Kids and Minimalist Running Shoes: Great Running Times Feature

If you’re looking for information on whether to consider putting your kids into minimalist running shoe (and my answer would be yes, you should consider it, as well as lots of barefoot time), you need look no further than the September 2012 issue of Running Times Magazine.

In the issue of RT, my good friends Jay Dicharry (a physical therapist) and Mark Cucuzzella (a family doctor) wrote a multifaced guide to minimalist running as it relates to the little ones. There are multiple articles, a guide to what to look for in kids shoes, reviews of selected minimalist kids shoes (I’ll share some of my thoughts on these soon – you can find some of my top picks in the Zappos ad in my right sidebar), and even a summary of a pilot study on the effects of footwear on the running gait of children.

I highly recommend that you check it out (full text of the article is available on-line) – here’s an excerpt from one Dicharry’s opening article about childhood foot development and how it relates to footwear:

In essence, we still practice the ancient art of Chinese foot-binding. Glance over at the foot of any newborn and you'll notice that the widest part of their foot is not the ball of the foot but their toes. Then take a look down at your foot. You'll likely notice that these feet don't look the same. The narrow toe boxes in athletic and fashion footwear have changed the alignment of our feet, just like braces once did to legs. We've been taught that a pointy shoe looks normal — both fashionable and fast — and we're willing to change our foot shape to accommodate this look.

In addition to shoes that bind the foot and change its shape, we typically put kids in shoes that are too stiff to allow natural flexion. Typical running shoes are produced for a man weighing 150-plus pounds and a woman weighing 130 pounds or more. Many of the same materials are used in the construction of shoes meant for kids who weigh a fraction as much. And the smaller physical size means that all that stitching and those material attachment points net a much stiffer shoe than the adult versions. Kids don't have the physical weight to flex these shoes.

Is this a problem? Yes. The foot is designed to move. And that movement helps strengthen the muscles, which in turn impact the changes in our natural alignment throughout our development.

I've had the privilege of working with a number of runners who grew up sans shoes, and their feet are different from ours. As adults, these runners don't rely on stiff shoes because they've developed strong, stiff feet. Years of barefoot movement have resulted in robust muscular attachments to anchor and stabilize the foot. The average Western foot — having grown up dependent on shoes — pales in comparison.

Read More

Kids and Minimalist Running Shoes: Great Running Times Feature

If you’re looking for information on whether to consider putting your kids into minimalist running shoe (and my answer would be yes, you should consider it, as well as lots of barefoot time), you need look no further than the September 2012 issue of Running Times Magazine.

In the issue of RT, my good friends Jay Dicharry (a physical therapist) and Mark Cucuzzella (a family doctor) wrote a multifaced guide to minimalist running as it relates to the little ones. There are multiple articles, a guide to what to look for in kids shoes, reviews of selected minimalist kids shoes (I’ll share some of my thoughts on these soon – you can find some of my top picks in the Zappos ad in my right sidebar), and even a summary of a pilot study on the effects of footwear on the running gait of children.

I highly recommend that you check it out (full text of the article is available on-line) – here’s an excerpt from one Dicharry’s opening article about childhood foot development and how it relates to footwear:

In essence, we still practice the ancient art of Chinese foot-binding. Glance over at the foot of any newborn and you'll notice that the widest part of their foot is not the ball of the foot but their toes. Then take a look down at your foot. You'll likely notice that these feet don't look the same. The narrow toe boxes in athletic and fashion footwear have changed the alignment of our feet, just like braces once did to legs. We've been taught that a pointy shoe looks normal — both fashionable and fast — and we're willing to change our foot shape to accommodate this look.

In addition to shoes that bind the foot and change its shape, we typically put kids in shoes that are too stiff to allow natural flexion. Typical running shoes are produced for a man weighing 150-plus pounds and a woman weighing 130 pounds or more. Many of the same materials are used in the construction of shoes meant for kids who weigh a fraction as much. And the smaller physical size means that all that stitching and those material attachment points net a much stiffer shoe than the adult versions. Kids don't have the physical weight to flex these shoes.

Is this a problem? Yes. The foot is designed to move. And that movement helps strengthen the muscles, which in turn impact the changes in our natural alignment throughout our development.

I've had the privilege of working with a number of runners who grew up sans shoes, and their feet are different from ours. As adults, these runners don't rely on stiff shoes because they've developed strong, stiff feet. Years of barefoot movement have resulted in robust muscular attachments to anchor and stabilize the foot. The average Western foot — having grown up dependent on shoes — pales in comparison.

Read More

Why heel-toe drop can mean different things for different running shoes and different foot strikes

A measurement that has come to dominate a lot of discussion about running shoes these days is heel-toe drop. Simply defined, heel-toe drop (or simply “drop”) is the difference in outsole+midsole+insole height (known as stack height) between the heel and forefoot of the shoe. In other words, it compares the amount of “stuff” between your foot and the ground in the heel and forefoot. Yet another way to look at it is that in a 4mm drop shoe, the heel would sit 4mm above the level of the forefoot.

Several weeks ago my friend Kurt, who is part of the design team for the Go series at Skechers, asked me a question that got me thinking. He asked if I though that a cushioned zero drop shoe could actually be functionally a negative drop shoe for a heel striker (i.e., heel thinner than the forefoot in this case).

The thinking here is that a heel striker lands on the heel first and compresses it (making it thinner), then rolls forward onto an uncompressed forefoot (which is thicker) - watch this pressure tracing of a heel strike from Daniel Lieberman’s lab to get an idea of how things changes as the foot rolls forward. This thinking seems logical, and is of interest because it could have the consequence of increasing work on the calf and Achilles tendon.

You might say that people shouldn’t be heel striking in zero drop shoes. The reality, however, is that a lot of people do. I have plenty of video of people heel striking even in Vibram Fivefingers, which have very little cushion at all (see below).

Now, suppose someone does adopt a forefoot strike in a cushioned zero drop shoe – here’s another pressure tracing showing a forefoot strike from Daniel Lieberman’s lab. This runner would initially compress the forefoot, then settle briefly back a bit onto an uncompressed heel, and finally roll back forward. Functionally, this zero drop shoe might be behaving a bit like one with a small heel lift.

