Good Bye Glycerin 6

Well, I have a day off today. Only a few weeks left in the season, My legs havent been feeling fresh for a few weeks so I think this day off is needed.

Instead of running, I'm just casually relaxing in my dorm room going over my current Running shoe situation. I'm in a current dilemma due to the discontinuation of the shoe model that I currently wear.
For the last year I've worn the Brooks Glycerin 6. They've worked perfectly so far, along with the orthodics that I was given from Mark Tuller, an Orthopedist. The combination of this neutral running shoe plus the orthodic has alleviated pain that I have had in my shin while running.

I've had this problem since high school, after running a few months of high mileage I usually develop shin splints in the area near my ankle and my lower shin. I've gone through a ton of different running shoes to help git rid of the shin splints. I'm usually recommended shoes with a lot of stability, but I haven't found the right fix for my shin splints since I used the combination of the Brooks Glycerin 6 and my orthodics.

I'll try to explain my basic knowledge of the differences between running shoes before I go on with my current dilemma.
Running shoes are sold on the basis of how much support a runner needs based off of his or her running mechanics, particularly the motion that occurs when a runner lands on his or her heel and what happens before the take off.
(I've worked with Shoes before, so I've had to explain this difference to customers before)

A neutral shoe, is a shoe that is generally recommended to runners who have high to relatively normal arches in their feet.
Most people tend to over pronate when they run. Meaning that when their heel hits the ground, their foot tends to roll inwards towards the big toe. This is a natural occurrence that alleviates some of the shock from the landing.
Those runners with high arches only have a very slight pronation when they land due to the support from their arches. Because of this, a neutral shoe which does not have much added support under the arches, or stability, is recommended.

A shoe with stability is recommended to runners who have somewhat low arches or flat feet. The mechanics of these runners usually involves a lot of over-pronation. Meaning that when the heels of these runners hits the ground, there is a large motion of rolling inwards that occurs that usually generally doesnt occur in runners with high arches. This can be the cause for many injuries, which can be discouraging because it's merely body mechanics... something you are born with.
Naturally, people with high arches have fewer injuries that are due to mechanics. For example: In the Army, I've heard stories of complaints from privates with flat feet who were constantly on their feet during the Korean and Vietnam War.

To get back to shoes, stability shoes have a dual-density midsole. Basically, to tell if a shoe is a stability shoe or if it is neutral you have to take a look at the middle of the shoe where the arch part of your foot would be if your foot was in the shoe. If the area is dark grey and looks like it is solidly filled in then it is a stability running shoe.
Heres a pic for an example:
Asics 2110

See the dark grey in the middle?

Now, here is a picture of a neutral running shoe. Asics Gel Cumulus

If you look at the arch location of the shoe, there is no dual density midsole. Just a small, what looks like plasticy material underneath the shoe. That's actually still a support for an arch and is a hard surface, but it isn't a dual density midsole


Well let me get to my background...
I have a low arch in my foot... So naturally I overpronate when I walk.. BUT somewhat less severely when I run, which is not very common among runners. Because of this, when I go to Marathon Sports and an Employee checks out how I walk they usually tell me I need a shoe with A LOT of stability. When they look at how I run, they might alter their opinion and say I need a shoe with a little less stability.

The problem is, a shoe with a lot of stability is not good for me because it has too much support for my foot, which can cause stress and injuries in other locations in my body.
I can't wear a neutral shoe while running because then there will be no support for my natural overpronation which will lead to natural injuries involving mechanics.

A shoe with moderate to almost no stability should be my ideal pick, however, those shoes such as the Brooks Radius, have not worked for me either. I still get pain in my shins when I start running a lot of mileage per week.
This was the injury that actually kept me injured for most of my freshman indoor season last year.

So, After doing research, and talking to an Orthopedist, I decided to try out orthodics with a neutral pair of running shoes. The neutral pair that I was recommended was the Brooks Glycerin 6.
pic:

I was recommended these shoes in particular because they have a TON of cushioning. A lot more cushioning then most other neutral shoes. The neutrality of the shoe would be canceled out by the orthodics which I was told would act as a layer of stability when I put them into my shoes. So it would slow down the process of overpronation that occurs when my foot hits the ground.

I was incredulous to that idea at first. I don't know how, but it's worked!!!!!!
I've been able to run 70-80 miles per week using this combination and I havent had pain in my shins! It's like I'm cheating my creator for giving me low arches.. but I'm happy that I've found a way around that and have been able to run a lot of miles.

