structure of my feet. Since I have been running sockless, my soles have gotten tougher. As my shoes get older and continue break down after each run, including the deterioration of the stability support, my feet (and ankles) must adapt to this as well. So how important are the stability elements to my shoes?
This is the chicken-and-egg argument. Do I need stability support because my stride is out of whack? Or is my stride out of whack because I wear shoes with stability support?
In short, I'm not buying shoes until all of my current pairs wear out. When they do, I'm buying neutral cushion shoes. Or racing flats. Or maybe I'll even try those funky toe socks. And I'm buying them from the cheapest place I can.
Got it? Good. Hiccup.
At the moment, I rotate between four pairs of shoes.
Last night I wore my red and gray New Balance 767s for my four-mile tempo run at (attempted) 10-K race pace. The font that marks my shoe mileage on my running log turned to red, signifying that the shoes had surpassed 500 miles.
My blue and gold 767s crossed into that dangerous red territory last week during my track session.
My Brooks Adrenaline 7s, which I had retired after Cooperstown and then un-retired in February, are 33 miles from reaching the reddened 500 miles.
My Adrenaline 8s first touched pavement during my first run of 2009. Those have 417 miles until that fateful 500 mark.
Five hundred miles. It's the magical number that gurus say is the life span of your running shoes. (Or is it the shoe manufacturers who say that?)
After some field
I chose to run in 2006 as an exercise largely because I thought it was cheap. Then I learned that I needed to buy running shoes. Then I needed a running watch. Then I needed running apparel made with technical fiber. We all know how expensive is the gear we "need."
I drew the line at socks. You all know by now that I pretty much stopped wearing socks when I run. I never understood why anyone pays $12-$30 for socks--one pair of socks.
On the occasions that I do wear socks, I wear that dreaded natural fiber, cotton. My only requirement is for my socks to be seamless, because I like to prevent blisters. These socks cost me $11 for a six-pack.
Furthermore, I refuse to bow to your Garmin god.
I don't need all this stuff. I want it. I want to feel more comfortable. I want to fit in with the other runners. I want to look the part.
Running is primal. We don't really need to wear anything to run. And no, I'm not about to start running naked. But I have considered taking one step closer to that, from sockless to shoeless. However, there's that whole problem of puncture wounds that scares me off.
I have seen the "barefoot" shoes, such as the Vibram FiveFingers, showing up at races. While I find these funky toe socks intriguing, the price of $75 a pair seems to defeat my purpose of running cheaper. I might as well stick to shoes.
But do I really need all the stability support of my current shoes?
In my quest to get faster, I have started to consider the weight of shoes. Motion control and stability support typically adds one to three ounces to shoes. What if I started wearing neutral cushion shoes? Or racing flats, for that matter? I'd be running lighter, and therefore faster.
But wouldn't I get hurt?
Our bodies are incredibly adaptable. Most runners notice the changes in their physiology that running causes, the sturdier knees and stronger calves. Our feet adapt as well.
Running has strengthened the structure of my feet. Since I have been running sockless, my soles have gotten tougher. As my shoes get older and continue break down after each run, including the deterioration of the stability support, my feet (and ankles) must adapt to this as well. So how important are the stability elements to my shoes?
This is the chicken-and-egg argument. Do I need stability support because my stride is out of whack? Or is my stride out of whack because I wear shoes with stability support?
In short, I'm not buying shoes until all of my current pairs wear out. When they do, I'm buying neutral cushion shoes. Or racing flats. Or maybe I'll even try those funky toe socks. And I'm buying them from the cheapest place I can.
Got it? Good. Hiccup.
Thursday, October 23, 2008
Where Have All the Good Shoes Gone?
My stomach has grown used to its semi-daily doses of naproxen sodium tablets. Today, the ankle is wrapped. My left ankle has felt beat up. I don't know why. I suppose it could be a result of this and this. But who knows, really? The pain could also be derived from old shoes.
Out to Pasture
In my bedroom, in my closet, on a shelf, a box of unworn Brooks Adrenaline shoes sits. This is my booty for running the Akron Marathon. But the box reminds me that my old Brooks are a year old and nearing retirement.
These shoes have served me well over 416 miles, on the good days as well as the bad, through training runs and races, delivering some memorable PRs and accompanying brilliant revelations. But their time has come.
I feel the shoes got a fair send-off, though, as I wore them on my 10-mile run in Cooperstown last weekend. I didn't know it when I picked them to accompany me on vacation, but the Brooks had one last long run in them. I'm glad it was that run.
