Terenzo Bozzone running form analysis

Terenzo Bozzone graced the Australian shores for a rare race appearance at the Shepparton IM 70.3 race, and showed the class act he is in swim, bike and run with a convincing victory over a quality field of Australian contenders. Bozzone has real pedigree, evidenced by multiple IM 70.3 victories in USA and around the world, including a World Championship title a few years back. His progress came to a halt 12 months ago, however, undergoing Achilles surgery...and having had 3 Achilles operations myself can say that his comeback has been fantastic, seemingly reaching top form late in the US season.

If he does have an “Achilles heel”, so to speak, it is in IM races where he hasn’t quite put together a race that reflects his capabilities over IM 70.3 distance. Often it has been in the run leg where the IM race has got away from him, a leg where he is arguably at his best over the half distance. There could be all range of reasons for this fade, but regardless, I took some good footage of him running at Shepparton which provides great material for analysis of his running form...and believe me, he was going very fast in the first 2 (of 3) run laps, eventually running 1:12 on an accurate course.

This video was taken at the start of the 3rd lap, so at the 14km+ mark, with a clear and safe lead. The following are some comments / observations of what I see, using my experience in running form analysis:

• He is very smooth, with little vertical movement.
• His arm swing is compact and relaxed.
• His core stability is strong, with little non-linear movement or body rotation.
• Further to that point, his hip stability is also very good, with minimal hip drop upon landing. However, he does twist his hips a little.
• He torso is nicely vertical...although I’ll touch on this again in a moment.
• He is mid/flat-foot runner, and to see him in real-time speed, is quite light on his feet.

So those are all the good things about his form. Now to be really harsh and picky, there’s a couple things I’d point out that might be coming back to bite him in an IM run leg:

• His foot landing is a little in front of him, meaning he is “behind” his stride rather than on top of it...this would really noticeable if you put him alongside the likes of Cam Brown, Crowie, etc. Refer to my article post IM Melbourne analysing the run form of the top-10 men.
• In conjunction with this, his hips are slightly back and “in a bucket” to a minor extent. The effect of these two things is that when he fatigues this will be exaggerated and he’ll sit back even more rather than being forwards and on top of his stride, which is momentum that is critical to maintaining form and speed in the depths of fatigue such as in an IM.
• Also, his slight hip twist would become more pronounced.

What I’m talking about is very subtle, but at that level it’s things like this that make the difference, even to a Formula 1 engine like Bozzone.

So what would I do if I was his coach...work on getting his weight over his stride via combination of drills, run form practice and incorporating it into his default form. The effect would be to introduce an ever so slight forwards lean, from the ankles (rather than from hips) and he would roll along, over the ground using momentum to his benefit.

Terenzo Bozzone is a world class athlete, proven by results over recent years, in particular IM 70.3 format, and he obviously has the calibre to compete over IM...but has not quite cracked it so far. Perhaps a little tweak to his running form might help in that quest, to see him compete with the best guys over IM. These were just my thoughts on that aspect...I wish him all the best.

One of those days

Another little piece for www.newbreedrunning.com.au

It was one of those days, you know, when you wake up and are not sure which side of the bed to get out on…the good side or the 'other' side...which reflects the uncertainty about how the day might unfold. Nonetheless, you get up and lace up your shoes in preparation for the run session you've got planned. Part of your mind is suggesting to can it and either not start or just take it easy, competing with the other part that says just get out and get started. So you do.

As you expect, the first km feels awful…tired, dead and heavy. Urgh!!! But you haven't gone far enough for it to 'count' as a session, so you keep going. As you do something happens. Whether it was stopping at the traffic lights to cross, or passing over some imaginary line, or even that you've just woken up, you're not sure what it is. But things start feeling better.

Your stiff joints loosen up. Your breathing levels out. Your stride finds a groove. Your rhythm becomes smoother. Things just seem to click into gear and your body warms up. Your running actually starts feeling good, much to your surprise, and you start thinking about doing a proper session of fartlek, or tempo, or intervals…there's a range of options.

