When Less is More

If you have followed my blog at all then you know that I have been on a journey to find out how far I can go in terms of "running with less". It started after reading Born to Run and like countless others I, too, wanted to run like a Raramuri. Minus the flowing skirt. I never saw myself struggling to into a pair of Vibram Five Fingers much less running in sandals or barefoot but I liked the concept. Long story short, since I already wrote in detail about this, I wanted to find how little of a shoe I could comfortably run long distances with. After a slow and methodical trail I found the Pure Grit by Brooks was a tad over the line for me. Now that I am recovered from my stress fracture what's next? Well, I read about Waterlogged by Dr. Noakes and Joe Uhan's experience at WS100 this year (read the article from iRunFar) and became interested in the fueling aspect of doing with less. I believe the human body is capable of amazing things. From phenomenal feats of strength and endurance to an unbelievable ability to heal itself. At this point in my running I know I can run 50 miles. The question then becomes not can I run 50 miles but can I do it without electrolyte supplements, a case of gels and a handful of fermented Japanese wasp saliva? And not merely cover the distance but do it relatively easily. 

So I began to experiment and devour any material I could find about the topic. Things like the different fueling systems used by the body or what to eat before different types of runs to maximize performance. My water bottles are now filled with plain water, I drink to thirst (not XX number of ounces every XX number of minutes) and I no longer carry electrolyte capsules with me on long runs. Guess what? No cramps. Not that I ever really had an issue with them but it was a question for me. Now I have an answer. Can I complete a 4 hour run with only a handful of gels? I'm still working on that one. My usual strategy had me slurping a gel every 30 minutes and some sort of solid food about every hour. What about a gel every 20 minutes or 45 minutes? Things seem to go well for me up to about 3 hours and then the stomach has taken issue with the gel only approach. That was with Gu brand gels, my longtime gel of choice. My energy level seems to be more or less there but I have experienced some pretty wicked acid reflux and fought the urge to purge a few times. Some solids seem to help, I prefer Powershots to Chomps simply due to ease of use. But the point is to get through long, tough runs on gels only. The one gel that shows some promise for a gel only approach to long runs is EFS Liquid Shot from First Endurance. I was exposed to them at the Inca Runner Camp in July up in the Tetons. Great taste (I have tried vanilla and kona), available in 5 oz flask so no little packets to open with sweaty hands (and reusable w/ the 32oz refills), no wrappers to stash and it seems to sit well in the ol' GI tract. The biggest issue I have is with finding an easy and practical way to carry the flask. I would like to find an armband type carrier to keep my hands free. I'm just trying to determine if I can find the right combination. Maybe it can work or maybe it won't. Time will tell. 

Why even try you ask? At some point a given distance becomes a known factor and perhaps some of the allure fades away. So if one is striving to improve upon that known mark there are few options. I could go longer but the 100 mile distance has yet to call upon me. I have not been struck by that arrow. What about going faster? That is definitely on the table. I could make a go at it on a tougher course, say, with more elevation. That challenge is on the radar as well. But the call I hear now is to do it with less. The way I see it, if I can eliminate 3 Vespas, 6 Stinger Waffles, 10 Gu gels and 12 S! Caps on my next 50 miler that has to be, what, like $40 plus bucks in savings. Over a few races that's enough for my UltrAspire pack or Hokas. 

The real challenge is in doing the same, or even better, with less. Training my body to become more efficient. To do this I will have to eat better when not running. And that's a good thing. It will require making my body stronger and that, too, is a good thing. In the end isn't that what runners are all about? The challenge. Whatever it is, whatever form it takes, that thing that causes you to wake up in the morning and lace the shoes up when you could stay in bed. I needed a new motivator and this was it. 

Red Dirt Running in the Pure Grit

Previously I posted an "out of the box" review of the Brooks Pure Flow (pictured above left) I purchased back in October. By now I have had a chance to wear the Pure Flow for several runs and I like them quite a bit. I would have no issues wearing them for anything up to half mary distance. Beyond that my body is simply not used to a more minimalist shoe and would require more beef for the time being. 