Following both of these previous examples, a midfoot striker (here’s the midfoot strike pressure tracing) who lands in a cushioned zero drop shoe contacts along roughly the entire lateral margin of the foot/shoe, and thus might compress both heel and forefoot simultaneously. In this case, the shoe functionally behaves like a zero drop shoe.

The above suggests to me is that in a cushioned shoe, functional drop may vary somewhat with foot strike type. Furthermore, this variation will likely be exaggerated as stack height and cushioning softness increase (with an extreme example being the Hokas at the top of this post – they probably behave functionally as a zero or negative drop shoe for a heel striker since they are soft and low-drop to begin with). The more squish on initial contact, the less precise the static drop data will be for a heel or forefoot striker. In contrast, if you run in a shoe with no (or very little) cushion like the Inov8 Bare-X 180, Altra Samson, or a huarache sandal the shoe will behave the same way no matter which way you run since there is very little material to compress.

I wrote this post because I’ve noticed that heel-toe-drop is not a perfect determinant for whether or not I will like running in a given shoe. For example, one of my favorite shoes right now is the adidas Gazelle, which at 6mm drop has a higher differential than most other shoes I run in. However, because it has a firm forefoot with quite a bit of outsole rubber, it actually doesn’t feel a whole lot different on the run than the softer, zero drop Saucony Hattori LC.

I can tolerate a bit higher drop in a shoe if the sole is on the soft side since I’m less likely to forefoot strike in it, and the heel will compress a bit if I land slightly back toward that end. I’m not a big fan of extremely firm shoes unless they have a low stack height. It also might explain why it’s a lot harder on the calves to run with a forefoot strike in a shoe that is zero drop with no cushion since it forces the calf to work through its full range of motion – I like barefoot-style shoes for shorter runs, but don’t use them for runs much longer than about 5 miles for this reason. Conversely, I can run in zero drop, cushioned for long distances without issue.

I guess the point is that the way a running shoe will work for a given person depends on a lot more than just one single factor. Choosing a shoe because it has a medial post, or a certain cushioning technology, or now because it has a particular heel-toe-drop oversimplifies things, and a lot of considerations need to be made when looking for the right shoe for you. Drop is important, and I do feel like it affects how my feet and legs behave when I run, but interpreting the significance of a given drop number probably also requires thinking about things like foot strike type, stack height, and cushioning firmness. As always, things may be more complex than they seem!

Read More

Why heel-toe drop can mean different things for different running shoes and different foot strikes

A measurement that has come to dominate a lot of discussion about running shoes these days is heel-toe drop. Simply defined, heel-toe drop (or simply “drop”) is the difference in outsole+midsole+insole height (known as stack height) between the heel and forefoot of the shoe. In other words, it compares the amount of “stuff” between your foot and the ground in the heel and forefoot. Yet another way to look at it is that in a 4mm drop shoe, the heel would sit 4mm above the level of the forefoot.

Several weeks ago my friend Kurt, who is part of the design team for the Go series at Skechers, asked me a question that got me thinking. He asked if I though that a cushioned zero drop shoe could actually be functionally a negative drop shoe for a heel striker (i.e., heel thinner than the forefoot in this case).

The thinking here is that a heel striker lands on the heel first and compresses it (making it thinner), then rolls forward onto an uncompressed forefoot (which is thicker) - watch this pressure tracing of a heel strike from Daniel Lieberman’s lab to get an idea of how things changes as the foot rolls forward. This thinking seems logical, and is of interest because it could have the consequence of increasing work on the calf and Achilles tendon.

You might say that people shouldn’t be heel striking in zero drop shoes. The reality, however, is that a lot of people do. I have plenty of video of people heel striking even in Vibram Fivefingers, which have very little cushion at all (see below).

Now, suppose someone does adopt a forefoot strike in a cushioned zero drop shoe – here’s another pressure tracing showing a forefoot strike from Daniel Lieberman’s lab. This runner would initially compress the forefoot, then settle briefly back a bit onto an uncompressed heel, and finally roll back forward. Functionally, this zero drop shoe might be behaving a bit like one with a small heel lift.

Following both of these previous examples, a midfoot striker (here’s the midfoot strike pressure tracing) who lands in a cushioned zero drop shoe contacts along roughly the entire lateral margin of the foot/shoe, and thus might compress both heel and forefoot simultaneously. In this case, the shoe functionally behaves like a zero drop shoe.

The above suggests to me is that in a cushioned shoe, functional drop may vary somewhat with foot strike type. Furthermore, this variation will likely be exaggerated as stack height and cushioning softness increase (with an extreme example being the Hokas at the top of this post – they probably behave functionally as a zero or negative drop shoe for a heel striker since they are soft and low-drop to begin with). The more squish on initial contact, the less precise the static drop data will be for a heel or forefoot striker. In contrast, if you run in a shoe with no (or very little) cushion like the Inov8 Bare-X 180, Altra Samson, or a huarache sandal the shoe will behave the same way no matter which way you run since there is very little material to compress.

I wrote this post because I’ve noticed that heel-toe-drop is not a perfect determinant for whether or not I will like running in a given shoe. For example, one of my favorite shoes right now is the adidas Gazelle, which at 6mm drop has a higher differential than most other shoes I run in. However, because it has a firm forefoot with quite a bit of outsole rubber, it actually doesn’t feel a whole lot different on the run than the softer, zero drop Saucony Hattori LC.

I can tolerate a bit higher drop in a shoe if the sole is on the soft side since I’m less likely to forefoot strike in it, and the heel will compress a bit if I land slightly back toward that end. I’m not a big fan of extremely firm shoes unless they have a low stack height. It also might explain why it’s a lot harder on the calves to run with a forefoot strike in a shoe that is zero drop with no cushion since it forces the calf to work through its full range of motion – I like barefoot-style shoes for shorter runs, but don’t use them for runs much longer than about 5 miles for this reason. Conversely, I can run in zero drop, cushioned for long distances without issue.

I guess the point is that the way a running shoe will work for a given person depends on a lot more than just one single factor. Choosing a shoe because it has a medial post, or a certain cushioning technology, or now because it has a particular heel-toe-drop oversimplifies things, and a lot of considerations need to be made when looking for the right shoe for you. Drop is important, and I do feel like it affects how my feet and legs behave when I run, but interpreting the significance of a given drop number probably also requires thinking about things like foot strike type, stack height, and cushioning firmness. As always, things may be more complex than they seem!