As you run on you find yourself losing track of how long you've run for, or how fast you're going, until you realise how hard you are breathing - this is equating to a good, hard session, and it feels effortless. Why don't race days feel like this? You go on further, relishing your fitness and endurance to be able to do so, taking all the little side tracks you usually only selectively go down. It's surreal to be feeling so good.

Eventually you look at your watch with surprise to see how long and how swiftly you've run, not to mention how much you're sweating. You could continue on forever, but decide to head home, still skipping over the ground albeit with some fatigue creeping into your legs…the adrenalin is keeping you going.

Arriving back at your front gate and you come to stop, euphoric about how good the run was and how surprising it was considering the way it started. These are the times you love being a runner. It was just one of those days.

Minimalist running in the real world

Minimalist running has been a popular topic for a few years, with growing awareness and opinion about it, and why you should take the step (pardon the pun) down this path. This period of time has been accompanied by wide ranging debate and opinion, and backed up by both the birth of new running shoes companies and a change in direction by others. Some of this is balanced and well meant, but some information and resources related to minimalist running borders on evangelism.

With this passage of time, combined with my own experience, plus what I've seen in others, my own thinking around minimalist running has evolved to what is perhaps a more real world perspective. Here is some of what I come to realise and understand myself.

Minimalist running is a description covering everything from barefoot and sandals to light-weight training shoes. Rather than consider it in such absolute terms, minimalist running in the real world means a range of things, starting with just being aware of what you're putting on your feet and the effect it is having on your legs, body and running posture/form. Simply opening your mind to the range of footwear options, and importantly, what is most suitable for you, is the start of the journey to minimalist running.

Remember that running shoes are simply a tool to help with running, and are not a solution unto themselves. When you run they are part of you so you need to consider them in the full picture of your running and that they may influence your running form. In my opinion, shoes that "change the way you run" are getting into dangerous injury risk territory. Remember, they are a tool and should not control or dictate you and/or the way you run.

Further, minimalist running should be measured in relative terms compared to what you're currently wearing. So any shoe that is "less" of a shoe than you currently wear is a minimalist shoe for you. The very big thing here is the adaptability of your legs and body to a (relatively) minimalist shoe, in particular you calves and achilles. For all the benefits that minimalism offers (some of which I'll get to below), the main fault is in how you make the switch to implement it, not to mention the reasons why you might choose to. This is where my own experience is very relevant.

Being open minded to what (relatively) minimalist shoes offered, I got a pair. They were fairly conservative, but importantly, went from about a 10-12mm heel-toe drop to about 4-8mm drop, which I went on to use for my daily running. It took a few weeks, even months, but I started to notice some stiff and sore spots in my calves and heels, which might have been due to many things, but in switching back to my comfy 10-12mm drop shoes the issues (eventually) went away. I feel it was the repeated stress that a slightly lower heel-toe drop shoe put on my calves, achilles and plantar fasciitis that my old legs couldn't adapt to. Or more specifically, it was something I wasn't prepared to go back to basics and take the time to adapt to…which would have taken months and months. It was a powerful and pertinent lesson.

In looking more at why you might want to switch to minimalist running, you need to be very careful and very honest with yourself. Being sucked in by shoe company marketing is not a good reason to switch, neither is  being trendy and keeping up with "the Joneses". Also, if your running is not 'broken', then don't try to fix it with minimalist shoes. Period.

There are, however, times when considering changing shoes to a more minimalist style can make sense, but it needs to be considered as part of a big picture solution, not just as a band-aid type patch. Such a change requires some dedication, commitment and patience since there a number of things you need to consider, things like:

• Your readiness to take a step back before taking a step forwards,
• The fitness and durability of your running infrastructure (aka body) to cope with the change,
• Any injury issue you might have, and the impact of that on running let alone a change like minimalist shoes,
• Your running form, independent of shoes (remember, they are just a tool, not a solution). 

Changing to minimalist shoes can be a viable - and possibly even a suitable - option for people who do need to change something to try overcoming a prolonged issue, usually injury related. So as mentioned, it would be part of an overall review and solution, and gradual transition while being careful not to let your running enthusiasm get ahead of what your body can cope with…cumulative stress and strain can creep up on you, and is common in transitioning to minimalist running.

