Timex Ironman Triathlon, my A**

Back in December, Chris and I went on a weeklong cruise on the Carnival Pride out of Baltimore.  It was a wonderful week of relaxation, eating, tropical adventures, and eating. 

The time on the ship was relaxing and fun, but the highlights of the vacation were our two excursions in Nassau and Freeport in the Bahamas.

In Nassau, we had the chance to cruise around town on Segways, which I can't recommend enough.  We had guides and they did tell us stuff about Bahamian culture and history, which is very interesting, but all that edumacation is balanced out by riding around on such silly vehicles.

Our other excursion, in Freeport on Grand Bahama, was very educational.  Our guide's pride in his island's culture and people just shone through in every word he spoke.  We saw learned a lot, and saw many historical sites, and also had a chance to go snorkeling at a place called either "Paradise Cove" or "Dead Man's Reef", depending on which sign you looked at.

Here, at this gorgeous beach, I had a great time swimming and saw many beautiful fish.  I made it back, but my until-then trusty watch did not.  After a few minutes in the water, the time jumped an hour forward, causing me to think that our whole group was going to miss our ride back to the boat and be stuck at Dead Man's reef forever.  I'll be honest, I wouldn't have really minded.  A little while later, it stopped working altogether, and when I got out of the water it fluctuated between complete watch death and displaying nonsensical signals that probably signaled the Bahamian Apocalypse.

(Cause of death: drowning)

I took it to the jeweler last week to see if a new battery would save it, and he said the inside was corroded.  While it's my fault for A) waiting months to take it in and B) thinking I could snorkel with a $40 watch, the watch was supposed to be water resistant up to 100 meters and it is branded "triathlon".  If Timex is going to call a watch that, it should be able to go for a swim.

On Fire

On Thursday, I got an early Christmas present from my mother-in-law: a Kindle Fire. She had gotten one for Chris, who mentioned that if she she still needed an idea for me that I had gotten addicted to playing Stupid Zombies and would probably like my own.

I've recently read some poor reviews, and I feel the need to come to the defense of my new little electronic friend.

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/As-Kindle-Fire-Faces-Critics-nytimes-3718699832.html

http://news.yahoo.com/four-kindle-fire-features-poorly-183600920.html


To put it simply, the Kindle Fire is a procrastinator's dream. On this small device, I can easily read books, surf the web, and play a variety of casual video games, but not really do anything productive.

(Speaking of "not productive"...)

I'd never really wanted an e-reader before. I love books, and I really didn't think I would like reading on the Kindle, but it's better than I expected. The Fire won't replace books for me, though. Instead, I think it will fill a niche: travel. I read a lot, so if I'm going on a trip, I sometimes have to bring 2 or 3 books with me, especially if there's long plane rides. In this case, the Kindle Fire saves space in my carry-on. With many games available, and there are some fun ones available for free, like Stupid Zombies and Blackjack, it's perfect for entertaining oneself on a plane. I spent a good deal of the plane rides to and from Dallas playing Solitaire and Parachutes on my iPod, so the Fire would have been a considerable upgrade.

It's good for surfing the web. Scrolling through web pages is generally easy and I thought, despite complaints about speed, fast. Video generally seems to play well on it, depending on the quality of the video on the website, of course. I watched part of an episode of South Park at www.southparkstudios.com, and it was fine, but when I watched some Eagles highlights on the team's website, the video was rather blurry. However, keep in mind that full-screen on the Kindle Fire is larger than the video would be if you watched it on a window on a website, so it only gets more distorted.

The Kindle comes with a free month of Amazon Prime, which includes free streaming of a selection of movies and TV shows. I watched part of an X-files episode that was available, and the video quality was excellent. I haven't decided if I'll keep Amazon Prime or not, but the subscription does give access to more video content and make a wider range of books free to either "borrow" (meaning you have it for only a limited amount of time) or "buy".

The Kindle is good for surfing the web, but what it (and most tablets, I suspect) is less good for is adding anything to the web. Typing on its touchscreen is slow. It took me several tries to update my dailymile log for last night's run, an interaction that would have taken under a minute on the computer. I have skinny fingers, and I find that clicking on things on the web works ok, but a stylus for pointing and clicking may be helpful.