Now, I'm wearing them around more. I think they know.
Screw 'em!
The paradox about retirement is that it is both a reward and a death sentence. You work long and hard for it to come, but when it does? You get a party, where your former coworkers introduce you to your young replacement, who reminds you how you'll spend the rest of your days as a useless slouch in a mind-crushing stupor before you shuffle loose this mortal coil.
Why do you think all those poorly treated Wal-Mart greeters are former retirees? They just want to have a purpose again, even if it's welcoming shoppers who coldly ignore them or handing out smily face stickers to children who pity their sad existence.
Retirement, otherwise known as pre-death.
I don't want that for my Brooks. I feel that they can still serve me well at short distances. Or, perhaps, they need a makeover. I have considered making screw shoes since last year, but I never had the guts to possibly ruin a pair of shoes.
When I discovered this procedure, my shoes were far too young. Perhaps the Brooks are willing to donate their soles to science.
The First Step
Yesterday, I received a comment from an anonymouscoward reader, who informed me of a mistake in my Tuesday post. I wrote that I was running alongside Lake Otesaga when I was in Cooperstown. I was wrong.
The lake is Lake Otsego. The Otesaga is resort hotel that is on Lake Otsego, where I ate dinner one night. (Very good, but pricy.) I admit it, I didn't check my facts. I hope this confession absolves me of my sins. Or least that sin.
Out to Pasture
In my bedroom, in my closet, on a shelf, a box of unworn Brooks Adrenaline shoes sits. This is my booty for running the Akron Marathon. But the box reminds me that my old Brooks are a year old and nearing retirement.
These shoes have served me well over 416 miles, on the good days as well as the bad, through training runs and races, delivering some memorable PRs and accompanying brilliant revelations. But their time has come.
I feel the shoes got a fair send-off, though, as I wore them on my 10-mile run in Cooperstown last weekend. I didn't know it when I picked them to accompany me on vacation, but the Brooks had one last long run in them. I'm glad it was that run.
Now, I'm wearing them around more. I think they know.
Screw 'em!
The paradox about retirement is that it is both a reward and a death sentence. You work long and hard for it to come, but when it does? You get a party, where your former coworkers introduce you to your young replacement, who reminds you how you'll spend the rest of your days as a useless slouch in a mind-crushing stupor before you shuffle loose this mortal coil.
Why do you think all those poorly treated Wal-Mart greeters are former retirees? They just want to have a purpose again, even if it's welcoming shoppers who coldly ignore them or handing out smily face stickers to children who pity their sad existence.
Retirement, otherwise known as pre-death.
I don't want that for my Brooks. I feel that they can still serve me well at short distances. Or, perhaps, they need a makeover. I have considered making screw shoes since last year, but I never had the guts to possibly ruin a pair of shoes.
When I discovered this procedure, my shoes were far too young. Perhaps the Brooks are willing to donate their soles to science.
The First Step
Yesterday, I received a comment from an anonymous
The lake is Lake Otsego. The Otesaga is resort hotel that is on Lake Otsego, where I ate dinner one night. (Very good, but pricy.) I admit it, I didn't check my facts. I hope this confession absolves me of my sins. Or least that sin.
Friday, June 27, 2008
Flashback Friday: New Stuff and George
I'm not going to get all self-reflective on you, but I've had some time to gather my thoughts about the Summer Solstice Challenge. That Saturday was brutal. We didn't go as far as hoped. And I tried a bunch of new crap that I'd now like to waste your time describing.
The CamelBak
During an attempted 50-mile run on a sparsely watered route, carrying water was essential. The prospect of a day-long static arm curl with a handheld water bottle didn't appeal to me. And as far I'm concerned, a hydration belt is a little too close to a fanny pack. Unless that belt comes stocked with two bottles and set of shot glasses and an attractive headless woman (are there any other kind?), I don't want it.
Enter the CamelBak. The HydroBak (last year's model) is listed in the bike-friendly models. (Another attempt at dividing the biking and running communities, I see.) I got 50 ounces of water and a small fist-size pocket for stuff, if you don't count the pocket for the water bladder. This was the cheapest option I thought would work, so I'm not going to complain about crappy lack of space.
What I will complain about is my back. My neck and my back! Carrying about three pounds of water, and however many pounds of the other crap I stuffed in any excess space, really took a toll on the rippling muscles that had to support the CamelBak for five and a half hours. Of course, the alternative of not having water would have meant death. So, whatever, Yay, CamelBak!
Grade: C for coulda -- coulda been better, coulda been worse, coulda been booze.
