Friday, July 26, 2013

Two-a-Days

The sun begins to set,
But not all expectations have been met, 
Already passed one test on the day,
Unsatisfied, your green shoes say "come on don't delay."

You march outside,
Take a few short strides.
Every ounce of your body cries "no,"
But your mind replies "just go." 

As you begin to run,
Knocking the miles off one by one,
You experience something strangely beautiful,
About seeing your so called limit,
But pushing through to finally reach the summit. 

That my friends is the beauty of the two-a-day.
While you know the order may be tall, 
You know it will all be worth it in the fall. 

Tuesday, July 23, 2013

Gear Guide

This post will be directed towards those of you looking to start running maybe to get in shape for swimsuit season or to begin your 16-week build towards the fall season of marathons. Unlike sports such as hockey, tennis, cycling, etc., running has a relatively low start-up cost. Sure like any other sport if your looking to be an elite runner your costs will be higher. For example, for me, currently running 110 miles (180 kilometers) a week shoes must be purchased much more frequently, and therefore the cost can exceed close to 1000$ a year in just shoes. Then add on nutrition stuff like gels for those long runs (GU Roctane are about 4$ a piece), gps watches (250$+), apparel for running seven days a week (plus three to four two-a-days a week), plus race registration fees (approx. 125$ for marathons, and 60-70$ for half), and overall you get a pretty big bill in the end. Still though, this total is nothing in comparison to some other sports like anything containing a horse (equestrian, polo, modern pentathlon), or a boat, or even triathlon where wetsuits cost an arm and a leg and TT bikes can cost more than some cars. Anyways, the point is while it costs alot of money as well as time to be an elite runner, for those of you looking to run for pleasure, or to get into shape, or looking to start simple with dreams of someday stepping up a notch to competitive racing, the start-up cost isn't much. Really all you need is a pair of shoes. "But wait," you ask,"which shoes should I wear, can i just wear the pair of old sneakers I have in the closet which I played tennis in back in the 80s." Well, the answer is, while nothing is stopping you from wearing those, you must understand that running shoes have come a long way especially in the last 2-3 years or so, and if you want to enjoy running injury free for a long time it's best to go to your local running room or running free and pick up a pair. But not just any pair. Here is a list of shoes that I recommend either from training in them or by trying them on, and a few that I haven't worn but based on lots of research I feel I could still recommend them. Remember to try them on as everybody's foot shape, and preference is different (this is why I tried to review as many brands as possible since some people will fit into one brand better than others).

This is the new Gel-Cumulus 15 from Asics. This shoe is the baby brother of the Gel-Nimbus but still offers a plush ride. The shoe weighs in at 11.6 ounces in a men's size 9 and the heel-to-toe offset is 11mm (btw this mean that the heel sit 11mm higher than the toe). If your looking for a shoe which offers lots of protection from the road this would be the one. I wore the Cumulus 14s for my long runs last summer. If your looking to go fast, the cumulus, or the nimbus for that matter, is not the shoe for you. It's got quite a bulky feel and not much flex to the shoe. However, if your not looking to break any WRs and want a shoe that is loaded with padding and top of the line technology like a personal heel fit (2 layers of memory foam which mold to your foot to give a personalized feel) this is the shoe for you. If your wondering why not get the nimbus if it's just the cushioned form of the nimbus: reason number 1 -  price. The cumulus is expensive on its own at 150$, but the nimbus is 190$.

Next in the list is the brand new Adizero Boston 4 from adidas. Now while I prefer the adios (for racing) or the adizero tempo for training because it's just that little bit lighter, for newer runner I suggest the boston 4. Weighing in at 9.5 ounces for a men's size 9, the boston 4 is categorized as a lightweight trainer. The heel-to-toe offset is 23-11 for a 12 mm drop. The adizero line of shoes in general will provide alot of spring to your stride due to the adiprene cushioning built into the forefoot. This version is basically the exact same as the boston 3 - so if the 3 is cheaper buy it instead. According to adidas the only difference is a slightly wider toe-box to give a more natural feel to your run. In my opinion, what set adidas apart from the competition is the continental rubber on the sole. This provides an incredible amount of grip, which is not only paramount on those days where the road is a little damp (raining) but most importantly it is what you need when your running at high speeds like on race day (which is why I run in the adios for tempo runs and races).


