by Austin Bonds (RunLore.weebly.com)

A week ago I was helping a man find some running shoes and noticed an older gentlemen slide into my peripheral vision. Since my head is usually turned downward as I tie laces countless times throughout the day, I glanced at his sneaks and observed that he had an older pair of shoes that were red and black with that iconic Swoosh. Though I don’t recall the model, he proceeded to tell me that his closet is full of Michael Jordan shoes. Speaking of which, The Cardboard Connection, like other websites devoted to number 23, has put together a visual history of Air Jordan shoes.

After leaving the store, I started thinking about that man’s shoes more and my mind wandered back into the days of middle school. As a burgeoning adolescent, the perception of being thought of as “cool” by my peers was constantly on my mind. We all wish to be liked and we all wish to be validated by our outward appearance. I can’t remember the shoes I wore at this time, but I do remember that the popular guys in my classes wore Air Jordan shoes, along with other emerging basketball stars at the time (e.g. Anfernee “Penny” Hardaway).

I remember pestering my mother to buy me some new shoes, shoes like my “friends” had, but like any wise mother she thought the cost was outrageously exorbitant; however, I persisted, and I even managed to earn some money by completing chores inside and outside the house. I didn’t purchase a pair of Air Jordan shoes, but I did acquire the Nike Air D.T. 4 Max worn by the talented Deion Sanders (who played professional football and baseball).

I wore Deion’s shoes to school proudly, but I still managed to receive some biting criticism from my “friends” who thought my new shoes were weird and inferior to their respective kicks. Thank God that middle school and high school are now over and comparisons like this about shoes are lost to the sands of time. And yet here I am again, surrounded by shoes anew as I work for a specialty running store. Thankfully, comparing my running shoes to others is now completely irrelevant; this is due to the fact that staying healthy and free of injury supersedes looking fashionable.

When I help people find new running shoes, I like to offer up this phrase as a guiding philosophy: “Form follows function.” In other words, how the shoe looks should always be secondary to how it feels. Unlike shoes worn by Michael Jordan or LeBron James or Stephen Curry, running shoes are usually not bought to garner comments of praise, though the designs continue to get better and more colorful. They are purchased to be beaten down on the roads and trashed on the trails. And then the process repeats again and again. Form follows function.

I don’t know of anyone who hasn’t wanted to fly like Michael at one point or another. You start to wonder if he has jet packs in those shoes of his. Spike Lee even asked the question. But as Jordan has pointed out in a very pointed ad, it was never the shoes. His success was based on many, many hours of practice. So it is with running. Practice builds strength, speed, and endurance. Practice improves form and lowers the risk of injury.

I suppose that a picture from a race is the closest that runners feel to flying. This snapshot is a reminder of a good moment in time. I’ve seen many race pictures of myself, both good and bad. The ones I like, as you may gather, are the ones with both feet off of the ground. I’m not barreling towards a rim like Michael to dunk a basketball, but I too am defying gravity for a fraction of a second as I feel fast and free.

Let me begin by saying I don’t race. I hate racing and always have. For one, I don’t have a competitive bone in my body (except when playing backgammon, or any game for that matter, with my husband). I just don’t thrive on the stress and anticipation of race day. The jittery feeling, instead of charging me up, fills me with unpleasant anxiety. And as I see it, why subject myself to something that causes me unnecessary suffering when I get so much joy from running in my typical Zen-like fashion. I don’t need to prove to myself that I can run faster or farther. I run to relieve stress and recharge my batteries, to be outside and blissfully alone, and to stay fit, healthy and happy. Racing brings me none of that.

So, when a few months ago I somehow got roped into doing Reach the Beach, a 208-mile relay run from Cannon Mountain to Hampton Beach (NH), I was more than a little nervous and a lot skeptical. I had never run more than 7 miles before (most of my runs this summer averaged 4 to 5 miles or less) and my total mileage for the race would be 12.7 (which was, I am ashamed to say, the shortest of my relay group). This meant I had to train! As in run a lot more miles in a short period of time. So, here is my other thing about running. While I love it, I get really bored after 5 miles or so and am ready to be done. The idea of running for more than an hour makes me antsy.

The other big fear I had about the race was the sleep deprivation. We would start from the mountain at 8:45AM on a Friday and not reach the beach until around 4:45 the following Saturday afternoon. I can go all day like the Energizer bunny (my best friend jokes that I have hyperactivity disorder without the attention deficit component), as long as I get a good night’s sleep. I do not function well without sleep! How was I going to run over half my miles after a sleepless night, my body already aching from the day’s previous run? What had I gotten myself into?

Well, after weeks of tormenting anticipation (ahem, see the first paragraph), race weekend finally came and went. The event was at once a little, and not at all, what I expected. This wasn’t a race about racing. It wasn’t about running fast to catch up to the guy (or cow…don’t ask) in front of you. It wasn’t about time at all, or winning (unless you were the crazy ultra runner dudes that blew us all away). It was about teamwork and camaraderie. It was about having fun. It was about enduring pain, hunger and sleeplessness together with a group of fabulous people. Don’t get me wrong, it was damn hard! That first “moderate” leg was actually 5.1 miles straight up! And that “easy” 4AM run was the longest 3.5 miles I have ever run. My van-stiffened, exhausted body protested every single step. As for my last 4.1 mile leg, I can’t say I remember much of it, just that I knew I had to complete it or the onus would fall on my like-wise depleted teammates.

This race was about challenging myself to do something out of my comfort zone and building lasting memories and relationships in the process. Would I do it again? Had I asked myself this in the wee hours that Saturday morning, the answer would have been “Hell No!” With a few weeks passed, however, the answer is now “HELL YES!” I’ve got a cow to catch!

This is a guest review by David Henry. David is a 29 year old husband and father of 3 young children. He has completed over 20 ultra marathon events as well as many other shorter races. Some of the notable races he has completed include The Pike’s Peak Marathon, the White River 50 mile, and the Speedgoat 50k. He has raced in diverse environments ranging from Alaska in winter to the Arizona desert. David appreciates well-crafted running shoes, mountain trails, and prefers a minimal and simple approach to his running.

I’ve long been searching for the running shoe that works in all situations: trail/road, training/racing, long runs/fast runs. This may be too much to ask from any one shoe and I do feel that, like good tools, shoes are designed and developed for a purpose and most often it’s a good idea to use them as such. However, “The Shoe” still exists in my head and I have not been able to shake off the impulse to pursue it in my short but full-on dive into the world of running these last four years.  As someone who trains and races on a variety of surfaces (many times in the same race), “The Shoe” is like the Holy Grail of running tools and so my search continues. The latest candidate is The North Face Ultra Trail.

Shoe Stats (via Running Warehouse):

Price: $110
Colorways: Grey/Red and Blue/Green
Weight: 8.9 oz/252 g in size 9 men’s; 10.9 oz/310 g in my size 13 men’s and 7.5 oz/210 g in size 8 for women
Stack Height: 21mm Heel; 14mm Forefoot

I used to be a gram counter and wouldn’t buy any shoes that weighed over 8 oz. However, I’ve come to realize that if I’m to be realistic, any trail shoe with all of the necessary features is more likely to be in the 8-9 oz range than sub 8 oz, so the Ultra Trail just sneaks into my current wearable zone at 8.9 oz.