Read More

Leisure Trends Group Releases June 2012 Run Specialty Retail Sales Report

In addition to being a shoe addict, I also like observing sales trends in specialty running stores. My go-to source for this info is Leisure Trends Group, and earlier this month they released their report for June 2012. Here’s an excerpt:

Sales of all running shoes (road, race and trail) reached $53M in June, 15% above June 2011. Road running shoes, with $50M, also gained 15%. All three running shoe categories (motion control, stability and neutral/cushion) posted dollar growth this month. Stability shoes jumped 12%, neutral cushion another 21%. Even motion control shoes eked out a 1% gain, the second straight month of increased sales for the category. Although all three categories were up, Neutral/cushion shoes increased their pace in the race to the top, just barely outselling stability shoes for the third straight month. Still, the top five best selling shoes this month were all stability models (Brooks Adrenaline men’s and women’s, Asics 2170 men’s and women’s and Saucony Progrid Guide 5, women’s)

Trail runners were ahead of June 2011 by 8%; year-to-date sales were 15% above the same period in 2011.

Minimalist shoes outpaced traditional models at retail for yet again. All minimalist running shoes pulled in $6M, up 41% from June 2011. So far this year, minimalist accounted for $31M in dollar sales.

The gist is that running shoe sales were all around strong, with neutral cushion shoes (21%) and minimalist shoes (41%) posting the biggest increases in sales over numbers from June 2011. I’m not sure how they define minimalist shoes as a category, but these numbers would indicate that they are about 10% of the specialty running market. Interesting that despite the continued strong performance of the “neutral cushioned” category, the top five selling shoes are all stability shoes (though I must admit that I have put about 50 miles on the Saucony Guide 5 and it’s a pretty solid shoe at 8mm drop!).

To read the full report, visit Leisure Trends Group. 

Read More

Leisure Trends Group Releases June 2012 Run Specialty Retail Sales Report

In addition to being a shoe addict, I also like observing sales trends in specialty running stores. My go-to source for this info is Leisure Trends Group, and earlier this month they released their report for June 2012. Here’s an excerpt:

Sales of all running shoes (road, race and trail) reached $53M in June, 15% above June 2011. Road running shoes, with $50M, also gained 15%. All three running shoe categories (motion control, stability and neutral/cushion) posted dollar growth this month. Stability shoes jumped 12%, neutral cushion another 21%. Even motion control shoes eked out a 1% gain, the second straight month of increased sales for the category. Although all three categories were up, Neutral/cushion shoes increased their pace in the race to the top, just barely outselling stability shoes for the third straight month. Still, the top five best selling shoes this month were all stability models (Brooks Adrenaline men’s and women’s, Asics 2170 men’s and women’s and Saucony Progrid Guide 5, women’s)

Trail runners were ahead of June 2011 by 8%; year-to-date sales were 15% above the same period in 2011.

Minimalist shoes outpaced traditional models at retail for yet again. All minimalist running shoes pulled in $6M, up 41% from June 2011. So far this year, minimalist accounted for $31M in dollar sales.

The gist is that running shoe sales were all around strong, with neutral cushion shoes (21%) and minimalist shoes (41%) posting the biggest increases in sales over numbers from June 2011. I’m not sure how they define minimalist shoes as a category, but these numbers would indicate that they are about 10% of the specialty running market. Interesting that despite the continued strong performance of the “neutral cushioned” category, the top five selling shoes are all stability shoes (though I must admit that I have put about 50 miles on the Saucony Guide 5 and it’s a pretty solid shoe at 8mm drop!).

To read the full report, visit Leisure Trends Group. 

Read More

New Balance MT10v2, MO80, and 1210 Trail Shoes and MR10v2 Road Shoe Preview Videos from Running Warehouse

Earlier this month Running Warehouse posted preview videos of three new trail shoes set to be released for Spring 2013.

First, the Minimus Trail (MT10) gets an update which includes aspects of both the upper and sole. Sounds like they addressed the tendency of the upper to soak up water like a sponge, though I’m surprised to see the forefoot band still present – hopefully they loosened it up a bit.

Next is the NB Outdoor 80. The 80 is part of the Minimus collection and looks to have a much more rugged sole than the other Mimimus trail shoes – looks luggy and might be a good option for winter running.

The NB 1210 is billed as an ultramarathon shoe. It's not part of the Minimus collection, and has what appears to be a very beefy sole (don't know the drop data). Makes me wonder if they are going after the Hoka One One market with this one:

Finally, the shoe that excites me the most is the New Balance Minimus Road MR10v2. I was not a big fan of the original MR10 (too firm and stiff), and am happy to see that v2 of this shoe is completely redesigned from the bottom up. This shoe also proves that New Balance really likes hexagons...

Read More

New Balance MT10v2, MO80, and 1210 Trail Shoes and MR10v2 Road Shoe Preview Videos from Running Warehouse

Earlier this month Running Warehouse posted preview videos of three new trail shoes set to be released for Spring 2013.

First, the Minimus Trail (MT10) gets an update which includes aspects of both the upper and sole. Sounds like they addressed the tendency of the upper to soak up water like a sponge, though I’m surprised to see the forefoot band still present – hopefully they loosened it up a bit.

Next is the NB Outdoor 80. The 80 is part of the Minimus collection and looks to have a much more rugged sole than the other Mimimus trail shoes – looks luggy and might be a good option for winter running.

The NB 1210 is billed as an ultramarathon shoe. It's not part of the Minimus collection, and has what appears to be a very beefy sole (don't know the drop data). Makes me wonder if they are going after the Hoka One One market with this one:

Finally, the shoe that excites me the most is the New Balance Minimus Road MR10v2. I was not a big fan of the original MR10 (too firm and stiff), and am happy to see that v2 of this shoe is completely redesigned from the bottom up. This shoe also proves that New Balance really likes hexagons...

Read More

Brooks PureDrift Preview Video from Running Warehouse

Just came across a preview video for the forthcoming Brooks Pure Drift on Running Warehouse – looks like a promising shoe, particularly curious about the insole construction!

Read More

Brooks PureDrift Preview Video from Running Warehouse

Just came across a preview video for the forthcoming Brooks Pure Drift on Running Warehouse – looks like a promising shoe, particularly curious about the insole construction!