PowerBar Gels
I found a great deal on PowerBar Gels to get my electrolyte fix. Unfortunately, the only flavor was Strawberry Banana, a flavor I got sick of in 1995. That flavor also contains 25 mg of caffeine, which I really don't support. It treated me OK after I took my first one about two hours into the Challenge. However, I took one Wednesday before my run because I was starving and didn't want to eat and then have to wait to digest before going out. I felt terrible. Do I really need something to boost my heart rate when I'm running?
Grade: D for next time I'll only get decaffeinated.
Sharkies
Where I found the PowerBar Gels, I also spotted Sharkies. I've always been a fan of fruit snacks and Berry Blast sounded tasty. The chews were a nice alternate to the gels. The only drawback is handling these guys while bobbing up and down. (Stupid pogo stick.) However, I dropped only one and savored the rest. After the run, I consumed the remaining packages from the box while drinking my beer.
Grade: A for approved!
Tiger Tiger Burning Bright
What kind of shoes should a runner wear? Running shoes, duh! Well, I came across some sweet vintage running shoes that I just couldn't resist. I'm rocking some 1980s-style Onitsuka Tigers, the predecessor of Asics. (Mine are light brown, gray, cream with an orange logo-thing.) Now, I may have said I don't like Asics, but that's only for running. I like Asics for walking around and looking awesome.
Besides, they're Tigers. Not Asics.
Have a Nice Day
As I also mentioned Monday -- as if I were your source of breaking news -- George Carlin died. Here's one last video. Put on your headphones, excuse the dirty language and enjoy.
Have a happy Happy Hour. Cheers.
The CamelBak
During an attempted 50-mile run on a sparsely watered route, carrying water was essential. The prospect of a day-long static arm curl with a handheld water bottle didn't appeal to me. And as far I'm concerned, a hydration belt is a little too close to a fanny pack. Unless that belt comes stocked with two bottles and set of shot glasses and an attractive headless woman (are there any other kind?), I don't want it.
Enter the CamelBak. The HydroBak (last year's model) is listed in the bike-friendly models. (Another attempt at dividing the biking and running communities, I see.) I got 50 ounces of water and a small fist-size pocket for stuff, if you don't count the pocket for the water bladder. This was the cheapest option I thought would work, so I'm not going to complain about crappy lack of space.
What I will complain about is my back. My neck and my back! Carrying about three pounds of water, and however many pounds of the other crap I stuffed in any excess space, really took a toll on the rippling muscles that had to support the CamelBak for five and a half hours. Of course, the alternative of not having water would have meant death. So, whatever, Yay, CamelBak!
Grade: C for coulda -- coulda been better, coulda been worse, coulda been booze.
PowerBar Gels
I found a great deal on PowerBar Gels to get my electrolyte fix. Unfortunately, the only flavor was Strawberry Banana, a flavor I got sick of in 1995. That flavor also contains 25 mg of caffeine, which I really don't support. It treated me OK after I took my first one about two hours into the Challenge. However, I took one Wednesday before my run because I was starving and didn't want to eat and then have to wait to digest before going out. I felt terrible. Do I really need something to boost my heart rate when I'm running?
Grade: D for next time I'll only get decaffeinated.
Sharkies
Where I found the PowerBar Gels, I also spotted Sharkies. I've always been a fan of fruit snacks and Berry Blast sounded tasty. The chews were a nice alternate to the gels. The only drawback is handling these guys while bobbing up and down. (Stupid pogo stick.) However, I dropped only one and savored the rest. After the run, I consumed the remaining packages from the box while drinking my beer.
Grade: A for approved!
Tiger Tiger Burning Bright
What kind of shoes should a runner wear? Running shoes, duh! Well, I came across some sweet vintage running shoes that I just couldn't resist. I'm rocking some 1980s-style Onitsuka Tigers, the predecessor of Asics. (Mine are light brown, gray, cream with an orange logo-thing.) Now, I may have said I don't like Asics, but that's only for running. I like Asics for walking around and looking awesome.
Besides, they're Tigers. Not Asics.
Have a Nice Day
As I also mentioned Monday -- as if I were your source of breaking news -- George Carlin died. Here's one last video. Put on your headphones, excuse the dirty language and enjoy.
(Warning: Be ready to turn this video down. It about blew out my eardrums.)
Have a happy Happy Hour. Cheers.
Tuesday, May 27, 2008
Race Report: As Wrong As Possible
Sunday night when I returned home from a Memorial Day party, I looked at my new shoes and decided to take this debacle all the way. As my Grandma used to say, "Anything worth doing wrong is worth doing wrong right." Grandma's wisdom always keeps me centered.The time was well past midnight and I had to wake up early for a race. Five and a half hours would have to do.