Since I couldn’t get a response from The North Face on their design philosophy for the shoe and intended market (something I like to know as it helps understand the reason for some of the implemented features), I pulled this from the North Face website:

“Tackle long runs across rugged, uneven terrain with the protection of a durable, yet lightweight running shoe that’s finished with trail-specific Vibram® soles.  The Ultra Protection Series is designed to provide critical impact and element protection while eliminating excess weight for unrivaled performance on any terrain. FlashDry™ fibers in the lining and breathable Ultra Airmesh construction manage moisture to reduce chafing and hot spots. Pebax® CRADLE™ technology in the midsole offers exceptional energy return for a springy feel and impact protection for enhanced stability.”

Let’s see how it stacks up.

Appearance & Design

While the TNF Ultra Trail is not flashy, it is a clean shoe with track shoe styling in the upper. One thing I appreciate that seems to be somewhat uncommon in the marketplace today is the all black rubber on the outsole.  While this may not be as attractive to some who prefer as much color as possible, I have found that for some reason colored rubber doesn’t seem to perform or hold up as well as classic black. I’m sure someone in the rubber industry or a chemist could explain why (my guess is that colored rubber requires additives while black is more pure rubber), but this has been my experience.

With regard to design a few things stand out. Chief among these is the use of a full coverage outsole (a must in my book!). The Vibram rubber does not have any cutouts, pods, or crazy lug designs (raise your hand if you’ve ever tore off an outsole pod on a rocky trail!). The coffin shaped lugs are just about right as far as shape and depth go, and the rubber gives good traction on both loose and hard surfaces. I do, however, question the need to make them larger/smaller and more or less dense in different areas. TNF claims that they have done this to reflect the higher wear zones, but I generally feel that a more evenly spaced and uniform sized lug design works best for the most people possible.

One other unique design feature that deserves mention here is the Pebax plate that runs the full length of the shoe. The idea is that this plate should add some longitudinal stiffness and responsiveness to the shoe – a similar design element is found in many road racing flats (i.e. Adidas torsion system). While I didn’t have any specific problems with it, I didn’t feel that the shoe was particularly responsive either so this is a feature that I’m somewhat indifferent about (it either needs to be stiffer/snappier or they should take it out and save weight).

Materials & Construction

The mesh material in the upper is light, breathable, and soft on the foot. The lining of the heel collar is made from The North Face’s Flash Dry material (from the apparel side of their company) and is quite soft and feels nice. The overlays are all welded on and there is very little stitching on the shoe (the only stitching I noticed is located near the midfoot on the inside of the shoe).

The tongue is somewhat thin for a shoe of this bulk and could benefit from a touch more padding. It’s very much a racing flat type tongue, with maybe just a touch more padding than a typical flat. The midsole is traditional EVA and again the outsole is fantastic with full coverage Vibram rubber. I did notice two small holes, one on each shoe, in the mesh upper material (you can see one circled in red in the image above). This is after only 40 miles or so on what I would consider moderately technical trail for some portions. This may be cause for concern for long-term upper durability if you tend to include non-groomed trails or any off-trail running as part of your training.

Fit

The Ultra Trail fits quite well. Despite appearing to be narrow, it was surprisingly accommodating in the forefoot. The midfoot fits snug; medium to low volume, very much like a racing shoe, which I liked. The heel was pretty standard and it has a traditional heel counter. The shoe might run a bit long (maybe ¼ size), but given the lower volume fit, I felt it was just right. Not a lot of comfort features in the fit.

Ride

I tend to like a pretty firm ride for most shoes, not harsh but responsive. My general philosophy is that the more technical the trail, the lower and firmer the shoe should be (e.g., for steep up and down hills, side-hilling and for control and stability on rocks/roots/uneven ground). The Ultra Trail runs right in the middle of the road with regard to firmness or softness. It’s not as firm as most inov-8s or the New Balance MT101 or 110, but not as soft as most Altras or many more recent higher cushioned options.  I would say it runs most similar to the Pearl Izumi Trail N1 in terms of softness.

I generally liked the ride for use as a training shoe on all smoother surfaces, road or trail. The shoe has enough cushion for running very comfortably on pavement, but not too much to feel clunky. I didn’t notice the heel too much when on smooth surfaces (I usually prefer 0-6 mm drop and this comes in at 7-8 mm). The ride really starts to fall short for me when the trail steepens (particularly downhill) or especially when it gets rocky or uneven. That’s when the heft and chunk of the heel becomes particularly noticeable and the shoe started to push me around a bit more than I’d like. Additionally, the forefoot is too thin (14 mm) and too soft, and it does not provide sufficient protection from rocks on technical trail.

Overall Impression

The Ultra Trail is by far the best North Face shoe to hit the market. It has a lot going for it with a fantastic Vibram outsole, nice and secure upper with good room in the toe box for my medium/average width foot, and it provides a decent ride on smoother terrain.

Left to Right: PEarl Izumi EM Trail N1, TNF Ultra Trail, and New Balance MT101 – note the difference in sole midfoot width in the three shoes

The height and chunkiness of the heel, along with the lack of rock protection are what hold this shoe back for me on technical trails. It reminded me of a blend between the Pearl Izumi Trail N1 and the New Balance MT101, but with less rock protection than either. The PI is better cushioned and more protective, but not as nimble feeling. The NB MT101 is more nimble, but lacks the nice ride that the Ultra Trail has on smoother terrain. Unfortunately, it seems there must always be compromises, and the TNF Ultra Trail falls short of being the ideal do-everything, all-around shoe that I hoped it would be. But for pavement and smoother trails it is a solid choice.

The North Face Ultra Trail is available for purchase at Running Warehouse, Zappos, REI, and Amazon.

The items I’ll reviewing in this post are the Incendo Hoody, Tecto FL Hoody, Alpha SV Mitt, Accelero Tight, Cyclic Zip Neck, Accelero short, and the Poco Cap.  I’ve tested these items during short and long runs on my local mountains.  I’ve worn them primarily while running, but also for hiking, snowboarding, and snowshoeing.

Alpha SV Mitts

The Alpha SV mitts are designed for climbing and alpine use. They caught my attention for trail running because they utilize a “waterproof/breathable N80p-X GORE-TEX® fabric.”

When my hands get wet during long, cold, rainy runs, things can get pretty miserable. I’ve tried merino wool gloves, a wide range of typical performance running gloves, and overmitt shells. None of them really worked for very long in nasty weather.

Construction: The Alpha SVs are very well made. They have leather reinforcement areas on the palm and the back of the hand. The fleece liners are removable, and the design is seamless and perfectly tailored. Here’s how Arc’Teryx describes the liner: “The inner fleece liner is a hi-loft Polartec® Wind Pro® textile with high wind resistance, low stretch, exceptional warmth and breathability to keep working hands dry in cold environments.”  The liners go in and come out easily, and are attached below the wrist in the front and back with velcro. These liners were made to fit perfectly in the overmitts, and do so flawlessly. Take them out, and you notice how warm and well designed they are. As the mitts are designed to be used by climbers, they’re very well constructed, and able to take more of a beating than anything a runner would typically deliver.

Performance: I found the mitts very comfortable when running in rain and snow, from 20 degrees to 35 degrees.  Any warmer than 40 degrees and the mitts felt too hot with the liners in. Switching the liners out for a light merino wool glove worked well in that situation. The shells let the water bead off, and didn’t allow for an unpleasant soak through. At $225, they’re not cheap. But, having warm dry hands throughout a long wet run is something that doesn’t come easily.  If I was going to run an ultra through nasty weather, these babies would fit the bill perfectly.

Tecto FL Hoody

In order to keep my upper body dry on long, cold, wet runs, I tested the Tecto FL Hoody.

