Transitioning to a Forefoot Strike and/or Minimalist Running Shoes Part 1

I read an interesting post on Cold Thistle this morning about barefoot running and minimalist shoes.  It was an article by G.S. Seltzer at www.triabilitycoach.com.  It's an interesting article.  The link is

http://triabilitycoach.com/2012/03/22/barefoot-running-truths/.  Or you can read it at one of my favorite blogs,

http://coldthistle.blogspot.com/2012/04/barefoot-running.html.

  Then, with that on my mind, I went climbing for a few hours.  While I was sitting at a belay, I got a text from my wife.  One of the girls she works with is a runner.   The text said, "(Her friend's name) disagrees with you on your running style.  She says the ball of the foot is bad.  Heel-toe is better for long distances."

This friend of my wife has taken up running and her husband ran track for a local university.  He was a sprinter, not a long-distance runner.  He told his wife that his track coaches said that landing on the ball of the foot is good for sprinting, but a heel-to-toe strike is better for long distances (a widely believed idea that has been challenged more recently during the barefoot/minimalist running movement).  This friend also said she tried the midfoot strike thing and got injured.

The fact is, even if midfoot striking is better than heel striking (which I believe it is), it can still lead to injury if your body is not used to it and the transition isn't done carefully.  Therefore, I'm writing this two-part post to explain how I transitioned to forefoot striking and more minimal shoes.

Why Running Shoes Have Thick Heels

In 1967, William J. Bowerman (a successful track coach at University of Oregon) and W. E. Harris wrote a book called Jogging: A Physical Fitness Program for all Ages.  In the book, Bowerman and Harris claimed that the most efficient way to run was to land on the heel of the foot and that a person would jog faster if they lengthened their stride.  A longer stride meant that a runner must land on their heels.  There was no scientific evidence for these claims, but it sounded good.

A few years later, Bowerman, now one of the founders of Nike, was involved in creating a new running shoe with a thicker heel, called the Nike Cortez.  Later, with some more ingenuity and his wife's waffle iron, he created the Waffle Trainer.

The thicker heel look caught on and other companies adopted the design.  The thicker sole also forced the user to adopt a heel strike (because it's really difficult not to with such a thick heel).  It's interesting to note, that running-related injuries have gone up since the invention of thick-heeled running shoes and a heel strike.

Why I think a Mid/Forefoot Strike is better

A few years ago a study came out by Daniel Lieberman and colleagues from Harvard University.  The study, Foot strike patterns and collision forces in habitually versus shod runners, showed a few interesting points.  The study compared shod runners and barefoot runners and measured their impact forces.  

According to the study, "At similar speeds, magnitudes of peak vertical force during the impact period are approximately three times lower in habitual barefoot runners who forefoot strike than in habitually shod runners who rearfoot strike either barefoot or shod."

If you run without shoes on, your body is naturally going to find a form or technique that is most comfortable and does the least amount of damage for the body.  Try heel striking without shoes on.  It just hurts.  If one runs without shoes, their body will naturally transition to a technique that is less damaging and painful to their body, which will be a forefoot strike.  (For clarification, I often use the terms midfoot strike and forefoot strike synonymously, even though a mid foot strike means landing with the forefoot and heel landing simultaneously.  A forefoot strike means the ball of the foot lands first.  A forefoot strike is actually the more natural gait and is what I mean when I say midfoot strike)

This is the same lady, running without shoes on the left and with shoes on the right.  Look how much smoother she looks without shoes.  Her posture is better, her arms are tighter to her body, she lands softer and her body is smoother.  Without shoes, notice that her knee is bent when she lands so the impact force is absorbed by her muscles.  With shoes, she lands with her leg mostly straight so the impact force (that is 3x the amount as without shoes) is absorbed less by her muscles and much more by her knees and hips/lower back.  There are no shock absorbers in the knees or lower back.  It's no wonder that a different friend of my wife, who is an avid runner, just had hip surgery to repair some damage they think was caused by running (she heel strikes, by the way).

Another downside to heel striking is that it is less efficient than forefoot striking.  It's a little more visible in this video.  As a person lands on their heel with their leg out in front of them, it's like they are putting on the brakes.  Proper forefoot-striking technique is that the runner lands on the forefoot directly under the body, not out in front, so it shouldn't act as a brake.

After Deciding to Make the Transition

Chances are, if you've been running in standard running shoes for a long time your feet have weakened a bit.  We often hear about needing arch support in a shoe or some sort of pronation/supination control.  All this "technology" in shoes should lead to less injuries, right?  Well, according to some studies, approximately 70-80% of runners in America will get a running-related injury this year.  In contrast, about 3% of runners in third world countries (who usually run barefoot and with a mid/forefoot strike) will get a running-related injury this year.  It's possible that those numbers are so much lower because some of the injuries may go unreported, but probably not 67-77% of injuries go unreported.  That's a staggering difference.  I should note, these statistics are from memory (I think from the book Born to Run, which I read about two years ago or from one or the other studies I've read over the last few years) and could be off a bit.  If anybody knows what the statistics accurately are, I'd appreciate a comment on them.

Anyway, the body adapts to what it's subject to.  So, when a foot is "protected" by a shoe with lots of arch support, the arch gets weak.  It's like putting a cast on your foot.  If you did that to your arm, it too would get weaker.  Weak muscles being subject to a hard workout are a recipe for injuries.  Therefore, don't go on a long run barefoot or in minimal shoes when your feet are weak.