Sometime that night after I had eaten a hamburger, a bratwurst, a large glom of my mother's world famous potato salad, a piece of extra-sugary birthday cake, some homemade pizzels and standing with my who-knows-how-manyenth Labatt Blue (that, or Great Lakes Dortmunder), my friend who BQ'd at Cleveland the week before asked me, "So is this how you prepare for all your races?"
What was that supposed to mean?
Later, my brother asked me, "When do you stop drinking before a race?" I cleared up any confusion and told him the race started at 8 a.m. I have never run a 5K healthy or sober. Why start now?
To add a little drama -- and to totally repeat myself -- I looked at those new New Balance 767s. I had meant to break their cherry last week, but I thought it would be a bad idea to take them to the track Thursday. And then I ruled them out again during my 10-miler on Saturday. Monday morning, I thought the time was nigh.
I awoke cockeyed at 6 a.m. I was supposed to give a wake-up call to a couple other drunk racers to set up a ride. I wanted to get there early because I had not registered beforehand. I poured a glass of water and downed it fast. A shower would help straighten me out, I thought. I nearly had to cover one eye to navigate my living room.
At 6:30, I sent a text message as a gentle wake-up and to say I'd make the pickup at 7 a.m. I reheated some day-old coffee and poured a half-glass of electrolyte beverage. After no response to the first attempt, I sent a second text message at 6:45. Still nothing.
Just before 7, I called. Voicemail. I took care of some bowel issues and 10 minutes later made another call. Nope. At 7:20, I was out the door, calling to say I'd be there shortly. Shortly thereafter I was there and calling again. Nothing. Now, I was cutting it close. I left without those preregistered laggards.
The race was about 10 miles away and I had about 30 minutes and about 30 traffic lights that I had carefully planned to stop at before I arrived at the registration table with five minutes to spare. I waited in line, realized that I had to fill out a form first, got back in line, handed the woman my last $20, received my numerologically lucky number and tried to pin my bib on while trotting to the starting line about 100 yards away. I eventually had to stop to pin the bastard on, but I made it to the start with plenty of seconds to spare. I spotted my mark and prepared to race.
While getting dressed that morning, I had a race shirt etiquette dilemma. I have yet to wear my Cleveland Half Marathon shirt except for immediately after the race. But should I wear a half marathon shirt to a 5K? The answer: no. I decided it would be like bringing an M2A3 Bradley tank to a food fight.
My mark was wearing last year's Cleveland Marathon shirt, and I was going to make him pay for his faux pas. However, he weaved his way nearer to the front of the starting line. I had to snake through the slow crowd during the first mile and lost sight of Mr. No Manners.
I hit the first mile marker at 7:30. Cruising! Approaching Mile 2 at around 15 minutes, I had The Offender in my crosshairs. ("Stay on target! Stay on target!") I caught up and ran at his hip until the next turn, where I edged past him.
The turn afterward was toward a steep half-mile uphill. This is where I chose to separate. I started passing other runners, which led me to believe I had left Bad-Shirt-Choice McGee in my wake of doom. At the crest of the hill, I let up to prepare for the final kick. Ill advised! My target reappeared at my side and got past me a few strides later. Unfazed, I picked up my pace and passed him again.
At Mile 3, I was too distracted to hear the split called out as the S.O.B. made another push to pass me. However, the finish line was in view and I finally found my kick. I wish it would have come sooner, but it was enough. I left behind my mark and another guy who had been in front of me.
When I passed the second guy with about 200 feet to go, I heard his wife say something like, "Awww! Well, good job anyway!" I assume I crushed his soul and it showed. He finished behind me and my prey behind him.
While we were in the finishing chute I had to choke back my puke to avoid vomiting on the kid in front of me as he almost stopped to fiddle with his race bib. He was lucky I was too spent to say anything because his vocabulary surely would have grown and his mother would not have been proud.
Now, I wonder, should I have said "good race" to my mark? I considered it, but then decided to leave our unspoken competition unspoken.
My new shoes felt great, another running myth busted. To celebrate, I enjoyed a pint bottle of Dragon's Milk, an 8.5 percent ABV, oak-barrel aged strong ale from New Holland Brewery in Michigan.
My time? Oh, right ... sigh ... another PR. I shaved almost a minute off of last year's time with 23:28, which is more than two minutes off my last 5K. Ooh, razor burn!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)