Construction: This jacket features Gore-Tex Active fabric, which is the lightest and most breathable Gore-Tex fabric you can find at this time. The jacket is designed for moving fast through wet weather. The Tecto FL is very light, weighing in at just over 10 ounces. To cut down on weight, the design team didn’t include pit vents or hand pockets. There’s one water sealed pocket on the upper left arm – just enough to carry a couple of cards and a key. The fit is trim, and the minimalist die-cut cuff tabs work beautifully to keep the elements out of the lower arm, while still offering adjustability.

If you visit the product page on the Arc’teryx site, they do a great job of describing how to keep the jacket (or any jacket of this sort) waterproofed. This is key, as many people spend more to get a waterproof yet breathable jacket, then neglect to care for it when the DWR finish begins to wear off.  Pay particular note to spots where there’s rubbing against a hydration vest, waist belt, or that sort of thing.  This jacket packs down nicely, and comes with a small stuff sack that, when stuffed, is about the size of a fist.

Performance: Given the generously sized hood, it’s clearly meant to accommodate a climbing or skiing helmet. This works well when hiking, but didn’t work out well for running. The extra material (that would fit snugly around a helmet) tends to bounce and cause a booming noise effect around the ears when running. That said, I tested the jacket because I was interested in the material, not so much the hood. Fortunately, the material works excellently in the rain. It’s surprisingly breathable – so much so that I wouldn’t even consider it a wind shell. But when it starts raining, the water rolls right off and continues to do so throughout the run. If worn with a Gore-Tex Active shelled hat, this would be an ideal combo.  This thing wears the way I’d want a running jacket to wear, and did a phenomenal job of keeping me dry during multi-hour long runs.

Incendo Hoody

Construction: Another jacket I tested was the Incendo Hoody. Unlike the more technical Tecto FL, this jacket is specifically designed for running, and as such has a hood made for the head vs. a helmet. It’s very light, and as such it’s very easy to pack it down and carry it in a hydration vest or pack. The jacket has a water resistant fabric that is perfect for short periods of rain, but doesn’t keep a runner dry for extended runs in a downpour.

Performance: The jacket felt nice and light. It breathed well, and was comfortable on windy, mildly rainy, or snowy days. Above 50 degrees, the jacket felt too warm to wear in light rain. The hood was comfortable, not too loud, but came down a little low over my forehead – interfering with my vision a bit. I think having a slightly rigid edge might help with this. It packs down nicely, and takes up very little room (and adds very little weight) in a hydration vest/pack.

Cyclic Zip Neck

Construction: For cold trail runs, I tried the Cyclic Zip Neck. This is a mid to heavy-weight running shirt, with a zipper coming down to the chest.  It offers thumb loops for a little extra warmth, but is comfortable to wear without using them.

My Impressions: I found this shirt to be very comfortable when paired with a jacket or vest when temperatures were in the 20s F, and by itself when the temps were in the 30s.  It managed perspiration well, and the material feels very durable.  A nice option for under a jacket like the Tecto FL, which was why I chose it.  No rubbing or other design concerns to report.

Accelero Tights

The running tights I tested were the Accelero Tights.  These feature a smooth finish fabric that makes them feel like satin.

Performance: These are, hands down, the most comfortable running tights I have ever owned. Some of my other running tights actually catch the hair on my legs from time to time and create a bit of friction. The Acceleros go on smooth and run even smoother. I find myself wanting to wear them even when I’d ordinarily go for a pair of shorts. They’re the perfect cool weather tight in my opinion. I like the integrated key pocket, and the mesh paneling on the back of the leg, the flat-locked seams and the stretchy feel. They felt great up to about 50 degrees, at which point they were a bit warm.

Accelero Shorts

Many of my friends like running tights for winter running, but prefer to wear shorts on top (read more on the great shorts over tights debate here).  For this reason, I tried out the Accelero shorts.  These are lightweight and breathable, medium to long in length, and have a DWR coating.  The DWR coating is nice, especially in the winter, as it helps to repel some of the rain, allowing the upper leg to stay drier longer. There’s also a side stash pocket with a zipper – a nice touch for a key and driver’s license.

Performance: These are very comfortable and don’t add much at all to the overall weight. There’s no binding or restrictive feeling when running.  I do sometimes find that I catch my thumb on the side pockets when running, especially on the flats and uphills sections. That said, the pockets were handy for stashing some running gloves in cool weather.

Poco Cap

I have been looking for a lightweight, packable hat. Accordingly, the Poco Cap appealed. It scrunches down to about half the size of my fist, yet maintains its shape nicely when unfurled. A breathable cap for sure, but the tight mesh weave actually gives it a warmer feel than would appear.

Performance: I find the Poco cap very comfortable, and prefer this hat on cool days without steady rain.  It offers up a bit of that city retro styling, which is new for me on the trail. I’ve been caught wearing this to the coffee shop after the run. Too comfortable to take off it seems.

Where to purchase: All of the gear in this review can be purchased at the Arc’Teryx website, at REI.com, or at Amazon.com. Purchases made via these links help keep reviews like this coming, thank you for your support!

1. “Do not go out too fast”- I did, hung with the lead pack for a while, and crashed and burned toward the end.

2. “Never race in new shoes”- I did (ran in shoes being review here), and I am glad I did – they performed extremely well.

Just to give you a bit of background: I am a rather recent convert to Vibram Fivefingers and a few other minimal shoes as well as racing flats – it has been two years since I ditched my prescription of molded insoles and running shoes from the traditional stability category.
While I have been very happy with my choice of road shoes, I have recently tried a wide variety of trail shoes and never really found the one I love. In the process, I have bled, been bruised, and I even sprained an ankle. I’ve also spent a bunch of money (yes, I do pay for my shoes including the one reviewed here). Here are some things that I’ve determined in my quest to find the perfect trail shoe:

• The Vibram FiveFingers Spyridon LS has been a great choice for easy runs on forgiving soft trails. It has amazing ground feel, but the fast pounding during a rocky and rooty trail half marathon turned the last miles into agony, and a ten mile race in the mud made me feel like every downhill might be my last.
• I have tried various shoes from Altra and Salomon, the Mizuno Ferus, and the Skechers GoBionic Trail and have not found what I was looking for.
• I have tried almost all models of the New Balance Trail Minimus line (the lasts are a good fit for my foot) from the MT00 to the MT1010 and the much heralded MT110 in between. I do like them except for the MT00 which has a horrible upper and such a sloppy fit that I rolled an ankle racing a 10K despite the minimum stack height. For me, all of the Minimuses (Minimi?) serve a purpose, and while the MT10 caters to shorter distances over kinder terrain, even the pros and endorsers like Anton Krupicka admit that for their longer races they will reach out to a “bit more shoe” as in the MT110.

This is where the B2R Trail Performance model comes in.

Here’s the short version of the B2R story: Ironman triathlete and entrepreneur Eric Swartz, who had suffered multiple injuries while training, called upon Eric Orton for help and they ended up founding the B2R company (Orton was Christopher McDougall’s coach in the book Born to Run: http://amzn.to/1gn3F2I).

The shoe is now available at www.born2run.com for $119 USD – this includes 2 pairs of white Tabi socks, and I also found black laces and an extra pair of insoles thrown in for good measure.

My Experience In The B2R Trail

I was very excited to receive the shoes right after they cleared customs at the US port of entry and had been quality-checked by the B2R crew. UPS delivered them last Thursday, and after a short test drive on a mini-trail by my house I decided to use them for the weekend’s 50K trail race – pretty much right out of the box.