Anyway, it is important to strengthen one's feet before really committing to a full-time forefoot strike.  This can be done by wearing shoes less, occasionally running barefoot on grass or other soft, safe surfaces, by running with minimal shoes part-time, etc.  Going from a heel strike to minimal shoes and forefoot strike SHOULD NOT be an abrupt change.  It should be a gradual transition.  If somebody that is not used to a forefoot strike suddenly runs 10 miles with a forefoot strike, they will most likely not be able to walk for a few days (because their calves are so sore) and could potentially injure themselves in other ways.  It's like taking on a technical ski run with weak legs.  The risk of injury is so much higher than if the skier has strong legs, even if the technical skill is equal.

Part 2 of this post will be about how I transitioned to a forefoot strike and some other suggestions from experts in the field.

Saw this on Rock and Ice. Absolutely Nuts!

He does some incredible stuff, but . . . .

OR Helium vs Marmot Super Mica--Ultralight Rain Jacket Review

There are many lightweight rain jackets on the market, but few that are lighter than the OR Helium and the Marmot Super Mica.  I have been using the Helium for about two years, and Phil has been using the Super Mica for about a year.  Mostly out of curiosity, I am going to compare the two jackets to see which, in my opinion, is the better jacket.

The Stats and Facts

                        OR Helium                                                      Marmot Super Mica

          6.7oz  (Med) according to my scale                            8.4oz (Med)  my scale

                Pertex Shield WPB Membrane                          Marmot Membrain Strata 

                    No Reinforcements                                      Reinforced Shoulders & Hips

                   One Zipper Chest Pocket                                    Two high hand pockets

               One internal stuff pocket with loop                         No internal pockets

                   No adjustable cuffs                                                Adjustable cuffs

                    Full hem drawcord                                             Partial hem drawcord

            Two-way adjustable hood                                    Two-way adjustable hood

                       No Pit Zips                                                              Pit zips

               Helmet Compatible(?) Hood                               Helmet Compatible Hood

Pictures

Marmot Super Mica on the left, OR Helium on the right.  Super Mica has two front pockets that are mesh-lined (could work as vents for better breathability) and out of the way of a harness or hip belt.  OR, to save a few ounces, opted for one fairly small chest pocket.  The Super Mica's two chest pockets are each significantly larger than the Helium's chest pocket.

Super Mica has pitzips, Helium doesn't.

OR Helium has an internal stuff pocket with a loop for clipping to a carabiner.  The pocket is a good size for a wallet or cell phone, but is under a harness or hip belt if wearing a backpack.

Super Mica's front pockets are mesh-lined on the inside so they can be used for venting.  They don't work very well for venting, however, because the pockets don't let much air in.  Better than nothing, I guess.

Super Mica fabric is reinforced on the shoulders and at the hips to increase wear with a pack.  Also, the hem drawcord on the Super Mica only actually cinches the back half of the hem.  The Helium's hem drawcord cinches the whole hem.

Super Mica has a drawcord around the brim of the hood.

Super Mica has a second drawcord pull from the back of the hood.  This adjustment works pretty well in all conditions.

The Helium has one drawcord pull on the hood that pulls from the back and also tightens a small section of the brim of the hood (the section between my fingers).  It's an easy system, but the hood doesn't stay on very well in high winds.

Elastic cuffs on the Helium

Adjustable cuffs on the Super Mica, though the velcro patches are so small that it doesn't hold extremely well.  When I reach above my head with the cuffs tight, they come undone.

Helium packed into its own pocket with a loop for clipping to carabiner.  The whole package is small enough that it's great for clipping to a harness for use against wind or rain.

OR Helium in a size medium.  I'm 6'2" and 185lbs.  The fit is comfortably trim and will accommodate a thin mid layer, but that's about it.  It does fit over my Arc'teryx Atom LT hoody, but it's snug.

Marmot Super Mica in size medium.  The fit is about the same as the Helium with my arms down and would accommodate a thin mid layer.  When I wear this jacket under a harness, it pulls out of the harness slightly when I put my arms above my head.  The OR Helium feel great under a harness.  It easily stays tucked in and there is full range-of-motion with my arms.

Helium is kinda helmet-compatible.  With the jacket totally zipped up and the hood over a helmet it is really tight across my chin.  When I use it with a helmet I don't keep it zipped up.  The brim, though reinforced, is pretty flimsy and doesn't keep its shape very well.

Super Mica feels better over a helmet.  There is actually room inside the jacket to breathe.  The brim is also reinforced a little better and keeps its shape better.  Neither of the hoods are big enough to allow much head movement laterally with a helmet when the jacket is fully zipped.  Though they technically fit over a helmet (which is nice), neither work well with a helmet.

MY Verdict

First of all, let me say that both of these jackets are good.  Both are extremely light and breathe decently well.  Hiking uphill in either of these jackets will definitely lead to clamminess, but the Marmot handles that slightly better than the OR, thanks mostly to its pit zips.  Though neither of these jackets has seen harsh, prolonged rain storms, both have been through moderate rain and haven't had even the slightest problem dealing with it.  Both have a great DWR and neither have wetted out.

Durability is a toss up between these two jackets.  Though the Super Mica is reinforced, the fabric on the Helium feels slightly more robust.  I mentioned in the previous post that I worried about climbing in my older OR Zealot jacket for fear of tearing it.  I don't worry about that with the Helium.  I've scraped it against Ogden quartzite without any problems.  The other reason I don't hesitate to climb in it is because OR has an unconditional lifetime warranty.  Though I try not to abuse the system, it is nice to know that I'm covered if I ruin the jacket.

Obviously the Super Mica is a full-featured jacket at a super light weight.  That comes at a price.  $200 retail for this jacket, compared to $150 for the Helium II (the updated version of my jacket; it's more waterproof, more breathable, and 0.4oz lighter than my jacket.  Yep, you heard right, 0.4oz lighter!  How do they do it?).