For runners wanting to change to a minimalist approach and who are not injured, many of the same principles apply…basically, hasten slowly. What I think is a better strategy is to insert small portions of minimalist running within an existing program. For reasons mentioned above, I'm not a fan of making a wholesale change to minimalism without reason (and certainly not 'barefoot' running), but small amounts (measured in minutes per week) can be helpful in a range of ways. Having said that, using different shoes for different sessions is part of being a runner, so in just doing this you’ll be switching between degrees of minimalist running.

The benefits of minimalist running, for those who make a successful transition, vary. As eluded to earlier, the journey to minimalism and what you learn along the way can be as valuable as the destination, so you'll be a more educated runner in a wider aspect of running. You'll also have a new range of shoes to purchase from, especially as more companies come up with a good range of offerings - there's already some nice shoes around. Depending on your reason for changing, your running may improve if only because you might be not be injured (as much!). But your mechanics and efficiency might have also improved - this can be a side-effect of changing to minimalist running. In doing so, the function of your lower legs will also improve. The switch is minimalist shoes on its own will not necessarily improve your running (except for the benefit of lighter shoes).

Minimalist running does have a place, but it's not a black-and-white scenario that some might have you believe. There are degrees of minimalist running, and a range of reasons why you might want to make a change…which needs careful consideration. But above all, the important thing about minimalist running - if you are going to make a change - is how you go about it. Be measured and considered and careful, and make the change for reasons that are aligned with your long-term running continuity.

The athlete's athlete

You probably know - or at least know of - someone like this. You know them because they are one(s) who seem to just 'get it' when it comes to sports. They always race well to the extent that you'd bet your house on them. They rise above any prevailing circumstances and distinguish themselves by their notable performances…they're probably over achievers in other aspects of life, also. They are an athlete's athlete.

An athlete's athlete is someone who captures all the essential aspects of being a well rounded and accomplished athlete…but it goes beyond just that. It's a definition that is shaped your individual perspective, but suffice to say, an athlete's athlete is the athlete (and person) you might imagine yourself as being, in a perfect world. They epitomise all the good points you imagine of an ideal athletic peer.

So why is it these people, in particular, stand out, and what are the common characteristics of being an athlete's athlete?

First and foremost, an athlete's athlete knows themselves in depth. They know their abilities, limits, capabilities, constraints, the way they respond in various circumstances, the stimulus they need for a particular outcome, when to go hard - or easy - and so much more. They have an amazing and innate grasp of pacing in races, and how to squeeze the last drop of performance from their body on any given day.

Such self awareness has usually come about through conscientious training - being fully conscious and aware of what they are experiencing in each session and race. They realise that the things they learn in training are preparing them for racing, part-and-parcel with the physical fitness that goes with it. Further, they make the connection between different types of sessions and the net effect and outcome on their fitness, and how it felt during the process so they know how to fine tune and tweak the session next time for maximum benefit.

An athlete's athlete is also extremely diligent in what they do to contribute to their performance. They train and prepare with the bigger goal in mind, being reassured by the good sessions and learning from the others. They could tell you exactly what they are doing in training, and why, and also rattle off other information like workload, session milestones, training performance markers, etc, because that information is so closely part of the picture of their training. The things they do are micro-managed to perfection. More than likely there is training diary behind the scenes going back seasons and seasons.

When it comes to actual racing an athlete's athlete is solid as a rock, with only small variance in their quality performances. They know their equipment, the effect conditions will have on the day, what are the best tactics, race nutrition, emotional stability and so on. With little fuss they just get the job done - it's all about race execution.

As people, an athlete's athlete is a breath of fresh air. Quiet and humble, they tend to let their actions do the talking rather than feel the need to talk themselves up. You'll need to pin them down to hear any elboration about themselves and what they do, other than just the obvious fact that they just do it. They will be happy to share thoughts and advice in a generous way, but without any accompanying hoopla. Just the straight, down-to-earth facts. Their sport is part of their life that blends into their identity and persona, rather then being overtly who they are.

The lessons you can draw from an athlete's athlete are endless. From their approach to diligent training, understanding of the sport and perspective on where they fit into it, race performances through to the down-to-earth people that they are - the sum of many parts. They just get it, and derive satisfaction from the process of being part of the sport. One more thing, an athlete's athlete exists at all levels in the sport, not just the pointy end. You'll notice them as much for what they aren't as what they are.