In the photos above I have included a few side-by-side shots with the very popular New Balance MT110 (in this case the 2E width) – the B2R follows a similar traditional and rugged design (there is also a blue color option in the Men’s model). The workmanship is clean and solid, and there are no gimmicks or fashion frills found here. Even the laces feel substantial and never came untied over a 4.5 hour run.

The upper is composed of a layer of tightly woven mesh with bands of rubbery plastic overlays to add support. The toe-cap has a rubber bumper and is reinforced by a flexible overlay which extends backward through the flex points up to the midfoot and provides sidewall protection. The split toe is executed well and did not cause any chafing- the material in between the cleft seems to be different from the mesh upper, somewhat reminiscent of flexible neoprene. My size 12 weighs in at just under 9oz, and I measure a 17 mm stack height (w/o insole) along with an approximate zero drop.

Fit

I had a US12 and a US12.5 shipped to me and had a clear preference for the smaller size. As I typically wear US 12.5s and EUR 46s in Vibrams, I would reason that this shoe fits large and recommend you purchase 1/2 size smaller than your standard running shoe- this will give you a glove like feel.

The shoes can be worn barefoot with insoles in or out to customize your fit. I found the fit in the heel to be anywhere from medium to snug – the heel cup is cut relatively low so it will not cut into your Achilles. I did not experience any debris coming in through the back or any other part of the shoe.The shape of the last is slightly curved and there is no noticeable arch structure.

I would describe the midfoot region of the B2R Trail to possess medium to low volume – it wraps around the foot well and the overlays in the upper provide structure and some stability. The same overlay design is also used in the sidewalls and the toebox for protection and I have found this to be sufficiently protective when hitting rocks and roots.

The Tabi design will accommodate most widths and types of feet and provide a secure fit.

So what exactly is it that I am looking for in a trail shoe, and how does the B2R Trail fulfill my needs?

• Natural feel with proper protection that allows me to run rather than tiptoe around.
  I can start my runs with good form on the forefoot and high cadence to tread lightly in most environments. During long training runs and nearly all races, I will eventually start pounding the ground and require some cushioning. The B2R provided a nicely firm ride with good rock protection (not sure if there is an actual rock plate built-in) without compromising sensory feedback. This pair of shoes just felt very comfortable at all stages of the run.
• Flexibility to allow my foot to act naturally and be in touch with the ground.
  I was very surprised about the high level of pliability in the outsole considering the substantial lug profile – the trick seems to be the grey material in the midsole that flexes just great and lets the foot work naturally.
• Snug and secure fit that conforms to my foot without cramming my toes on downhills.
  This is really where the B2R shines – it provides a glove-like fit and the Tabi design delivers by capitalizing on the balance and anchoring function of the first toe – never have I experienced a safer foot plant on trails. Even when I started stumbling during the late stages of the race the shoes helped keep me from rolling an ankle or losing my footing.
• Wear it with or without socks for runs with water crossings.
  I ran the race sockless. The inside of the shoe has soft stitching (below the insole) and supple seams that did not give me any hotspots or chafing during four and a half hours of running. The upper material also sheds water well and dries pretty nicely.
• Good traction on the outsole and a lug design that sheds mud quickly.
  The race course provided a near perfect testing ground for a trail shoe (ever test drive a LandRover at the dealer’s mock offroad track?): the B2R Trail Performance mastered deep mud horse trails, slick rocks and roots, ankle-deep sand, slippery wooden bridges and steep downhills on sharp gravel. I was particularly impressed by the traction (beats the NB MT110 by a significant margin) and the way the lugs shed the mud – I got complimented for the cleanest soles at the finish, for what it’s worth…
• Versatility for different distances in training and racing
  I would categorize this model as a rock-solid, all around trail shoe fit for training and racing of all distances – based on the weight, of course, you might want to stick to a more race-specific type shoe for short cross-country races in easy terrain. The tough-mudders amongst the readers should also find the B2R very appealing.
• Moderate drop and stack height – not necessarily a model labeled minimalist
  Over the last 3 years I have experimented with minimalism and have run in many shoes that have been born from the movement. While you will certainly not see me in a Hoka-style shoe anytime soon, I have come to understand that there is so much more to a shoe than stack height and zero drop. The B2R trail performance fits the bill for most of my needs on the trail.

I have just added two more snow runs to my wear test. It is rare for South Carolina to get the 6+ inches of powder that we recently received, and icy sludge on the ground is a rare experience here. I very much enjoyed the traction and relative warmth and dryness of the B2R in these conditions.

Summarizing my experience, I’d like to say that all of the above features make this model a very good trail shoe. What singles the B2R Trail out against the competition in my very personal experience is the split toe: while I have found the tabi design very useful on road shoes (Vibram Bikila, Topo Athletic RR and Zemgear 365), I get an unprecedented level of connection with the ground in these shoes that has made trail running safer and more enjoyable for me. I have arrived in my search for the near perfect trail shoe and can focus on running again – after my experience during the final 10 miles of Saturday’s race, I am afraid, that is where the work must continue!

I invite you to discuss any comments and personal impressions about this shoe in the below forum, I will also be happy to answer any questions you might have.

The B2R Trail Performance shoe is available for purchase at the B2R website.

Obstacle course racing and I haven’t always seen eye to eye. I’d love to say that my passion for this sport was a “love at first barbed wire crawl”, but that would be a bold faced lie.

During the spring of 2010 I was a somewhat fanatical, amateur, road runner. I had stumbled across the sport of running just about 3 years earlier, as a means of weight loss after giving birth to my oldest son. Very quickly the weight loss sessions became viewed as training runs instead, and I progressed from local 5 & 10K races, to running half and full marathons. I had fallen in love with living a healthy, active lifestyle, and even more so, the wonderful endorphin driven runner’s high.

Over those next 3 years, after another baby, and countless miles and races under my belt, I decided it was time to get serious: I wanted to qualify for the Boston Marathon. So I did what any amateur runner with big dreams would do: I registered for a couple of marathons and hired a coach. Coach was a great guy, but he certainly meant business. There were weekly training goals to meet, miles to run, and paces to hit, with no excuses allowed (not even babies or college classes, believe me, I tried). Extracurricular activities, such as small local races signed up for on a whim, were absolutely frowned upon.

So needless to say, I didn’t tell Coach about this “Warrior Dash” race I had heard of.
While today it seems you cannot sign onto Facebook without seeing another friend post a muddy profile picture; back in 2010, mud runs and obstacle course races were still pretty unheard of. I honestly can’t remember how I stumbled upon the Warrior Dash website, but I was instantly enthralled with the idea of crawling around in the mud and climbing over walls. My inner 6 year old could not resist: I found a race location relatively close to my home at the time, and immediately registered.

As the mud run race day approached, I started second guessing my decision. Technically, I wouldn’t be missing any important long runs…as the Warrior Dash coincided with taper week. That’s right, I had a marathon, one I was hoping to set a big personal best at, the following weekend. The last thing I should have been doing that weekend was racing, never mind a race that required a two page injury waiver. But against my better judgment, and my fear of somehow falling while tackling the obstacle requiring me to jump over two rows of flaming logs, I went to Georgia and ran in the race.

And guess what? I fell after leaping over the second row of flaming logs.

