AR Ramblings

My rant on the demise of the original Montrail Hardrock shoe has been one of the most popular posts I’ve written. I still get an occasional comment to that post over a year later. Since the original post, I’ve done a lot of (ahem) sole searching and have completely changed what I look for in a shoe. Here is a quick update of what has happened since then.

I was fortunate enough to have local über-underground-ultra-runner Adam Hill encourage me to try using a more minimalist shoe. I did a lot of research, tried a few more pairs of “real” trail shoes (Brooks, La Sportiva), but eventually settled on running in a pair of road racing shoes – Brooks Racer ST‘s. It took several months to fully make the transition. My muscles needed to adjust to the lower heel, feet had to toughen up, and adjustments had to be made to my stride, but the result was amazing.

I’ve since done several 24hr+ adventure races, a 24hr rogaine, and run another SCAR traverse using only these road racing shoes, and my feet have never been happier. The only downsides are lack of durability and poor traction in leaves and thick mud. A little shoe goo can extend the durability, but not much can be done about the traction. [well, Adam could customize them, I suppose]

Along the way, I’ve become convinced that modern shoes cause just as many problems as they try, or claim, to solve.

One of the easiest to observe examples is that a lot of people heel strike when running. Why? Because the shoes they wear tend to encourage that behaviour. I would bet that if you take the average heel-striker and make them run barefoot on a hard, flat surface, they would quickly learn and prefer a mid- or forefoot strike instead.

The thick heel cushioning in most shoes reduces the bone-jarring impacts of heel landings and cuts off the natural feedback that would normally discourage a person from running that way. Another modern design characteristic which seems to encourage this bad behaviour is the lifted heel.

I’m not sure why, but all running shoes place the heel higher than the forefoot. So, even if you naturally have your foot in a flat, mid-foot striking position, you will still land heel-first due to the extra thickness under the heel of the shoe. The heel rise is usually less on racing flats, which is a big reason that I prefer them. Switching to a shoe with a lower heel changes how the muscles are used when running, so give yourself plenty of time to adapt. You are likely to have sore calves when making this transition.

Oh, all of that motion-control and stability crap…well, I bet that is only necessary because the shoe is forcing you to land on your heel and it is very hard to keep everything aligned when rolling from heel to toe without some assistance. A better idea is just to land mid-foot and not have to worry quite as much about all of that. As a bonus, your shoes will be a few ounces lighter without it.

I also read an interesting post on Joe Freil’s blog about pronation. It talks about several runners being videotaped and evaluated.  One, an elite level marathoner who had “excessive pronation”, but never had any injuries.  Another was a runner with a “perfect” neutral foot with a “significant history” of injuries. They found that the hips stayed level on the healthy runner, but dropped on the runner with the injuries. It was determined that good core strength was keeping everything aligned on the “pronating” runner, and poor core strength was the cause of injuries in the “neutral” runner. So, next time you go to a speciality store that has you stand barefoot and walk back and forth, and then tells you what kind of runner you are, just be aware that such a shallow level of assessment could be meaningless for you. Video analysis while running on a treadmill is better, but you may just be applying a band-aid (type of shoe) in an attempt to fix a more fundamental running technique/core strength/muscle imbalance issue.

I’ve learned that less shoe is better. At least for me. Fixing deficiencies in technique  and eliminating muscle imbalances has done more for my running than any shoe ever has.

I still remember the agony I experienced after visiting my first “professional” running store. They fit me in big-ass, clunky, motion-control shoes due to my “pronation problem”. My running that year was terrible, but I told myself that I just needed to give my body time to adapt, and the shoes were probably helping overall. That was complete B.S.! Since then, I’ve visited several high-end running stores and physical therapists to be fitted and analysed (including three video analyses). Over the years, my “pronation problem” has miraculously faded away. The last treadmill video analysis at a local running shop even declared me a perfectly neutral runner. How did I go from being a moderate/severe overpronator to perfectly neutral? Well, as I’m sure any good shoe company will tell you, it must have been the shoes!..and that we all should go out and buy another pair of their most expensive models after the next 300 miles!  Hopefully, I shouldn’t have to point out the stratospheric level of sarcasm in that last statement.  There are actually a few reports suggesting that the cheaper, less technologically advanced shoes cause fewer problems than the more expensive models.  I doubt you’ll find the shoe companies advertising that fact, however.

