We really don't get it . . .

I happened to run into a few of my neighbors as I was beginning my run the other day and something I've noticed is that 99% of runners have no clue how to warm up or even what a warm up is really all about.  I'm much faster than my neighbor friends at least at race pace and we were all beginning our run and I refused to keep up with them as they immediately started at something near a 8:00 - 8:30 pace.  Similarly, I watch a lot of runners jump out the door of their house and immediately start in the 8:30 pace range which I think is insane.  The body hasn't awaken much less warmed up.  I tend to start in the 11:00 pace range even on days I'm going to eventually do tempo runs in the 6:00 pace range.  I learned this from elite level runners who I watched prod along very slowly during warm-up.

And, another thing, the idea, even as promoted by our running magazines, that a 20 min. warm-up is sufficient is not only wrong, but short sided.  It was awhile to warm-up the body correctly before launching into a hard effort workout.  I tend to warm-up for 40-45 minutes, followed by some active stretching, before moving into hard effort running.  This is likely why I haven't suffered a serious injury in many years.  Maybe it's a cultural thing in that we are just too darn impatient to let our bodies warm-up.  Or, perhaps, we don't have time and just force the issue instead of waiting until maybe the weekends when we have more time to properly prepare.  Or, maybe it's a competitive thing where we can't prod along because our ego's can't handle other runners passing us while we are warming up.  I don't know but I do know this is one of the major reasons so many runners are injured on a yearly basis and it won't change because we refuse to practice patience.

Harry

And so the beat goes on . . . the next plateau

No question I've crossed another successful threshold in my running life.  It's amazing what you learn about life and yourself from running.  A few random things as I continue my journey.

1.  In the near ending quest for the perfect running shoe, I found a shoe that surpassed the Nike XC and it's old school.  It's the Puma H-Street.  Yes, they are back.  These are in that group of the original minimalist footwear and was an all-time favorite of ultra runner Anton K.  I started running in these puppies several weeks ago and they are excellent.  Just a big better than the Nike XC b/c they are lower to the ground, no arch support and they fit my foot like a glove (note:  these are not for wider foot folks).  This is the new Terra Plana failed to develop with the Evo.  This is what the Evo should have been.  And the best part, I bought 2 pair for $35 each and they'll last thousands of miles.

2.  I don't do the "pain" thing anymore.  I'll run hard, although 90% of my running is nice and very easy, but even when I run hard, I will "within my breath" as is preached by Fred Rohe in "The Zen of Running."  As a result, I've lost about :30 - :45 sec. per mile when I run hard.  I run in the 6:30 pace range vs. 5:45-6:00 pace range but I run longer at that pace and, more importantly, I run happier.

3.  I still "run by feel," and it's the best thing I ever decided to do.  I run 20, 30, 40 days consecutively and I'm able to do it b/c I run by feel.  I do what my body wants to do each day.  I don't run with a watch, garmin, heart rate monitor, or any of that crap.  All those devices do is block the natural communication path between the body and mind and that's dangerous, in my humble opinion.  I basically run for 1 hr. every day and every 7-10 days, I stretch out a 90-100 min. run and only when my body says "go," then I'll throw in some hard runs, generally in the 15-30 min. range.

4.  Trails rock, streets suck.  If you believe surfaces don't matter in terms of impact to the body, I think you are crazy, at least with respect to this subject.

5.  I love life!!! Of course, the main reason is my wonderful wife and beautiful kids but I'll include running b/c it has changed my life.  I'm about 5,000 hrs. into running and half way to meeting that 10,000 hr. threshold everyone talks about.  I look forward to the journey to that destination but running has made me a better husband, father and person.  God gave me the ability to run so I thank God . . . thanks God!!!

Ok, enough and back to life (and running).

Peace,

Harry

Un-friggin-believable - Pete Magill rocks

Pete Magill: 15:11 for 5K at Age 50

May 7, 2012 2:07 pm
RSS	|		LIKE	|		TWEET

By Peter Gambaccini

Photos by Diana Hernandez

Californian Pete Magill was dominant in the 45-49 age group; for example, he ran 14:45 for 5000 meters in March 2011, three months before turning 50, to become the oldest American to break 15:00 for the distance. He's kept to his record-breaking ways since turning 50, including running 15:11.13 for 5000 meters at this weekend’s Oxy Invite in California, under the recognized 50-and-over American record. But, as you'll see in a bit, don't look for Magill's name in the record books for this mark.

