Service Available: Triathlon Bike and Run Shoe Recommendations

In the market for a new bike, but don't know what will fit you? Fell in love with an old running shoe that was discontinued five years ago and are still struggling to find that new shoe that you love? You've come to the right place.

Let's get the obvious out of the way: here's what I don't do:

• I won't attempt to re-fit you on the bike. Instead, we will be trying to find the most optimal bike to work with your current position (or slight variations of it). This theory will also not guarantee one single bike to be best; instead, there will be a range of options presented to you based on price range and flexibility of the bike to evolve with your fit.
• I won't be doing run assessments. I have a doctorate degree, but it is not in the medical field, and therefore it isn't my job to tell you how to run. I want you to just be able to run, and to enjoy every stride while you're out pounding the pavement.

Here's what I will do:

• Provide detailed recommendations of bikes and shoes to try, along with respective sizes.
• Provide feedback on local shops to you to be able to purchase these items from.
• Analyze Retul, Guru, etc. fit files, as well as photos on board of the bike to analyze potential positional errors as well as providing additional feedback on these recommendations.
• If preferred, Skype consultation to talk about the analysis and feedback.

About Me:

• A decade of experience in the specialty run and triathlon marketplace, working at multiple Top 50 Running Stores in America (presented by Competitor) as well as with Revolution3 Triathlon
• Good Form Running certified
• Worked with dozens of medical practitioners to provide best shoe fit for their clients
• Self-proclaimed repository of useless information, shoe geek, and athlete
• Comprehensive knowledge of FIST-method of triathlon bike fitting and how frames and component choices complement one another to provide the best overall fit for a consumer
• Hundreds of success stories from customers in the run and bike marketplace (such as this):

  Ladies and gents, I give you @rrheisler, resident shoe swami. Thanks for sharing your wisdom :)
  — Maggie Rusch (@maggieru) September 4, 2014

Pricing for these services:

• $40 for bike recommendations
• $20 for shoe recommendations
• $50 for both

Contact me via e-mail here to set up your consultation.

What is "Natural Running?"

CTB Editor's Note: This post is an update, and revision, of the Natural Running post from December, 2010.

This is the magic question. And the problem with magic questions, of course, is that there is no magic answer.

For those with some type of logic function in the brain, this is a big issue. After all, shouldn't it be reasonable that, if we were all to take our shoes off and run, that our form would be relatively the same? But how is that even reasonable? What about those of us with functional or true leg length discrepancies? What about those of us who have shorter Achilles' tendons? What about those of us with chronically tight calves, putting us susceptible to plantar fascii injury?

But, barefoot advocates say, what of the Harvard study that says running barefoot reduces impact force? Running in shoes, the theory goes, allows us to put more impact on the foot than it is designed to withstand, leading to specific injury.

Well, that's not what the study says. From the page linked above, a graph showing the impact when landing with a heel strike in a running shoe:

Now, for the same study's graph showing impacts when running barefoot with a forefoot strike:

Notice that the spike goes to the same high point? Running barefoot does NOT reduce actual force.

What the key here, though, is that there is a reduction in the impact transient force. Explained simply, the transient force is that "braking" force that occurs when you excessively heel strike; the foot is absorbing impact while the leg is trying to still come forward (because the foot is extended out in front of you.)

This makes sense: when you run with a forefoot strike, you can't have a heel-toe transition. Of course it will reduce transient force! This isn't telling us anything that, well, anybody should be able to figure out.

To review, what we have talked about so far:

• Running with a forefoot strike does not reduce actual impact force absorbed, merely the transient force.
• Running with a heel strike does create a transient force that must be absorbed by the leg.

----------------------------------------------------------

Now, what of the Hasegawa study?

This 2007 study looked at the footstrike pattern of the elite runners from a half-marathon. The scientists photographed 283 runners at the 15 kilometer mark. The theory posited was that, as most elite athletes were from countries where running barefoot when younger was necessary, that most of the elites would showcase a midfoot or forefoot strike.

The results, meanwhile, were startling: 74.9% of runners photographed exhibited a rear foot strike. Midfoot strike positioning was shown by 23.7%. Forefoot strikes only accounted for 1.4%.

So what makes an elite runner elite? It's not the where that's important; it's how much time the foot spent in contact with the ground. The longer the foot spent in contact with the ground, the slower the runner was. The first 50 runners spent less time on the ground versus the next 50, and that second 50 spent less contact time than the next 50, and so on.