Read More

Merrell Mix Master 2 Trail Running Shoe Review

Last December I wrote a first impression review of the Merrell Mix Master trail shoe. My thoughts on the shoe at the time were positive, but shortly after I wrote it the Mix Master started to disappear from on-line shoe stores. I was a bit puzzled, but soon found out that there had been a material issue with the upper – it was tearing frequently and causing a lot of returns. Rather than continuing to sell a lemon, Merrell did the right thing and pulled the shoe from the market, and set on redesigning the upper to improve durability.

The Mix Master 2 came out this summer (disclosure: the pair reviewed here was a media sample provided free of charge by Merrell), and aside from the new upper material it’s pretty much the same shoe I reviewed last December. As such, I’ll try to be brief since most of what I wrote in the previous review applies to this shoe as well.

First and foremost, Merrell has succeeded in fixing the upper issue with the original Mix Master. I’ve run over 40 miles on the Mix Master 2’s and have had no durability issues. In fact, the MM2 has come to be my favorite lightweight trail shoe for the reasons I’ll outline below.

My favorite thing about the Mix Master 2 is the fit – like the Merrell Barefoot shoes it feels as if it was made specifically for my foot shape. The heel and midfoot are snug but not constricting, and the forefoot is plenty roomy for me. I get no hotspots from this shoe, even when sockless, which is a big plus. A big improvement over the Merrell Barefoot shoes is that the ankle collar in the Mix Master is cushioned, so it does not dig into the skin over my Achilles. The upper drains very well – it did not get waterlogged the one time I ran through a stream in it.

The sole of the Mix Master is well-cushioned but firm – this is not a springy shoe. Stack heights reported on Running Warehouse are 16mm heel, 12mm forefoot (weight comes in at under 10oz), so it’s a reasonably close-to-the-ground ride. Despite have a full-length, lugged rubber outsole and a rock plate, it’s a pretty flexible shoe. The lugs provide reasonable traction (no slippage as I have experience in the Brooks Grit), but the thin sole will allow you to feel rocks underfoot (though the presence of the rock plate means no sharp pain or serious bruising as experienced in a shoe like the NB Minimus Trail).

I’ve used the Mix Master over quite a variety of terrain, from rooty trails, to roads, to gravel road, to a rugged section of the VT100 race course, and it has handled all very well. It’s a solid hybrid shoe that can handle both roads and most trail conditions very well (maybe not so great for mud with the low lugs, but haven’t tried it for that).

I can honestly say that as I plan to run a few trail ultras next year (looking for a new challenge!), the Mix Master 2 would be the early frontrunner to be the shoe on my feet. I’ve enjoyed every mile that I’ve put on them so far, and give them my highest recommendation! In fact, my wife was recently in need of a trail shoe, and given all of the options out there, I bought her a pair of the women’s Mix Master Glide – she’s a tough critic, but so far she seems to be enjoying them (and I haven’t been yelled at about the shoe choice!).

For more additional commentary, I’ll refer you back to my original Mix Master review since it mostly applies, and also check out my hard-core trail running buddy Nate Sanel’s review of the Mix Master 2.

For more information, you can check out the Mix Master 2 on Merrell.com. They also have an Aeroblock version and a waterproof light hiking boot (which I also have, but have not tried yet).

The Merrell Mix Master 2 can be purchased at Running Warehouse.

Read More

Merrell Mix Master 2 Trail Running Shoe Review

Last December I wrote a first impression review of the Merrell Mix Master trail shoe. My thoughts on the shoe at the time were positive, but shortly after I wrote it the Mix Master started to disappear from on-line shoe stores. I was a bit puzzled, but soon found out that there had been a material issue with the upper – it was tearing frequently and causing a lot of returns. Rather than continuing to sell a lemon, Merrell did the right thing and pulled the shoe from the market, and set on redesigning the upper to improve durability.

The Mix Master 2 came out this summer (disclosure: the pair reviewed here was a media sample provided free of charge by Merrell), and aside from the new upper material it’s pretty much the same shoe I reviewed last December. As such, I’ll try to be brief since most of what I wrote in the previous review applies to this shoe as well.

First and foremost, Merrell has succeeded in fixing the upper issue with the original Mix Master. I’ve run over 40 miles on the Mix Master 2’s and have had no durability issues. In fact, the MM2 has come to be my favorite lightweight trail shoe for the reasons I’ll outline below.

My favorite thing about the Mix Master 2 is the fit – like the Merrell Barefoot shoes it feels as if it was made specifically for my foot shape. The heel and midfoot are snug but not constricting, and the forefoot is plenty roomy for me. I get no hotspots from this shoe, even when sockless, which is a big plus. A big improvement over the Merrell Barefoot shoes is that the ankle collar in the Mix Master is cushioned, so it does not dig into the skin over my Achilles. The upper drains very well – it did not get waterlogged the one time I ran through a stream in it.

The sole of the Mix Master is well-cushioned but firm – this is not a springy shoe. Stack heights reported on Running Warehouse are 16mm heel, 12mm forefoot (weight comes in at under 10oz), so it’s a reasonably close-to-the-ground ride. Despite have a full-length, lugged rubber outsole and a rock plate, it’s a pretty flexible shoe. The lugs provide reasonable traction (no slippage as I have experience in the Brooks Grit), but the thin sole will allow you to feel rocks underfoot (though the presence of the rock plate means no sharp pain or serious bruising as experienced in a shoe like the NB Minimus Trail).

I’ve used the Mix Master over quite a variety of terrain, from rooty trails, to roads, to gravel road, to a rugged section of the VT100 race course, and it has handled all very well. It’s a solid hybrid shoe that can handle both roads and most trail conditions very well (maybe not so great for mud with the low lugs, but haven’t tried it for that).

I can honestly say that as I plan to run a few trail ultras next year (looking for a new challenge!), the Mix Master 2 would be the early frontrunner to be the shoe on my feet. I’ve enjoyed every mile that I’ve put on them so far, and give them my highest recommendation! In fact, my wife was recently in need of a trail shoe, and given all of the options out there, I bought her a pair of the women’s Mix Master Glide – she’s a tough critic, but so far she seems to be enjoying them (and I haven’t been yelled at about the shoe choice!).

For more additional commentary, I’ll refer you back to my original Mix Master review since it mostly applies, and also check out my hard-core trail running buddy Nate Sanel’s review of the Mix Master 2.