Coaching Art vs Science

In many Coaching 101 textbooks is a section titled something like "The Art vs Science of Coaching", which goes into discussion about the balance between the gut instinct, experience and understanding of a coach versus (or contrasted with) what the collective body of scientific knowledge prescribes. It's a battle of ideologies with one saying "we just understand" while the other says "we know because science says so". One is intangible while the other relies on measuring and being measurable. Ultimately, of course, it is the athletic performances that counts most.

With sports being based on human behaviour…something innately difficult to measure repeatably and reliably…there is no magic formula for success from one athlete to the next. It is natural that athletes seek out the option they believe has the highest chance of delivering that success. But which is it…the artisan style coach or the calculated, scientific style? The answer probably lies with the preference of each individual athlete as there are so many variables. Let's look into it a little further.

Coaches have been around in sports for a long, long time. Coaches were guiding athletes to victories and world records way before the emergence of "ground breaking" science, developing theories and approaches which have stood the test of time, and combined it with eccentricities that have been the hallmark of genius throughout the ages. Great coaches think outside the square for ideas and inspiration, evolving over time with results that speak a louder message than their sometimes cryptic words. Great coaches are creative artisans at heart.

The art that these coaches bring is in the form of an innate understanding of sports, especially the one(s) they practice in, and an empathy for the individual person that sees them as a whole, not just the athlete visible to the spectator. A great coach recognises what (and when) an athlete needs in order to improve their performance, combining physical, psychological, emotional, tactical, technical and other elements into a rounded program suited to the individual. A true coach deals with each person individually, calls upon hard earned experience, teachings from others, and amazing foresight in creating a program and adapting it to the scenario presented by each athlete.

Coaches will develop and evolve their own theories, methodologies and protocols which are applied, tested in competition, evaluated, revised and so on year after year to develop programs which are evidence and performance based on the results of many athletes over many years. Coaches have a sense of what is the right thing to do and when, and know that one approach does not suit all. How they do this is their artistic flair.

It has often been said that science's main role is to understand why and how coaching techniques work, rather than to be prescriptive about what should be done. It's as if coaches might say "I told you so" after science "proves" something that was well known and practiced already. "Damn crack pots", the scientists might reply…

Nonetheless, science is important, although the relationship between coaches and scientists can be a little tetchy at times. Science looks at situations in black-and-white, measures things, analyses and then seeks to define groups into which people should fit based on their findings. Science struggles to cope with individualities - outliers - usually excluding them on the basis of statistical exceptions. Having said that, science is very good at developing a great understanding about a defined scenario.

A good analogy is to say that science seeks to discover everything about one square of a checker board, but ignoring the other 63 squares directly around it!!

In a coaching and training context, science can give a great insight into why something might have happened as it did. But in trying to draw conclusions, science can fall short because humans are individual, and the needs of one person will always differ from another. To generalise scientific findings in order to apply them broadly dilutes the specific value that science is trying to offer.

To be a scientific coach might be to ignore the indivudual characteristics of athletes, things like their strengths and weaknesses, likes and dislikes, adaptability, recovery needs, work ethic and so on. A scientific coach might seek to apply a protocol that research has found to effective, but miss the individual detail that made it so effective, with the consequence being sub-optimal training that that person. To extend the checker board analogy above, a particular scientific training approach might only be suitable for 1 out of 64 people!!

But as in most debates, the reality is that neither extreme makes for the "best" coach. Coaches these days need to have capabilities in all areas, albeit with some emphasis reflecting their background. A coach without an understanding and consideration for what science is saying is ignorant, while a science based coach without respect for the age-old art of working with individuals is arrogant. The art and science of coaching needs to work alongside each other for the best coaching outcomes.

The role and importance of scientific knowledge in sport is undenied and unquestioned. The skill and techniques of coaching have evolved over generations of athletes. The real skill of coaching - and training - these days is to be open minded enough to consider all sources of information available, scientific or otherwise, and "cherry pick" the pieces that are most helpful in the pursuit of what is best for the athlete and their performance. Because after all, the welfare of athletes and their performance is the main goal!!