The Kindle Fire is my first tablet device. I couldn't be happier with it, but I suspect it's all a matter of perspective. I've been drooling over an iPad since they came out, but just couldn't really justify spending the money on it. For me, the Kindle Fire fills the niche quite well. If you've had an iPad, or really had expectations for the Fire based on a more detailed knowledge of what an iPad is capable, you're probably going to be disappointed. The iPad's ability to video chat is the only feature missing that I know of that I would miss.

Remember, though, that the Fire is less than half the price of an iPad! Of course it's going to do less. For what you, or in this case my mother-in-law pay for it, I think the Fire is worthwhile. Of course, Amazon's strategy seems to be sell the devices at a loss and make up for it in content sales. I'm sure I will purchase books and games eventually, but right now between free books and games, I'm well-entertained enough without having spent an additional dime.

I wasn't compensated any way for this review, though I would gladly accept some of Amazon's sweet, sweet money. I also didn't write this review on my Kindle Fire, because it would have taken days to write.

New Shoe Revue: Adidas Supernova Sequence 4

When you're a running blogger who's currently having a bit of writer's block, new shoes are a godsend. Not only did I review my old shoes, a pair of Adidas Supernova Sequence 2's (While I prerfer to use roman numerals, Adidas does not), I can now blog about my new kicks, a pair of -- you guessed it -- Adidas Supernova Sequence 4's.

My approach to footwear has always been, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." So I went through three pairs of Supernova Glides until I broke. I don't blame the shoes for my IT band problems -- I suspect a lack of proper stretching was mostly to blame -- but it was recommended I try something with a little more stability. Hence, the Supernova Sequence. I'd put almost 500 miles on the Sequence 2s with no recurrence of IT band problems, so when Chris and I stopped at Charm City Run to pick up her packet for the Baltimore Women's Classic, I inquired about a new pair. They didn't have any Sequences, but were glad to order them for me at no additional cost once it became apparent that I didn't want to try any other brands.

I'd seen a picture of the Sequence 4's in Runner's World, and they were cool:

I'd never had a pair of running shoes this funky looking, but I figured that these were also probably the newest models, and that I'd probably end up with Sequence 3s or another pair of Sequence 2s, which would be fine.

It turns out that my new shoes were indeed Sequence 4s, but just not in quite as wild a color scheme:

I don't care that much about what my running shoes look like (I had two pairs of Glides that were ugly yellow things) but I do think these are cool.

They're clearly based on upgraded, perhaps even alien, technology. The pro-moderator is much more pro-moderational than that of the Sequence 2:


And look at this, this isn't just the inside of the top of the shoe, it's "GeoFit!"

I'm mocking my new shoes a bit, but I'm doing so with love. You see, these are the first pair of Adidas since my very first pair of running shoes (Ozweego Running Classics that I got at Value City) that I actually thought felt really soft and comfortable when I tried them on in the store. I've also disliked each pair of Glides and the Sequence 2s for my first couple runs with them, but then loved them once they were broken in a bit and I got used to them.. However, I felt very comfortable in my first run in the 4s, a cool, overcast, but very humid10-mile slog through Mt. Wolf this morning.

Hopefully, that's not a harbinger of doom. I'm a bit worried that since I like them so much right out of the box, that 2 weeks from now I'm going to hate the Sequence 4.

But I don't think so.

The Life and Times of the Adidas Supernova Sequence II -- A Product Review

When we first met the Adidas Supernova Sequence II, I was in the throes of IT Band Syndrome, barely able to run 5 miles due to knee pain. Now, almost 7 months, 7 races, and almost 600 miles later, it's well past time to retire them. Since I may run Saturday's long run on the rail trail, which would be new to me, I'll probably hold off on breaking out a new pair of shoes until I'm back in my usual environment.

Saying goodbye is never easy, especially to the shoes that have carried me through my first marathon, my 10K PR, and my mile PR, and helped me recover from injury. So I won't. I'll bump them down to being my casual-wear sneakers, and I'll remember their glory days as I'm walking around the York Galleria. Or not. They're just shoes. I'm sentimental but not that sentimental.

At any rate, I've put more than enough miles on the Sequence IIs to owe them an attempt at a product review. I must warn any readers right away that all my other running shoes have also been Adidas, so I can't adequately compare other brands.