Which brings me to my current dilemma.

The Brooks Glycerin 6 has been discontinued as of January 2009. The Glycerin 7 has been introduced.
My problem with the introduction of another model of the shoe is that shoe developers tend basically create a new shoe, a different shoe from the previous model. They alter the shoes in particular ways when they introduce the new model(I got this knowledge from working with people who have experience in R&D of these products).

The Glycerin 7 might be a completely different shoe. In which case my flawless running combo will be eliminated. Online sources say that the Glycerin 7 is still a neutral and well-cushioned shoe. I'm still a little hesitant to buy them... I'm inclined to order every pair of Glycerin 6 size 10.5 that I can find and store them somewhere so that I have a never ending supply of them!

I'm just nervous since the miles on my now out-of-style Glycerin 6's are coming close to 400 miles. When a shoe approaches 400 miles, I usually go and replace them. I'm naturally comfortable with this brand and style of shoe and I don't want to change it... I want to stick by the Paul Norton mantra of "Go with whatever works"... but I can't now that these shoes aren't being sold anymore.

So.. what to do?

Do I keep looking online for the Glycerin 6 whenever I need a new pair, and continue this cycle until All the Glycerin 6 size 10.5 shoes in the world have been depleted?

or do I...


Dun dun duh...

Try out the Glycerin 7? and risk running in a shoe that has the possibility of not keeping me injury-free like the Glycerin 6 had?

I know I'm over-exaggerating this dilemma as much as possible, but I seriously am apprehensive in trying out the new model. It could turn out to be a completely different shoe and I'm tempted to just find every last pair of Glycerin 6 and round them up into a storage house for my safe-keeping.

Gotta do what I gotta do.

The Distance Running and Marriage Phenomenon

I found this to be a good read,
Justin Kopunek from Flotrack.org wrote a funny blog post about how some of the elite distance runners have been getting married almost right after college.
I'm turning 20 in about half a year, and am in NO rush to get married (At least not like half of the University of Colorado Team), but this article has a lot of good points about the integration and relationship-building aspects that running may bring into our lives.

Article Link:
http://www.flotrack.org/blogs/blogger/Bx_Runner/6074-marriage-and-distance-running

"One explanation I can surmise is that to become a distance runner competing at the highest level, along with talent, one needs commitment to the sport. As many of us runners have touted in job interviews and personal essays, commitment to running is reflective of our dedicative nature. I am suggesting that how elite distance runners treat their sport transcends every aspect of their lives, including personal relationships. At the highest level, distance running requires a full commitment of mind, body, and soul. The same could be said of marriage and child birth. To commit to a sport so wholly takes a special personality type, one that would bring that same level of allegiance into any relationship. If anything, runners are a loyal breed. Loyal to a sport, loyal to a shoe, and loyal to their mates. "

I guess we can't really blame Adam Goucher, A high percentage of the teenage running community is in love with Kara Goucher anyways!
But seriously, it's a good read.

Runnin a little tired

I haven't been feeling 100% the last 2 weeks. On some of my runs my legs have been feeling like logs, other runs my lungs have been struggling with the normal process of respiration.

I may have been starting to feel small effects of solid training as soon as the Brandeis meet when I ran 4:22 for the mile. I was happy with the race, but I began to feel a little more tired. For most of late December to Mid January I felt almost invincible; I ran solid workouts and my runs felt pretty easy. One thing that may have added to this tired phase is the fact that I started doubling in Mid January as well. I could have introduced that earlier into my season.

So the progress continues, I ran (what I think) is a sub par performance 2 weeks ago at Tufts when I ran 2:36 for the 1000m. I know that Ive been and am fit enough to take seconds off that time.

This past week I ran the mile at BU. I was pretty excited to get out and race at a fast banked track. The week before I had felt pretty dead on my runs, so I even had a day off to help freshen me up. I ran 4:25.69 for the mile.

I'm tempted to be disappointed with the time because it's slower than my PR and (since I'm someone who tends to habitually compare himself to others or others performances) I didn't get an immediate PR like a lot of people get from their first race at the BU venue.