Subsequently, I ponied up the dough for a pair of the trail shoes from the same Brooks line, the Pure Grit (pictured above right). Likewise I have had the opportunity to wear test these whips on several runs. Recently I retired my first pair of trail shoes from The North Face. These were a mild stability trail shoe that had a good amount of cushion (not too much or too little) and gave decent protection from all the stuff I kicked, tripped and stumbled over. The Fire Road models had treated me well for about 275 miles. They still felt pretty good but were beginning to fall apart. The outsole had started to separate at the toe and was also showing some real signs of wear. To the point that traction was an issue. My other pair of trail skids are Pearl Izumi Iso-Seek IVs. These babies are plush, feel solid and stable, give plenty of protection and the no seam upper feels nice. But I tend to get hot spots on the bottom of my toes when wearing them for longer runs and they are a bit heavy for my liking. So these more or less became my go to sneakers for just wearing around and I love 'em in that way. I only give those details so you will know where I am coming from in my review of the Grit. My first two pairs of dedicated trail shoes I would classify as "average" in terms of stability, protection, weight and heel drop. By "average" I mean they weren't hiking boots and they weren't Vibram Five Fingers. They were pretty much middle of the road type trail shoes in the growing spectrum of available trail shoes. The Grit, in my opinion, fits into that spectrum towards the minimalist end. I know the Grit is not minimalist like a NB Minimus, a pair of Vibrams or the like. But you can't argue that Brooks has put a shoe out there that has "less" than most. It seemed like a perfect transition shoe for me. Not that I want to run trails bare foot or in Vibrams, that's another story altogether. 

If you have looked at any reviews of the Grit you're likely to have seen a couple of things repeated. That the Nav Band is useless, the traction is suspect and the split toe design is a puzzlement. I would have to agree on all of those points, to some extent. More on that later. But first, how do these feel? In a word, great. Compared to most "average" trail shoes these are light and flexible but still well cushioned. The use of the Brooks DNA in combination with BioMoGo (the world's first biodegradable midsole) works well. And all that with just 4mm of drop heel to toe. Most "average" trail shoes have about 12 mm of drop. This means the Grit "feels" lower to the ground. It also means, that if you are not accustomed to this, you will likely feel a stretch in your calf and/or achilles when first wearing them. I started out slowly in these working my way up from infrequent shorter runs now to more frequent middle distance runs and have not experienced any ill effects from the low drop. The upper feels good and it seems that there is ample room in the toe box for me. There is some decent arch support built into the shoe and just enough padding in the right spot under the laces. In terms of protection there really isn't a whole lot here. The front of the shoe is covered with a piece of leather over the mesh upper, no hard rubber rock kicker. I can't complain about the absence of a rock plate as the outsole and midsole seem to do an adequate job of offering just enough protection on the rockier trails around here, at least for shorter trail runs. 

Above is a close up shot of the split toe design. Honestly, I can't tell it is even there. I'm not sure it has any functional purpose. Brooks claims it allows the big toe to work independently engaging your natural balance and providing for a more powerful push off. It is the one new design piece that I would grade a total fail in my book. Another design feature is the Ideal Heel (pictured below) meant to shift the point of contact forward for a more efficient stride. Take a look and you might notice the heels on the Pure Project shoes are angled up. I have to say I think this one works for me. I noticed something different about it when I first tried them on. When trying them out on the treadmill at the store there is just a mere fraction of a second when I would normally expect to make contact yet my foot is still moving forward. I could sense my foot strike change ever so slightly towards my forefoot (I am usually a midfoot striker) without trying to change anything myself. And on the trail it is easier to feel it mile after mile. I like this design feature. 

On the traction issue. I have read many comments about poor overall traction. I cannot fully agree with this. I have worn mine on dry single track, both technical and not, as well as on some damp runs where the trails were covered with leaves after the end of fall and had some muddy sections. I can't really say the traction was that bad. In fact, it seemed comparable to any other trail shoe I have used. With one exception. On a couple of local trails we have wooden foot bridges. Traveling over these when wet was downright treacherous. I'm talking flip flops on ice folks. I literally nearly fell down the first two times and took to walking over them. Now I imagine anything short of track spikes on these wet wooden bridges would be lacking but I have run these when wet before and never almost flew off of them like that. In regards to the Nav Band I have to agree that it doesn't work the way I imagine it could or should. First, why a Nav Band on a shoe that has laces? The issue is that the Nav Band, for me and many others, is simply too loose to do any real good in terms of fit and I would say that I have normal width feet. But I did find a practical use for it after a couple of runs (see pic below). The Nav Band is a perfect place to stow away the laces and keep them tucked away nicely. 