For more information, you can check out the Mix Master 2 on Merrell.com. They also have an Aeroblock version and a waterproof light hiking boot (which I also have, but have not tried yet).

The Merrell Mix Master 2 can be purchased at Running Warehouse.

Read More

adidas adipure Gazelle Review: Very Impressive “Natural Running” Shoe

A few weeks ago I wrote a post introducing adidas’ “natural running” adipure line of shoes, and included some thoughts on the adipure Adapt, which looks and feels pretty much like a water sock. I liked the feel of the Adapt, but from an aesthetic standpoint it was severely lacking.

However, I had high hopes for the other two shoes in the adipure line: the adidas adipure Gazelle in particular looked like my kind of shoe. Last week adidas sent me a pair of the Gazelles to try out(disclosure: these were free samples for review purposes), and my overall experience so far has been phenomenal.

I’ve run two solid runs in the Gazelles, one a 10 mile interval workout, and the other a 7 mile easy run, both on asphalt (Update: now have 50+ miles on these and still loving them, durability has been great so far). The feel underfoot is very similar to the Adapts, so I feel pretty comfortable commenting on them even with limited mileage (and I couldn’t wait, loving this shoe too much!).

My first thought upon putting the Gazelles on my feet was the they were insanely comfortable. The footbed is glued down (but removable with some effort) and lightly cushioned, and feels great under a bare foot. But, where this shoe really shines is the upper. It’s made of the same stretchy, spandexy (is that a word?) material that composes the entire upper of the Adapt, and is extremely comfortable against the foot (feels kinda like a stretchy sock). There are, however, a number of differences between the uppers of the Gazelle and the Adapt. Obviously, the big difference is that the Gazelle has laces and a more traditional ankle cuff. The laces attach to the adidas stripes on each side, and this combination alone makes this look much more like a running shoe than the Adapt – I really like the look of the Gazelles.

The other big difference between the uppers of the Gazelle and Adapt is that the latter fits very tight. In  photos of the Adapt (e.g., at left), you’ll note that it’s almost always curled up from front to back. This is because the tight stretch of the upper pulls up on the front and back of the sole. I’m sure the reason for this is that it keeps the shoe securely attached to the foot since there are no laces, but I much prefer the fit of the lace-up Gazelle. The heel and midfoot fit snugly, and the forefoot of the Gazelle is spacious - there is much more give to the Gazelle upper in the forefoot compared to the Adapt(very easy to wiggle your toes around and up-down). The Gazelle also feels like it may run a bit longer than the Adapt, but I wear the same size 10 as I do in most other shoes.

As I mentioned above, the sole of the Gazelle feels very similar to that of the Adapt. Sole dimensions listed on Running Warehouse are 17mm heel, 11mm forefoot, and overall shoe weight for my size 10 is about 6oz (measured on my scale).

The sole feels incredibly good on the run – perfect softness for my taste, and it feels much less than 6mm drop. I’ve come to realize that the same drop in two shoes can feel very different depending on stack height, firmness, and so forth (a post on this coming soon I hope), and this one hits my sweet spot. The other thing I really like about the Gazelle sole is that it’s flexible longitudinally, from side to side, and torsionally – it moves really well with the foot and provides a really smooth transition from lateral to medial in a midfoot-forefoot landing. I expect that sole durability will be quite good given the amount of rubber present for such a light shoe – the lateral forefoot is well protected, as is the heel (that white patch on the heel is actually rubber) which should help light heel strikers and those who plan to walk around in the shoes (you be hard pressed not to wear them all day – they are that ridiculously comfortable).

If I have one complaint about the shoe, it’s that I can feel the stitching that attaches the stripes to the upper under my arch on one side. I was initially really concerned that this would dig into my skin and either rub it raw or cause a blister. However, it has not been an issue on the run, and it would be fairly easy to remove the offending stitch row without compromising the structure of the shoe.

If I had to compare the adidas Gazelle to another shoe, the closest I could come up with is the Saucony Hattori LC. Both are crazy comfortable shoes with a stretch upper, and both feel great on the run. If it weren’t for the hot spots I get in the Hattori’s under the balls behind my big toes I’d have a really tough time recommending one over the other, but given that issue for me the Gazelles are the more versatile shoe. Both are fantastic for walk around use and short runs, but I can do ten miles in the Gazelles (including speed work) with no problems and that tips the scales.

So, I highly recommend the adidas Gazelle – they have a real winner with this shoe!

The adidas Gazelle is available at Running Warehouse.

Read More

adidas adipure Gazelle Review: Very Impressive “Natural Running” Shoe

A few weeks ago I wrote a post introducing adidas’ “natural running” adipure line of shoes, and included some thoughts on the adipure Adapt, which looks and feels pretty much like a water sock. I liked the feel of the Adapt, but from an aesthetic standpoint it was severely lacking.

However, I had high hopes for the other two shoes in the adipure line: the adidas adipure Gazelle in particular looked like my kind of shoe. Last week adidas sent me a pair of the Gazelles to try out(disclosure: these were free samples for review purposes), and my overall experience so far has been phenomenal.

I’ve run two solid runs in the Gazelles, one a 10 mile interval workout, and the other a 7 mile easy run, both on asphalt (Update: now have 50+ miles on these and still loving them, durability has been great so far). The feel underfoot is very similar to the Adapts, so I feel pretty comfortable commenting on them even with limited mileage (and I couldn’t wait, loving this shoe too much!).

My first thought upon putting the Gazelles on my feet was the they were insanely comfortable. The footbed is glued down (but removable with some effort) and lightly cushioned, and feels great under a bare foot. But, where this shoe really shines is the upper. It’s made of the same stretchy, spandexy (is that a word?) material that composes the entire upper of the Adapt, and is extremely comfortable against the foot (feels kinda like a stretchy sock). There are, however, a number of differences between the uppers of the Gazelle and the Adapt. Obviously, the big difference is that the Gazelle has laces and a more traditional ankle cuff. The laces attach to the adidas stripes on each side, and this combination alone makes this look much more like a running shoe than the Adapt – I really like the look of the Gazelles.

