The JS Bach running method

Last night, just for fun, we hosted a Chinese New Year themed dinner party for some friends. We had a great time, the decorations were festive and (of course) we served Chinese food supplied by a local restaurant. The meal was a hit and it was easy to over indulge. Adding the desserts that my wife and daughter had baked, along with those brought by our guests, it made for a high calorie evening. One friend, also a runner, said that we'll have our work cut out for us on our Sunday runs.

I couldn't sleep past 4:30 this morning so I caught the replay of last night's Olympic events and went out early after pre-hydrating with a mixture of Zico coconut water and ground Chia seeds. I've incorporated Chia into my diet at least once a day since I bought my supply. It's hard to know if it's been beneficial but I've felt great since I've started using it and I haven't had a bad run all week. I set out with the intention of running a similar distance as yesterday's and, again, the experience of running felt great in the new Brooks. I smartened up and wore one less layer and wool socks and that worked out well. After a loop around the roads that connect to my street I went south and crossed over to neighborhood #2. I had not run there since December and it was a nice change of scenery. At about 1.5 miles I noticed that I was playing Bach's Cantata 147 in my head as I ran and the 3/4 time matched my cadence very well. I've been playing my classical guitar again, after some time away from it and this is a piece that I've been practicing. When I was concentrating on front foot running and increased steps/minute in December I was mentally following 4/4 timing. Today I realized that 3/4 is a more natural tempo for me (for non-musicians, 3/4 is like the beat to a waltz).

I exited back into my neighborhood and took a long loop around as I made my way home. Along the way I passed a few other runners, one of whom I knew. He was running with a friend who was driving a car alongside him, presumably to keep him company. Not exactly the way I'd do it. I felt so good as I ran that I extended my run another .75 mile and finished with a full five miles, another post-pneumonia distance milestone. My pace was unremarkable (mid-9:00's) but I'm more focused on endurance than speed right now as I prepare for the Stillwell XTERRA race in March. Once I'm past that I'll prioritize speed so to prepare for the Marcie Mazzola 5K in April.

Road test - the Brooks Adrenaline GTS 10

Today's big decision was whether to do this morning's run inside or out. I try to do my week's longest runs on Saturdays and Sundays because I have more time and flexibility on those days. I just purchased a new pair of Brooks GTS 10's and had only run a few miles with them on the treadmill. The experience was fine but 25 minutes on a flat moving surface is far different from how I plan to use these shoes. I was curious to see how the 10's felt after a longer run. While I knew I could do that on the treadmill, I also wanted to know how they performed on the road. Mark, the salesperson at Jackrabbit who sold me the shoes, said I have 14 days to evaluate them but he asked that I do it on the treadmill in case I need to take them back. I finally decided that I couldn't properly evaluate the shoes unless I tried them under the conditions where I'll primarily use them so I went outside for my run.

It was about 33 degrees with a little wind coming from the northwest. I dressed for the a longer run, meaning less layers and enduring the chill until my body heat rose. I was able to wear the 10's tighter because the tongue does not bite into my instep (as happens on the 9's) and as I set out I appreciated way the shoes wrapped my foot and returned energy with each step. I regretted that I didn't wear wool socks and my feet were a little cold for the first mile but that can't be blamed on the shoes. I was pleased that the "high arch" was a non-issue. I stopped noticing that soon after I'd started. I stretched my route around many different streets and noticed that the 10's felt similar to the 9's when I was maintaining my normal cadence. When I accelerated for some tempo runs they really felt fast, almost like a light trainer or racing shoe. At 11.1 ounces they are definitely not racing flats but the bounce and stability are a great improvement over the 9's.

I ran a total of 4.5 miles which was more than a mile longer than my last long run. Prior to my pneumonia I typically ran five or more miles on each weekend day so I'll call that progress. By the time I reached the last part of my run I knew these shoes were keepers. They felt like they fit my feet perfectly and provided a great combination of cushioning, stability and response. The tongue and collar of the shoe is an improvement over the prior version and the subtle changes to the heel (articulated edges that move independently for a smoother transition) and multi-density materials that make up the medial post allow for less jarring correction of a pronating foot. But geek talk aside, it's a great feeling shoe that really performs on the road.

Of course I chose the Brooks!