Therefore, it is reasonable to conclude, as the study did, that running economy and efficiency comes from the foot spending less time in contact with the ground, rather than specifically how the foot contacts the ground.

----------------------------------------------------------

By this point, I'm sure you're now wondering: where are we going with this? We still haven't figured out what natural running is!

Here's the rub: there is no universal answer. We need to separate the core principles of good running form, from the hyperspecifics of a unique foot strike. We must account for the differences in physiology that make humans so different from one another.

Therefore, I would posit that the following elements are key to natural running:

• The Hasegawa study shows us that running economy is more related to contact time in the ground. Therefore, it would stand to posit that we want to have a faster foot turnover rate.
• Because of the faster cadence, this will require a shorter stride; it is nearly impossible to overstride if you are trying to keep your footstrikes per minute near the 180 mark.
• The key of footstrike is to keep it as close under your center of gravity as possible. Whether it lands forefoot or rearfoot or midfoot is, in my opinion, not as important. But landing underneath the knee, keeping the kinetic chain in line from the core downward, is important.
• We DO want the whole foot to try and contact the ground at as similar a point in time as possible. Our feet are like tripods; we have wide metatarsals and a narrow heel. A tripod is most stable when it is fully in contact with the ground. Therefore, it is reasonable to assume that this is how the foot should engage and absorb impact.
• Therefore, the core of good, natural running form would include a higher cadence for running economy; a stride that engages the ground under the center of gravity, and attempting to engage the whole foot with the ground at as similar time as possible.

----------------------------------------------------------

So how on Earth does this all relate to the footwear buzzwords of minimalism and natural running?

Well, let's lead with what might be groundbreaking news: we are not meant for pavement or concrete. The human foot was designed to run on grass or sand, not on the roads. We have built a completely unnatural environment to attempt to perform a natural activity on. That being said, there will be some of us who can run all of our miles in Vibram Five Fingers. However, it is likely that this would be the exception, rather than the rule, considering that running injuries have actually increased as people have tried to run in barefoot-esque shoes.

What to do? I think Jordan Rapp, in this month's LAVA Magazine, states it best:

What I think this reflects is a conscious decision on the part of shoe designers to separate biomechanics...from overall feel, which is influenced by a shoe's cushioning.

Previously, I had discussed the differences between so-called "natural" running shoes from minimal and barefoot styles. Considering that we have talked a fair bit about how there is no truly singular "natural" style, I think using the term "natural running shoe" is misleading. One can run with good form in any type of running shoe, whether it features a large heel-toe offset, or is near flat.

Therefore, when looking at running shoes, it is imperative to first discuss running form. Your running mechanics will dictate the offset that will be best for your running shoes, whether it is the "traditional" 12 millimeter difference between the heel and the toe, or the class of effective zero shoes (6 mm or less), or in between. (As a note, both Saucony and New Balance will be introducing shoes with an 8 millimeter offset in their regular running line, to try and promote a more balanced footstrike. Remember, though, that your feet are dumb: you must tell them where to land.)

After determining the offset appropriate, we may then talk about pronation control and cushioning. As a single example, I run in shoes with a low offset (less than 6 mm), but still feature a midfoot pronation control device. Why? Because even with good running form, my feet still overpronate. And I need a good amount of cushioning, because if I run with a more minimal shoe, I develop a stress fracture in my right foot. This is why I've run in the Saucony Mirage, for example.

Therefore, when shopping, these are the things a retailer needs to know in order to ensure a good fit:

• Injury history
• Running goals (training, mileage, speed, etc.)
• Running history (current mileage, races upcoming, etc.)
• Running stride or form (if known)
• Cushioning preferences

So what is natural running? Whatever is natural for you.

Product Reviews: Fischer Progressor 8+, Saucony Kinvara, Craft Zero Extreme Crew, CW-X Stabilyx Tight

It's been one hell of a week at the Crashing the Boards offices. And by offices, I mean getting out there and after it.

To wit, put down an epic ski day over at Saddleback Mountain: waist deep powder, low 20s temperature, and a barnburner of a run at 43 MPH. You can't get much better than that. Then, of course, because I'm sick in the head, came home and ran with the Maine Running Academy for the night. Couple all this with a great swim set earlier in the week, and things are looking up for next week's start of training for my first half-iron distance race.