So, if I had to choose one of these two jackets, I would choose the OR.  The main reason for this is because it is better to climb in, in my opinion, and the majority of what I do is climbing.  It stays put under a harness, can pack into its own pocket and clip to a harness, and OR's unbeatable warranty allows me to climb without worrying that I may ruin it.  

The Super Mica is probably the better jacket for hiking and backpacking, however, because it vents better which makes it more versatile when hiking, especially uphill.  The fit is great as well, when you don't have to lift your hands above your head or when you're not wearing a harness, and the hood is more adjustable for using in bad weather.

So, it's kind of a toss up between which of these jackets is better.  If the comparison was between the OR Helium and the Marmot Mica (not the SUPER Mica), I wouldn't hesitate to say that the Helium is better because of its more robust material and OR's warranty, but the Super Mica offers a few extra details for not much added weight that, if you're a backpacker or hiker, may be worth the extra money.

Lightweight Rain Shells intro

This last week has been quite frustrating for me.  Now that school is finally over, I had planned to go rock climbing each morning this week and each morning it rained.  The rain cleared and the rock dried by the afternoon, but I wasn't able to go any of the afternoons.  Finally, today I was able to get out on the rock.

The recent rain but warm temperatures prompted me to break out my lightweight rain jackets.  I currently have two that I really like, and Phil has one that I'm very curious about.  I hope to compare two of these jackets tomorrow when I have a little more time.  Tonight I'll just talk briefly about my two jackets.

The OR Zealot

First of all, I have the OR Zealot Jacket.  I was super excited about this jacket when I bought it (about 7 years ago), but they have since discontinued it.  It is made of Gore-tex Paclite material and weighs 7oz.  It packs up pretty small too.  The shell material feels like paper, and unfortunately the first time I went climbing in it I leaned up against some rocks and put some tiny holes in the material (the holes are visible if you hold the jacket up to the light, but I don't notice it letting water in).  The DWR in this jacket is top notch, never once allowing the material to wet out.  Even after an hour deluge while backpacking in the Uinta Mountains of Utah, I shook off the jacket and it was dry again.  Not a single bit of the material wetted out.  Because the durability is an issue, I have babied this jacket, only using it for backpacking trips and always being very careful with it, especially around rocks.  I know that OR has an unlimited lifetime warranty, but they don't make this jacket anymore, so if I damage it, they would replace it with a lesser or heavier jacket.  It retailed for $200 back in the day.

The OR Helium

My second jacket is the OR Helium.  At 6.7oz, this jacket is even lighter than the Zealot but has proven to be significantly more durable.  This jacket uses Pertex Shield instead of Gore-tex Paclite.  The Helium packs up smaller than the zealot (into its own pocket) and has a loop to hang it from a harness when climbing.  My experience in prolonged rain is limited.  I have had the jacket for over two years but the longest downpour I've been in with it was about 20 minutes.  At the end of the 20 minutes the fabric had started to wet out around pack straps, but was still doing a pretty good job everywhere else.  I do start to feel pretty clammy fairly quickly while hiking uphill, but it feels pretty comfortable hiking on flat ground or downhill in the rain.  It seems to me that it isn't quite as breathable as the zealot, but it's hard to tell.  The retail price for this jacket was $140.  They have now replaced this jacket with the Helium II.  The Helium II uses Pertex Shield as well, but this new version is supposed to be 0.4oz lighter (thank goodness because I was sick of the old one weighing me down), 10% more breathable, and 30% more waterproof.  It retails for $150.  My original Helium was a grey color with a red zipper, but the zipper broke, so I sent it back to OR and they sent me a new one in Blue.

Outdoor Research is one of my favorite companies when it comes to lightweight clothing.  The main reason for this is because of their unlimited lifetime warranty.  I feel so much more comfortable spending money on ultralight clothing when I know that I won't be out a jacket if I tear it on the first outing.  Same goes for their down products.

Anyway, the Helium Jacket is one that I would recommend.  Phil has the Marmot Super Mica jacket.  This one is also super light, but offers a few more features than the Helium.  Hopefully tomorrow I'll be able to compare the two side-by-side to try to figure out which is the better jacket.

Altra Instinct Running Shoe Review

The Altra Instinct

I have had many running-related injuries in my life.  Shin splints, plantar fascitis, knee problems, etc., I've had them.  I used to think that dealing with some sort of running-related injury was just part of the deal.  In exchange for being healthy, you had to be unhealthy.  Or in other words, in order for me to not get winded while hiking uphill with a pack at 10,000 feet (which regular trail running allows me to do), I'm just gonna have to deal with the limping that comes from knee pain or plantar fascitis (that running used to force me to do).  That's how I used to think, anyway.  After some coaching on proper running technique (as I explained in the previous post) and after a sweet birthday present from my wife (Altra Instinct shoes), those injuries that I've dealt with for so long aren't an issue anymore.

The Altra Instinct is, by far, the most comfortable running shoe I have ever had on my feet.  Actually, it's the most comfortable shoe of any kind that I have had on my feet, period.  Even more comfortable than my slippers and Sanuks.

Originally I was interested in the Altra Lone Peak shoe because the majority of the running I do is on the trail. Trail running is the only way I can stay motivated to run these days.  Road running just isn't my thing.  When I got these shoes, however, Altra was out of the Lone Peaks.  My wife got me the Instincts instead, and I have never complained.

All of the running I have done in these shoes has been on the road.  I got the shoes in November which means the trails have either been muddy or covered in snow, and I didn't want to subject my new shoes to those conditions.  A couple of times I have run into snow covered roads, but that's the worst these shoes have seen.