A little on real world wear test results. Drew Connor, Manager at Rush Running, wore the Grit to a first place overall finish at the Bass Pro Dogwood Canyon 50k this fall. This is a technical course with several creek crossings and a load of elevation change. His only complaint was blisters on his big toes. That may have been due to the wet feet. He also wore them to a 7th overall finish (despite 6 bonus miles) at Turkey & Taturs, another rocky, technical course. His legs were pretty well trashed. How much of that was the shoe and how much was the bonus mileage? Don't know. What I do know is he wears them for all of his trail runs. Ryan Holler, another local guy, wore his more or less out of the box to a 9th place overall finish at the Pinhoti 100 this fall. He anticipated changing shoes at some point but absolutely loved the feel and performance of the Grit to the point he wore them the entire distance. As for me, I have completed a number of trail runs in the 6-10 mile range with no complaints whatsoever. It wasn't until I knocked out 15 miles on rocky, technical terrain that I felt the lack of beef. My feet were sore afterwards. Like I had run a mile on my gravel driveway barefoot. And my legs were beat. I felt soreness in both my quads and hamstrings unlike normal. I have to attribute some of that to the more minimal shoe. I mentioned how I feel these protect enough when going over rocky terrain. I can feel the rocks, more so than my previous trail shoes, but it doesn't hurt. I also notice that these shoes flex and roll more side to side than my previous trail shoes. Initially I had them laced up a little loosely and felt the Grits were a tad unstable on technical terrain. The thinking was that with the low heel drop I could get by with that. Personally I prefer my shoes to not be laced up tightly. What I took for instability was likely the designed flex and roll of the shoe allowing it to move more freely like my foot would naturally do. After snugging the laces up during that run the sense of instability is no longer there. I simply think that wearing them for 15 miles was a bit more than what I was used to resulting in the beat legs and feet. I believe if I continue to transition with these they will eventually be good for practically any trail run. I do plan on packing them for my trip down to Texas for my first 50 miler at Rocky Raccoon in February. I think the course (pretty flat and non-technical) will be a great test.

Update 12/10/2011
I completed my longest run yet in the Grits yesterday. A couple clicks north of 20 miles with about 5,600 ft of elevation change out at Blowing Springs trails in Bella Vista. Legs and feet felt better afterwards than they did after the 15 miler at Slaughter Pen the previous week. Sore but not beat up. Honestly, I would have to say the soreness comes on more quickly than in my Pearl Izumi Iso-Seek shoes. But today that soreness reached a certain point and then stopped about midway through the run. Part of the improvement has to be the smoother, less technical trails. Hopefully, part of it is also my body becoming accustomed to these shoes. My right achilles was pretty sore but feels back to normal this morning. And no blisters, or real hot spots on my toes. I used my Experia socks (with Thorlo cushioning) and they worked well. I prefer thin socks but these are the thickest I have and seemed to work well. The shoes are a hair big on me but the next size down was simply too small, had to compromise. There were some muddy, sloppy sections and the Grit performed as well as any shoe I have tried. A couple spots would have been slick for anything short of a monster truck. The Grits gripped as well as my buddies Salomon Crossmax shoes in the muck.

Update 02/04/2012
I wore the Grit for the first two loops at RR50 and felt pretty good about them in some regards. The course was uber wet and muddy following a couple of inches of rain at the start. I had no more issues with traction than any other swinging Tom, Dick or Jane out there. The only place it lacked bite was on the clay slopes where everyone had issues regardless of shoe choice. Even on the several wooden bridges I was good. I did change shoes for the final loop. I did so for a couple of reasons, my feet were soaked and starting to get sore. I had slacked off wearing the Grit in my training and I think this showed in that my feet weren't up to going 50 miles in them yet. My buddy, Mike Rush, wore them the entire distance on his way to a top 10 finish and loved them. I did perform a little experiment after the race. While cleaning my shoes in the tub I filled the Grits and Saucony Peregrines with water to see which drained faster. The Peregrine won that contest hands down. Not very scientific but there you go. The course at Rocky Raccoon is not technical at all and I saw several other runners wearing them. I would have no worries lacing these babies up again down in Huntsville nest year.