To make all of this extensive training possible, though, it's important to have the right gear. You can't make turns confidently on skis you don't trust; you can't run in shoes that don't fit well; you can't run outside in the winter without the right tights or pants. In all, here's a few items in my arsenal that have been added in the past 12 months:

Fischer Progressor 8+ 170 cm: Full disclosure: I've been on Fischer's since I started skiing. I know how they handle (extremely responsive), and know what they don't like (laying flat). In other words, this isn't the ski for you if you want to be lazy. Instead, if you're an active skier looking for your ski to provide a lot of energy return, this is where to go. The dual-radius turning system is a real cool trick: the tip of the ski is set at 12m, where the tail is tuned to 16m. So if you're forward on the ski, you can make explosive slalom-style turns, or ski moguls with a lot of confidence. Meanwhile, if ripping big GS turns is more your style, sit back and relax. Great carving and edging on firmer surfaces.

Tuning note: the integrated binding system on the Progressor provides a lot of response. However, the Austrians tend to mount the binding further back on the ski for more stability at high speed. If you want more quick turning, or a centered feeling on the ski, mount on the forward (+5) setting. Want to float in powder? Set it to the rear setting (-5).

In all, a great all-mountain ski for the East Coast, or a carver for those out West. Not for the faint of heart, but those who want to really get out there and hit the slopes hard.

Dimensions: 120mm tip, 72 mm underfoot, 103 mm. Price: $799 with Railflex bindings.

Saucony Kinvara: If you've read the post on Natural Running here on Crashing the Boards, you'd know where this shoe falls into our categories of footwear: natural. Coming in around the 10 ounce mark in my massive size 13 boats, this is probably the lightest shoe I have run in.

To be entirely honest, I was skeptical of trying something like this out. I've had plenty of issues with running before (see my Injury posting), and going to something without posting seemed like it would be wrong.

I could not be happier to tell you: I'm wrong. This shoe kicks about 11 different levels of tail. I've taken it on speedwork, on long runs, on short runs, and it has been a dream. I will say that it is happier at speed than it is slow, as you are more likely to maintain good form when you are pushing your limits. (Weird how that works out, as you'd think form gets sloppy when you add speed to things).

Note: the lack of heel-toe drop can be a bit jarring if you haven't run more midfoot-style before. It can lead to some Achilles and calf issues, or even stress fractures in the lower part of the leg. Transition slowly. But for those who have made the switch, this shoe is a winner. Thinking this is my shoe for training and racing this year.

Cost: $89.99, available from Saucony or specialty running retailers.

Craft ZeroExtreme Long Sleeve and Concept Base Layers: Two answers to the same question: what to wear as a base layer. In general, for winter, we want three different layers: your base layer, designed to move sweat as quickly as possible; your insulating layer for warmth, and a shelter layer to protect from the wind and precipitation.

The ZeroExtreme line was designed with 35-55 degree temperature ranges in mind. To be honest, I could never see myself wearing the Warm product line. I love these two pieces. The Long Sleeve and Concept both feature the same basic weight in the garment, but the Concept piece has a bit more open paneling off the Cool product line for breathability. Extremely lightweight, and form-fitting.

Fitting note: Yes, they ARE supposed to be that tight. Take your normal size in these things. The Scandinavians do tend to build things long and narrow, but we want this to be tight so that if the wind makes it through your first two layers, you are still protected from your sweat turning ice cold.

Prices: $69.99-$79.99, available at ski shops, specialty running stores, and Craft directly.

CW-X Stabilyx Tight: Not just a tight, CW-X utilizes both compression and kinesio-tape application to provide a support web throughout. The Stabilyx product line focuses on the IT band, patellar tracking, and the calf for support. Other pieces in their line focus on other aspects of the body.

I've been wearing them for both skiing and running, and I can definitely feel a bit of the difference between them. My personal pet peeve, though, is that they aren't quite long enough: I've got a small spot on the lower part of my leg that does not get covered by my sock nor the tight. CW-X: please offer a tall version.

Sizing note: Sizes not based on waist size or inseam: instead, simple height and weight will dictate. For reference, at 6'3" and 150-155, I'm in a large. (again: please offer a long version!)

Cost: $97.99, available from specialty running and ski retailers.

Now equipped, what are you waiting for? Get out there!

Natural v. Minimal v. Barefoot v. Traditional: Shoes...

Back in the previous post here on Crashing the Boards, we talked a little bit about what running barefoot does for the body. So, now that you've gotten yourself incorporating some light barefoot work into your running routine, how do you then translate them into your running shoes?