I obviously didn’t see that dura-flame log that had rolled out of the fire. In fact, I had no idea what had even happened until weeks later, when the official race photos appeared in my email inbox (look to the right for the evidence). All I knew at the time was that I took off with all of my might to try and avoid the hot flames, and the next thing I knew I was on the ground. I fell, and I fell hard. I tried to stand back up and run the last 20 or so yards to the finish line, but every time I put pressure on my left leg, my ankle would completely give out. I hopped my way to the finish line, sat down on the ground, and thought to myself “Coach is gonna KILL me.”

The fall caused a second degree tear of my anterior talofibular ligament, resulting in a week on crutches, a couple of weeks in an air cast, and about six weeks without any running. Needless to say, I not only missed the marathon I had trained so hard for, but also missed another one I had registered for at the end of the summer. I was upset, Coach was disappointed (which as any parent can assure you, is code word for angry), and I fell into an “it really sucks to not be able to run” depression over the next few weeks.

Alas, time heals all wounds, and eventually I was back to logging countless road mile after mile. It would be a year before I ran another obstacle course race (you would think the first one would have been enough), and another two years before the passion really took hold. While I enjoyed each mud run more than the previous one, it is hard to pinpoint the moment I realized I’d much rather trek through the muddy forest carrying heavy objects instead of run Yasso 800’s, but I can tell you it came at the perfect time. While running had been something I ‘d enjoyed for years, I was finding myself becoming burnt out with training, as well as goals that were at that point in my life, unrealistic. I loved cross training, but was finding it incredibly hard to do the fun things while keeping my mileage up to meet my marathon training goals. I began to dread training, because it seemed I always fell short.

And then I moved to Vermont, which pretty much sealed the deal. After spending the first five years of my running career in a suburban area In South Carolina, it now felt like an utter shame to run on pavement, when I had countless mountains and trails to choose from. My race calendar began to change as well, from countless road races to trail races and more “fun” mud runs…and eventually to more intense, competitive obstacle course races. Last year my season culminated with the Spartan Ultra Beast, a 30 (ish) mile obstacle course race up and down the unrelenting face of Killington Mountain. And I have never loved running more than I do today.

Transitioning from a traditional road racer to an obstacle course racer has significantly increased my overall fitness levels. In the beginning, I quickly realized that while I was a decent, front-of-the-middle-of-the-pack runner, I was far from being considered in “great” shape. In obstacle racing, a Boston Qualifying time means nothing if you do not possess the upper body strength to pull yourself over a ten foot wall, or to the top of a muddy rope climb. On the other hand, upper body strength means nothing in this sport if you cannot run. Obstacle course racing, it seems, was a match made in my athletic heaven.

My training sessions are far more versatile now; runs are almost always taken off road in hopes of finding any and every natural obstacle to traverse. Intervals of body weight strength and plyometric exercises, such as pushups, squats, burpees, and lunges, are added into tempo runs and speed work. And the versatility is not just a fun change in pace, it is required: many of the obstacles and challenges in these types of races are kept secret until race day. You must be physically prepared for anything, and mentally prepared for the unexpected.

But without question, the best part of transitioning from a road racer to an obstacle course racer has been rekindling my passion for running and fitness. The necessity for my training to become more varied has allowed me to stop worrying about how many miles I ran that week, or if I hit every single prescribed pace. Instead of constantly focusing on increasing my running endurance, I am now allowed to focus on conditioning my whole self, physically and mentally. And let’s face it: who doesn’t love to crawl around in mud pits and leap over fire? It appeals to my inner child, and goes against everything my mom always told me not to do.

The obstacle course racing circuit is growing at an astronomical pace, and there are races for beginners to elites, and even some that contain no mud at all. My suggestion for anyone who is feeling burnt out by their running is to give an obstacle course race a try. You don’t have to become a muddy convert, or leave your Boston Marathon dreams behind, but I promise you will have fun.

Just be sure to warn your coach.

Heather Gannoe is an ACSM certified Health Fitness Specialist, new mud running addict, and running mom of two. Previously known around the web as Run Faster, Mommy! , Heather now blogs at www.relentlessforwardcommotion.com, and can be found on twitter @RunFasterMommy

Spartan Race – Free Entry Giveaway

In conjunction with this post, Spartan Race is also offering up a free race entry for readers. To enter, all you need to do is follow the directions in the Rafflecopter widget below:

Want to try your hand at an obstacle race? Now through the end of the year you can take 10% off a Spartan Race entry fee using the code FINISH10. You can find race locations and dates here.

Foot Function, Ankle Dorsiflexion, and Minimalism – Oh My!

By Greg Strosaker

Having missed several months of each of the last two years with injury, I’ve been seeking a way to become more injury resistant and therefore consistent in my training. While being able to PR each year in the marathon (down to a 2:52 in 2012), it feels like a constant game of catch-up when you have to start back from many weeks on the bench.

Driven also by a desire to get into more minimalist shoes, if only for their lighter weight, I’ve invested significantly in strength training and mobility work. But it seems I was never able to make a serious effort to get stronger and better where I needed to be, focusing instead on general core or hip work. Granted, this is a helpful part of the process, but maybe it’s best categorized as necessary but not sufficient.

So the past several months I’ve taken a more serious look at how to get more injury resistant through form improvements – moving to a softer/lighter/quicker landing, with my foot underneath the body instead of out ahead of it, resulting in less heel striking – and ultimately supported by appropriate footwear.

While some things came easily, specifically the gross motor gains (like a more stable core and stronger calves) and some form improvements (such as a faster stride rate) – all of which I discuss in a post on moving to a midfoot strike on Predawn Runner, longtime readers of Runblogger will be familiar with some of the fine motor and neuromuscular requirements that can ease a transition into more minimalist running. These include:

• A good sense of balance
• An ability to dorsiflex your ankle by at least 25 degrees (i.e., toes towards your knee)
• The ability to control your big toe (particularly as a way of reacting to being off-balance)

If you rush your path to minimalism and can’t meet these requirements, you are, per Physical Therapist Jay Dicharry’s thoughts and experience, more prone to injury. And maybe I was a bit guilty of that ahead of my second injury, Achilles tendinitis, which I suffered by moving to a lower heel-to-toe drop shoe too quickly.

I’m going to ignore the first point on balance and focus on the other two, largely because a timely diagnosis from my chiropractor and massage therapist pointed out the challenges I had in these areas. First, I was most definitely unable to isolate the flexor hallucis brevis – my big toe could not move independently of the others. This was true of the abductor hallucis as well – I couldn’t spread my big toe away from the others.

Second, I had limited mobility (for both dorsiflexion and plantarflexion) in my right ankle. This was probably the residual effect of playing a season of soccer my senior year on a sprain and never really focusing on getting it back to full strength, compounded the past season by trying to protect my Achilles tendon when running and not allowing my ankle to flex naturally.

While continuing to perform active isolated stretching (AIS) on a regular basis, with a particular focus on the ankle, I developed and refined routines targeting toe control and ankle mobility. Runners who also face these challenges may benefit as well from the routines laid out below.

Toe Mobility

The toe sequence laid out below draws on some exercises specified by my chiropractor (an Olympic-Trials Qualifier in the marathon) and a few other sources, and it takes around 5-10 minutes to execute, making it ideal for daily practice.

Child’s Pose – as opposed to the traditional child’s pose in yoga of where the foot is extended, this version involves tucking the feet under (note – it is also referred to as the toe squat). There is no need to bend forward as in the yoga form of child’s pose. Stay “squatting” for 2 minutes at first, and then work your way up to 5 minutes. This increases the flexibility of your big toe.