So here are a few facts about the shoes:

• 9.6oz per shoe, according to my scale.  8.8oz according to Altra's Website
• Truly anatomically shaped; the shoes are shaped like a foot
• Zero-drop footbed; the forefoot and heel are an equal distance from the ground
• Drilex Liner
• Heel claw, asymmetric lacing, A-wrap help with fit
• Comes with supportive and strengthening insoles to help make the transition to minimalist shoe

My Experience

Ever since I changed my stride from a heel strike to a mid-foot strike, my knee problems have gone away.  It was amazing to me how quickly they went away as well, considering they were so debilitating before making the change.  It seriously took about two weeks for my knees to stop hurting.  But, that wasn't the end of my running-related problems

This is what a zero-drop shoe looks like.  There is the same distance between the ground and the heel as the ground and the forefoot.  When you set this shoe on a hard surface, it doesn't balance on the heel, like it does in most other running shoes.  The balance point is actually in the middle of the shoe, almost like it was designed to help you run with a mid-foot strike.  Weird.  The two grey A-shaped pieces are to help secure the foot without restricting the roominess of the forefoot.  It works very well.  I never jam my toes in the front of my shoes on the downhills.

After running for a while with the new technique, I started to develop Plantar Fascitis.  This was so painful that I gave up running for a while to let it subside.  Once I started up again, however, the pain quickly came back.  It wasn't until I started running in the Instincts that my feet stopped hurting.

I think there are a few reasons for why that is, but the main reason is how wide the shoe is in the forefoot.  All of my other shoes were fairly narrow in the forefoot, which helped to hold my foot in place on the downhills, but didn't allow my foot to work properly during the run.  I'm pretty sure that's why the plantar fascitis started to flare up.

Wide, foot-shaped design allows toes to splay naturally.  I started lacing my right shoe like this because I get a little bit of uncomfortable pressure on the top of my foot when I lace my shoes tightly.  

Out of the box, these were the most comfortable running shoes I have ever put on my feet.  I quickly put my running clothes on and ran five miles.  They felt incredible.  I did have a little pain in my feet (plantar fascitis), but no blisters, hot spots, anything.  The plantar fascitis went away after a few weeks of running in these shoes.  I was amazed at how light the shoes felt and at how well the held onto my foot, especially with such a wide forefoot.  In fact, I didn't even need to tighten them very tight and it felt like my foot wouldn't slop around in the shoe.  The only discomfort I felt (other than the plantar fascitis) was in my calves.  I had taken a break from running for a while because my feet were hurting so bad, so my calves weren't used to it.  Then to run five miles off the couch was overdoing it a little.  After about two weeks of running, my calves were used to it again and the shoes have only become more comfortable.

To give you an idea of how the shape of these shoes compares to other shoes, the "supportive footbed" of the Altra is on the left and one of the footbeds from some Salewa shoes I have are on the right.  The Altra is shaped like a foot.  The shape difference is even more obvious when you put the shoes on.

After a while, I started to notice a little discomfort on the top of my right foot when I would lace the shoes up pretty tight.  A little adjustment in my lacing system and I haven't had a problem since.

I don't mean for this review to sound like an advertisement for Altra, but they are great shoes and really well designed.  I know many of the people at Altra, a couple of which I have become pretty good friends with, and they are all accomplished runners and are very passionate about what they do.

I was a little worried about their durability when I first got the shoe because they are made mostly of mesh.  They are so airy and comfortable while running that I was sure they would fall apart after a couple months of hard use.  That hasn't been the case, however.  After about five months, they are still in great shape.  I can still comfortably run in them.  The only problem I'm running into is that the soles are wearing out, which is to be expected after five months of use.

This is the extent of the wear after about five months of use.  Now I admit, I am not the most hardcore runner around.  My runs don't often get longer than about five or six miles or more frequent than three or four days a week, but I wear these shoes often as casual shoes as well, so they're doing pretty well.  The lugs are shaped the way they are to mimic the bones in the foot so that the shoe flexes properly and doesn't fight against the foot.  Don't know if it works like it's designed to, but they're really comfy.  The downside, this sole design is super slick in snow.

Altra uses A-bound in their midsole, a type of foam that is 2-3 times more resilient than the standard EVA foam of normal running shoes.  That means that the foam should last longer than the standard running shoe before needing to be replaces.  To clarify, the whole midsole isn't made out of A-bound, just a thin layer.  The other section of the sole is a type of EVA.  I'd usually wear out a standard pair of running shoes in about 3-4 months, but these still feel very comfortable and I should be able to use them for at least a few more months.

The Gripes

There are only a couple things here to complain about.  One thing I noticed, almost right off the bat, is that the traction on the Instincts is quite slippery in snow or slush.  The couple of times I have tried to run in the snow with them has been quite dangerous.  They simply aren't designed for slippery surfaces, I'm afraid. 

The only other complaint is not about these shoes in particular, but about all of the Altra shoes so far.  They don't make a water-resistant model yet.  I'm hoping that they will offer a waterproof/resistant model in the not-too-distant future, especially in the lone peak.  I really appreciate the breathability of their shoes for warm, dry days, but I'd love to have a water-resistant trail runner for backpacking and winter/spring trail running.

The Verdict

As I have mentioned before, these are the most comfortable, best running shoes I have ever used.  I used to never wear my running shoes around unless I was running.  I just think running shoes look bad with casual clothes.  But I wear these shoes around everywhere, no matter what the dress; not because they look good, but because they are comfortable enough that I don't care if they look bad.  I give these shoes a 6 out of 5 stars, because they have allowed me to run pain free again.  I can't wait to use the Lone Peaks on the trails this summer!