The simple answer is, to steal Nike's thunder: just do it. Remember that your shoes are dumb objects. They can't tell your body how to move through the gait cycle, and they can't dictate how you will land in your footwear. So the idea that you should be going out and buying different shoes right out of the gate (as advocated in this book) is absurd at best, and downright dangerous at worst.

How can it be dangerous? Well, let's think about this as if you have been happily heel-striking your way through miserable miles. You've been transmitting the majority of the shock through initial impact through the heel, which brings that up through to the upper part of the leg, causing more strain on the knee and quadriceps. As you start to move towards midfoot, the Achilles' begins to lengthen slightly, and the strain begins to be placed on the calf. You then utilize this muscular grouping through the rest of the gait cycle. So simply, you've got two different groupings taking care of the three phases of the gait cycle: heel/knees/quads for the initial impact, then calf/Achilles/foot for the transition and propulsive phases.

When you midfoot strike, though, you're changing the emphasis to more of the latter, and a lot less of the former. Much like the first few weeks when you hit the gym, you'll be sore as all hell. The problem that seems to be coming up, though, is too much emphasis on the Achilles/calf. This usually happens because people are landing too far forward on the foot, avoiding the heel entirely. We're designed to use both systems; why else would we have them?

As such, there are four main categories of footwear on the market. It doesn't help that a lot of the companies that are making shoes don't seem to be able to come to a consensus as to what to call it all. So, I'll do them a favor, and do it for them.

Natural: Natural running shoes are not necessarily minimalistic running shoes. Instead, natural running shoes attempt to put your foot into a similar position as if it were barefoot. However, as covered in the previous post, most of us do not have the bone density to be running on pavement every day barefoot. As this is the case, these shoes tend to have cushioning along the same lines as a traditional training shoe. Look for less heel-toe drop in the shoe (under 6 mm, give or take), but plenty of substantial cushioning. Who it's for: runners who have converted to a midfoot strike with no issues; former track runners who have maintained a forward technique; neutral runners looking for a true "flat" for racing. Examples: Saucony ProGrid Kinvara, Newton Gravity, New Balance Road Minimus (name may change, available 3/1/11).

Minimal: Minimal running shoes are merely stripping away at the cushioning underneath the foot. They are trying to providing much more feedback as to the surface you are on. Some would advocate that this teaches you to be lighter on the foot. Your results may vary, but my experience is that these are for people that don't like much shoe underneath them AND have a pretty good bone density. A lot of minimal shoes will still have a pretty high heel-toe drop, though, and will let you land on your heel if you decide to. This is where most "racing flats" these days fall. Who it's for: runners seeking as much road feel as possible; runners seeking a short-distance racer; a runner looking for a speedwork shoe. Examples: New Balance MT101, Brooks T6 Racer, Nike LunaRacer, Nike Free Run.

Barefoot: Zip. Zilch. Nada. Nothing going on under the foot outside of maybe 3-4mm of foam. There's really only two things that fit into this category, no matter what shoe companies will try and tell you. Most people will never be able to use these as their primary footwear solution; however, again, results can and will vary depending on body weight, surfaces used, impact force generated while running, etc. Who it's for: someone looking to begin incorporating barefoot technique into their repertoire, but want something to actually protect the foot in the process from sharp objects; trail runners. Examples: Vibram Five Fingers (KSO/Sprint/Flow for off-road; Bikila for on road), Merrell Barefoot Collection (tentative 2/1 release; partnership with Vibram...so for those who can't stand the toe-separation, here you go!)

Traditional: Big old wedge shape here. Not that it's a bad thing, but will tolerate higher load-stresses on the heel. You can still wind up getting relatively lightweight here as well, but not quite to the same degrees as the categories listed above. Remember, though, that weight only matters when your foot is working efficiently. If in this category, it'll be imperative to get fitted for the correct amount of pronation control (such as this fine-fitting institution). Oversupporting the foot can be just as poor as undersupporting it. Who it's for: heel-strikers; midfoot/forefoot strikers who are running into Achilles and calf issues; those who don't want to change how they run period. Examples (ranging from least pronation control to most): Brooks Launch, Mizuno Wave Rider 14, Saucony ProGrid Guide 3, Brooks Adrenaline GTS 11

So, armed with this information, where do you go now? Start with the light barefoot work and see where it takes you. Listen to what your body is telling you; it will give you the keys as to which of these four categories you will best fit into.

And remember, have fun out there!