Running numbers

Did you know that runners are great with numbers? Usually you'd think that accountants, engineers, physicists and the like would be the numbers people, but no, this valuable skill is shared amongst runners, too. What is so surprising, however, is that most runners don't even realise they are talented beyond their physical prowess, but trust me, it is true. Let me explain.

Running is ruled by numbers. For starters, there is the distance you run, which might be in kilometers or miles, and could also include a number of additional meters or yards. So any run might be 5.7 km, or 3.5 miles. If it was through hills then you will have some elevation so that 5.7km run might include 124 meters of ascent, with a steepest gradient of 8.4%. See, plenty of numbers…but we haven't even got into the interesting part yet!!

Some people prefer to measure runs in duration, for example 25 mins 32 secs, or 25:32 min. If you include hours then it become 0:25:32 hr, and fractions would mean 0:25:32.6 hr!! Now we're getting into some good stuff. If that 5.7 km run took 25:32 min, it means you ran at an average pace of 4 min 28.8 sec per kilometer.

You might laugh, but all this information is important to a runner…and to borrow a trusim from business, you can't manage what you can't measure. So for any runner who is wanting to improve - which is almost all of us - then these numbers are it!! They are a black-and-white indication of who and what you are as a runner. The number of kilometers you run in a week, your average pace, time for certain intervals, and more, carry you from session to session and season to season. Some runners might seem blasé about the details of their running, but you can be sure they do know what their numbers are and can talk for hours about them and what they mean!!

Races provide a whole new set of numbers like placings, PB's for various distances - or for favourite courses - scores against rivals and more. Just witness the angst when a course turns out to be inaccurately measured to see how important numbers are to runners. The victory of beating a PB - a number - is the euphoria that drives runners on to racking up more training numbers.

Then you have the skill of mental arithmetic mid-run, calculating how much time, what distance, the required pace, how much effort, etc, in order to achieve a goal. This is something not just anyone can do…you need to be a runner to get it. It makes Sudoku seem easy.

So next time someone passes you off as "simply a runner", rest assured that you'd be a Nobel prize winner if you weren't busy training for your next race!!

Race assets

What is your favourite race each year, you know, the one you mark in the calendar months in advance and then pack the car to journey back to, reliving past glories and seeking new experiences? Do you tell other people so they too make the trip next year, boosting event numbers and establishing it as a 'must do' race each season? This kind of on-going support for races is the heart and soul of sports, more so than the glitz and glamour that sometimes precedes events actually becoming successful. Strong races are good for the sport.

But strong races also stand out as being ripe for picking by big event managers, when they out grow the grass roots committees that were behind their initial success, and need a bigger and more accomplished management team behind them. The smart event managers will nurture and care for their popular events, knowing the value they bring both in dollar terms and prestige for their brand and reputation, thereby attracting more people to their other events. The net result is still good for the sport, with more quality event options for people to choose between.

But the risk is that established races lose their identity that made them so popular in the first place, and become assets and commodities that are assessed for their black-and-white value to the managing organisation, and become the subject of ownership battles for almost territorial rights to hold and run an event at a defined location, on a defined date. While the recent trend has been towards improving the quality of race experience, one wonders if there will a point soon of cost cutting and cost saving by event managers, seeking to maximise return for less outlay, relying on the good will built up over years of participating by many athletes.

In recent times there has been competition at play in the triathlon market, such as WTC buying out USM Event Management and thus securing rights to IM Cairns away from Challenge. Then, perhaps in a return shot, Challenge came in and pulled the WTC rug from under the historic IM Canada to establish Challenge Penticton in 2013. These are examples of both new and old events, but each with a deemed value in the marketplace.

For each of these races, they would seem to be essentially the same event except for the branding and associated aspects, each of which has a subtly different appeal to athletes. So once again, competition is good and although not necessarily like a case of picking your favourite brand from the supermarket shelf, does provide choice in a market that increasingly looks beyond the WTC formula for something new and/or different for iron distance events.