There’s been an abundance of activity in the 50-plus 5000 in 2012. The American record of 15:41.67 by Mike Heffernan had stood for 20 years until it was lowered by Ken Ernst to 15:34.62 in March and then to a formidable 15:16.77 by Mike Blackmore just a week ago.

Blackmore and Magill will apparently be doing battle in the coming weeks to further lower their times, and ownership of it may pass back and forth between them, with Tony Young, who has just turned 50, possibly joining the fray. But Magill, who is also a terrific Running Times columnist, is making no small plans. Lamenting that he “just got started too late this year” and is “definitely not quite race-fit yet," he declares, "I'm going to try to find another 5000 in June, because I think I'm 3 to 4 weeks away from 14:45-14:50." His concern, he says, is that "I honestly think I might not find a decent race."

In any case, from what Magill tells us, his 15:11 may never be considered an "official" record because he finds the ratification procedure to be "a really demeaning process." He explains, "It ultimately requires multiple follow-up phone calls, lots of begging, last-minute reminders at the [USATF] annual meeting where records are ratified, and that's after running around a meet for a couple hours, trying to get people to sign off on all the things that need signing off on (the person who installed the track is supposed to sign off on the track being 400 meters, the starter for the race has to sign, the timer(s), somebody signs to guarantee that the track has proper rails, the meet director, etc.) ... and even then the applications aren't always accepted (and are often misplaced ... often)."

Magill concludes, "Anyway, all that counts is that it gets on the ARRS top times list (they keep selected track times too) and the American Records Wikipedia entry, and I don't need paperwork for that."

Magill is exceptionally fast at 50 but, he says, "The worst part about being a 50-year-old runner is this: The day before the race, for no apparent reason, my legs and feet suddenly got inflamed. It actually hurt to jog. They had improved by race time, but I still had to loosen the laces on my shoes to warm up (you know, just so my feet could fit into them!). It didn't affect my race (exhaustion was much more of a factor). But it was one of those annoying age things that really puts a damper on training and racing enthusiasm."

H-Streets are back baby!!!

65 min. recovery run in the classic Puma H-Streets:

Walking through the mall, my eyes popped out of my head when I saw the Puma H-Street's back on the market. These are the original minimalist running shoes before all the news fancy stuff that's available today. They are very simple, light (5 oz), with minimal protection and no support. The only downside is they are on the narrow side which isn't an issue for me as I don't have wide feet. I picked up a pair of these puppies for $30 (well, $60 b/c I had to buy 2 pair) and each pair will last well over 2,000 miles (I know folks that have run over 5,000 miles in one pair).

They are very similar to the Nike XC but closer to the ground and cheaper. The XC without the insole is similar to the H-Street with the insole. Without the insole, the H-Street is definitely a more minimalist shoe but without the insole, I can't run on some of the trails so I keep the insole.

I just can't believe they re-released this shoe (of course, they never should have discontinued it . . . these are classics).

What I've learned and lifting is stupid

The other day someone asked me what I’ve learned since I started running about seven years ago and I paused, gathered my thoughts and started to rail off several insights, thoughts and take-aways from my journey. I started years ago at a point where I could barely run 1 mile and turn the clock forward to today as a 42 yr. old runner, I average about 60 miles per week and can still (on occasion) run a sub 18:00 5k. My journey has included practically every injury known to runners, and perhaps to mankind (shod or unshod, I’ve tried almost everything).

With that background, I answered the question with a list of random thoughts . . . came out to a nice round number of 20 (although I have a lot more in my tiny brain) . . .

1. The shod world is full of half truths and half lies and the unshod world is full of half truths and half lies.

2. Barefoot running is extremely valuable even in small does if for nothing else that foot strengthening.

3. The design of the modern shoe is insane. Just stop for 1 minute and think about the design elements in the modern shoe, all of which have no rational relation to the natural functioning of the foot.

4. The idea of focusing on “lifting the foot,” is stupid in my mind. The focus should be on getting the foot on the ground as quickly as possible, and as lightly and softly as possible. This results in a high cadence and shorter stride. The choice is this: lighter impacts but more contacts with the ground or higher impacts but lesser contacts with the ground. You choose.

5. Arms matter and they stabilize your posture. You see runners with arms waiving all over the place. Big mistake.

6. The new wave of minimalist footwear is almost (almost) as stupid as the modern running shoe. Yes, they good intentions for the most part but they are making the same mistake which is failing to logically think about modern running conditions and what the body needs or doesn’t need. For all the new minimalist footwear available, only a few companies get it.

