Run, minimally

Several years ago, a colleague of mine gave a Goddard colloquium talk on Giovanni (an online visualization and analysis system for NASA satellite data). In discussing the system's workflow engine, he said one of the requirements for the engine is that it runs minimally (i.e., does only that which is absolutely necessary). Naturally, I immediately thought of minimalist running, that it's not just about shoes but also (more so?) about running efficiency--doing only that which is absolutely necessary.

But, let’s stay with shoes for now. Here’s Google Trends for 2004-present for the four indicated search terms. Annotations are of events that I knew or googled that plausibly explain some of the trends.

Following are some notes and links corresponding to the above trends and annotations.

[1] McDougall, Christopher, 2009. Born to run: A hidden tribe,superathletes, and the greatest race the world has never seen, featuring Tarahumara runners in sandals. Publication of this book led to a peak interest in barefoot running over the next 2-3 years.

[2] Hoka One One, the beginning of a slow but steadily rising interest in maximalist shoes (backlash to minimalist shoes?).

[3] Minimalist shoes sale boom, with a small lag following the publication of Born to Run (min_1; min_2); these two articles are just to reference the “sales up 303%” in the Google Trends chart above.

 [4] Kipchoge ran his unofficial sub-2 marathon in Vaporfly, as did Brigid Kosgei in breaking Paula Radcliffe’s 16-year-old marathon world record, which, along with many other records and PRs being set left and right, put the spotlight on a shoe that’s been already out there for a couple years.

[5] Vaporfly approval by World Athletics and what led to the review and ruling.

[6] New Vaporfly releases

It’s almost like, at some point between the releases of the Hokas and Vaporflys, someone thought, hmm, that’s a lot of space in those soles just for cushioning … (1, 2). But, even before Vaporfly, the basic idea already existed, e.g., various you-gotta-be-kidding-me spring-loaded shoes.

With the advantage these spring-contraption shoes provides, is there an “asterisk” problem for elite runners? Evidently, yes, for now anyway. For example, last month, Chris Thompson qualified for the marathon event of the upcoming delayed 2020 Summer Olympics, after winning the 2021 British Athletics Marathon--wearing a blacked-out pair of Vaporfly. Why blacked out? Because his shoe sponsor doesn’t make Vaporfly. (He did have his sponsor’s permission to wear the Vaporfly, though—if blacked out.) Then, a couple weeks later, Beth Potter broke the world record for 5K while wearing shoes similar to Vaporfly but made by Asics. (Her WR may not be official, though, because there were no “certified timekeepers or drug testers on site.”) Apparently responding to questions about her shoes, Potter said, “But all athletes now have access to the same level of shoes, so it’s a level playing field.”

But, if everyone has to wear these shoes (blacked-out or not) to be competitive, then it's basically everyone normalizing to a faster base speed. The competition reverts to what it was before these shoes, plus perhaps a small competitive delta based on who can get more or less out of the claimed 4% improvement. What's the point, then? Other than Nike and other companies making lots of money.

And, for the rest of us, there’s a similar asterisk problem. What does “I ran a new 4% PR!” mean, if done with a 4%-improvement Vaporfly? As with age-grading, is there going to be shoe-grading, to account for runners who will be racing with and without these shoes? :)

Regardless of the pros and cons of these various types of shoes (or no shoes), I’m a minimalist runner. I run, minimally. My transition from traditional running shoes to minimalist shoes began some 10 years ago and took more than a year. First was Nike Free, then followed by Merrell’s Trail Glove, Bare Access, and Vapor Glove, Vibram FiveFingers, and occasionally sandals and barefoot. Below left is my first pair of Trail Glove (still the all-time favorite!), and below right is the latest pair of FiveFingers (lightest of them all, except for barefoot; great for traveling!)

Running is more, much more, than speed, PRs, or even WRs. Too much focus on speed and technology misses the meaning of running. It’s certainly not why I run. Now, one might say, well, yes, but competition brings out the best. Exactly. 😊 In the runner, not shoes.

Run free at any speed.

Vibram to Ductbram

Google “running shoes lifespan,” and you’d get a long results list of articles most of which read as if they’re just slight variations of some single original source. Most state without citation that shoes need to be replaced after about 300-500 miles. These articles then drone on about “blah, blah, blah, …, cushioning, …, blah, blah, blah, …, upper support, …,” as if somehow Nature didn’t do its job and messed up. You’d have to scroll down the results page a ways to get to the first article that doesn’t mostly follow the script and that notes there are not much data to support the claims of these other articles.

Hmm, let’s see, who might be the beneficiaries of these articles?