Yesterday, before I even left for Jackrabbit,  I'd already decided to buy the Brooks Adrenaline GTS 10's. Even my wife weighed in on the decision, she wrote me a note in the morning that said "You should get the Brooks!"  I tried them on at the store and ran for a few minutes on the treadmill to confirm the fit. The arch supports in the 10 are more pronounced than in the 9's and that concerned me somewhat. I wasn't completely comfortable standing in the 10's but when  I started running they felt fine. When I got home I compared the fit between the 9's and the 10's and felt that the toe box of the 10 was narrower but not problematic. In comparison it made the 9 feel a little unstable up front, something I hadn't noticed before. The tongue placement and thickness on the 10 seems to be an improvement over the 9 as well. I was able to tighten the shoe well without feeling sharp pressure on my instep. The only concern had was with the arch support, I could really feel it, and I hoped it would not begin to hurt on longer mileage runs.

I had a late start to the morning today because my son accompanied me to work today and we caught a later train. I hopped on the treadmill at 4:45 AM and ran about 25 minutes with the new shoes. My initial impression of the 10's was very positive: good mid foot wrap, good stability at the front, excellent transition off the heel. The higher arch was noticeable but not bothersome. The only other observation was that the fit at the heel was looser than I'd have liked. There was some slight slippage but not enough to consider it unstable. I can probably control that better by experimenting with the lacing. Overall the shoes performed well through the run and I appreciated the energy return off the front. That was my initial complaint about the 9's, that they didn't provide much bounce. I've grown to appreciate the 9's but it's nice to have that zip in the 10's.

This weekend I hope to put them to the test on the road, aiming for 4 or 5 miles as I go into my last two weekends of training for my trail race. I'll be curious to see how my feet feel after 40+ minutes of running in the new shoes. I have two weeks to evaluate the GTS 10's but I'm hoping to determine quickly that they're keepers.

Decision day - Mizuno versus Brooks

Brooks Adrenaline GTS 10

If all goes according to plan I'll be heading back to Jackrabbit at lunch today to get my next pair of running shoes. I've been fortunate to have had a great experience with my Brooks GTS 9's and I've carefully studied the running shoe landscape to determine what's the best shoe to replace them. I've done enough due diligence in business to know that all this analysis can reduce the risk of making a bad purchasing decision but not fully eliminate it.

Mizuno Wave Inspire 6

Consider the two candidates left in the race: the Brooks Adrenaline GTS 10 and the Mizuno Wave Inspire 6. Both are highly regarded stability shoes. The Brooks is supposed to be the best in its class and an improvement over the GTS 9 that I've really liked. The Mizuno provides a very energetic response and gets good play in the Runner's World shoe forum. It's considered a fast stability shoe, more minimal than the Brooks. I've run with the Mizunos and liked them. I've only tried on the GTS 10's but I thought they felt great. I've read that the 10's have a higher arch than the 9's which concerns me because my arches fall right between flat and normal. I don't want a shoe that feels superb in the store but creates a problem when the runs go longer.

My affinity for Brooks does give some bias toward the Adrenalines but I've been intrigued by the Mizuno's as well. This is a lot of agonizing for a $100 purchase from a store that will take them back if I'm not completely satisfied. I've spent hours pouring over reviews and trying on running shoes to get to this point, yet when I go shopping for a suit that costs five times that much I invest a fraction of that time. Why is that? Why do you think!?

What's the right pace?

With another few inches of fresh snow on the ground (that has turned mostly to ice on the road) I have had to delay my return to 4:00 AM outside running until at least next week. I was thinking about pace as I started up the treadmill this morning. With my increasing familiarity with the (unmarked) speed control slider on my treadmill I can quickly set whatever pace I wish to run. A check of the Garmin at the end usually confirms that I ran the pace that I expected. It's not ideal but I don't mind since I know my new treadmill will soon provide all that information, and more, in real time. Today I settled on a 9:20 pace because it seemed sufficiently challenging. With the warm temperature of the room it was fast enough. I had a good run and felt the workout.

I started thinking more about the metrics of running and how 5 seconds over the course of a 5 mile race can make such a big difference. In the 8K I ran last year I thought I had nailed a sub-9:00 pace but forgot that 8K is actually 4.97 miles so I missed 8:59 by mere seconds. But does that matter? I'd say yes and no. Yes because running in the 8:00's is usually more desirable than running in the 9:00's. So for racing, yes, pace can matter. But for everyday running - unless one is specifically aiming to improve speed - I think enjoyment wins out over speed. For recreational running, following the strategy of "gain, but no pain" is probably the best way to choose the right pace. That's my view these days.