7. Pose and Chi are a complete waste of money and both methods are flawed. Almost I’ll use the word “stupid,” too many times, Pose and Chi are stupid!!! They are nothing more than a ponzi scheme because the reality is you don’t need any class or method to learn how to run.

8. We humans are incredibly lazy, led by my country (the U.S.). We eat too much, never work out, and wonder why our health sucks.

9. The reply “I don’t have time to run” is nothing more than an Excuse!!!

10. Anyone can learn to run well and fast. There’s no question we were born to run.

11. Genetics is way over-rated and like #9, used as an Excuse!!!

12. Technology (GPS watches, HRM, etc.) can be a runners worse enemy.

13. If you truly want to be a talented runner, learn how to “run by feel.” The best runners in the world learned that way because they had no money to buy this type of technology. At the end of the day, there is no technology better than the human body (mind, body and spirit).

14. Check out Barefoot Ken Bob and that’s basically all you need to know about running, whether you run barefoot, in shoes, or a little of both, like me.

15. Running over rocks and difficult while barefoot is stupid unless you like it. There’s no reason to give up all the modern conveniences just to make a point. However, find the most minimalist shoe available that allows you to run where and how you want.

16. There’s no shoe worth more than $80, and this is coming from someone that has purchased thousands of dollars of shoes. Personally, I won’t spend over $60 and I expect the shoe to last at least 1,000 miles but much closer to 2,000 miles.

17. If you do nothing else, lose weight. Weight is a killer, both in life and for running performance. For every 1 lb. imagine running with a 1 lb. weight and so on. While 10 lbs. doesn’t sound like a lot, it’s a TON and I had to find out the hard way.

18. There is no sport on the face of this earth that is easier to do than running . . . just head right out your door and if you don’t need 10 minutes to go through a checklist of useless technology, all you need is clothes and shoes, or just your bare feet.

19. Gordon Pirie was way before his time. For free, you can download and read the best book on running . . . “Running Fast and Injury Free.”

20. As in life, it’s all about sacrifice and priorities.

Harry

Why we are over-weight

Well, generally speaking and specific conditions excluded, we eat too damn much. I got a bit lazy with my eating and quickly gained 10 lbs. I'm usually about 160 lbs. at 6 ft. and I quickly gained 10 lbs. just eating too much and quickly found out it was too much added weight for my running regime.

In the past, I had a simple rule. Only eat 50-75% of what's on my plate especially since here in America the restaurants give us ungodly servings anyway. Well, I started to eat it all and there you go. This week and went back to eating 50% of what's on my plate and I almost immediately lost 5 lbs. and I still feel great. Of course, it's also about what you eat as much as how much you eat.

I generally follow 2 simple rules. Don't eat fast food which I haven't done in 5+ years and eat 50-75% of what you are given . . . try it.

Harry

Technology Killed the Runner just like Video Killed the Radio Star . . .

It seems like every runner I pass has more and more crap (or I guess you call it technology) on their bodies. Everything from iPods to GPS watches to Heart Rate Monitors to belt clips and the list goes on and on. One would believe that we never were able to just run without help from one or more of these gadgets.

While I don't run with any of that crap (sorry, technology) as I believe in learning to run naturally which is all about "running by feel," which includes mental, spiritual and physical awareness, I found myself using a compression sock a few days ago and after a few days I ripped that bad boy off and let me body naturally do its thing and a few days later, everything is fine again. We just refuse to acknowledge or believe in the ability of the human body. The human body is one of the most amazing devices in the galaxy but we like to (try to) be smarter than we actually are . . . we are commonly to smart for our own good.

When is the last time you went running with nothing more than clothes and a pair of shoes (or barefoot for my barefoot friends)? No watch, no HRM, etc. . . . nothing but yourself while would require you to listen to your body and try to interrupt the messages it is sending you. Do you have any idea how many messages the body sends the brain while running in just 30 minutes . . . thousands of messages but it does no good if we block all those messages.

Harry

I don't have time to run . . . I call BS

I came across this quote today which I'm going to use for all those folks that can't understand how I find time to run. I'm sure many of you have been asked the same question and it's funny because I always look at the person like, "are you serious? no way you can't find time to run." I rarely find someone who doesn't have time to run. It's generally a question of desire and will . . . most people can find 30-45 min. in a day to run but it may require getting up earlier, staying up later, or giving something up, but there's always time . . .