Then there are the cases where an established and iconic event, with a loyal following, is up and moved to a new venue with race organisers perhaps hoping for a “Field of Dreams” scenario of ‘build it and they will come’, relying on the associated race reputation to be the drawing card. In Australia we’ve seen it with IM Australia leaving what many (still) call the ‘spiritual home’ of Foster, to the nearby town of Port Macquarie, leaving many feeling like they were robbed of everything Foster offered the competitor. While athletes followed to the new location, it seemed there was some resentment about how it was done, forced onto the athletes at a time when the choice of events was more limited. The product of IM Australia won out, and athletes were at the mercy of the IM licence holders at the time, IMG, who we usually associate with big, greedy corporate organisation, for whom the bottom line is everything.

Whether or how much race organisers give consideration to the humble athlete we don’t know. Are they out to squeeze whatever they can from our pockets in the interests of “shareholder return”, or do they really have our interests at heart? The recent example of WTC cancelling entry to IN New York for 2013 shows some level of community concern, but that was only after backlash at the $1200 entry fee they tried to put over everyone. Whether it would have sold out is secondary to what is deemed as value for money...and an entry fee of > $1000 might have been a tipping point.

While I’ve got no problem in people running a business of organising events, heck, my brother does just that for his job, it’s when races are considered like assets on a Monopoly board that the line between what is in the best interests of whom becomes blurred. Ultimately supply and demand will sort things out, but soon there might be a wake up call on one side or the other about the lengths people will go to for a race...the playing field might be in for some levelling out, then.

Inter sport respect

You might have heard that Caine Eckstein is doing Hawaii IM in October this year. Eckstein is a surf Ironman star, winning the famous Coolongatta Gold race 5 times…and he's only 25 years old now!! Like all the surf Ironman guys, he is tank, has a huge engine and is incredibly skilled in the surf. His name has come up a few times in relation to switching to triathlons, along with various stats and numbers for how fast he actually goes, even though surf competitions are notoriously affected by variable conditions making it hard to get an accurate bearing on his ability.

The reason his participation is earning some attention in triathlon circles is because triathletes have a healthy respect for their beach multi-sport cousins. There's enough similarities that we (triathletes) can appreciate how good these guys (and gals) are, even though we rarely line up against them in a race…open water swims being one occasion. So now he is making a jump into our territory we want to know how good he actually is…it doesn't matter that he may have never ridden a bike beyond the surf club before!!

Inter sport respect (or lack of) - and rivalry - is a funny thing. How do multi-sport athletes view single sport athletes, and vice-versa? Not only that, how do long distance athletes view sprinters? Then there is the intense interest when someone transitions from single-sport to multi-sport, or back the other way, and speculation about how they will go now the playing field is the same as the commenting peers. Just remember the hoo-ha when Lance came back to triathlons, and whether he would re-capture his junior form…which he did, until affairs went awry. Equally, many folks made great predictions in speculating about possibly Chrissie Wellington switching to cycling.

There's a tendency for triathletes to look down on single sport athletes a little, after all, surely it would be easy to excel if you're only doing one sport? Also, single sports seem to be the thing you do when you're not a multi-sport athlete, not as a chosen sport in the first instance. Being competent at 3 sports does not necessarily mean being good at three sports, until you consider it as one sport, triathlon, which is the only time that triathletes can claim any kind of ascendancy.

Since triathletes are familiar with three sports it does mean they have some degree of understanding about what it takes to perform in the separate events, which would explain why triathletes generally take high interest in swimming, cycling and running in the broader, and especially international, arenas. Triathletes have good respect for athletes in these sports through their kinship, having a grasp for how fast they really are, much like the respect for Caine Eckstein.

But when you ask a triathlete about some other sports the level of respect varies, as if to say those sports are not "hard" sports based on some kind of effort based comparison…which ignores the intricate role of skill combined with effort. Badminton…ha, soft touches. Judo…ho ho, just a play wrestle. And so on. Each of those sports could use the same retort triathletes often employ…if it were so easy, everyone would do it!! So it's fair to say that every sport is deserving of respect, and that the people at the top of the respective games really are hard athletes.

Intra-sport rivalry is fascinating. Just go to an athletics track and see the divide between the sprinters and middle-long distance runners…they are mutually exclusive groups, even though they are all (just) runners!! Sprinters seemingly demand respect, while longer distance athletes just do their thing. High maintenance versus low fuss.