The other big difference between the uppers of the Gazelle and Adapt is that the latter fits very tight. In  photos of the Adapt (e.g., at left), you’ll note that it’s almost always curled up from front to back. This is because the tight stretch of the upper pulls up on the front and back of the sole. I’m sure the reason for this is that it keeps the shoe securely attached to the foot since there are no laces, but I much prefer the fit of the lace-up Gazelle. The heel and midfoot fit snugly, and the forefoot of the Gazelle is spacious - there is much more give to the Gazelle upper in the forefoot compared to the Adapt(very easy to wiggle your toes around and up-down). The Gazelle also feels like it may run a bit longer than the Adapt, but I wear the same size 10 as I do in most other shoes.

As I mentioned above, the sole of the Gazelle feels very similar to that of the Adapt. Sole dimensions listed on Running Warehouse are 17mm heel, 11mm forefoot, and overall shoe weight for my size 10 is about 6oz (measured on my scale).

The sole feels incredibly good on the run – perfect softness for my taste, and it feels much less than 6mm drop. I’ve come to realize that the same drop in two shoes can feel very different depending on stack height, firmness, and so forth (a post on this coming soon I hope), and this one hits my sweet spot. The other thing I really like about the Gazelle sole is that it’s flexible longitudinally, from side to side, and torsionally – it moves really well with the foot and provides a really smooth transition from lateral to medial in a midfoot-forefoot landing. I expect that sole durability will be quite good given the amount of rubber present for such a light shoe – the lateral forefoot is well protected, as is the heel (that white patch on the heel is actually rubber) which should help light heel strikers and those who plan to walk around in the shoes (you be hard pressed not to wear them all day – they are that ridiculously comfortable).

If I have one complaint about the shoe, it’s that I can feel the stitching that attaches the stripes to the upper under my arch on one side. I was initially really concerned that this would dig into my skin and either rub it raw or cause a blister. However, it has not been an issue on the run, and it would be fairly easy to remove the offending stitch row without compromising the structure of the shoe.

If I had to compare the adidas Gazelle to another shoe, the closest I could come up with is the Saucony Hattori LC. Both are crazy comfortable shoes with a stretch upper, and both feel great on the run. If it weren’t for the hot spots I get in the Hattori’s under the balls behind my big toes I’d have a really tough time recommending one over the other, but given that issue for me the Gazelles are the more versatile shoe. Both are fantastic for walk around use and short runs, but I can do ten miles in the Gazelles (including speed work) with no problems and that tips the scales.

So, I highly recommend the adidas Gazelle – they have a real winner with this shoe!

The adidas Gazelle is available at Running Warehouse.

Read More

Study: Impact Loading Rate in Running Reduced by Adopting a Midfoot Strike

A new study was just published in the European Journal of Applied Physiology that showed that adopting a midfoot strike is an effective way to reduce the impact loading rate during running. The study was conducted by a group from France and Canada (including my friend Blaise Dubois) and is titled “Impact reduction during running: efficiency of simple acute interventions in recreational runners.”

Impact loading rate is essentially the speed at which ground impact is applied to the foot and leg at initial ground contact in running (for more in-depth discussion of this, read my “Facts on Foot Strike” article in Running Times), and it is of interest because previous research has suggested that high loading rates may increase the risk of stress fractures. What is interesting about this study is that they looked at the comparative effectiveness of several methods for reducing impact loading rate: 1) adopting a midfoot strike, 2) increasing stride rate by 10%, and 3) wearing racing flat shoes.

The authors took nine habitually heel striking runners and had them run trials on an instrumented treadmill in both typical running shoes at their normal cadence with their normal footstrike, and then compared impact results to those obtained under each of the three conditions mentioned above, or when all three were combined at the same time.

Results indicated that adopting a midfoot strike or a combination of all three experimental modifications together resulted in complete absence of an impact peak and a significantly reduced impact loading rate (by approximately 50%). Increasing cadence by 10% or switching to racing flats in isolation did not significantly alter impact variables. They also found that pre-contact muscular activity in the gastrocnemius (calf) was higher, and activity in the tibialis anterior was lower in the midfoot strike and combined treatments.

Based on these results, the authors conclude the following:

“Our results show that the most efficient solution for acutely reducing LR is to run with a MFS pattern ….The reduced LR observed in habitual forefoot strikers or resulting from a shift from a rearfoot strike to the MFS pattern in habitual rearfoot strikers as observed in the present study may be associated with a lower risk of running-related injuries, and especially tibial stress fractures (Daoud et al. 2012). However, it may also cause collateral noxious effects such as metatarsal stress injuries, shin splints, and muscular and tendon injuries if not carefully and progressively conducted (Lohman et al. 2011). Further studies should determine whether the transition towards a consistent MFS pattern in the long-term is possible and not associated with other risks of injuries such as Achilles tendinopathy.”

A couple of points warrant mention about the results. First, the authors point out that the racing flat they used for all subjects was lighter and less structured than the training shoe employed for the “normal” condition, but it actually had a 2mm greater heel-forefoot drop than the training shoe. As such, it was not “flatter” and thus may not be representative of how a racing flat with a lower ramp angle might affect the variables under consideration. Second, even though increasing cadence did not significantly reduce loading rate in this study, previous research has shown that increased cadence can reduce loading of the knee and hip joints. It’s important to keep in mind that loading rate is just one variable to consider when it comes to injuries, and it has been most closely linked to stress fracture risk. Thus, different injury types may respond best to different types of intervention.

I am left with a few questions, and I hope that I can get Blaise Dubois to drop by and answer them in the comments.

1) I’m curious, as I always am, how much inter-individual variation there was in response the the various treatments. In other words, did some people experienced markedly reduced loading rate via an increased cadence or a change in shoes?

2) Unlike this study, Chumanov et al. found significant changes in muscle activity when runners increased cadence by 10%. I’m wondering if the lack of change in the study discussed here might be related to the smaller sample size (9 vs. 45 runners).

The take home message would be that if you have a history of stress fractures, foot-strike modification might be one method to try, but any change must be gradual as altering foot strike can stress other tissues in new ways that they are not used to (e.g., foot, Achilles tendon.)

Read More

Study: Impact Loading Rate in Running Reduced by Adopting a Midfoot Strike

A new study was just published in the European Journal of Applied Physiology that showed that adopting a midfoot strike is an effective way to reduce the impact loading rate during running. The study was conducted by a group from France and Canada (including my friend Blaise Dubois) and is titled “Impact reduction during running: efficiency of simple acute interventions in recreational runners.”