"If running is important to you, then your mind-set shifts from "Can I find time for it?" to "When can I find time for it?" You think in terms not of "Will I run today?" but "When will I run today?"

Harry

Don't lose too much weight . . . running alone only takes you so far . . .

I met Teresa in Denver last summer while she was attending a
conference that included Dr. Lieberman. We had a fascinating
discussion and she talked a lot about all around conditioning and
being in good shape from activities beyond just running including
weight lifting. I thought about it for months and when my weight
dropped to early 150 lbs. (I'm 6ft.), I just didn't feel right and I
felt weak although my running was fine as was my performance times,
but I still didn't feel strong (and I didn't feel right).

So, I started core work and upper body lifting (light stuff; not for
muscle but for strength) and within 6 weeks, I gained back 15-20 lbs.
I now float between 165-170 lbs. and I feel stronger than ever, and I
feel much better as a runner. Another benefit, my wife is very
happy :) . . . she describes me as looking like a 800 meter runner as
opposed to a marathoner and that's what she likes and I honestly have
to agree . . . throughout the day, I'm just stronger. I didn't change
anything other than adding the core and upper body workouts.

I share this to thank Teresa as we all help each other on this site
and I also want to thank Sean b/c I've watched his dailymile workouts
and he does a great job of all around conditioning and having meet
Sean in person, he is in great shape and strong. I also share this as
it may resonate with others. You see all the super skinny runners and
yes, losing weight does help running and even speed perhaps but
there's a break point where you can go too far.

I'm finally back to my effortless running, just floating along. So
thanks to Teresa and Sean and maybe this helps someone else.

Harry

Is heel striking bad?

This was a question someone asked me yesterday. I know there's a lot of discussion recently around heel striking but the easy answer is "yes," but that's not the complete answer. The answer is "how do you run naturally?" And, if you run naturally one way, and a different way wearing shoes, then that's bad. So what is running naturally? Well, I'd argue that when we are barefoot, we are in our natural state. We were born to run without Nike's correct? And we have ancestors that lived barefoot. In fact, shoes were developed to address issues with weather and terrain so if you negate those impacts and have excellent weather and save terrain, natural running would be barefoot running.

Ok, now that we've established that, how do you land while barefoot? If you naturally land with a heel strike and there's no impacts in terms of injury or pain, then I would answer that "heel striking is not bad" at least for you. However, you likely land differently while barefoot vs. shod and if that's the case and if the difference is you land forefoot or mid-foot while barefoot but heel strike in shoes, then "yes, heel striking is bad."

With that said, I've come across runners that do heel strike while barefoot and Dr. Lieberman found runners in Kenya that did just that although he said they were rare (basically outliers). So if you are a outlier, then heel striking may be natural to you although it's likely such folks land very lightly thus reducing the impact forces at landing.

So what's the point? The point is let's stop with starting the conversation with foot strike and simply ask "how do we run naturally." Shouldn't our goal be to run naturally as that is how we were designed. Of course if you believe the human body is flawed by design then this means nothing to you but I certainly believe the human body is one of my most incredibly designed devices in the world.

What's your position?

Harry

the mojo is back . . .

It was a long journey to get my mojo back. My running has been fine but something has been off ever since I decided, for not apparent reason, to make a few tweaks to my running form to see what would happen. Well, the old saying "if it ain't broke, don't fix it," is a ageless saying for a reason. Maybe they should change it to, "if it ain't broke and you change it, you are a dumb ass."

Specifically, I switched from my natural forefoot landing to a mid-foot/whole foot landing and lowered the carriage of my arms. My thought was the former would be easier on my achilles (even though I had no achilles issues) and the latter would improve Vo2 max as it has been reported by Ryan Hall's dad when he recommended that Ryan run with a lower arm carriage. Well, this didn't work for me and I lost that feeling of running completely effortlessly but I finally regained it when I significantly increased my barefoot mileage and stopped with those changes and one day (a few weeks ago actually) I finally felt that effortless running again and it has been the same ever since. It is truly magical to float along and to feel effortless while you run, whether running faster or slower. I've also accepted where my shoe journey has rested.

I've tried really hard to run in true minimalist footwear but it's too hard on my body. I think it has to do with my personal resonance frequency and for whatever reason the Nike Zoom Streak XC which would be ultra minimal for 99% of runners fits me perfectly as does Barefoot Ted's Luna sandals. I feel great when running barefoot on the treadmill and whatever frequency level that creates is the frequency level I need to maintain while shod and it stays within accepted levels while running in the Nike XC's or Luna's. I can't explain it and I don't care to since it works.

