My Running Journal, 040510

Yesterday I ran a five mile trail run in my new VFF KSO treks. The Treks are the heaviest version that Vibram offers, having kangaroo leather uppers, a pretty aggressively lugged outsold component, and a thin EVA midsole. Contrast this with the classic, which has a lightweight fabric upper, no midsole, and a siped rubber sole. The midsole on the treks was added to protect against the stuff that you inadvertently run over while on a trail or off road. And they do feel different than the classic or the sprints. I still felt the gravel, stones and other stuff on the trail yesterday, but there was a slight sense of insulation from all of it. I think the biggest difference with the treks is not so much the midsole, but the aggressive tread. I can see the tread helping in conditions where the siped rubber would just slide along, like over a thin layer of mud, or wet vegetation. The siped rubber works really well on surfaces like wet concrete, asphalt, or the deck of a boat - but in my experience they are less than ideal in situations where there is wet vegetation/algae, or any amount of mud. I know that my Sprints didn't work very well to keep my footing on wet lava rocks in Hawaii, or over wet logs and muddy trails here in Oregon.

The run itself was nice. My iPhone lost GPS signal at a couple points, so it only mapped a run 4.61 miles in length, but I am sure that I ran closer to 5, in about 56 minutes. And that included stopping in a portapotty for a leak, the 30 seconds or so of walking right at the start to get my waist pack on and tightened, and a few seconds around the 2 mile marker where I adjusted my tights. I was running at a nice, easy pace, as I haven't really been running as much. I originally was just going to run 3 miles, again, since I haven't been keeping up the pace of training runs. But I got to the mile and a half marker, and realized I had plenty of gas left in my tank. I decided to run to the 2 mile marker and see how I was doing there. 2 miles came, and I kept going. I decided to turn around at the 2.5 marker, as I didn't want to overdo it. I was definitely feeling a little fatigued towards the end, but I'm not sure if that was physical discomfort or just being slightly bored.

I tried to keep smiling during the whole run, and thinking about fun stuff. Most of the first mile sucked, but I settled into a decent pace and felt pretty good for the rest of the run. Smiling, and trotting along. I had the metronome to 80 bpm, and only tried to not fall to a pace any slower than that, instead of trying to strictly stay at that pace.

I'm definitely feeling some of it today, but nothing more that the usual aches in my ankles. I have a feeling that most of that pain is coming from either my fibula being in slightly the wrong place, or the talus, or both. It is a familiar pain, and the fix will be to see a chiropractor to have the bones put pack into correct alignment. Some of the pain is coming from my peroneal muscles, as massaging the muscles (the ones on the outside part of your lower leg, behind the fibula) alleviates some of the discomfort. I am trying to figure out what has caused it, as I haven't twisted my ankle. It could come from switching between the vibrams, the boots that I regularly wear, and other shoes.

Crossfit is definitely helping me to get into shape. I'm noticing that my muscle tone is greatly improving, and the fact that I felt good enough to run 5 miles and still feel good at the end of it means something. The workouts aren't getting any easier, but I can do pull ups again, and my ribs aren't bothering me.

I had an interesting conversation with one of the trainers the other day. We spoke about our experiences as runners, and her view was similar to what mine was when I started all of this. Now, she is a Crossfit trainer, collegiate level soccer player, and she hates running distances. Most Crossfitters dislike the idea of long, slow distances - i.e. Long term aerobic exercise. The idea is that you can get the same overall effect, in terms of health, by performing high intensity anaerobic exercises over a short period of time. Now, this is borne out by some studies, but there hasn't been much in the way of large scale comparative studies done regarding different training styles. And by "large scale," I mean participation in the thousands.

But her attitude surprised me. Within the general philosophy of Crossfit, there is the idea that no matter what the exercise is that confronts you, a Crossfit practitioner would be able to pull it off. The negativity towards LSDs I think is a response to the negativity that has come at people practicing Crossfit from traditional endurance trainers. Which I think is stupid. In order to be a well rounded active person, you need to be able to perform comfortably in both aerobic and anaerobic activities, and, in my opinion, should be able to transition from one to the other with ease. The founders of Crossfit are trying to establish a basic training paradigm that says that the definition of "fitness" not only encompasses overall physical health, but physical ability. From the evolutionary point of view, the most successful or "fittest" individual is the one able to adapt quickly and successfully to whatever environment they are in.

How does this tie into long distance runs, or endurance activities in general? The first event in the 2009 Crossfit games was a 7k combined road/trail/hill run. The course looked like a punisher, but the attitude of the majority of the participants towards the run, compared to some of the other events, was pretty interesting to see. Most of them claimed that they had never run more than a mile at a time, and that 7k was a long distance. Now, admittedly, the course look very, very difficult through some stretches, but it was only 7k. That is a warm up run for most endurance athletes. Admittedly, most endurance athletes wouldn't then be able to do an increasing weight deadlift over the course of ten minutes within 40 minutes of finishing a race. Which is the way that the games went.

It is the attitude that most of the people interviewed had, as well as my trainer. That long distance runs are hard, or bad, or unpleasant. Your mindset towards the work you have in front of you will dictate how you feel about at work. If you are at best neutral to it, then the perceived effort will be neutral. If you think it will suck, then it will suck. For my trainer, I was surprised by her attitude - she is a pretty high level soccer player, and from what I have observed at soccer games, she should be able to run super long distances with little perceived effort. If she is like any other competitive soccer player that I know, she is sprinting, at the least, the equivalent of two miles per game. That's a heck of alot harder than cruising along for five or so miles.

It's only as hard as you want it to be.