Pretty excited to review this brand new offering from Saucony - the Cortana 3. The Cortana is basically a luxury kinvara. With the same 4mm heel-to-toe offset seen in the kinvaras no doubt the cortana's are built for a midfoot stride, and therefore help to promote an efficient, faster runner. They are also built on the same platform as the kinvaras: the powergrid base, and what sets the cortana apart from the kinvara is a extensive amount of what saucony calls iBR+ (or injection blown rubber) to provide a plush and smooth ride. Yes this does make it slightly heavier than the kinvara weighing just over 9 ounces for a men's size nine (which is very light considering it would be categorized as a high mileage trainer). The cortana also comes with a medial post for added support to those who pronate when they run - most runners especially newer runners who have not built a high efficient stride yet. The main drawback, and what is holding me back from just running over to my local running room for a pair, is the PRICE. At the running room a pair of these will cost your 179.99$ plus tax - so over 200 bucks...YIKES. This doesn't make much sense to me since, "Sure they are built to last perhaps 100 miles longer (if that) which if we do the math is approximately 25% more than the kinvaras for 39% more money.


Now for you beginner runners this may seem a little off the wall suggested such a low profile shoe like the Brooks Pure Connect. However, I believe that if there is a time to build an efficient stride it would be before you have built up bad habits into your running style. Think about it, wouldn't it be a lot easier to learn how to run with a quick toe-off, good posture, and an overall easy running economy before you have been running the same way for 20 or 30 years. Plus as a beginner runner you aren't putting in high mileage sufficient to cause overuse injuries like stress fractures that people worry about when thinking about trying minimal shoes. Anyways if there is any shoe to help you enjoy running while developing the muscles of your lower legs and your intrinsic muscles of the foot, it is this one. Like I mentioned before the Pure Connect (pictured here is the first generation since it is what I used to run in, now the second generation is available) is very low profile with the heel sitting only 25mm above the ground and the forefoot 21mm for a low 4mm drop. Although brooks has developed the Pure series of shoes to go into the minimal category I believe the Pure Connect strike the perfect balance between minimalism and the cushioning required for road running. The rounded heel and rubber pods (BioMoGo material to give a springy responsive ride) on the sole promote an efficient midfoot strike and the split toe (between the thumb and index toe) helps runners to utilize there powerful yet often underused muscles of the foot, ultimately to give runners a quick and powerful toe-off. I wore these shoes for my first Scotiabank Marathon in 2011 when I cut 17 minutes off my previous PR, then went through two pairs over the next 6.5 months, including another half-marathon. One of my favorite features of the shoe is the Nav Band which wraps over your instep to provide a snug yet extremely comfortable fit. Amazing to think there is so much technology in such a lightweight (7.7 ounce) package, as well as an affordable one - the new ones are only 90$.

This is the Saucony Mirage 3. The Mirage is part of the Natural Series of shoes along with the Kinvara and Virrata. Essentially Saucony has taken the frame (same flex-film overlays) of a kinvara and added a beveled heel and plastic piece in the arch to give runners some stability - good for beginner runners. Still a lightweight shoe at 8.9 ounces, and one with a fast feel since it has a 4mm drop. Another difference to note between the kinvaras and the mirage is the mirage has a slightly wider toe box. So if you have wide feet and the kinvara seems too snug try the Mirage instead. Or if you already have the kinvaras you could still add the mirage into your rotation possibly as your long run shoe. As much as I love my kinvaras I must admit that at the end of a 34km run or a two-a-day totaling 38 kilometers my lower-legs and feet start to really "feel" the asphalt.

If your looking for a shoe with similar cushioning to the cumulus or the nimbus but with more flexibility due to deeper flex grooves the Nike Air Pegasus 29 is for you (the 30 is now available). This shoe is perfect for high mileage training - known to more experienced runners as a workhorse shoe. It has a decoupled crash pad at the heel to reduce impact shock and an arch bridge to reduce pronation. The flex grooves are strategically placed to provide a smooth transition from impact to toe-off. The Pegasus is a legend in the shoe world providing a great fit and high quality materials (Men size 9 just over 10 ounces) to give an extremely comfortable fit. You can run in the Pegasus with the confidence of knowing the London 2012 Double-Gold Medalist Mo Farah trains in them.