And for the ladies, the Instinct comes in a women's specific version called the Intuition.  As Brian told me a few months ago at the OR show, "We didn't just 'shrink it and pink it' like many others do.  Our women's specific last is actually designed a little differently than the men's last.  Even the amount of padding is different." 

Another helpful review that I just found is at this link:

http://birthdayshoes.com/altra-instinct-running-shoe-review


Check out the Altra Instinct and Altra's other shoes at www.Altrarunning.com.  The Instincts retail for $99.

Running Injuries and Minimalist Shoes

I used to run a lot.  In fact, for about seven years I ran competitively (not ever really winning, but also not totally losing; I was usually near the bottom of the top third).  I ran because I enjoyed being in shape, and it kept me in shape for all the other activities I enjoyed doing, like rock climbing and backpacking.  Probably the most addicting thing about running for me was how good I felt when my body was in shape.

Well, I moved to Europe for a couple years, stopped running, and life was fine.  When I got back to the States, I decided I needed to take up running again.  The problem was, as soon as I started running, my knees started to ache.  Over time, the pain became so severe that I could barely walk.  I had no idea what the problem was.  When I biked, my knees felt fine, but as soon as I'd start to run, the pain would come back.  It was so frustrating.  So, for a few years I relied solely on biking and hiking to keep my cardio up.

I was talking to my boss one day about running (this is while I was working at a gear shop).  My old boss is an incredible runner.  He runs multiple ultra marathons each year (and occasionally wins).  Well, I was complaining to him about how much I missed running and how it was so frustrating to have this knee pain.  He convinced me to go trail running with him the next day after work.  He said that he would bet my knee pain is related to my running form, and if I were to change the way I run, the pain would go away.  I assured him that I run no differently now than I did years ago and I didn't have any pain then, just now.  He said that he would coach me on my form a little and see if the pain would go away.

So, the next day we went out and ran six miles together on the trails.  The whole time he was giving me pointers on how to run.  The biggest thing he taught me was to not land on my heels, but to shorten and quicken my stride and land on the balls of my feet.  It was awkward at first, but I trusted him.  By the time we got done with our run, my calves were so sore that I was hobbling around the parking lot.  Also, by the end of the run he had convinced me to sign up for a trail marathon that was coming up in about four months.  I wasn't sure I'd be able to do the race because of my knees, but they didn't seem to hurt much after our run, so I went for it.

A side note on running technique:  When you run barefoot, your body tends to automatically want to run properly, naturally.  It doesn't allow you to heel strike.  Instead, you land on the balls of your feet, with your knees bent.  Overstriding and heel striking is simply too painful without shoes on.  When you land on the balls of your feet with your knees bent, the impact is absorbed by the muscles of your legs and by the muscles in the arch of the foot, the way the body is designed to do it.  If you run with a heel strike, you land with your leg straight, not bent.  That means that all of the impact force when you land is sent to the joints in your knees and lower back.  There is no shock absorbing mechanism in your knees or lower back (no, your meniscus doesn't count).

I started running on the trails about four days a week, focusing on the new form that my boss had taught me.  Within about two weeks of running with this new form, my knee pain was gone.  Totally gone.  I was really enjoying running again, and within about three weeks I was doing 12-16 mile trail runs on a regular basis.

About two months later, a different ailment surfaced.  This time, every time I would land on an uneven surface with the balls of my feet, I would get excruciating shooting pains up my foot.  I'd dealt with plantar fascitis (which this was) in the past by not running, but I'd already signed up for this marathon, so that wasn't an option.

I talked to my boss and he explained that traditional running shoes can often lead to foot problems, such as plantar fascitis, because they are too narrow in the forefoot and they don't allow the toes and forefoot to splay properly.  Also, after running miles in a shoe, the foam packs out a little bit, packing down more at the center of the shoe, under the ball of the foot than on the outsides of the shoe.  This is due to the way the shoe is made and because the majority of one's bodyweight is centered on that point of the shoe.  That means that after months of running, the footbed of one's shoe, under the ball of the foot, is concave.  This forces the bones of the foot to push together, not allowing the foot to work properly and often inflaming the tissues in the bottom of the foot.  Therefore, traditional running shoes may have been causing more pain than they were helping.  My boss suggested running on grass without shoes every once in a while to strengthen my feet and allow my feet to work properly.  I did this and the pain started to subside, but very slowly.

By the time the marathon came around, I was excited to get it over with.  I was sick of having foot pain (which was still there, but not nearly as intensely as before) and knew I needed new shoes.  I ran the race, enjoyed the first 25 miles of it, and then started to cramp for the last three miles or so.  This marathon was slightly longer than the normal 26.2.  When I got to the finish line, my friend (previously my boss) was waiting for me to welcome me in.  He ended up taking first in that race.  He then introduced me to a few of his friends, one of which was Golden Harper, the founder of Altra Running shoes.  Altra was in its prototype stages back then.

My previous boss, Brian Beckstead, left that gear shop to help his friend start the company Altra.  They had been working for years and years learning about the foot, working in running stores, altering their own shoes (cutting a 12mm wedge out of the heel of their shoes), and ultimately designing new shoes that are supposed to allow your foot to work naturally.  While Brian was my boss, he showed me a prototype of their new shoes.  They looked radically different than the trail runners we sold at our store.  First of all, they were shaped like a foot; narrow in the heel and VERY wide in the forefoot and didn't come to a point at the toe.  Second, they were built on a zero-drop last (Altra coined the term "zero drop").  This means that the forefoot and the heel are exactly the same height off the ground.  Most other shoes have a 12mm drop (sometimes more) from heel to toe, which makes it very difficult (almost impossible) to run without landing on the heel.