Update 08/27/2012
Likely this will be my final update on the Grit. I have abandoned wearing them for anything more than very short, non-technical runs. A couple of weeks following RR50 I was diagnosed with a stress fracture in my right foot. Despite my slow and careful attempt at a transition to a more minimalist shoes the Grit is too far out of my comfort zone. I believe the lack of lateral support is the issue with me. The shoes twist laterally quite easily and that seems to be an issue with my anatomy. I am assuming that as my legs get fatigued and lose the ability to absorb impact more and more is transferred to my ligaments resulting in bad things. I also found that I prefer to have a rock plate in my shoes. Wearing slightly more substantial shoes (Saucony Peregrine and Patagonia Tsali) seem to work much better for me on longer, more technical runs. If the Grit or something even less works for you I think that is great. Everyone has his or her sweet spot and mine is over the other way a little bit. They do, however, make one helluva comfortable pair of shoes for knocking around in from time to time. 

Brooks Pure Project Review

I was pretty excited about the release of the Brooks Pure Project line. If you read these two earlier posts you may have a better idea why. The first is on my transition from traditional training shoes to more minimalist whips and this one explains the why. So when Drew from Rush Running Co sent me a text a few days before the official release letting me know the shoes had arrived and I was welcome to come take a look I jumped at the chance. I arrived and started checking them out. Out of the box I really liked the look. But before I could get much more into it a few more locals showed up including a couple of other TCM runners, an AT100 entrant and a Pinhoti 100 racer (and shoe designer). So Drew and Christian lined the new arrivals out for us to begin our impromptu round table discussion. 

It was agreed that all four models look great. Words like, fast, aggressive, sleek and low were used. But where is the posting? There is none. We were informed that Brooks, for this project, has thrown out the typical categories of stability and control. Theoretically, at least, anybody can wear any of these models and be just fine. Let the debate begin... I could care less about the marketing plan so I grabbed a pair and laced up. The Pure Cadence was first up. Snug fit, great feel, lightweight, plenty of cushion. Soft but not too much. I did notice a bit extra stretch in my Achilles and calf. My premonition to allow some time to transition to these as my mainstay shoe seems spot on at first. 

I look up and see Ryan (the Pinhoti 100 entrant and shoe designer) headed for the treadmill. Not sure which model he had on. The video gait recorder was turned on and off he went. The slow-mo replay showed good results with just a slight overpronation on one foot. Mike (owner of Rush Running and former NCAA runner) was next in a pair of Pure Flow. No issues with him but he is neutral anyway. I tried the treadmill next, all signals were good, nothing seemed too weird. So now some post run (sort of) analysis. Ryan and I both had extra gap with the Nav Band that goes across the top of the foot to help with the fit. We both have skinnier than normal feet. Mine was loose, his was useless. Nonetheless, we both felt the uppers fit snugly despite this. I liked the laces, a flat snake like design. They seem like they would work well not coming untied. Next we all check out the split toe design. None of us felt it while running on the treadmill. Mike thought it was more aesthetic and less functional. That it didn't come down far enough toward the mid foot to offer any real benefit. At least it will save a little weight with the missing material. 

Next  tried on the Grit. No rock plate and a little toe guard. Otherwise the fit and feel was much like the Flow. Comfortable, cushioned, light, snug and responsive feeling. The treadmill test for this model went much like the Flow. All signs point to yes. I wondered about the tread on the outsole as it looked pretty minimal. How would it work on technical stuff or when wet? It looks somewhat similar to the tread on my Pearl Izumi Iso Seek shoes which serves me pretty well. I could just barely feel the midfoot pod on this model. Nothing too weird but just barely noticeable. I can see the Grit being a solid door to trail shoe and a good all around trail shoe short of perhaps wet and technical terrain. 

All models have a 4-5mm heel drop and sit lower to the ground than most other shoes. These are Jurek inspired designs two years in the making. Jurek says these belong somewhere in the middle of the minimalist spectrum. Somewhere between the Saucony Kinvara and New Balance 890. In the end Ryan wants to try both the Flow and Grit. Mike wants the Flow for Twin Cities opting for them over the just arrived K Swiss Kwicky Blade and I was undecided between the Flow and Cadence. 