Hope these reviews give you an idea of what to look for when buying your first or even your 50th pair of running shoes. Like I said before running shoe technology has come a long way in recent years - heck just looking as my Asics Gt-2150s which I used when training for cross-country and track in high school (I raced in Adidas Cosmos Track Spikes - suffice it to say I love adidas shoes as I've been racing in them for now 7 going on 8 years), I can't believe how heavy and non-breathable the overlays used to be, as well as how stiff the shoes were. Because of this take advantage of the advancements in shoe technology, splurge and buy a new pair of shoes before taking on a running program. If just buying a new shoe can help you enjoy your run more by either going faster than you ever have before, or by relieving past injuries brought on by old running shoes why not spend the money. And if you can't find a way to justify spending the money think about the money you will save later in life because you maintained a healthy lifestyle by running.

Tuesday, July 9, 2013

Nutrition Advice

Today, I came across a article on Runner's World that cited a study about the daily energy expenditure of Rift Valley teens in Kenya. For years it has been said that the reason Kenyans and the rest of the Horn of Africa have dominated middle and long distance running (i.e marathons) is because of what has been called the early training theory. Basically, since Kenyan kids have to run on average 7.5 kilometers to and from school each day they are setting themselves up to become world-class athletes, versus the Western world who drive everywhere and complain at the thought of even running or performing any physical activity from leisure purposes. In this recent study, the early training theory was proven to be wrong since those who ran the most as youths did not have the highest VO2 max scores. Before I even get to what the rest of the study said (which you can find here on pubmed: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3689839/ ) let me just jump in and comment on this so-called revelation. First off, Vo2 max while being an excellent indication to one's cardiovascular fitness it has not been fully proven to be the best predictor of competitive performance. Many studies such as: Hagberg, J. M. (1984). Physiological implications of the lactate threshold. International Journal of Sports Medicine, 5, 106-109, state that LT (lactate threshold) is a better predictor of performance. Secondly, regardless of whether LT or VO2max is the better predictor of future success, let's make sure  we stress that these number are only predictors. It would be so close-minded to only look at the numbers, as they are so many other factors to what make a world-class athletes who he or she is. Take for example the NHL draft, during the scouting combine there are individuals who stand out in terms of there performance on the power output test, or the VO2max, or the vertical jump, but let's ask how does that translate into there play on the ice. Well, Ryan Tesink scored the highest VO2 max in the 2011 draft with 67.9 but where is he now - o ya he got drafted in the 6th round (so clearly gm's didn't think much of him) and did not make the NHL roster. Just to let you know where I'm coming from, I don't hold any bias against the LT and VO2 max tests as on the VO2 max I scored in the mid-70s and on the Lactate threshold test my lactate number actually got lower as the test progressed (so I wasn't producing any lactate despite running at a speed well over 18km/h on the treadmill with incline). 

The study went on to say that it seems the real reason behind Kenyan success is their extremely low body weight. Looking at 14 world class marathoners with an average time of 2:07 they had a average height (in inches) to weight (in lbs) ratio of 0.53 (higher number the better). Now, it's not that I don't agree that a lower body weight will equate to a faster race time (less mass to carry over the distance, plus less overall stress on joints), and keeping in mind that I don't have any bias against low body weight as my height to weight ratio is currently 0.554, should we really be encouraging the general population to drop to 120 lbs. This is a quote from the article on Runner's world, "If you're anywhere around .5, you might have a chance against the Kenyans. If you're in the .4xs or .3xs, you should challenge them to a bowling match." Sure most of the population could afford to lose some weight as obesity in kids especially is on the rise, but it doesn't have to be as extreme as becoming as thin as the Kenyans. For the general population, I say forget about what the scale says, being fit and healthy is must more important than any number, and most of all feeling good about your body. I see all sorts of shapes and sizes at my races, and let me tell you whatever your weight is if you finish 42.2 kilometers I don't think you need to worry about being a couple of pounds overweight.