Comfort
I've never had a great first impression of any Adidas shoe that I've tried on. So, why do I keep buying Adidas? Because I trust that once they're broken in a bit and I'm used to them that I'll like them, and since I've had mostly good luck with them, I'm reluctant to switch. My experience has always been that when I try Adidas running shoes on at the store and compare to other brands, they just don't feel as soft and cushion-y. I can't evaluate how well the sole is providing cushioning while I run compared to others, but I just don't think the interior padding of the shoes are as soft.

That said, I've always felt like they fit the best. When I bought the Sequence IIs, I tried shoes from several manufacturers including Brooks, Saucony, and Asics. I tried the Adidas on first, and wasn't impressed. The other pairs all felt like they had more cushion both as I stood and when I jogged on the treadmill. It wasn't until I tried again, with a different shoe on each foot, that I realized that the Sequence felt the most comfortable to run in. Again, I admit that familiarity (similarity to the Glide, my previous shoe) probably played a role in my selection.

Performance
While running, I would again describe the feel of the Sequence II as firm and supportive. would also describe them as feeling heavy compared to the Glide.

I am not as cognizant of having proper form as some runners, but I feel the change in footwear from the more neutral-cushioned Supernova Glide to the more stability-focused Sequence changed me from more of a heel-striker to more of a midfoot striker. A look at the soles of the Sequences shows that this may not be as accurate as I'd thought, but they also have at least 100 more miles on them than is recommended.

(Maybe I AM heel-striking a bit.)

My orthopedist, PT, and the people at the specialty running store didn't really come to a consensus on how much I was over-pronating, so I don't have strong feeling one way or another as to how well they addressed that issue. I will mention that it was my orthopedist who recommended that I move to a shoe with more stability, and since the inflammation of my IT band subsided around the end of February, I haven't had any more problems with it. It's impossible to say how much the Sequence had to do with that. I suspect the shoes played a role, but that stretching and foam rolling made most of the difference.

I set my 10K and mile PRs in them, but I wouldn't say I feel faster or slower in them compared to any other shoe I've ever owned. Perhaps something lighter would make me feel faster on race day, but I can't deny that the Sequence seems to have been a good all-purpose running shoe for me.

Durability
Excellent. The outside of the shoe, the insole, and the interior cushioning have held up very well over the past 590-odd miles. I can't say as much for the soles, but in their defense I put well over the recommended mileage on them.

I do most of my running on roads and sidewalks, and left the Sequences behind for my Mud Chasers misadventure, so I can't really say how they'd hold up on rougher terrain.

(Adidas Supernova Sequence II: 0 miles)

(Adidas Supernova Sequence II: 592 miles)

(Not looking too bad, almost 600 miles in.)

(Still a little bit of tread on the tires -- if you ignore that heel.)

Conclusion
I would absolutely consider buying another pair of Adidas Supernova Sequence. Perhaps I already did.





I'd show you more, but that would give me one less thing to blog about next week.

The Hunt for Cold November

I've had many a summer run, and if you're bothering to read this you probably have, too. You know, those days when the humidity is crushing and it just feels hard to breathe out there. I'm fond of saying that on days like that it feels like I should be running in scuba gear.

:
That just wasn't going to cut it today. Today was more like this:


I've had (by my modest standards) a great summer of running so far. I had eight 10-mile runs in June and 3 of 10 or more in July in just this first week of July. I had zero runs of 10 or more miles between the first week of May last year (Broad Street Run) and October. But, this is the first summer where I'm training for the Philly Marathon rather than the half, so for the first time in my "career" I'll need to get longer runs than that in July, August, and September. (My total mileage might not increase much, since I'm going try to follow the mileage plan a little more strictly than I followed my last one, where I on average ran one fewer time per week than called for but lengthened all my midweek runs.) 10 miles won't cut it.

I never felt like I had it, whatever it is, today and crashed after 7 miles out of an intended 10. I'm not too worried. Weather.com said there's an air quality warning today, and I did feel like my breathing was as good as usual. Also, I was long overdue for a bad run. I do think I need to try something new to make these summer runs more enjoyable. I really like running at night, but the volume of bugs in the air at night makes that seem gross in the summer, and it's not that much cooler or less humid than it is in the morning, so it's probably not worth it to eat a pound of bugs.

I'm already pushing my limits of getting up early, but perhaps getting up a little earlier and doing at least my long runs on the rail trail, where there's some shade and maybe more of a breeze (maybe?) will make these summer runs a little more bearable. Maybe bringing the Shuffle back will at least distract me from how gross I am.