Impact loading rate is essentially the speed at which ground impact is applied to the foot and leg at initial ground contact in running (for more in-depth discussion of this, read my “Facts on Foot Strike” article in Running Times), and it is of interest because previous research has suggested that high loading rates may increase the risk of stress fractures. What is interesting about this study is that they looked at the comparative effectiveness of several methods for reducing impact loading rate: 1) adopting a midfoot strike, 2) increasing stride rate by 10%, and 3) wearing racing flat shoes.

The authors took nine habitually heel striking runners and had them run trials on an instrumented treadmill in both typical running shoes at their normal cadence with their normal footstrike, and then compared impact results to those obtained under each of the three conditions mentioned above, or when all three were combined at the same time.

Results indicated that adopting a midfoot strike or a combination of all three experimental modifications together resulted in complete absence of an impact peak and a significantly reduced impact loading rate (by approximately 50%). Increasing cadence by 10% or switching to racing flats in isolation did not significantly alter impact variables. They also found that pre-contact muscular activity in the gastrocnemius (calf) was higher, and activity in the tibialis anterior was lower in the midfoot strike and combined treatments.

Based on these results, the authors conclude the following:

“Our results show that the most efficient solution for acutely reducing LR is to run with a MFS pattern ….The reduced LR observed in habitual forefoot strikers or resulting from a shift from a rearfoot strike to the MFS pattern in habitual rearfoot strikers as observed in the present study may be associated with a lower risk of running-related injuries, and especially tibial stress fractures (Daoud et al. 2012). However, it may also cause collateral noxious effects such as metatarsal stress injuries, shin splints, and muscular and tendon injuries if not carefully and progressively conducted (Lohman et al. 2011). Further studies should determine whether the transition towards a consistent MFS pattern in the long-term is possible and not associated with other risks of injuries such as Achilles tendinopathy.”

A couple of points warrant mention about the results. First, the authors point out that the racing flat they used for all subjects was lighter and less structured than the training shoe employed for the “normal” condition, but it actually had a 2mm greater heel-forefoot drop than the training shoe. As such, it was not “flatter” and thus may not be representative of how a racing flat with a lower ramp angle might affect the variables under consideration. Second, even though increasing cadence did not significantly reduce loading rate in this study, previous research has shown that increased cadence can reduce loading of the knee and hip joints. It’s important to keep in mind that loading rate is just one variable to consider when it comes to injuries, and it has been most closely linked to stress fracture risk. Thus, different injury types may respond best to different types of intervention.

I am left with a few questions, and I hope that I can get Blaise Dubois to drop by and answer them in the comments.

1) I’m curious, as I always am, how much inter-individual variation there was in response the the various treatments. In other words, did some people experienced markedly reduced loading rate via an increased cadence or a change in shoes?

2) Unlike this study, Chumanov et al. found significant changes in muscle activity when runners increased cadence by 10%. I’m wondering if the lack of change in the study discussed here might be related to the smaller sample size (9 vs. 45 runners).

The take home message would be that if you have a history of stress fractures, foot-strike modification might be one method to try, but any change must be gradual as altering foot strike can stress other tissues in new ways that they are not used to (e.g., foot, Achilles tendon.)

Read More

The Benefits of a Running Coach: My Experience So Far With Caleb Masland and Team Wicked Bonkproof

About a month ago I got a message on Twitter from a local runner in NH who was looking for a coach. I’ve been thinking about trying my hand at a bit of coaching, so I initially offered that I’d be willing to give it a try if they were up for working with someone with no formal coaching experience beyond snippets of advice provided in emails to readers of this blog. However, upon asking for details about this runner’s goals and ability (which we equal to or even a bit above above my own), it became clear that I might not be the best person for the job.

I’ve never worked with a coach myself, and in the past I’ve never even been particularly fond of formal training plans that you might find in a book or magazine. Given my time constraints and running style, I tend to just run by feel on a given day, and long runs and the occasional speed session were the extent of my quality workouts. However, I know a number of people who claim to have benefited from the structured oversight of training that a coach can provide, and I saw an opportunity for a new experiment (something I’m always on the lookout for!).

Over the past 3 years as a blogger I’ve come to know a number of runners who do on-line coaching. I’ve known one in particular, Caleb Masland, since the early days of dailymile.com, and we ran on a Ragnar Relay team together in January. Caleb is one of the most impressive runners I know, and has won numerous races at distances ranging up to the 50K. Caleb also coaches a number of my friends, so he was a natural choice – I shot him an email and asked if he’d be willing to coach our little crew from NH in preparation for the Smuttynose Half Marathon in late September. Caleb is slowly building his coaching stable (he has about 25 members of Team Wicked Bonkproof right now), and is hoping to grow his team and make coaching a more formal business going forward – he agreed to help us out, and I agreed to write about the experience.

I’m now about 4 weeks into training under Caleb’s tutelage. Overall, the experience has been fantastic! One of my fears about working with a coach is that I would feel compelled to get in a workout even if my body was telling me it needed a break. What I have found is that Caleb does a great job of building easy days and rest/XC days into his weekly programs, and provides the flexibility to shift workouts around as needed. His weekly programs (at least for me) are built around 3 quality runs per week (usually two speed/hill workouts and a long run), with 2-3 easy runs mixed in. He also includes strength routines, which I have been omitting so far since I do Taekwondo twice per week and don’t want to overload my legs (Taekwondo is a killer workout – great cross-training for running).

One of the things I have really enjoyed about working with Caleb is the variety of speedwork that he includes. Speedwork is something I really enjoy, but for me historically consisted of mostly 200-400m repeats and tempo runs. Caleb now has me doing long intervals (which are tough!), hill sprints, and strides (usually as part of a warmup) – these are challenging workouts, but in a good way.

As far as improving my fitness, running a few races will be the true test, but I ran more miles in July than in any other month recorded in my log back to 2007 (170+ miles), and I’ve dropped about 8 pounds of bodyweight since early June, so I’m certainly feeling more fit (intense speedwork really seems to burn fat off my body quickly). Caleb has pushed my limits and training beyond what I would have done myself for a half-marathon, and it will be very interesting to see the results. I’ve also learned a lot about coaching so far by being coached, and this has gotten me thinking a lot about the future…

If you’re looking for a running coach, I highly recommend giving Caleb Masland a look. He’s building a website right now, but can be found on dailymile, Facebook, and Twitter. He’s a great guy, and would be more than happy to chat about options if you are interested.