The view in triathlons is intriguing. Long course triathletes seem to be of the belief that short-course tris are what you do before stepping up to the "real' triathlons, whereas short-course guys can't understand why those crusty demons, IM athletes, would want to go that long, that slowly!! It took an established IM star like Macca to enlighten us about the realities of ITU racing, and really state that short-course and IM athletes are niche athletes.

I think that's where the discussion should head, respecting and understanding the niche that athletes calve out in their chosed speciality. Some people are good at one format and not at others, just like some tennis players are better on grass than clay, and some horses run better on heavy tracks than dry ones. They are all good, but just not necessarily in the way that the critics can appreciate. Nonetheless, speculating about one sport compared to another makes for great bar room debate…and don't forget, led to Ironman triathlon being conceived!!

Bruised running ego

I haven't written much update on my running recently, which just about reflects the amount of running I've been doing in the last month…not by choice (of course), but due to a damn annoying injury. The upshot is that I'm not doing Melbourne Marathon in Oct, but instead reverting back to plan A of trying to get some speed back into these legs for some fast 5km and 10km running. More on that shortly.

Winding back to post marathon things were going about as expected. For the first week after the race my calves were tight, tight, tight, which stopped me from running although otherwise my body was feeling pretty good, which is not necessarily a bad thing since my body needed some rest and my calves forced me to have. Nonetheless, it didn't stop me from confirming my intention to do Melbourne Marathon, to capitalise on my great fitness and form leading into Gold Coast, and with a change to program brought about by a baby in the house, I was excited to see what I could do in October.

I started running again in the second week, feeling pretty good overall, with no sore spots and just some residual calf tightness that I worked through. By the end of that week I was looking to start putting some sessions back into training, along with drills and things, all in small amounts but enough to mark the start of pointing towards October.

Into the third week post marathon and by mid-week I was conscious of some soreness in the joint of my middle toe on my left foot. My self assessment suggested it was some inflammation, and not a dreaded "stressie", and hoped it would pass with a couple of small actions - NSAIDS and a day off. Sadly it didn't, but got worse, not quite so I couldn't run, but it was mightly uncomfortable to do so. It felt like my toe was going to explode and drop off…pretty sore. I'm still not sure what prompted it, possibly a combination of some drills and form work, but not sure.

That third week of running went well, otherwise, but I could see a break coming up…hopefully only short. A few days rest helped only a little so I checked in to see the doctor on a Friday evening and, as I hoped, she injected it in two spots with some cortisone, saying to rest until Tuesday when it should be OK to go…fantastic!! Over that weekend it was so-so, which is often the case post cortisone, then it usually improves rapidly. But this time was different.

While I felt that the inflammation settled, it was replaced with a massive bruise in the area of the injections - a purple, 20 cent piece size bruise. It seemed that perhaps the needle had hit a blood vessel, or something, and this was the aftermath…and it hurt, also. Tuesday came and went with no chance of running, and so it continued for another week while gradually the bruise disappearend, but the symptoms remained although slowly improved.

11 days after the injection I went for a run, my toe / foot hurt on every step. Fail. Two days later the same, and the next day and the next day. Unfortunately it seemed the bruising (or whatever it was) would need rest from running to settle…it was driving me nuts. Prospects for the marathon were not looking good, but I held onto some hope.

4 more days off running and I tried again, and it still hurt but was a lot better - positive signs. The next day, however, broke me. It was really sore and I had to walk back to work (lunch-time run). The marathon was off, plan A was back on, and I knew I had to wait until there were no symptoms before I tried running again.

It's now 4+ weeks since I first stopped running, and 3.5+ weeks since the injection and I think I am very close to running…perhaps tomorrow. I'll see how it is when I wake up…the last 2 days have been pretty good. I just want to run again.

But rather than being a story of complete woe, I've used the non-running time to get right back into some circuit exercises, along with core strength work, which is neglected a little when in full training. It's felt good to burn in a different way each morning in the back yard with my little set of dumbells and things, and it's also been nice to commute to/from work on my (push) bike for a few weeks…although I'm ready to give the commuter bike a rest now!!

