Wednesday, August 24, 2011

YES

Look at me, blogging multiple days in a row. First things first, I got my new shoes today. They're Saucony Kinvara 2s. When I walked into the store a few weeks ago and asked about my minimalist versus traditional shoe dilemma, I got some good advice. Ultimately, the guy recommended a traditional trainer but he also showed me a shoe that was more neutral. I took this into account and did some deliberating. While the idea of a neutral shoe was attractive, he mentioned that the sole on the neutral shoe was much less stiff and therefore less durable. A pair of those would have lasted me approximately 200 miles whereas the traditional shoe he showed me would have lasted closer to 350.

When I walked into the store at lunch on Friday, I fully expected to just try on the traditional ones, find my size, buy them and be on my merry way. But once I walked in and took a second look, I just thought they seemed really heavy. At the same time, I was still cognizant of the fact that the other shoes were significantly flimsier. So I browsed a little bit. After awhile, I saw one that caught my eye and I picked it up, intrigued that the top part of the shoe was very sheer. The sole seemed sturdy, but overall, the shoe was very light. I then pulled out my handy iPhone and googled the shoe to find some reviews. They were all very positive, and I learned that the shoe has a lower heel to toe ratio in terms of thickness. I like this because I think it encourages mid-foot striking.

Whether or not mid-foot striking is good or bad is a discussion of science that I'm unprepared to have. But I maintain that I've benefited from a change in my running form and/or stride. As a subdiscussion, let's talk about minimalist running shoes. There are lots of arguments for and against them and I think both camps make good points. In my experience, I've found that Vibrams are great for distances 5 miles or shorter. In my first four mile race after running in them for a few months, I maintained an 8:07 minute/mile pace. That's a full 1:10 minute/mile improvement over my previous best pace. This speaks well to their performance, but I won't deny that they have downsides. When I race in them, I tend to get very large blisters at the sides of my feet. Additionally, the tops of my feet begin to hurt occasionally, at which point I have to wear regular shoes for a week or so to let them recover. In fact, my friend Meghan recently suffered a stress fracture because she did too much running in her Vibrams (correct me if I'm wrong!). What's the bottom line here? While I don't intend to make Vibrams an integral part of my racing strategy, I do believe they've changed my stride and form for the better and I still plan to do the occasional short run in them.

So back to the original discussion. I like that I'm now more of a mid-foot striker than I was before and I wanted to maintain at least some of that even once I switched to regular running shoes. The Saucony Kinvara 2 model appeared to be a good candidate. As a sidenote, they're less than 2 ounces heavier than Vibrams (6.7 versus 4.8 ounces).

This was further proven today, when I went for my first run in them. I ran 4 miles in 31:38, a pace of 7:54 minutes per mile and the first time that I've recorded a pace faster than 8 min/mile. They felt amazing. It was like running on clouds. Alright, that's a little dramatic, but you get the idea. They were exactly what I was hoping for. This is what they look like:




Stay tuned for a summary of my first Ironman training session with Jared!

2 comments:

  1. The stress fracture is a result of the Merrell Barefoot Pace Glove. But same basic idea. Minimalist = bad. (for me, and for more than a few miles. in my opinion.)

    ReplyDelete
  2. 200 miles? 350 miles? I've been running in my shoes for 778 miles now! Those salesmen are lying.

    Congrats on the sub 8.

    ReplyDelete