Analyitics

Tuesday, June 21, 2011

June Runs

Despite the fact that the weather is getting hotter, and that my runs are getting longer and faster, my legs feel better than ever. Following Saturday's long run, all I had was a little soreness above my ankles.

Unfortunately, though, I've been feeling a little mentally fatigued with running. After a glance at my Garmin, I realized why. 92 miles in the past 30 days! I had no idea I was running that much--I was just trying to get out and run before summer really set in. But I think I am going to take a little bit of a break for a week, and spend more time watching the Red Sox, and less time running.

Because the Red Sox have really been on an amazing tear. In the month of June so far, the have scored 132 runs. The next nearest team (the Yankees) has scored 98 runs. The average in the AL is 78 runs. In short, the offense has been insane. I wish I could figure out what the major league record is for runs by a team in the month of June, because I think there is a decent chance we're going to take that record.

As long as the Sox don't get mentally fatigued with all that running.


Monday, June 20, 2011

Kinvara 2 Review

Since Todd mentioned that he's going to start looking into minimalist shoes, I figured it's about time that I blogged my experiences with the Kinvara 2, a shoe that seems to be all the rage among runners looking to go minimalist. I've been running with them for about 50 miles now, over a variety of surfaces and for a variety of distances.

I'm going to start by describing what the shoe is not, after which I'll describe what it is.


The Kinvara 2 is not:

An "almost barefoot" shoe. Sure, it is extremely light: the shoe weighs 7.3 oz. But there is still lots of cushioning underfoot -- 17 mm at the forefoot, and 21 mm at the heel.* That's more than I'm used to (my previous shoes had 10 mm and 19 mm). And that's more than fine by me -- in fact, since I've been running longer distances, it is just what I was looking for.

A shoe with less technology. Saucony could have given every part of this shoe a high-tech sounding name. The could have said it had an ultra-vector-lateral-heel system, coupled with ultra-trivarate-impact soles. Etc. Instead, they laid off the marketing, saying that the shoe has a "foam heel collar" and the sole is made of "durable foam." Smart move. Everyone has responded by believing this is the kind of shoe Christopher McDougall would approve of, and it has taken off.

Terribly durable. The super lightweight foam means the sole wears out super fast. I'm already seeing significant treadwear after only about 50 miles.


On the other hand, the Kinvara 2 is:

Very comfortable. I've run in these for over 19 miles on pavement, and my feet still feel fine. (My only complaint is that I do consistently get a blister on the outside of my right big toe. I can't figure out why, but something is rubbing there.

Built on an extremely wide platform. See below for a comparison to my prior shoes. Given
the fact that the heel is very flexible, and the soles are quite thick, the width makes sense to me. As a bonus, it means the shoe has a nice, wide toebox, which is great for long distance runs.

Relatively breathable. I say relatively, because, despite how airy the upper looks, it does have three layers of different mesh, so they are less cool than I had hoped. They are still better than most shoes in the summer, but I wouldn't call the uppers revolutionary.

Affordable. Saucony's suggested retail is $90, and it is not hard to bring the price down with discounts, either online or from your local shop. So, if it wears out faster than a more expensive shoe, that's fine by me.

In short: I've been enjoying running in this shoe. I feel comfortable running on both pavement and trails, and my feet and joints don't seem to be taking as much of a pounding. If I don't watch my form, I can feel my pronation problems kicking in, but if I pay attention to my stride, I'm fine.

I've read a lot of people claiming that this shoe has magically helped transform them from heel strikers into midfoot strikers. I am skeptical that a few millimeters less of heel buildup is going to change years of ingrained mechanics. But I'm also skeptical of the claim that midfoot running is innately "better."

A final note: the Kinvara 2 seems to run a bit small. I normally wear a size 12. For this shoe, I wear a size 13.

If you have any questions, let me know!


*Stats are from runningwarehouse.com, based on the size 9 men's.




comment on Todd's "Barefoot Form" post

my comment was too long for blogger to handle, so i'm moving it to a post.  it is in response to Todd's post on barefoot form.


i wanted to write "tread lightly", but that's too obvious to get more than a groan.

i was swayed by McDougall's book Born to Run, towards a more natural running stride, more natural foot-strike.  i started barefoot running 6 months ago, but my experience has been more an experience with a more natural foot-strike than one of barefoot running.  from what i've read, shod running in any form, even with vibram five-fingers.  allegedly, it's the sensory input you get from your bare foot on the ground that really gives you the beneifts so highly touted by the barefoot running movement.

still, there is much to be gained by adopting a more natural foot-strike.  since i was a child i have been diagnosed as a severe overpronator.  this has caused me to continually have to wear very structured, motion-controlling shoes.  the positive side of this was that i got to the point where i was running quite fast and relatively pain-free for a while.  the down-side was one of degrading returns in my non-running athletic performance.  my muscles had grown accustomed to the forward-only, rigidly controlled foot-strike, and so my lateral motion was impaired.

very few of us are starting with a blank slate, and, in my personal situation, i was way behind the curve in this regard.  i knew there would be a long breaking-in period, where my leg muscles would hage to adjust to the more natural foot-strike.  i wasn't quite prepared for how hard it would be.  here are some details:

- feet:  my arches had become somewhat weak from the motion-controlling shoes.  but the arch pain is nothing compared to the pain i feel on the tops of my feet, above my arches.  when i've been idle for a bit, especially getting up in the morning, i can barely walk.  i've read this is all part of strengthening your feet, which is one of the hardest parts of re-tooling your footstrike.  this is by far the most painful part, and, 6-months on, i am no where near stable.