Also, of course, there's a little person in the house now who I want to give some attention to, and although I've been keeping fit, little Edward (and Ms. A) have been a great alternative outlet for my emotional energy.

So once I can run again it's onto to Plan A, with the goal of running a sub-16min 5km and sub 33min 10km. I also hope to run some track races, like 800's, 1500's and the like. I haven't had this kind of focus since school, so it will be an interesting challenge, and one I'm looking forward to!!

Who won? Who cares...

Think back to the last race you did…do you remember it more for the elite who came top-3 overall, or for the training partners and experiences you shared, or the race memories you have with any family or friends who came out to support you? What about looking ahead to your next big race…will you be thinking of which pros you'll sharing the course with, or the opportunity it the challenge it presents to you

The key question I'm asking is how much do you notice of the pros doing the race(s) you do? If you took them away, would you notice?

Endurance sports participation is booming, not just triathlon. Look at the numbers in running races, bike events (road & MTB), ocean swims and others. You wonder how there could be an obesity epidemic with these participation trends, where you need to act quickly just to get an entry in. It's a great time to be in the endurance sports business, in almost any capacity, as people look for new ways to challenge themselves and then move onto the next challenge - aspirational athletes who seek an experience, then disappearing from the scene once they've had it.

Of course, making up any field of competitors are the people who fight it out at the pointy end for the glory of overall success. But how many people notice who they are, let alone remember them? Sure, some are bona fide stars in the sport, and raise the performance bar to amazing levels, but to the regular middle-of-pack punter, does that make any difference to their day?? Probably not.

Most people in most events are there for their own special reason and challenge, perhaps to lose weight, beat their friends, have fun (al la 'fun runs') or other things. They know they will never win; not overall, not any category, nothing. But they are still there for their own reason which has zip to do with the folks who stay for presentations, and more to do with a great photo they can post on Facebook to show/tell their friends what they did on the weekend. And there is absolutely nothing wrong with this, in fact quite the opposite, since one person sharing their great experience might inspire more to do the same…and so on.

The thing is, the winners can do as they please and it will go unnoticed by most…and not just because they were out of sight in front of everyone else. Ask most mainstream media (ie, not specialised media) folks what will be a more popular story, one about the reigning world champion, or the teenager who overcame a major medical issue to complete, the person with one arm and leg or the battler from Struggle St. The public like stories of people they can relate to, and for most, the race winning elite in the sport seem to be almost inhuman and from another planet, such are their performance abilities.

The boom in endurance sports has also been great for charities who ride the emotional train with selected participants, who in turn use it to inspire donations in support of their efforts. Every charity is worthy of support, and linking it to the accomplishment of and individual is an increasingly common way to raise worthy funds. An effect this has is turning what used to be known as athletic competitions into huge fundraising vehicles, which again, is a fantastic outcome.

The thing is, these days the focus of most people doing sporting events has changed from being about the ones at the front, and more towards the everyday person, the journey they've taken, and their experiences along the way.

This leaves sporting purists in a quandry, since by nature purists rejoice in excellence of performance, the heat of competition, perfection and results. These things will always be part of events, particularly elite sports that we watch from the sidelines, in "stadiums", viewed as the spectacle they are. But the spotlight on the streets is vast and broad, where the elite blend into the masses except for some fleeting moments. When the elite are viewed on a performance stage, like the Olympics, they inspire us, but day-in, day-out, it is more likely to be the middle-of-pack athlete who is doing the inspiring, and celebrating their own little triumphs on their own journey to a sporting destiny.

All this is not to make judgement but to reflect on the changes occurring in sporting events. Some might argue there should be great attention given to the elite, as a way to exemplify the incredible capacity of humans when they choose to focus on something, but others would argue that broad participation is the foundation for everything else. I think it is both, that it right to highlight the relative excellence of the high achievers, but to also humanise them as still being people with two arms and legs, or not, in the case of amazing Paralympians - the principle is the same. To highlight that the difference between ordinary and extraordinary is just a little extra, it can help to broaden people's horizons to what might be possible. Once you inspire people to seek out their boundaries then great things can happen, in any field.