Read More

The Benefits of a Running Coach: My Experience So Far With Caleb Masland and Team Wicked Bonkproof

About a month ago I got a message on Twitter from a local runner in NH who was looking for a coach. I’ve been thinking about trying my hand at a bit of coaching, so I initially offered that I’d be willing to give it a try if they were up for working with someone with no formal coaching experience beyond snippets of advice provided in emails to readers of this blog. However, upon asking for details about this runner’s goals and ability (which we equal to or even a bit above above my own), it became clear that I might not be the best person for the job.

I’ve never worked with a coach myself, and in the past I’ve never even been particularly fond of formal training plans that you might find in a book or magazine. Given my time constraints and running style, I tend to just run by feel on a given day, and long runs and the occasional speed session were the extent of my quality workouts. However, I know a number of people who claim to have benefited from the structured oversight of training that a coach can provide, and I saw an opportunity for a new experiment (something I’m always on the lookout for!).

Over the past 3 years as a blogger I’ve come to know a number of runners who do on-line coaching. I’ve known one in particular, Caleb Masland, since the early days of dailymile.com, and we ran on a Ragnar Relay team together in January. Caleb is one of the most impressive runners I know, and has won numerous races at distances ranging up to the 50K. Caleb also coaches a number of my friends, so he was a natural choice – I shot him an email and asked if he’d be willing to coach our little crew from NH in preparation for the Smuttynose Half Marathon in late September. Caleb is slowly building his coaching stable (he has about 25 members of Team Wicked Bonkproof right now), and is hoping to grow his team and make coaching a more formal business going forward – he agreed to help us out, and I agreed to write about the experience.

I’m now about 4 weeks into training under Caleb’s tutelage. Overall, the experience has been fantastic! One of my fears about working with a coach is that I would feel compelled to get in a workout even if my body was telling me it needed a break. What I have found is that Caleb does a great job of building easy days and rest/XC days into his weekly programs, and provides the flexibility to shift workouts around as needed. His weekly programs (at least for me) are built around 3 quality runs per week (usually two speed/hill workouts and a long run), with 2-3 easy runs mixed in. He also includes strength routines, which I have been omitting so far since I do Taekwondo twice per week and don’t want to overload my legs (Taekwondo is a killer workout – great cross-training for running).

One of the things I have really enjoyed about working with Caleb is the variety of speedwork that he includes. Speedwork is something I really enjoy, but for me historically consisted of mostly 200-400m repeats and tempo runs. Caleb now has me doing long intervals (which are tough!), hill sprints, and strides (usually as part of a warmup) – these are challenging workouts, but in a good way.

As far as improving my fitness, running a few races will be the true test, but I ran more miles in July than in any other month recorded in my log back to 2007 (170+ miles), and I’ve dropped about 8 pounds of bodyweight since early June, so I’m certainly feeling more fit (intense speedwork really seems to burn fat off my body quickly). Caleb has pushed my limits and training beyond what I would have done myself for a half-marathon, and it will be very interesting to see the results. I’ve also learned a lot about coaching so far by being coached, and this has gotten me thinking a lot about the future…

If you’re looking for a running coach, I highly recommend giving Caleb Masland a look. He’s building a website right now, but can be found on dailymile, Facebook, and Twitter. He’s a great guy, and would be more than happy to chat about options if you are interested.

Read More

Great 2013 Trail Running Shoe Roundup by Bryon Powell of iRunFar

Quick post to alert you to a fantastic article by Bryon Powell of iRunFar. Bryon attended the Outdoor Retailer Show and wrote up his thoughts (with photos!) on a wide range of trail shoes set to be released in the coming months (and a few road shoes – including the New Balance Minimus Hi-Rez).

In addition to highlighting a bunch of new models (including some very cool shoes from Pearl Izumi – see PI Trail N1 photo above by Bryon Powell), Bryon also touches on some updates to a few shoes that I have worn in the past six months. Most significant among these are a new, grippier outsole on the Brooks Pure Grit (hopefully will reduce wet-ground slippage), and a 1mm reduction in lateral sole thickness on the New Balance MT110.

I get asked frequently about the New Balance MT110, and yes, I have run in the shoe a number of times. However, I definitely feel a rather distinct thickening of the lateral sole in my pair, and it actually causes my feet to slant inward just standing in them on hard ground. After developing a mild case of posterior tibial tendonitis after a 10 mile trail run in the MT110’s, I shelved them and have not run in them since. Hopefully this will fix a big problem in what is an otherwise nice shoe.

Anyway, I highly recommend checking out Bryon’s trail shoe roundup – lots of great stuff coming for the trail crowd!

See also Sam Winebaum’s posts on the Pearl Izumi and Altra offerings.

Read More

Great 2013 Trail Running Shoe Roundup by Bryon Powell of iRunFar

Quick post to alert you to a fantastic article by Bryon Powell of iRunFar. Bryon attended the Outdoor Retailer Show and wrote up his thoughts (with photos!) on a wide range of trail shoes set to be released in the coming months (and a few road shoes – including the New Balance Minimus Hi-Rez).

In addition to highlighting a bunch of new models (including some very cool shoes from Pearl Izumi – see PI Trail N1 photo above by Bryon Powell), Bryon also touches on some updates to a few shoes that I have worn in the past six months. Most significant among these are a new, grippier outsole on the Brooks Pure Grit (hopefully will reduce wet-ground slippage), and a 1mm reduction in lateral sole thickness on the New Balance MT110.

I get asked frequently about the New Balance MT110, and yes, I have run in the shoe a number of times. However, I definitely feel a rather distinct thickening of the lateral sole in my pair, and it actually causes my feet to slant inward just standing in them on hard ground. After developing a mild case of posterior tibial tendonitis after a 10 mile trail run in the MT110’s, I shelved them and have not run in them since. Hopefully this will fix a big problem in what is an otherwise nice shoe.

Anyway, I highly recommend checking out Bryon’s trail shoe roundup – lots of great stuff coming for the trail crowd!

See also Sam Winebaum’s posts on the Pearl Izumi and Altra offerings.

Read More