Although I enjoy running in my road flats, I still occasionally wish for a shoe with some trail-specific features.  Inov-8 is a trail shoe manufacturer whose philosophy I can get behind. I recently picked up a pair of Inov-8 295 trail shoes as a grippier, more durable alternative to the road flats. The 295 is the lightest shoe Inov-8 makes with their Endurance last. The lighter models all use their performance last which is too narrow for my foot.  So far, I’ve been pleased with them.  The heel cup doesn’t seem to conform to my foot as good as the Racer ST’s, but the grip is amazing.  Having a bit of toe protection is nice also, for those times when you get a little sloppy and have a high-speed toe to rock collision.

I highly recommend that everyone experiment and do their own research into the potential advantages of  minimalist shoes and barefoot running.  Just be sure to experiment carefully, slowly, and listen to your body along the way.

REQUIRED READING (these links were in the article, but if you missed them, click now and read! And do some Googling for similar articles…there are plenty more out there!)

• The painful truth about trainers: Are running shoes a waste of money?
• Joe Friel: Running and Core Stability

I thought that the Primal Quest Utah 2006 website was gone forever, but tonight I somehow stumbled upon a copy of it hosted at the design firm who created it. I really enjoyed revisiting my teams page and reliving some of the moments and experiences through the pictures and videos on the site. PQ Utah was one of my favorite races of all time, and I was able to race it with one of my favorite teams of all time.

Ernie, Pete, Beth, and I only had the opportunity of racing together twice as a full team. Once at a 3-day event in Texas where we took first place, and at PQ where we managed a respectable 21st out of 89. Since then, the distances from each other and various other circumstances have kept us from all competing together again. I think we had a lot of potential and hope to eventually get those guys together for another big event some day. I really miss all of those team bonding experiences at Denny’s, the debates over whose WAG bag smelled the worst, and learning how to be a pipeline manager (you had to be there to understand).

To 24Seven: I miss you guys! I hope you are all doing well! When are you all going to move closer!!! ;-)

I don’t know what else to say. I was there, though you wouldn’t know it from watching. You also wouldn’t know that approximately 85 other teams raced either. I guess that is almost normal for these types of events though. What is really sad is that I don’t think the coverage really was able to communicate the difficulty of the course. The intense, brutal heat of the first two legs and all 4 canyons (did you even know there were four?) was not effectively shown. Most of the mountain section was skipped over, and the coverage of the ropes sections totally sucked. That ropes course was absolutely amazing and the TV helicopter was still getting shots of it when my team came through about 1.5 days after the leaders. So where was all that footage? In fact, none of the coverage of any ropes section really showcased how huge they were. There were no good perspective shots. Awful. Just awful.

Perhaps the video production could never be what I would hope for. Maybe film can’t even come close to capturing the real-life experience of being there. I think maybe the idea was to market it more as a race than as a reality show like some of the previous Eco-Challenges were made to be, but in doing so a lot of the real-life suffering, drama, and triumphs that are inevitably a part of any expedition race were lost. I think the public would have been more drawn into the race if more of it had been shown. And I promise there was a lot more going on out there than just what was shown of Team MPGear.

I think covering it either purely as a race or purely as a “reality show” would be equally disappointing. I think PQ tried to provide a little of both, but the end result was a bit lackluster. I’m probably a little biased, but I’ve heard from several others that also thought it was terrible.

It was an amazing race, but I guess no one but the participants and volunteers will ever know that.