The latest of these droning articles is from the New York Times, “You probably need new running shoes. Here’s how to upgrade.” Scrolling, scrolling, …, and there it is (!): “Shoes should be replaced, on average, after every 350 miles run, running experts say.” Who are these “experts"? It also helpfully states, “Expect to spend around $130 on a good pair of running shoes.” Huh? The most I’ve ever spent on a pair of shoes was less than $110. And, that was the rare exception. The rest of my shoes were in the range of $50-90.

Some of these article do mention about the benefits of rotating shoes, which I agree with and I’ve been doing in recent years. Of the five pairs of shoes I’m currently rotating through, the oldest (Merrell Bare Access) is in its fifth year (1543 miles); the other four (Merrell Vapor Glove, another Merrell Bare Access, and two Vibram FiveFingers) range from two to four years (~300-800 miles). These articles likewise give no citations for the benefits of shoe rotation. On the latter, there has also not been a lot of research done. Here’s one study from a few years ago: Study Backs Rotating Shoes to Lower Injury Risk (Referenced paper, abstract only: Malisoux et al., 2015). I’ve been fortunate, in all my years of running, to rarely have gotten injured, either from accidents or overuse. Because I’ve been rotating shoes only relatively recently, that has not been the reason for my mostly injury-free running.

But, rotating shoes does give me ample time for post-run shoe maintenance with Shoe Goo and, starting this year, duct tape. Here’s an example from a few days ago with one of the Vibram FiveFingers. I suppose, with time, the soles of my shoes will evolve from Vibram to Ductbram (?!).

Most of my previously mothballed shoes are still around on shelves in the garage. Recently, I noticed that they all had been mothballed at conditions better than those of my current shoes! Evidently, my threshold for mothballing has slowly been changing. So, I guess I could de-mothball those shoes, Shoe Goo and duct tape them, and put them back into rotation service!

I may never need to buy another pair of shoes! (jk! … sort of).

Gels and Bites

For many years now, I’ve been using various brands of energy gels for fuel on long runs (over 13 miles) and during races (half and full marathons). I train with various brands so that, if I have to use the gels that are sometimes available at aid stations of races, there would be a good chance the gel brand would be one to which my body is accustomed. The main ingredients of my current four gel brands are maltodextrin in Clif and Hammer, tapioca and honey in Stinger, and a bit more “real food” in Muir. The latter I’d discovered at the race expo of the November 2019 Harrisburg Marathon. Muir is more expensive ($2.50@) than the other three ($1.50@), but it’s more nutritious, has 150 calories compared with 100 calories of the others, and tastes better! For fueling, I usually take one gel every five miles.

A relatively new fueling option, distinctly different from gels, is Plant Bites. From its Web page: “Athletic fuel made from real food for better performance.” If interested, you can check out the page for the details. Currently, there are three varieties; shown below is Fig + Triple Berry (the two tan-colored Bites are from a previous package of Mango + Banana).

In recent months, I’ve been experimenting with Plant Bites on long runs. For fueling, instead of every five miles, I’ve been taking two Bites (60 calories) every 2.5 miles. There are 24 Bites per package, at $10@ ($8@ if on sale). At regular price, that’s ~$.84 per two Bites or ~$1.68 per four Bites (five miles). At sale price, that’s ~$.66 per two Bites or ~$1.32 per four Bites (five miles). So, the fuel costs for five miles are roughly comparable between gels ($1.50-2.50) and Bites ($1.32-1.68). Calories for five miles are also roughly the same between gels (100-150) and Bites (120). For a 15-mile run, e.g., I’d carry 10 Bites in a plastic sandwich bag and take two Bites at each of Miles 2.5, 5, 7.5, 10, and 12.5.

So, with the cost and caloric content of gels and Bites being about the same, which one is better? Gels are easier to store (pretty much anywhere); whereas Bites, being “real food,” need to be stored in a fridge or freezer. During a race or long run, whether gels or Bites are easier to carry and ingest depends in part on personal preference. For me, Bites are easier—just open the plastic sandwich bag, grab two Bites, pop them into the mouth, and back to the race/run, while ingesting the Bites. Gels are sticky and more prone to messiness and take longer to ingest. Then, there are those tabs at the top of gel pouches that have to be torn away before squeezing out the contents. Clif gel pouches are designed to retain the tab after being torn away. But, with other brands I’ve tried, you’d have to tear the tab carefully to leave just enough of it to not have to carry a loose tab until it could be properly disposed of. In sub-freezing temperatures, with heavy gloves, “keeping a tab on” is a bit tricky.

Taste? Bites wins hands down over most gels; Muir, though, comes close.

One additional consideration: 2.5 miles between each two Bites is mentally easier than 5 miles between each gel! (Half a gel every 2.5 miles? Nah, wouldn’t work!) This is the Work Breakdown Structure idea (See WBS, WBS2).

So, overall, my verdict is Bites over gels, though I’d also carry a gel for backup.