However, I never imagined ending up in Nike's when I started this journey almost 6 years ago. In some corners of the minimalist world the word "Nike," will get you into some serious hot water but so be it, that's what works for me. Now, granted, the Nike Zoom Steak XC is a 5.4 oz. ultra light weight minimalist racing flat (only a 3mm heel differential) so we are slicing hairs in some respects. The great news is the Nike XC is commonly available for under $50 and I've but well over 1,500 miles on a single pair, and it's excellent on all surfaces from roads to trails.

As for walking, my go to walking shoe is the Inov-8 F-Lite 195. I love that shoe for walking as it feels great. It's light, flexible yet provides adequate protection for all surfaces and environments.

Well that's the current update . . . I'm floating along with a smile on my face in bright green Nike's or my Jesus sandals (Luna's) . . .

Harry

taking it easy afterwards

after a 5:46 pace 5k effort, I've taken it easy for the last few days.

With that, here's some food for thought:


"If you believe in yourself and have the courage, the determination, the dedication, the competitive drive, and if you are willing to sacrifice the little things in life and pay the price for the things that are worthwhile, it can be done.

Vince Lombardi"

Harry

Resonance Frequency and why certain shoes just don't work . . .

Below is an excerpt from an article in Runner's World in November, 2010 entitled, "Less is More," analyzing a debate over what we should wear on our feet and Dr. Benno Nigg has done a lot of research with resonance frequency which in basically a phenomenon in which an object (in this case, our bodies and feet for runners) will vibrate violently (or too much) when exposed to a harmonic force (in this case, running shoes) of a frequency close to our natural frequency. The result is jarring and vibration which puts too load on the muscles, tendons and bones which can cause many problems including many of the running injuries we often talk about.

Here's the excerpt:

What the shoe companies are realizing (along with many runners) is that minimal isn't a static concept; what's bare bones to one person might seem like way too much shoe to another. How do you know what's right for you? The answer may one day come from the University of Calgary's Human Performance Lab, run by Benno Nigg, who has created many of the innovations that now frame the debate about minimalist shoes.

The Performance Lab is something of a birthing room for new and unconventional product concepts. In the early 1980s, Nigg was working as a consultant for Nike on its line of tennis shoes. While there, he offered input on the need to add more structure to Air models because the much-lauded Air units created even more instability than traditional foam. "I pushed the cushioning trend as much as anyone," the broad-shouldered Nigg says in his Swiss accent. "And I take the blame for pronation devices as well."

Much of his current research, though, is focused on the "soft-tissue vibrations" in the body. Nigg argues that understanding vibrations—such as the ones that shoot through our legs when our feet whack the blacktop—is the key to performance and may even lead to injury prevention. Every runner has a unique frequency generated by their muscles, called a resonance frequency. It depends on the unique type and size of muscles in your legs. When the vibrations from running come close to a person's unique resonance frequency, you feel discomfort. To check the kind of vibrations in runners, Nigg tapes electrodes to their legs while they are running. These painless sensors measure tiny electrical currents the muscle cells make when activated. Using higher math formulas called wavelet filters, he gets a useful picture of which muscles are firing and when—and what type of shoe would be ideal for an individual.

Since 2000, Nigg has placed electrodes on more than 1,000 runners, most recruited from the University of Calgary's sports teams and running clubs in the area. Some were rail-thin distance runners, others had the muscular carriage of sprinters or soccer stars. The upshot? Nigg has found that some runners' bodies are in tune with firmer shoes because they provide a high-frequency signal to the body, and other runners are in tune with softer shoes, which provide a low-frequency signal. If a shoe hits your natural resonance frequency, you feel uncomfortable after a few miles—and if you persist in wearing it, your muscles become overworked trying to counteract the nettlesome signals.
After explaining his research, Nigg sits down to draw his vision of the optimal shoe for the runner tuned to a minimal shoe. You might expect it to be something shockingly out of the blue—flying buttresses made of carbon-polymer or crash pads injected with flubberlike gel. But once he's through penciling in lines and arrows, his sketch looks, well, like a track spike. The future is a track spike?

"There's no cushioning on the forefoot. For function, it's unneeded," he says. "For comfort—eh, you put a little inside the shoe to distribute forces." With this prototype, Nigg is projecting out to a time when most shoes are ultralight. They do away with foam and instead use some kind of structural element to both cushion and stabilize. Ideally, they keep you running—and away from injuries.