It took another year or so for Altra to make its debut and start selling shoes.  They were a small company at first and couldn't keep up with demands.  Within weeks they were sold out of shoes.  A few months later they had some more, but they sold out again before I could get my hands on some.  Finally, Icon Fitness bought Altra and started funding the company, allowing them to make enough shoes to keep up with the demand.  Last November my wife bought me a pair of Altra Instinct running shoes for my birthday.  They didn't have the Lone Peak in stock at that time and I thought I may be doing more road running during the winter than trail.

I hadn't done much running between that marathon and November because all my running shoes hurt my feet and I was enjoying biking and climbing too much.  But getting the new shoes was a little more motivation for me to get after it again.  I have been running off and on since November and I am happy to say that my foot and knee pain is gone.  The only discomfort I have is in my calves when I haven't run for a while and then overdo it.

With all that said, the next post will be a review on the best running shoe I have ever used (and I've used a lot of them), the Altra Instinct.

A note on minimalist shoes and proper running technique: Because of my background I am convinced that the trend toward minimalist/barefoot running is a step in the right direction.  I know a lot of people believe in barefoot running.  I think it's great, but I personally am not man enough to do it.  I like having the protection of shoes when I run, but I don't like shoes to work against my body and cause injuries and discomfort.  So, you won't find me running marathons in Vibram Five Fingers or Altra Adams, but you will find me preaching zero-drop shoes and proper/natural running technique.  I know there are varying opinions about what proper technique is.  To define what I consider proper or natural technique, take off your shoes and run for a couple hundred yards.  It is pretty much impossible to land on your heels.  In fact, it hurts a lot to land on your heels.  Your body naturally lands on the balls of the feet and uses your leg muscles, bent knees, and the arches of your feet to absorb the impact.  That's what I consider natural or proper running form.

How this blog works

Many of you may have noticed that I haven't given a bad review on any gear on my blog.  There's a reason for that.  I have some positive relationships with a lot of vendors in the outdoor industry, and I don't want to hurt any relationships by writing critically about the gear I don't like.  Therefore, I only review gear that I like.  I try to be as critical and honest as possible on the gear I do like, pointing out all features, both good and bad, and giving my honest overall opinion.

So far, every piece of gear that I have reviewed I have paid for or had given to me as a gift by family members (or in a couple cases borrowed for an extended period of time).  I am currently testing some gear that was given to me by vendors, but I won't let that sway my opinion one way or the other.  If I like the gear and use it often, I'll write about it.  If I try out new gear and, after a while, it stops going with me on trips because it's not as good as other gear I already have, I won't write about it.

If you, as the reader, ever want me to do reviews on a specific piece of gear, let me know and I'll try to get that gear (if I don't already have it) and review it.  If I use it and don't like it, I'll send you the review in a personal message.  If you want an opinion on some gear that you've seen me use but I haven't written a review on, please let me know.  Chances are, if I'm using it, I probably like it and just haven't gotten around to writing a review on it yet.  Your questions may influence me to write that review.  If I have been using it but don't like it, again I'll let you know my opinion in a personal message.

The one place in which I may give bad reviews is in comparisons.  If I compare lots of different sleeping bags, for example, I'll be honest in my appraisals of each piece.  You'll probably find that I'll rave on and on about the gear that I like, and not say much about the gear I don't.

On occasion I write an article (not a review) on gear that I haven't used yet.  These are usually me informing the public about new gear that I am excited about.  Please don't assume that if I'm writing about it, I've used it and think it's a great piece.  I'll try to make it as clear as possible in my post that I haven't used that piece of gear.

I started writing this blog for a few reasons.  I have been working in the outdoor industry for a long time and have been an avid climber, hiker, biker, backpacker, skier, etc. for the majority of my life.  I often get texts and calls from family and friends asking my opinion on certain gear before they make a purchase.  I enjoy researching and using new gear and sharing my opinions.  The second reason is that I have always appreciated reading good, informative gear reviews with lots of pictures.  I will try to include information in my reviews that I appreciate in other reviews.  My goal is to be a resource on outdoor clothing and equipment; not THE resource, but A resource.

Here's my disclaimer:  My opinion is just that, an opinion, and many others may not agree with what I say.  That's just fine and I would love to hear other people's comments, good or bad, about the things I write.  I love hearing others' opinions because, more often than not, I end up learning valuable lessons from them.  What works for me may not work for you.  I'll try to be thorough in explaining my opinions and reasoning for those opinions so that you can make a good judgement whether you agree or disagree.

Please feel free to share information from this blog.  If I can be helpful to you, the reader, in any way, let me know.

Thanks for reading the blog.  It is motivating to me to see that people are reading and commenting.

-Greg, Gear:30

Stephenson's Warmlite 3R Tent Review

The Stephenson's Warmlite 3R

There are pieces of gear that I buy without too much thought and consideration, and then there are pieces that I research for years (literally) before getting a hold of one.  The former is usually fairly inexpensive.  This review is about one of the latter; I definitely put a lot of thought and research into this one and it is definitely expensive.  I have been researching these tents for years and years, hoping one day to buy one but never knowing if I would have the patience to save up enough money to actually buy one.  They aren't cheap!

To help you judge the level of my bias, let me just say that I have been in lust with these tents for a long time, never actually getting my hands on one until this spring.  This prejudice can be a bad thing for two reasons.  First of all, I could have been setting myself up for disappointment.  On occasion, I'll be so excited for a new piece of gear that it is almost impossible for it to live up to my expectations.  The second problem, my biased views can cause me to only see the good that I want to see and ignore the bad (a type of denial, I guess).