Or, I'll just have to grin and bear it and hope it pays off in November.

********************************************************************
After getting several recommendations to try a visor for sun protection w/o the heat of running in a hat, I bought a white Reebok Playdry visor from Dick's Sporting goods, where it was labeled as being on sale for $7.49 and then rung up as costing less than $4.00. (Original price: $16.00) I believe it was so heavily discounted because it was the 2010 model. It seemed to be identical to a 2011-labeled visor, which was also discounted but not as deeply. They had Reebok visors available in black and reflective yellow, although I think only the one I grabbed was marked down as much. I love baseball caps, but visors aren't a good look for me, so I wasn't too worried about aesthetics. Lightweight, light-colored, supposedly moisture-wicking, and not too expensive were my selection criteria. That said, I own many pieces of goofy-looking running gear, and I don't think my new visor is among them.

I wore it on my run today and it didn't make things worse. That may not sound like a glowing endorsement, but from someone who hates running in the heat as much as I do and (sorry to be gross) sweats as much as I do from my head, that is pretty high praise for headwear. It certainly didn't make me feel less disgusting, but it was definitely an improvement over running with sunglasses, which always make my face feel much hotter. Hopefully the visor will let me get my face and eyes some sun protection without making me feel hotter. We'll see how it does on a less hazy day with brighter sunshine.

I've been meaning to occasionally do some product reviews here in hopes that I'll eventually get some free gear to test (at least I'm honest, right?), so if the visor performs especially well or turns out to be a cheap piece of crap that doesn't last a week, I'll be sure note that here. If it helps, it's one of the best bargains I've ever gotten and probably would have been worthwhile at $16. If it doesn't, at least I didn't pay full price!

Rise of the Machines: Betrayed by Garmin

I've mentioned on this blog several times my frustrations stemming from the use of my Garmin GPS watch.

At last year's Broad Street Run, a ten mile race run in excessive heat, my Garmin Forerunner 201 recorded a distance of over 11 miles. I was on the verge of casting it into the Delaware, when a fellow Garmin owner reminded me that if I'd zig-zagged to hit a lot of water stops or fire hydrants, that it could add up to considerable extra running over a 10-mile race. Since I weaved back and forth to hit EVERY fire hydrant, this made sense, and Garmin was forgiven.

At the Shamrock Marathon, Garmin was showing about a third of mile ahead of the mile markers for most of the race, and then over the course of the last five miles its accuracy seemed to decrease at it showed about 26.75 miles at the end of the race. This seemed weird, and was increasingly frustrating as I died on the wall, but my inappropriate rage at Garmin was forgotten in my relief to have finished the ordeal of the marathon. It also seems to have a lot of trouble finding satellites when I'm away from York, PA, and it completely turned into a brick when I was out of the country.

Most of the time, though, Garmin seems to work ok. Most 5Ks show up as 3.1, and its measurements usually seem consistent when I've used it on courses that I'd previously mapped out on the USATF site, mapmyrun.com, or dailymile. It's helped have at least a pretty good idea of how far I'm running on courses that I haven't previously mapped out, and it's virtual training partner feature helped me break the 24-minute mark on a 5K and will hopefully help me pace myself to a PR in the Harrisburg Mile in July.

Today, however, Garmy let me down in a new and exciting way. After my 10-mile night run on Thursday night, I was trying for 10 again today. It was a pleasant morning, but with bright sun I felt very warm, and I had the "power outage" feeling in my legs that has plagued me on and off over the last several weeks. Even so, though, I ground out the miles and was coming up to the finish, when at about 9.8 miles, as I made the final turn toward my car, Garmin started subtracting mileage.

(I don't care what you say, Garmin. I ran 10 miles today.)

I will admit, I received the Forerunner 201 as a Christmas gift from my parents, and I requested one of the lower-priced models with the thought that my parents could then afford to get one as a gift for my wife, too. I chose the 201 because I liked how the display looked and I was certain that it had the Virtual Training Partner. In hindsight, I should have gone with the 205, which promised a high-sensitivity receiver at a similar price point at the time. Or, maybe I should have realized that it was the cheapest model for a reason.