Let me know what you think?

Harry

A week with my body not accepting conventional wisdom

Conventional wisdom would say "if it ain't broke, don't fix it," and that's exactly where I'm at with my running. I've been injury free for years and other than running in Luna's this past summer, I've been running fast and injury free in Nike Zoom Streak XC's so shouldn't I be happy and satisfied? I thought so until last week when I decided to wear my Evo's to walk around all day and the next morning my body and soul refused to run in the Nike's. I woke up and my spirit and body said it wanted to really feel the power of the earth and so I laced up my Evo's and went for a short run but it turned into a long run.

The next day I had a sore right hip and I've never had a sore hip (not to mention I could feel the weight difference of the Evo vs. Nike's), so I switched back to the Nike XC's and the hip pain immediately disappeared so conventional wisdom would say keep running in your Nike's. Well, I woke up the next morning and my soul demanded again to be closer to the earth with a better feeling of the ground, even with all the snow and ice outside, so I went back to the Evo's and had a very enjoyable run and my hip pain was all but gone.

So, obviously, I was intrigued by the source of my hip pain and I had a friend count my stride rate while barefoot vs. Luna's and Evo's vs. Nike XC's and as expected there was what I consider a material deviation in my stride rate when comparing the Nike's vs. Luna's and Evo's. In the Luna's and Evo's my stride rate (per minute at a 8:30 pace) was 184 while it was 176 in Nike's. Then my friend said I ran taller (straight) while in Luna's/Evo's vs. Nike's where I had more of a forward lean. Lastly, we measured my stride and it was longer in the Nike's. So much of this is as expected but it does cause one to ponder.

First, it further validates the impact of different footwear and each deviation from barefoot has consequences. Now, for me the consequences don't translate to injury but nevertheless there are differences. Second, I started to think about potential longer term impacts. If I engage my hips when I'm closer to a barefoot state then I'm not engaging them as much in traditional racing shoes like the Nike XC's and that requires a deeper evaluation than just the injury issue (as people get older you often hear about hip problems and as such, am I weakening my hips by not engaging them enough thus leading to possible future problems . . . in other words, perhaps the focus should be on keeping the body as engaged as possible as we get older which may result in a stronger overall body . . . this is about health not racing). Third, and I personally believe this has something to do with the Blackfoot Indian blood running through my veins as the feeling was spiritual and powerful, why did my body demand to be closer to barefoot when I was already running fast and injury free in the Nike's? It was a powerful desire by my body and such that I couldn't ignore it which drove me back to the Evo's and Luna's.

I find myself in a very interesting situation. I run without issue in my Nike's (and it's fun running) but obviously something powerful is missing if at this point in my running life my body yearns to be closer to the ground (this has happened before and each time the feeling comes back more powerful, then goes away, but eventually comes back even more powerful than before). And, after all is said and done, my 5k PR of 17:42 was set in Evo's :) and my 4th fastest time was set in Luna's, not traditional running shoes.

As always, I'd appreciate everyone's thoughts. All my recent struggles have been on spiritual (I'm blessed to not be dealing with injury concerns).

Harry

Discovering a new running cycle . .

I'm not sure how I discovered this but I've fallen into a 5 day running cycle that has been just awesome. I look at every 5 day period as a new and separate running period.

During this 5 day period, I do the following:

* 1 hard run whether that's tempo, interval, or long run with race pace
surges

* 3 easy runs and 1 of those runs are 100% barefoot (usually treadmill
during the winter)

* 1 rest day (completely off)

*Note: at the end of practically every run, I do 5-10 min. of
barefoot running as a cool down.

The results so far have been awesome. Shrinking it down to such a small period of time (5 days) has also been great mentally and works well with business travel also. I don't know which days I do which runs or which day I use as a rest day as I let me body decide it but this also accomplishes a few other things. The vast majority of my running is easy aerobic running; hard days are at a minimum (but I go "hard" on hard days) and there's a lot of easy days/rest days between hard workouts; and most importantly, I'm embracing "true rest days" . . . not recovery runs but true rest days.

Lastly, this has allowed me to incorporate core and upper body strengthening. As a result, I'm adding weight and muscle but I feel great. I've decided I much prefer to look like a 400-800 meter runner vs. a marathon runner . . . my wife agrees :)

As always, the journey continues . . .

Harry