Well, thanks to a very generous early graduation present from some family members, a Stephenson's Warmlite 3R unexpectedly came into my life.  I was able to use it on the last trip to the Cirque of the Towers, which ended up being a pretty good first test.

So, here are a few of the stats and features:

• 3-person, 4-season, 1.5 wall tent
• Not freestanding; goes up with four stakes, eight if you expect really bad winds
• 4lb 3oz (which includes windows on each side of the tent and a big door on one end); their advertised weight is 3lb 12oz, but that is not including the windows (which add 5oz)
• Double wall between the poles (reduces condensation and adds warmth), single wall on the ends (reduces weight)
• Made of high tenacity sil-nylon; the internal layer between the poles is an aluminum-coated nylon fabric
• 7187-T6 aluminum, 5/8" diameter pre-curved poles.  These poles are so lightweight that they feel like they'd easily break, but in 60+ winds they didn't even flinch.
• Easily room for 3 AND gear
• No vestibule (assume the end cones are vestibules with floors)
• Two doors, one on each end of the tent; one big door that zips up both sides, and a second smaller door than zips on one side

Pictures and Explanations

For the size, this may be the lightest 4-season tent available

The backside of a 3R.  I have read as many reviews on this tent as I could find, and the one (and often only) problem that seemed to come up was condensation.  SW claims to control condensation problems with their venting system, with one vent below the door flap and one vent at the top of the door on each side of the tent.  From my experience, this venting system works quite well, assuming you don't block the lower vent with gear.

This vent is below the door flap.  The bottom zipper is about six inches off the ground, and the mesh is more difficult to see than the nylon.  Because of this, it's easy to trip over the doorway.

A look at the door vents from the inside.  The flap on the door can velcro down over the vent, and the upper vents can zip shut.  Every night but one that I have slept in this tent it has been pretty windy, so airflow through the tent was pretty good and condensation wasn't a problem.  There was a little bit of condensation on the single-wall ends during the one calm night, but it was significantly less condensation than a cold night in a BD Firstlight, for example.

There was no condensation on the double-wall section between the poles.  The sides of this tent also have two windows.  These windows add 5oz to the total weight and apparently have no effect on the strength of the tent when the windows are shut.  There are four pockets, one on each side of each window.  Each pocket is a bit bigger than a 1-liter nalgene. 

The interior with the windows down.  The white sleeve in the middle of the window is a third pole sleeve.  The additional pole aids in heavy winds or snow loads.  The tent comes with two poles; the third pole is an additional $65.  

The external window flap.

This tent is big for three.  You can sleep three side by side with quite a bit of room on both ends for gear.  Each of these pads is 20" wide and 72" long.  With some creativity, you could sleep four.

There is approximately this much space on both ends for gear.

This is the back door.  There is a zipper on the bottom and right side only.  You can add a zipper up the left side for an additional $15.

The stake out points are interesting.  There is a camlock to adjust the length of the webbing and tighten the pitch of the tent.  It seems that the camlock is on backward; it's a little difficult to adjust.  It would be easier if the cam lock was oriented down the webbing so that you could pull the webbing down to tighten, like a 3-to-1pulley system.  Instead the cam lock is oriented facing up the webbing, so it's a little more difficult to tighten. 

The poles of this tent are an extremely light, very thin-walled 7187 T-6 aluminum.  They are pre-curved and are pretty stiff.  SW claims that 80% of the strength of flex-to-shape aluminum poles (the kind that are used in almost every other tent on the market) is used when the poles are bent.  Their poles are stiff and pre-curved so that no strength is lost.  SW claims that their poles can resist 20 times more force than regular poles.  I'm not sure if those numbers are true or not, but I do know that other tents I have used are quite deformed by the wind at 60mph, unless they use a lot of poles (heavy) and/or are well guyed out.  This tent doesn't use guy lines and only uses two poles.  With that said, in 60mph winds this tent didn't flinch.  The poles didn't bend, not even the slightest bit.  The tent just flapped a bit, but that was it.  SW does give some pretty detailed instructions on how to care for the poles, because as strong as they are in the wind, they are not very durable.

This poles are super light and thin.  Extra care should be taken so they aren't damaged.

The curve in the poles is hardly noticeable when they're collapsed.  I roll the poles up in the tent to help protect them, but I'm still paranoid I may damage them somewhere along the way.  So far so good.

This tent is about 20"x8" packed up.  It easily packs into its stuff sack.  It weighs 4lb 3oz. 

 Here's a little video of the 3R in the wind.  Gusts during the trip were, at times, around 60mph, but gusts in the video were probably closer to 40mph.  The tent looked about the same at 60mph as at 40mph.

My Experience

This tent is awesome.  This tent is really easy to set up.  With a little practice, it takes about 2 minutes to set up with two people.  It's even pretty easy to set up in the wind.  

The tent is quite roomy, even for three people and winter gear.  When the tent is first pitched, both the inner and outer layers are taut.  After a while, the inner layer hangs loose a little.  It makes the tent feel as if there isn't as much headroom, even though you can easily push your head up through the inner layer to the outer.  

The craftsmanship is great from what I can tell, though it may not seem like it at first glance.  All of the material is either cut with a laser or hot knife, so the edges shouldn't fray, but they are all exposed.  Most companies bind the edges to make them look prettier, though the edges may fray within the binding.    The seams are pretty straight, though not perfect.  SW seems to value function over form.  I'm cool with that.  SW doesn't seal the seams, but they give you silicone seam sealer so that you can do it yourself.  They say it takes about an hour.  I say four. 