- ankles: overpronation is real.  i am an overpronator and that does cause an issue for me because my muscles have been been properly built up to handle it.  think of the difference in stabalizer muscles you obtain in a workout on dry sand vs. solid surfaces.  you need to build that stability to support your leg's natural motion.  again, i'm not there.  second to the pain in my feet is the pain on the insides of my ankles, similiarly debilitated in the A.M. and after being seated for periods of time.

neither of the conditions above affect my running.  when i run, it's a non-issue, no foot or ankle pain.  it's only when i'm NOT running that it comes into play.

- calves:  get ready for this.  what a difference.  i always thought i was using my calves quite a bit, but i've never experienced them screaming and yelling to me like they have throughout this 6-month period.  this is a mostly "while running" thing, not much of a problem when i'm not running (the soreness went away after a couple months).  i just noticed my calves feeling overly pumped, used up much more quickly than the rest of my legs muscles, a lot more fatigue than other muscle groups.  since incorporating speed-work, this has significantly been reduce and i expect soon my calves will no longer be an issue.

- knees: i've had knee problems my whole life.  probably a by-product of too much jumping (volleyball) with hard landings.  when i started this whole experiment, i thought my knees would be my undoing.  i haven't had knee pain like that in years.  in my mind, i thought, while there may be merit to a more natural foot-strike, i’ve missed the boat.  if i’m already running pain-free, why not just let it be what it is?  if only i could live by that kind of logic...  my life might be simpler, but i certainly wouldn’t have had some of the great experiences i’ve had, nor the lessons learned from them.  i’m happy to report, i am basically through the painful period with my knees.  they feel quite good these days actually.

- lower back:  this was a big problem at first, but, like with my knees, this went away.  the lower back issues didn't take long to go away either, maybe even just a month.

some other notes about the switch:

- slow!!  two years ago, training runs (which where few and far between, i admit) where up to a minute faster per mile pace.  i don’t know if it’s because i’m focusing on form so much more, or if it’s the pain, or what...  but i often just want to strap on the ‘ol motion control shoes and see what kind of time i could get.  but i threw them away, so it’s not going to happen.  as previously reported, times are starting to get faster and faster now, especially with the addition to speed work.  i imagine towards the end of this year, or early in the season next year, i’ll be back where i was.

- endurance:  this is a strange one.  it’s not about running endurance, which actually has increased with a more natural stride.  it’s about other athletic endurance.  i played a few volleyball tournaments this year and was fine through a few hours, but, once i hit a certain point, my legs just plain wouldn’t work.  i’ve never experienced that before.  i had energy, just the legs seemed dead, i couldn’t get them to respond or warm up.  maybe a by product of the pain noted above, or the causes of that pain...  who knows, but i really hope this changes.

these are pretty much all the NEGATIVE notes, the gotchas, things to look out for.  the important thing to note is that i’m STILL doing this experiment... so, clearly, the positives out-weigh the above.

i guess i’ll have to find some time soon to write about those!!

Barefoot Form

It's too nice of a day not to run. So I went for my first post-race run today and, since I knew I was going to take it slow as my muscles continue to recover from my unusually fast pace (that and all of the golf balls I hit at the driving range yesterday), I decided to try to run with more of the “barefoot form” that I’ve been reading so much about, namely, focusing on landing on the ball or mid-foot as opposed to the heel. (Don't have the book in front of me, but MacDougall wrote very well about it in Born to Run as something like "how you naturally run when you aren't wearing shoes" which is what I envisioned doing today.) Here are my quick reactions:
- Easy to do going up hills, very awkward going downhill.
- Feels strange but okay on the flats, but was difficult for me to do as my legs got tired at the end of the run.
- At times, it felt like my heels weren’t touching the ground at all. I know they weren’t, but that’s what it felt like.
- Feel great afterwards, but know why everyone says to ease into it – I could really feel my shin muscles working. If I attepted to run like that everyday at my usual pace, I’m sure I would really feel bad before too long unless I adapted my shin muscles to the new workload.

In short, I was encouraged by my experiment. Overall, it did feel better than I had thought it would. Next up, i'm going to research of minimalist shoes and see if that's worth using (although probably not the five-finger ones).

Sunday, June 19, 2011

congrats todd!!

congratulations to our Todd Meigs, who had a blazingly fast race this weekend, breaking into the top 10 in his age group (7th) and ending up with an incredible time (19:34.7):

http://www.coolrunning.com/results/11/ma/Jun18_Sharon_set1.shtml

Joggling

So here is a link to a blog written by a guy who has completed 29 marathons and 2 ultramarathons while juggling. Enjoy.



Friday, June 17, 2011

Relating to Fiction

Some interesting thoughts on relating to fiction from J.L. Wall:
Fiction doesn’t present the unreal; it presents the possibly real, something balancing precariously between the real and the non. (This holds, it should be said, for fantasy, science fiction, and other “genres” as well as in realistic or literary fiction; they just go about it, as is the case in variation between individual works, in different ways.) We empathize with fictional beings not despite their unreality, but because of their possible reality.
I've always been curious why some people become more attached to the characters that they read about (or watch on TV) than they do the people in their everyday lives. My intuition tells me that because they're interacting with these idealized figures in a controlled environment (i.e., they can't actually talk to them, and thus the spell that the writer is casting is never broken), these characters speak more to a person's ideal than real people, with whom you have to deal with the inevitable dissapointments of reality (making small talk, noticing skin blemishes and annoying personality traits, etc.)
What do you think?