Active Community: Message List

Re: Hawaii Running Cruise Reviews

guest — Tue, 08 Mar 2011 03:23:47 GMT

We had a great time, and it was such fun getting to know our fellow runners, including the reviewers above. (Hi, guys!)

It was a unique experience, one that is hard to describe to people back home. (Them: "So, everyone on the cruise was a runner, then?" Us: "No, just us and about 25 others who signed up on Active.com for the group rate." Them: "So, did all 25 of you know each other?" Us: "No, total strangers at first. Friends by the last day!" etc.) This was our first cruise -- we'd never had much desire to take a cruise before. It was definitely worth trying once. Having visited Hawaii three times before, it was a welcome change to experience multiple islands without having to make travel arrangements. That, and the great views you get cruising around the islands and into the harbors, was the best part about the cruise. The downsides include those mentioned by others (everything has an added cost) and you do have to wait in line a lot. Otherwise, NCL seems like a respectable cruise line; no problems.

Marv and Rosemarie and their friends/colleagues Mike and Sharon were wonderful planners and hosts. The runs were fantastic, and there was plenty of time to do your own thing on the off days too; we weren't "managed" by the hosts at all. What a treat to meet some Marv's local friends who set up the runs for us in Hawaii Volcanoes Nat'l Park and on Kauai. Best of all, the weather was perfect that week, which doesn't always happen in Hawaii in January. My husband and I are seriously considering a return trip to west Maui next year to run the oceanfront (half) marathon on our own. It's one of our favorite areas anyway, and experiencing it as a runner was new and exciting.

Re: Event Reviews

guest — Sun, 26 Sep 2010 23:59:09 GMT

This is a fun race, especially with all the other Homecoming events going on! Courses in Missoula are pleasantly flat and I had one of my best 5k's, according to the time that the volunteer called out at the finish.

I'm rating this 5 stars and I love the fact that the UM track coach started this tradition. It seems to be getting more popular, so I'll add a few suggestions that would make it even better in my opinion!

(1) Post the correct map on Active.com. Spelling "Homecoming" correctly would help people find it too!

(2) Promote it more on the University and athletic dept. websites. (It was hard to find on montanagrizzlies.com.)

(3) Have a clock at the finish. Just a smallish digital timer would be adequate.

(4) Running into the stadium and around the field was fun, but not necessary. The tailgating crowd was already building around the stadium and there were too many opportunities for collisions. Pedestrians had no idea there was a footrace going on. Perhaps routing the course partway up Campus Drive and winding back through campus somehow (avoiding the immediate stadium area) might be easier to manage.

(5) I think starting the race earlier at 9:30 would still provide parade atmosphere, since a crowd is already building along the route, while beating some of the stadium area congestion. Runners would have time afterward to walk back to the parade route and watch some of it, if they wish.

Re: Minimalist

guest — Mon, 14 Jun 2010 02:02:33 GMT

Like Jim, I am interested in the minimal approach, but am trying to make a gradual transition. I just changed from a relatively low-heeled neutral shoe to an even flatter one (Saucony Kinvara, along the lines of a Nike Free). It's certainly not the most minimal thing out there, and I doubt I'll ever go all the way to barefoot running or even VFFs. The latter are too pricey an experiment, like Len said -- and I think they make people look like they forgot their gorilla costume at home.

Does anyone remember the Dr. Scholl's ads from the 1970's with people walking on the beach, showing how your heel makes a deeper imprint in sand than your forefoot? They were marketing sandals in which the heel was the lowest part of the shoe. The ads proclaimed it was more natural (I guess if you spend all your time walking in sand!) but apparently they were a flop. I can only imagine how sore people's calves were and how many returns were made to stores! I'm waiting, bemused, for the day when running shoes are marketed this way.

Re: I hold the believe that 90% of runners suck at running.

guest — Mon, 14 Jun 2010 01:30:56 GMT

Len, agreed. It was a discussion a few months ago in which you said something like "Even Chi Running would agree it's possible to heel-strike while landing midfoot" to which I had disagreed, but I see you are simply pointing out it's possible. The point I am trying to make is this: The ChiRunning approach is getting more popular, and more of your participants here are attempting to follow its philosophy. (Three or four years ago, very few had heard of it.) And a fundamental part of ChiRunning is that if your heel is taking the bulk of the impact, you're doing ChiRunning wrong. We don't care that it's possible to heel-strike with your foot landing directly under your c-o-g. It's still wrong for us.

I'm not asking you to agree with ChiRunning -- I'm only trying to explain this fundamental difference. When you say in a response that that there's really nothing wrong with heel-striking and the poster indicates that he/she is following the ChiRunning approach, you need to know that you're contradicting a fundamental part of his/her learning, which could be pretty confusing for them. ChiRunning is a completely legitimate approach that has helped many people to run with less effort and fewer injuries. I realize you can't know whether someone is practicing ChiRunning or not, unless they tell you. But if they DO say they are trying to be a ChiRunner, please understand that they're operating under a different set of rules on proper foot-strike.

Yes, we ChiRunners can get a little overzealous and judgmental when we think we're seeing poor form, when it might simply be different form. We need to get over that. (90% of runners don't suck at running -- but I understand the OP's aversion to "heel-first" form. I took this post to be tongue-in-cheek!) So -- to all my fellow ChiRunners out there: Hooray, keep it up -- but let's recognize that others have been successful doing something that we've been told never to do. Likewise, we ask non-ChiRunners to respect the philosophy that we're trying to live by, and to understand that, by definition, we're either ChiRunners or heel-strikers; we can't be both.

Thanks, as always!