I'm not sure where this should fit in, so I'll put it here:

I have read horror stories about SW's customer service, but I have also read many positive comments.  What I understand is the owner doesn't like to feel like he's being taken advantage of.  So, if he suspects you damaged the tent, plan on paying for the repair.  Jack Stephenson is the founder of SW.  His son, Bill, is the current owner of the company.  My family said that Bill was helpful and friendly over the phone when they talked to him while purchasing this tent, but that's the only contact we've had with this company.  The fact is, the tents are good.  Take care of the tent according to the supplied instructions (and there are a lot of them) and it should last a long time.  Don't follow the instructions and that may mean expensive repairs. 

The Gripes

It's still incredible to me that SW has made a true three-person, four-season tent that can handle 90+mph wind (according to SW) for four pounds.  Incredible!  It can handle 160+mph with wind stabilizer straps (again, according to SW; the straps are an additional $30). With that said, it doesn't come without its down sides.

The durability of the tent is a little questionable, considering the lightness of the materials.  SW suggests using a ground cloth to increase the durability of the floor, but that adds weight, of course.  More worrisome to me than the durability of the material is the durability of the poles.  Time will tell how durable the tent is.  I think, with extra care, the tent should last for years and years.  

Some sort of vestibule would be nice.  The tent is plenty large for storing gear, but a floorless vestibule would be nice for cooking in bad weather.  

The only other gripe is the price, but there is no other tent on the market, that I know of, that offers this much at such a light weight.  For that, I think the price is reasonable. 

The Verdict

I really like this tent, if that's not already clear.  I think the design is brilliant.  The price is high (about $680), but compared to other similar tents, it's pretty affordable.  I'd give it 5 out of 5 stars.

For more information on Stephenson's Warmlite tents, you can check out their website

www.warmlite.com

Update to the MHW Nilas Review

For those that care, after a couple months of use I have updated the MHW Nilas Jacket Review.

Here's the link:

http://gearthirty.blogspot.com/2012/03/mountain-hardwear-nilas-jacket-review.html

A Fairly Successful Trip to the Cirque of the Towers

I just got back from a fairly successful trip to the Cirque of the Towers in the Wind Rivers, Wyoming.  The original plan was to climb a couple new ice and mixed lines that we had noticed a few years ago.  These lines have caused many a sleepless night.  One of them looked to be about 1000 ft of WI 4-5 M5 or so, the other looked significantly harder.  Unfortunately, after 15 miles of snowmobiling to the trailhead and 10 miles of skinning with heavy packs, we found that neither of the lines are in.  In fact, there was hardly any ice to be found in the cirque.

It took a few hours for the bad news to sink in before we were making alternative plans.  We decided to climb Pingora the next day via the South Buttress Route (left crack of k-crack variation; 4 pitches, 5.8, 500ft).  We only brought rigid boots, so the crux pitch that goes from a hand to finger crack was a little saucy.  It was a really fun route, though, and the weather was very nice.

On the way down from the climb, Phil noticed an ice line on a smaller mountain (not sure of the name; it's the lump of a peak just below overhanging tower in the picture below)

This ice line became our objective for the next day.  It didn't look too difficult or very big, but it was, as far as we could find, the only climbable ice in the whole cirque.

The next morning we woke up to very strong winds (approximately 60mph gusts) and cold temperatures. It was very difficult to want to get out of our sleeping bags.  When we finally got ready and skinned across the cirque to our new line, the wind had calmed a bit and the sun would occasionally peek out from the clouds.  We thought the ice section of the climb looked about 200ft tall, but when we got up to it, it was only about 115ft or so.  

Because Phil had led the majority of the rock pitches the previous day, I got the honors to lead this pitch.  The ice was pretty thin, only taking stubbies in most places.  The ice started out with about 20ft of lower-angle steps until it steepened up to about WI4 difficulty for about 100ft.  The climb narrowed near the top and required some exciting, slightly trickier footwork to climb up and around a final rock bulge to a decent belay.

The second pitch was a 200ft gully of 65-degree unconsolidated snow.  We decided to stay roped and protect it with rock gear just in case the snow slid.  The first 15 feet was 10 minutes of wallowing before I wisened up and decided to use the rock to make progress.  There were nice cracks in the rock all the way up the gully, allowing for rock gear placements every 40 feet or so.  I climbed about half on the rock and half on the snow.  Every time I would commit again to the snow, my progress stopped.  I finally reached the end of the gully and my rope and found a good rock to sit on for a hip belay.  Phil and I scrambled another 200 vertical feet to the summit and decided that was probably the only first ascent we would have in the cirque this year.  We then headed back to our skis and skied back to camp.

The trip was totally worth the effort (I say that now that I am home, rested, and have eaten a good meal), but there was a lot of effort involved.  To approach the trailhead involved two snowmobiles and about 15 miles of riding.  This wouldn't have been difficult but we had many problems with the sled we were pulling and we occasionally got one of the snowmobiles stuck (Neither Phil nor I have much experience with snowmobiles).

Upon reaching the trailhead, we put our skis on and started the 10-mile slog into the cirque.  My pack was about 60 pounds (I brought way too much food) and Phil's pack was about 20 pounds and was pulling a 50ish pound sled with most of the climbing and group gear.  It was a long, slow hike full of blisters and sled frustrations.

Good rock climbing and the discovery of this small ice line saved the trip for us.  We are still crossing our fingers that the other ice lines will form on another, wetter year, but it is a long way to go just to be disappointed.  Who knows, maybe next year.

I'll post pictures and videos of the trip soon.