Toe Yoga – in a standing position (note – some recommend to sit but my opinion is that these exercises are best done standing, as I’m not aware of anyone who runs sitting down), alternately raise your big toe while pressing down your four other toes and hold for five seconds, and then reverse (press down with your big toe for five seconds while raising the four other toes). Repeat this seven times per foot (photo at left via Jay Dicharry).

Small (or Short) Foot – this exercise teaches you to independently address your abductor hallucis. While standing and using only this muscle (under the inner arch of your foot), spread your big toe away from the others (as seen in the photo to the right), while not flexing it up or down (this is the abduction motion). Hold for two seconds and then relax, and repeat 20 times on each foot.

Towel Scrunch – this exercise is widely prescribed when dealing with plantar fasciitis, but is also useful for improving foot strength and mobility. Stand with your foot on a towel lying flat on a hardwood or tile floor, and curl your toes to bunch the towel, then release. Repeat 15 times with each foot. Frankly, I find the towel optional for this exercise, you can get nearly the same effect by just flexing (curling) your toes as hard as you can.

Ankle Dorsiflexion

The entire Achilles routine from the Runners Connect Strength Training package incorporates a range of exercises to strengthen the muscles of your lower legs. However, there are a few exercises that specifically help with ankle dorsiflexion:

Knee and Toe Pointers – done with both legs simultaneously or one leg at a time, knee and toe pointers really work on your lower leg strength while dorsiflexing the ankle. While a good summary of the exercises can be found here, the basic steps are:

• Stand with your toes 2 inches from the wall
• Slowly (over a period of 5 seconds) bend your knees toward the wall while keeping your heels firmly planted.
• Gently contact the wall with your knees and hold for 2 seconds, then slowly raise to a standing position.
• Repeat this while angling the knees to the right (keeping your feet and upper body straight) and then to the left, for a total of seven reps in each direction (21 reps total).

As with most exercises, the single leg version is more challenging but therefore more beneficial, and it is done in the same manner (plus, it is a great exercise to work on balance). The toe pointers are similar except that you stand further from the wall and extend your foot forward, seeking to touch the wall with your toe as you bend your knee.

Shin Resistance Band Exercises – while shin strength is often overlooked (and easily developed through running – that’s why shin splints tend to go away with experience), it does play a role in ankle dorsiflexion as your tibialis anterior (among other anterior muscles) is involved in the movement. Using a resistance band, perform 15 reps of pulling it with your foot while flexing your ankle inward, outward, and up (dorsiflexion).

Squats – while not normally associated with lower leg strength, properly executed squats (keeping your heel on the ground) dorsiflex the ankle and thus improve its strength and mobility.

Form Thoughts

While these mobility gains may make improved running form possible, there is still the need to put it together on the run. The right thought for doing so comes from Caleb Masland, who simplifies it to “toe up, toe off”. While it’s a bit counterintuitive to think of dorsiflexing your ankle as you raise your foot (as it would seem to lead to a tendency to heel crash), the effect, in addition to shortening the moment arm of your lower leg and thus accelerating – if only slightly – your swing through, is to coil the foot for a maximum elastic rebound after foot strike. This then leads to a strong toe off and greater efficiency, no matter how exactly your foot strikes the ground.

On practicing this, I did find that it seemed to help promote a midfoot landing; the foot instinctively swung down to meet the ground. While it seems a harder strike than I’d like at this point, the reality is that the combination of the above efforts has completely mitigated the chronic calf pain I’d been experiencing (thus far), and this has led me to be able to integrate some more challenging workouts on a consistent basis. And this is the year I’m looking forward to the next step in a journey that has gone from “traditional” (12mm heel-to-toe drop) stability shoes to, at this point, cushioned low-drop transitional shoes.

For more on my story, read my post post on moving to a midfoot strike on Predawn Runner.

One of the great things about this blog is that through it I have met some very thoughtful people who share my deep fascination in the topics of running mechanics and shoe choice. I’ve recently started exchanging emails with a fellow runner from Sweden, Anders Torger, and he apparently has as big a shoe problem as I do (must be something about our Swedish genes). Like me, Anders is also a fan of filming himself in various shoes to see how they affect his running gait, and he has made some interesting observations about how his feet react in neutral cushioned shoes, particularly regarding pronation (the inward roll of the foot upon footstrike). I asked if he would be willing to write a post explaining his findings and his thoughts on the topic, and he happily agreed. Without further adieu, here’s what Anders has to say:

The popularity of traditional neutral lightweight running shoes is increasing as a result of the growing minimalist running movement. Other than for specific strength and form training many view barefoot running as a bit too extreme and use lightweight neutral shoes as an alternative – halfway to barefoot. The idea is that you get some cushioning but not too much, and by having it neutral you don’t support the foot with motion control features so you get some barefoot-style benefits too. The problem with this approach, however, is that for some people neutral cushioned shoes may not work as you would expect.


Straight to the point – in some case neutral shoes may exaggerate rearfoot pronation. This is little talked about, but among shoe experts quite well known. Supinators are suggested to use soft neutral shoes, why? Because that type of shoe typically exaggerates pronation so it may cancel out the supination.


Rearfoot pronation is a natural part of the foot’s own shock absorption mechanism and a motion control shoe does not try to stop it, but rather hinders it from becoming too extreme – what is commonly called over-pronation. Unfortunately, due to sloppy handling of the word in media and running stores, many have come to believe that pronation is bad and/or that motion control shoes aim to stop it from happening completely.


Below are photos of me running barefoot, in a stability/support shoe designed for moderate to severe overpronators (Asics Kayano) and in a neutral lightweight marathon racing shoe (Adidas Adizero Adios – see picture at top of post). The red lines show the lower leg position at initial contact, and the green at maximum pronation. For a layman a fully pronated foot may look a bit nasty, but I can assure you that in the barefoot case it is within normal range. As seen, the stability shoe does not significantly change my barefoot mechanics (at least in terms of pronation), normal stays normal. However, when using the “neutral” running shoe there is obvious over-pronation.





So why does the neutral shoe introduce over-pronation, which does not exist in my barefoot running gait? There are several contributing factors. Let us start with the midsole.


A neutral running shoe has a single-density midsole (i.e., the midsole cushioning is uniform in composition across the sole). Where is such a midsole easiest to compress? Same all over the midsole? No. If the pressure is in the middle there is midsole material all around it which will resist compression. However, if the pressure is near an edge of the midsole, there is only material on one side and thus the midsole will be easier to compress there. The farther away from the edge the more the midsole will resist. This means that the midsole will give the shoe a tendency to tilt if pressure is close to the edges. Not what you would consider “neutral,” right?





Next, we have properties of the running gait which make it difficult for the shoe to maintain stability. In running, the peak pressure towards the ground is about 2.7 times body weight (in walking it is about 1.5), which means that the foot must be planted close to the median plane so we don’t tip over. This means that the leg is leaning inwards, which in turn means that some of the force will be pointed sideways. This sideways force is absorbed by pronation, but will also press the foot towards the medial side of the shoe. If the fit of the shoe is insecure or the upper is weak, the foot can be pressed slightly off center and pressure comes nearer to the edges, causing the shoe to tilt. Even if the fit is secure, the pressure may during the support phase travel too close to the edge for the shoe to remain stable. If the shoe starts to tilt, the foot will follow searching for stability. This is natural and not due to lack of strength.


In the photo it can be seen that I turn the foot out laterally somewhat just before impact (nearly noone has “perfect” biomechanics such that the shoe is placed in exact direction of running). This offset may contribute to the foot being pressed off center.