I hate excuses, and I'm someone who immediately looks for reasons when something doesn't go the way I would've liked it to. In this case, the race actually did play somewhat to my disadvantage.
I was in the 8th heat of the mile, and all of the races before mine did not have a problem with someone taking the race out with a quick pace. Mine was the first one to go out slow,

We were running straight 33s and 34s for our 200 splits for most of the race. Went through the 800 in 2:12. This caused a bunch up at the front of the race. The whole race was pretty physical. I spent a lot of energy trying to maintain my position near the front. Everytime I would try to get into 2nd place, I would get shoved and/or elbowed. I returned the favor to a number of other races, if someone came on my outside I would stick my arm out and try to get him to move forward so that I wouldnt become boxed in.

I ended up getting 4th in my heat. It was an interesting race to say the least. I was looking for another gear with 200 to go, but I didnt seem to have the wheels that day.
It's a learning experience, John said that I probably should have not gotten in the mix of things until past halfway, I should've relaxed in the back and then made a move later on. This is pretty true, I made a ton of contact early on in the race.

Well, this week I've still been feeling somewhat tired. I only ran 10 miles for my long run on Sunday, ran up Comm ave again with Devon, Mike Stone and Some guys. Ran the 10 in about 69 minutes.

Picture of us running up Comm Ave this Sunday:

From Left to right:
Devon, Mike Stone, Udel, me, and our buddy Kiprotich from Kenya behind us in the background.
You know, just a casual run up heartbreak hill.



I actually have to take a moment to give props, kudos (whatever you want to call it) to Devon. This weekend he broke 4:20 for the first time in the mile at BU. He's been working really hard, and it's good to see the work pay off for him. He's incredibly motivated and meticulous about his training regime. He was injured most of last year and he's bounced back pretty well. 4:19 is a great mid season run.

Anyways, the Big meets are ahead of us.
This weekend I might be racing the mile at D3 Regionals at MIT. I really want to run this race, but it'll be a matter of how I feel this week. I want to be fresh and peaked for UAAs in early March, so whatever John and I work out will be good.

The plan is,
race the mile at D3s at MIT, mile at All New Englands at BU the next week, and probably mile at the UAA Conference Meet at the Armory in New York City.

I want the focus to be UAAs. The Armory is a sweet track, and the UAA Conference is really competitive, so it'd be really cool to race well and show the conference what we've got. I'm not putting down the possibility of NCAAs, but that would take a certain time, a big PR. Definitely not out of the realm of possibilities, but I want the focus to be on UAAs. It will be only my second time running at the conference meet, I have to make up for my blow up at Cross Country UAAs at Emory (haha!).

Well, I've had a good winter of training so far. We have a lot of talented and focused guys, so it'll be good to see what happens when we bring our sharp legs and focused attitudes to the big races.

Coming off a great month of training

January of 2009 has possibly been my best month of training that I've had my entire life. My lowest mileage week was around 60 miles and my highest week was at 71 miles. Not only that, but I felt pretty good for the entire monthly period. when I look at my flotrack running log, I see a lot more consistency in terms of feel and in workouts and running as well as a slight increase in running pace.

I put in some pretty excellent work during January. It's no surprise that this first week of February, I ran 62 miles and felt pretty sluggish. I've been working out well,
actually on Tuesday I ran a 6,4,2,2,4,6 ladder with Devon and Aaron Udel. The last set was run in 28, 59, and 1:35 which is good, the workouts have been getting faster.

At the same time, I've been feeling a little tired, but to no surprise. I ran the 1000m at the Tufts Invite today, and I was 11th in 2:36. I wasn't happy at the time nor with my race at first ( the race consisted of me struggling to hang onto the lead pack from the gun), but I was content with it later.
2:36 is actually a PR,
and it's also a really good indicator that I'm really really fit.
(Coach) John and I agree that I needed the race. With the bigger meets coming up, it's good to get an effort like this in a meet that doesn't matter all that much.

Coming off a mile PR two weeks back, I'm feeling pretty solid.
I've practically run a PR in all of my races this winter, with the exception of the 800 at bowdoin but i was only a second off. I'm in shape to run really well throughout the rest of the season.

There were a good amount of solid performances today at Tufts as well,
Matt Jennings got 3rd in the 1000m with a PR 2:32, Devon was 4th in 2:33.
Beth Pisarik won the mile in 5:10, with Kate Warick 3rd.
Chris Brown won the mile in 4:22, with Marc Boutin 5th in a PR 4:26.
as well as other solid performances that I can't remember off the top of my head.
The girls also ran a Distance Medley Relay last night in New York in 12:12.

The team is doing well, a few of the guys and girls are sick and some of us are coming off a few hard weeks, but this means that the hay is in the barn. We have a lot of good races to look forward to in the future.