Fast forward a week. I haven't heard from Ryan yet. Mike did wear the Flow at TCM and at the finish line he gave a thumbs up on them. He had a chance to maybe put 25 miles or so on them before the race. No complaints from him. I picked up my shoes that week. I opted for the Flow. Mainly because of the $30 price difference. Why that much I can't explain. Drew said he took home a pair of Grit and wore them for a 14 mile trail run from his door. He did wear them just walking around for a day before. He told me that about halfway through his run he did feel a twinge in his soleus. Like me he thinks a transition from regular shoes does exist with the Pure Project line. Otherwise a stamp of approval from him. Drew is the Manager at Rush, ran college x-country, is a regular on the local racing scene and can often be found on the podium collecting his hardware. So he knows a thing or two about good shoes. He said they even felt good on the pavement getting to the trail head for his run. 

As for me, I wore my Flow six days after finishing my PR in the 26.2 at TCM for a 6 mile recovery run. Again, the shoes felt great, no issues at all with the fit or feel. My impression of these somehow promoting a mid foot strike seemed accurate. I did not feel the split toe feature at all on my run. No weird feelings in my calves or Achilles either. However, I did feel a tweak in my plantar on one foot. I attribute this to the marathon (completed in racing flats for the first time) and not to the Flow. In all fairness though I felt I should mention it. These shoes seem to have enough arch support in them so time will tell on that issue. A post run inspection did show something I should mention. With the design of the heel and less material used repetitive heel strikes might wear these shoes down faster than your normal trainer. I have a bit of a whip with my stride on my right foot and my legs were still a little dead from the marathon so I think this may explain the wear I saw on my shoe after a six mile run. Apparently I was dragging my heel. Tired legs and a slower than normal pace likely resulted in less than ideal form and me shuffling more than striding as usual. 

More on the heel design. The heels compared to most shoes have a slightly angled design at the very back. Not flat like most trainers. I could just feel it when I first put them on but that sensation quickly faded. And being a more minimalist design there is less material (outsole) back there. So if you plan on using a solid heel strike or drag your heels when tired expect on replacing these more often than say a pair of Ravennas. To recap: I really like the fit and feel of the upper. The laces work well without having to double tie them or use some secret Inca knot, the Nav Band is marginally functional for skinny feet, well cushioned but not overly so, felt light and responsive, didn't feel the split toe thing and love the color scheme. So much better than the Racer ST. These will surely be a mainstay in my rotation once I transition and I look forward to building up my mileage in these.
Update 10/12/2011: Last weekend I wore my Pure Flows to my first overall win at a race taking 1st at the ACOI San Antonio 2 Mile Doctor Dash. I have a few more runs under my belt and really like these shoes. My next purchase will undoubtedly be the Pure Grit.

My Sort of Transition

Even with as much running as I have done over the years I never had a gait analysis or a proper fitting. I bought what I thought I should which amounted to what looked good and how much it cost. Somehow, with only a couple of setbacks, I had managed to stay injury free. That all changed last fall. I found myself at the local running store, Rush Running in Bentonville. I needed a new pair of whips and a couple of guys I had met suggested I go there. Glad I did. Got a gate analysis and a clear explanation of what I needed. I came in wearing a pair of Brooks Beast and left in a pair of Asics 1150s. Big difference. From a full blown motion control to a mild stability platform. I had my doubts but rolled with it. I haven't looked back. I have since bought Brooks Ravenna, Pearl Iso-Synch, Asics 1160 and Brooks Defyance. All traditional mild stability shoes.
Like many I have read a lot about the minimalist movement. I read Born to Run. And I began to think. What if I tried to transition to the least amount of shoe possible? In baby steps. First, I began doing some runs without my Superfeet inserts. I had been advised to use them when I purchased a pair of trail shoes (on sale, of course) at a one stop sports store that I won't name. I didn't notice any new aches or pains from not using them. So after a while I put them in a box. I guess I don't need them after all. Next I began to wonder about my shoes. Curious how I would feel in a shoe with maybe 4mm of drop. My current skids are all like 12mm. Dropping that much worried me. So I am trying to find something in between. A lighter than normal trainer with less drop. I have looked at the NB890 and Saucony Kinvara but didn't pull the trigger on either. I would have to give an edge to New Balance there but would like to compare the 890 to the 905. Recently I tried on a pair of Brooks ST Racer. Really liked the feel. A lighter weight trainer with some medial posting and a lower heel drop. But the Denver Bronco color combo? I'm a diehard Cowboy fan. But it fits the bill better than anything yet. I will hold off until I get a look and feel of the new Brooks Pure Project line. I have no desire to eventually run in VFFs. I just want to find out how minimalist I can go and still run without aches or pains. If I don't need extra stuff then why use it?