Does this exaggeration of pronation happen to all people? No. Is it possible to predict? Not really. It is a dynamic process, and whether the shoe will tilt significantly or not will depend on how the pressure travels under the foot. It almost certainly will not look exactly the same in every runner. The only really safe way is to test yourself and see what happens in a given shoe.


I should also add that in some runners, rearfoot pronation can change depending on running speed, for example showing over-pronation at low speeds which disappears at race pace, probably due to changes in how the pressure travels.


As can be seen in the above photo, I land midfoot in shoes. Type of foot-strike may affect how the shoe behaves – most shoes are designed for a heel-strike, even lightweight racers. This could mean that some neutral shoes have a stronger tendency to cause over-pronation if you have a midfoot or forefoot strike rather than heel-strike, but more experiments are required to verify that.


Another question that arises is whether all neutral shoes behave the same way? No, at least not for me. Shoes with narrow, soft and thick midsoles have more tendency to tilt than shoes with wide, thin and firm midsoles, but fit and properties of the upper matter too. I tested several types of neutral shoes, and pronation was increased in them all, however some not as much as others. For example, the thin-soled Asics Piranha and the wide-soled Nike Lunar Racer shown in the photo below did not cause as much pronation. The worst was indeed the Adizero Adios, which does not have a particularly soft midsole but it is rather high and narrow. Unfortunately I have no photograph, but the Inov-8 F-lite 230 did show considerable over-pronation despite its wide base, probably due to a softer midsole and poor heel grip (I have a narrow heel).





A typical saying is that to use a neutral running shoe you need flawless biomechanics, or else you will over-pronate. I don’t think this is a fair way to put it. What you need are running mechanics that happen to provide an underfoot pressure path that is compatible with the inherently unstable platform that a cushioned shoe is. Defining functional gait as the range that happens to work with neutral cushioned shoes is not a good definition. Functional barefoot gait should be the reference. In other words, for many of us stability shoes are not needed to correct for our biomechanics, but rather to correct for problems introduced by cushioned shoe design itself.


There’s been lot of talk about over-pronation in this post. Let us look into why we care about that particular aspect of the gait.


Over the last several decades there has been a desire to find simple foot measurements that can predict injuries and then assign proper shoes to avoid them. Rearfoot pronation has become the main aspect that we look for. However, rather than using video and a treadmill, which can be cumbersome, we have tried to find static measurements on the feet that can predict if over-pronation will happen or not. The height of the medial arch (low, normal, high) is perhaps the most common (as exemplified by the “wet footprint test”). Unfortunately this method is not really reliable, which has been shown in study after study. My feet turn out neutral in these tests, but I still over-pronate in neutral running shoes.


On top of that, we know that some individuals handle over-pronation without injury. Haile Gebrselassie is the most well-known of those individuals. As it happens, he also uses the Adidas Adizero Adios and he over-pronates in them about as much as I do, which the video below demonstrates.





The narrator in the video insinuates that over-pronation is no problem as long as your core is strong and running technique is good. Additionally, he does not mention that Geb’s over-pronation is most likely an effect of the shoes, that is if he took them off and ran barefoot, he would not over-pronate. I haven’t seen Geb run barefoot so I don’t know this for sure though. If you have information on this, please post a comment.


Concerning why some can handle over-pronation and some get injured (like I did last year, despite decent technique and core strength, I’ve trained them both), we don’t really know. It could be just a matter of training, or you may need a special talent such as a super-flexible tibialis posterior.


The recent research paper “The effect of three different levels of footwear stability on pain outcomes in women runners: a randomised control trial” from the British Journal of Sports Medicine has caused a lot of buzz in the minimalist running community. The study used a static foot measurement method to determine degree of over-pronation in individual runners (Foot Posture Index in this case), and then assign neutral, stability and motion control shoes at random within each group to see if shoe type influenced injury susceptibility. It turned out that it did not work at all – motion control shoes fared poorly all around, neutral runners did better in stability shoes, and pronators did better in neutral shoes. However, the study lacks important information. We don’t know how good the static Foot Posture Index measure actually is at predicting pronation in these runners, so the result could have been vastly different if a dynamic method like videotaping runners on a treadmill was used instead. We simply don’t know what actual pronation was like in the shoes. In other words, the study could have just as easily demonstrated that Foot Posture Index is a bad way to assign shoes. Many have the gut feeling that it would not have been any different with a dynamic measurement method, but I personally do not dare to guess.


If I would guess a bit, I think that over-pronation is just one of many risk factors for getting an injury. Seen over a large group, over-pronation may be a much smaller risk factor than we have previously thought (Editor’s note: indeed, this has been suggested by respected experts in running biomechanics – see Nigg, 2001). That, combined with the fact that over-pronation in shoes is not easily predicted by a static test, could have contributed to the result of the BJSM study. Despite all of this, it would probably be unwise to say at this point that we can safely ignore over-pronation when we see it though.


Over-pronation can occur for a number of reasons. It could result from deformed feet, poor muscle strength or control, but also as demonstrated here it could simply be an effect of the cushioning in the shoe. It is said that a large proportion of runners over-pronate, numbers as large as 70% are often stated. However, it is difficult to know whether these estimates refer to overpronation in shoes or in the barefoot condition. Perhaps it is more likely to get injured if you don’t over-pronate barefoot but do it in shoes – the foot getting into a situation it is not used to.


Regarding how large “my group” is, that is those that do not over-pronate barefoot but typically do so in cushioned shoes, I don’t know. If 70% of runners overpronate, I would think that at least half of that group belongs to my group, but within that group the degree of over-pronation will vary, as will the tolerance of it. I don’t know of any actual study that has investigated this, so if any of the readers know please enlighten me in the comments.


What kind of shoe recommendations should we give to a runner then? If you ask a minimalist, you should go for a shoe that alters your barefoot mechanics as little as possible. Of course you will need a transition phase to restore foot function and strength if you have had supportive shoes earlier. Some therefore recommend a step-down approach, using less and less supportive shoes. However, as we see here a less supportive cushioned shoe may actually alter some aspects of barefoot mechanics more than a more supportive shoe. If you want to go minimalist towards uncushioned shoes it may be safer to go directly to them and adjust the dose instead. If you want to use neutral cushioned shoes, do test how they behave when you run. If exaggerated pronation shows up, be observant and use them carefully. Perhaps you are one of those that can handle over-pronation, perhaps not.


What should shoe manufacturers do then? As a complement to uncushioned minimalist shoes we are starting to see zero-drop (or near zero-drop) cushioned shoes, which are all neutral in the traditional sense, that is single-density midsole. These are marketed as not significantly altering barefoot gait, which may not be true since some of us put high pressure close to the edges of the shoe. Perhaps we need a new type of cushioned zero-drop (or near zero-drop) running shoe. A rim of slightly firmer midsole material on the medial side (i.e., a dual-density midsole) may help it become neutral in the true sense, by making the resulting firmness the same in the middle as close to the medial edge. Since pressure seems to most often build up on the medial side, another solution could be to make the sole slightly wider there, but that could affect the balance of the shoe. Compensating by making it wider also on the lateral side is not a good idea since initial ground contact is there and you will then accelarate pronation.


Another interesting aspect is the firmness of cushioning. A typical argument against uncushioned shoes is that asphalt and concrete are harder than natural materials. That is true. However, seldom do we point out that the cushioning in running shoes is actually much softer than most natural soils, so it is not really natural to the foot either. Using unnaturally soft cushioning for racing could be good for performance since it may delay fatigue in lower leg muscles important for propulsion. But should it be used in training and for recreational running? Perhaps not. Shoes with cushioning claiming to be minimalist should probably have firmer midsoles than is common today. Since firmer soles also are more stable (not only firmer but thinner too), the pronation-exaggarating problem may go away as well.