Re: I hold the believe that 90% of runners suck at running.

guest — Sun, 13 Jun 2010 16:17:18 GMT

There is something I've been wanting to clarify for months now. Len has said before that one can land heel-first while still having a midfoot strike ("midfoot" apparently meaning that the runner's foot lands under the body's center of gravity). That might make sense in a traditional running approach; it seems to works for Len and many others, and evidently it works for lots of elites. (I disregard such comparisons of elites to "the rest of us," though. Elites got that way because they're freakishly gifted. The fact that they're heel-strikers is incidental; they could probably run sideways and still be in a class unto themselves.)

In ChiRunning (a practice which both the original poster and I follow), the definition of "midfoot" is different. In ChiRunning, landing midfoot and heel-striking are mutually exclusive, because ChiRunning precludes dorsiflexion (flexing the foot upward). The only way you can land on your heel while your foot is properly under your center of gravity is to dorsiflect. I'm not saying one definition is right and the other is wrong -- I'm saying they are different and this may explain the root of the debate in this particular thread. If heel-striking works for you, then good for you; it's none of my business. But heel-striking will never, ever work for anyone following the practice of ChiRunning. I'm not saying everyone should be a ChiRunner -- my point is only that "midfoot strike" doesn't always have the same meaning to everyone. This is why we ChiRunners might be over-sensitive about it, and why seeing a photo of someone flexing their foot dramatically upward makes me cringe, personally.

Re: I hold the believe that 90% of runners suck at running.

guest — Sat, 12 Jun 2010 05:05:49 GMT

Forget the road or the gym -- the next time I see a professional running magazine publish an "artful" photo of some guy or gal extending their foot way out in front of them, toes skyward, heel about to take an appalling strike -- I'm going to complain to the editor!

Re: Treadmill incline setting

guest — Fri, 11 Jun 2010 05:06:47 GMT

My inexpensive treadmill at home has the same problem. I agree with the guideline to set it at a slight incline but don't worry about being exact. It's not critical. Just press the button quickly once or twice; I'll bet this would give you somewhere between 1 and 2%. It shouldn't really feel like you're going uphill much...1% is barely noticable once you get used to it. 2% is still easy too; just a slight increase in effort.

Another idea is to try one out at a gym to get a better idea of what 1%, 1.5%, and 2% feel like (and you could try higher inclines too, just to give yourself more comparisons). It might not feel truly "uphill" until 3 or 4%). I will assume you don't have a membership if you're using a home TM like mine, but it should be easy to get a day pass from a local gym.

Re: Uneven stride length

guest — Tue, 08 Jun 2010 02:55:03 GMT

Thank you guys. I should have mentioned that a chiropractor once told me one leg was noticeably longer, and when I said, "Oh, really?" he was surprised that I wasn't aware of it. I know many people have some discrepancy so I didn't worry about it, and I haven't been to a chiro in at 12 or 13 years. I couldn't even remember which leg he said was longer - until now! This morning I continued focusing on an even stride on a treadmill, and for the first time I could readily tell that my left leg is the shorter one. I've probably been taking a slightly longer stride with my right leg all my life, walking and running, to even things out. I think the sloped road in my half-marathon made this adjustment all the more fatiguing. Thanks mostly to 2 years of ChiRunning practice, I don't heel-strike with either leg, so my already-short running stride just needs to stay nice and even. Maybe an extra liner in my left shoe would help! Thanks everyone.

Uneven stride length

guest — Mon, 07 Jun 2010 04:42:33 GMT

In February I ran a half marathon, after having trained for the distance with no pain or issues at all. Suddenly, during the race, I had pain on the outside and below my right knee, as well as an occasional spasm-like feeling (not a muscle cramp, exactly). The first 5 miles were on crowned road, where my right leg was on the uphill side. The pain started a few miles after that. I had to stop running for 6 or 7 weeks, and did a lot of research. There were no swelling or joint mobility problems (i.e., nothing torn) and I concluded it was most likely tendinitis. The pain would come and go, just like tennis elbow or other types of tendinitis. Four months later it's still there, but manageable.

All along, I've had a vague sense that I was "uneven" or off-kilter somehow when running, causing my right leg to complain. Recently I tried a new lightweight, flexible shoe (Saucony Kinvara) on the treadmill. The soles are so soft, I couldn't believe how quiet they were. Then I noticed each foot had a different sound on the treadmill belt, giving me that vague sense of unevenness again. By concentrating on the sound, I was able to adjust my stride just a bit until both feet sounded the same. Problem was I didn't really know what I was adjusting.

Then a few days ago, I read a post on the ChiRunning discussion boards in which the moderator suggested that a poster's leg pain could be caused by a longer stride on one side, due to a leg length discrepancy or simply because it's the dominant leg. Aha! I realized that might be my problem. I went out for a 7-mile run yesterday and shifted my focus to my left leg (without actually lengthening its stride; just a mental image of my left leg being "in charge" and my right leg being slightly weak). That felt unnatural, but boy, it helped! For the first time in 4 months, there was no nagging pain outside my right knee during the run, and my left leg still felt great as usual.

I realize now too that track workouts were probably making my problem worse, and I'll want to run the wrong way around the track sometimes. It's going to take some time to groove a new stride where my right leg doesn't work harder than the left, but I think it's the key. Have any of you ever noticed an uneven stride or dominant-leg problems? Am I on the right path in resolving it?

Re: Suncreen or not

guest — Mon, 07 Jun 2010 03:03:51 GMT

This sounds like a misinterpretation to me. For one thing, who puts sunscreen in their armpits, or on the middle of their back or their chest (assuming they're wearing a shirt or singlet)? Those are the areas I sweat the most, as well as my scalp. I'm most worried about being sunburned on my arms and legs, and those are also the areas where I'm not going to sweat as much anyway. I wear sunscreen on my face and neck too, but haven't noticed a lack of sweating!