I suppose I could have gone too far the other way; a friend has one of the newer touch-screen models, and not only does it seem like a PhD in astrophysics is required to use it, he's h had trouble in cold weather when a sleeve brushes up against the touch screen. Locking it makes it tough to see the screen he wants when he wants it.

I'm not terribly surprised to see that the Forerunner 201 is a discontinued model. I'll likely milk at least a couple more years out of Garmy, but I think that when I do need a new GPS watch, I'd be wise to pay less attention to the size of the screen and more attention to the sensitivity of the receiver.

Attack of the Glow-in-the-Dark Ninja Commandos!

Date: November 21, 2010

Distance: 10 miles

Time: 1 hour, 41 minutes, 3 seconds

Location: I could tell you, but I'd have to kill you. Ok, ok. It was Detwiler Rd and environs in York, PA

Cats Spotted: 0 (It was night!)

Dogs Chased By: None (One barked at me, but he was chained to the front porch. HA HA!)

Stuck in my head: "Please don't run me over," "I'm too young to die.", etc.

Post race food: Pizza.

As the days grow shorter, one of my challenges as a runner is to get my distance in before work in the morning. Even though I work from home, there's just not enough daylight to safely run 7-10 miles before work, since most of the roads I run on have questionable visibility for drivers even in daylight, and narrow to nonexistent shoulders. I can head down to my parents' neighborhood, a more typical suburban area with wider streets and some sidewalks, but getting up even earlier is not high on my list of priorities. Of course, there's even less daylight after work, since it's pitch black by 5:00 these days.

Thankfully, evil genius scientists have solved the problem for me. At the Philadelphia Marathon (and Half Marathon) Expo, I purchased two new products that I used for the first time on a run last night.



1. Petzl Tikka XP2 60 lumen headlamp ($40): As the name implies, it's a small light that attaches to my forehead via an adjustable strap. Yes, it's just as dorky as it sounds. On the plus side, if any miners ever need rescued in the York area, you know who to call. Through a combination of two lights and an adjustable wide angle lens, the lamp has several settings:

• Maximum (white light) -- a very bright setting that undoubtedly made me visible to drivers and allowed me to see ahead for (estimating) about 100ft.
• Economy (white light) -- this setting is used to increase battery life and reduce user life. It didn't provide much illumination at all.
  
• Flashing -- This setting is meant to make the runner most visible to drivers. I found it very annoying.
• Red (steady and flashing) -- Another setting to increase my visibility to drivers, it didn't provide sufficient illumination beyond the ambient light from houses and the moon. It would have been much cooler if this were a laser.
  
  Despite my unfavorable comments on some of the settings, I really like this device. Between its multiple settings, adjustable wide-angle lens, and ability to tilt the light forward or toward the ground, it gives the user a lot of options. I found that maximum brightness, wide angle on, and lens pointed downward so I could see my path directly in front of me made me feel safest. It was fairly comfortable. I found it to be a minor source of heat, which would be a greater annoyance on warmer nights and less of an issue in the dead of winter. I compensated by putting the device a little higher up on my forehead than it seems like it's meant to be worn.

2. Reflective Bright Yellow/Green Running Shirt from RuSeen (the name of the vendor stand where I bought both products) ($20) -- a very brightly colored shirt with a reflective strip that runs up one side of the front and back. It's completely cool and stylishly trendy, and it was comfortable and seemed to wick away moisture as well as any other technical shirt.

Did they work? Yes. I didn't get run over.

Dorkiness factor: Headlamp (10/10) Shirt (0/10 -- Completely, irrevocably awesome. Coming soon to a nightclub near you.)

The run itself was a fairly pedestrian affair. My legs were still tired from the half marathon, so I think 10 miles might have been a bit ambitious. However, I'd run 10 miles two days after one of my fake half marathons two weeks ago, so I think it was at least a defensible idea.

Running at night will take some getting used to. My previous nighttime runs were at well-lighted corporate parks while on a business trip, and running in the dark in a residential neighborhood was quite a bit different. Even with my headlamp, I need to be a lot more careful. If I'm going to run in the evening or night more often, I also need to learn how far in advance to eat. A pre-run slice of pizza, 3 hours before starting, was a bad idea.

The best thing about running at night -- other than no longer being a slave to the circadian rhythms of the human race, of course -- was that, with my headlamp pointed 5-10 feet in front of me, I barely noticed the hills.

Day? Night? When you're cool, the sun shines on you 24 hours a day.