Runblogger Comments:


I find this type of stuff very interesting and thought provoking, and it makes me wonder whether slow-motion video gait analysis should be standard practice at shoe stores to determine suitability of a given shoe for a given person. According to Anders, video analysis is common practice in Sweden, but at least in my small experience here in the US pronation is still just as often determined by eyeballing a runner or by doing arch measurements (if it is determined at all – most big-box sporting goods stores don’t even address the issue). And it still is worth asking just how much of a problem pronation is to begin with?

I’ll finish by re-posting a few older videos of me showing my degree of pronation in various conditions, shod and unshod – they go in the following order – 1. stability shoe, 2. neutral racing shoe, 3. Vibram Fivefingers KSO, 4. barefoot. I’d love to hear your diagnosis!

Running in Asics Kayanos – Posterior View from Pete Larson on Vimeo.
Slow motion video of me running in Asics Kayanos, which are a high-end support/stability shoe. Video shot at 300 frames-per-second with a Casio Exilim EX-F1 camera. Courtesy of runblogger.com/.

Running in Nike Lunaracers – Posterior View from Pete Larson on Vimeo.
Slow motion video of me running in Nike Lunaracers, which are a neutral, lightweight racing shoe. Video shot at 300 frames-per-second with a Casio Exilim EX-F1 camera. Courtesy of https://runblogger.com/.

Running in Vibram Fivefingers – Posterior View from Pete Larson on Vimeo.
Slow motion video of me running in Vibram Fivefingers, which are a barefoot-like, lightweight, non-supportive shoe. Video shot at 300 frames-per-second with a Casio Exilim EX-F1 camera. Courtesy of https://runblogger.com/.

Running Barefoot – Posterior View from Pete Larson on Vimeo.
Slow motion video of me running barefoot on a treadmill. Video shot at 300 frames-per-second with a Casio Exilim EX-F1 camera. Courtesy of https://runblogger.com/.

I’ll let Greg tell his story in his own words, but I’ll add that if you want to read more about his running adventures, you can check out his blog, Predawn Runner.

Through maybe eight years total of cumulative running experience, and now seven marathons, I have actually never put much thought into my shoe selections. I’ve been lucky to be either blessed with mechanics that don’t care about shoe characteristics or to stumble upon shoes that worked with my gait and foot strike. Oh sure, I’d tried the wet-footprint approach to determine whether I needed neutral, control, or stability shoes and frankly found that I could make the answer whatever I wanted it to be. However, as I seek to up the intensity of my workouts in striving for a 3:00 Boston Marathon next year, I thought the time was right to finally let the experts weigh in. And, as with any new experience, I learned some things in the process.

First some history – I’d relied strictly on Asics Gel-1060’s (and its successors) and a couple of Nike models to get me to this point. I started my running with Asics – I mean who hasn’t heard about the Gel technology, and the 1060’s seemed like the “entry point” for the line. I didn’t think about the fact they are designed for stability, and whether I needed such stability or not. They worked fine, but were a little heavy. So, when I planned my first marathon (and the next several after that), I wanted a lighter shoe to provide a little boost, even if only mentally. I think they offered less stability than the Asics but with decent cushioning – but who knows. They worked, and I reached my first BQ in 2002 at Chicago using them.

When I returned to running last year after a 5 year hiatus, I owned the Nike+ system for the iPod so I naturally looked for a Nike shoe (and yes, I know you can get the Nike+ pod to work with other shoes, but who wants to go to that trouble). The first I tried were the Air Max Moto 6, and they felt fine, so I went with them. I wasn’t planning to get back to marathons at that time, but this ended up being a pretty good choice when I did – I gained my second BQ this spring in Cleveland using these sorta-neutral cushioned shoes. I did do a lot of damage to my pinky toenails though, so I had some concerns. And at 11.5 ozs., this is a pretty heavy shoe when every minute will matter. I also reverted to form and picked up some Asics GEL-1150’s as my second pair, and frankly found them uninspiring and thus limited to runs of 10 miles or less.

So that’s where I decided it was time to bring in the big guns. To do that, I went to Vertical Runner, a renowned running store in Hudson, Ohio (a suburb of Akron or Cleveland, depending on who you believe) whose employees always make a strong showing at local races. I wisely brought my Nike’s with me so they could see the wear patterns. I was lucky enough (I hope?) to work with Vince Rucci, the owner. His immediate impression on looking at my wear patterns and the way I stood was “this is too much shoe for you – you are extremely neutral.” Ignoring the fact that “extremely neutral” is a bit of an oxymoron, I was excited to learn this, because I heard “you can wear lighter shoes!” When he learned that I also wore the Asics Gel-1150’s, I feared he might slap me. “Way too much shoe” he said, “you don’t need that type of control because you most definitely don’t overpronate – I can also tell by your bowleggedness.”

I immediately began to think, “yes, Brooks Launch it is!” but he did restrain me a bit by steering me towards a few options that at least offered some cushioning. We started with the new Brooks Ghost 3. I liked them, but they were a bit heavy (weighing in at 11 ozs.) and a bit snug. We then tried the Mizuno Wave Rider 13. Definitely lighter, and I could particularly notice the reduced height of the heel. I had a similar impression with the Asics DS-Trainers. However, things still felt a bit snug, and when I mentioned my concerns about my toenails, Vince asked “was it your pinky?” Upon my “yes” answer, he responded, “well, then you need a wide shoe. “ If the shoes were too short, you’d have issues in your big toe. I had never considered this before. Wow, what a V8 moment (and you’d think my podiatrist would have pointed that out to me)!

So he brought out the Mizunos and Asics in 2E’s, and I gave them both another try. Now let me state my minor beef with Asics shoes – they don’t make the shoelaces long enough to double-knot, so I was constantly retying my Gel-1150’s. And yes, I know I could put in new laces, but see paragraph 3. When they both felt similar on a trial run, I went with the Mizunos. And, I’ll be honest, I liked the way they looked.

So, here are the impressions after around 30 miles on the Mizunos – what a contrast to my previous shoes. You can absolutely feel the road in these – in fact, I feel like I’m gripping the road as I run. Like many things in life however, this strength may be also be their greatest weakness – I’m concerned how they will feel at the marathon distance. So I’m going to build up the distance slowly, using them for only stepback long runs, speedwork, and easy runs initially (still mixing in with the Nike’s).

I also noticed some changes in how my muscles felt during training – there was more soreness on the first run in my inner shins and hamstrings, which I presume is due to getting used to a slight change in my gait (but may have been from the tail end of a tough running week). The shin issues have disappeared, but the hamstrings still fell a little tighter than normal. The lower heel compared to the Nike’s seems to be forcing (allowing?) me to be less of a heel striker (and honestly I was already surprised as to how little wear the Nike’s had on the heel (see below), compared to the two pairs I owned last year) and I’m sure that’s forcing some adjustments in my motion.

So time will tell. It is difficult to run “controlled experiments” in running as there are too many variables we can’t control (fatigue and weather, most notably). If the soreness continues, I will go back and try the Brooks Ghost 3’s (which I may do anyway). But now I know (a) I need wide shoes, and (b) I don’t need much stability and it is in fact counter-productive, so I will be making wiser shoe choices from this point forward. And I still foresee a performance trainer in my future, at least for shorter races.