On Sports Drinks: HoneyMaxx

 

Do you live in the GTA? If you do, I feel sorry for you (I feel sorry for myself too, but I can deal with it). It's hot out. Grossly hot. Stupid hot (why weather why?). Mainly due to the humidity but regardless, it doesn't make for the greatest running weather. So what do you do when it's blisteringly hot out and you have to get your workout in? Well, the key, as always, is to stay hydrated. The human body is comprised upwards of 60- 70% water in grown adults, more so in young people. And humans sweat to stay cool; although there is great variability between individuals, humans can lose up to 2 liters of sweat per hour of very intense exercise, or one liter during moderate exercise. This only worsens during hot weather and can be compounded by the fact that sweat can evaporate so fast that people think that they aren't actually sweating. Then they keel over due to dehydration and heat exhaustion. 

So hydrating yourself while you workout is a must. But what a lot of people fail to realize is that sweat has a lot more to it than just water. You can drink all the water you want but if you don't hydrate properly, your performance is still going to suffer. Through the course of your workout you'll lose not just water, but you'll have expended your sugar reserves (glycogen), as well, a lot of your "salts" (electrolytes) will have been lost through sweat. Someone was smart enough to realize that if you added sugar and salt to water, you could get a boost in performance- thus Gatorade was formed. This Florida-based sports drink is heavily credited as being the first major sports drink on the market (in North America at any rate). It would soon lead to the revolution of sports drinks we have today- different sweeteners being used, different electrolyte profiles, protein content, calories, etc, etc. 

Why are there so many of them though? There must be a single, best drink out on the market, shouldn't there? Well, no, not really. With there being so much variability between individuals there can't be just one that works for everyone. One of the main reasons is because of the science of the sugars that each sports drink uses. If you've ever chugged a Gatorade then tried to go for a run, I'm sure you felt it- the feeling of being bloated, sluggish, or suddenly getting cramps when you KNOW keeping hydrated prevents cramps (that's part of it but not the whole story-more on that another time). That feeling of being bloated is because of the sugar content. Sugars delay gastric emptying and cause those gassy, bloated feeling stomachs. One of the main culprits is high fructose modified corn syrup. The same sweetener that is in everything you eat these days is by far the worst form of sugar for you. It causes you to be extra gassy and instead of being converted into glycogen like most sugar molecules, it is preferentially converted into fat. 

Fructose and Glycogen Pathway- SCIENCE!

  

 That is why so many other sports drinks exist. They use alternate sweeteners that are "easier" to digest and more efficient at giving you energy (glycogen is your main source of energy for any activity over 65% VO2max). That is why you'll see things like maltodextrin, sucrose, brown rice sugar, etc, most of which are usually just glucose polymers or different glucose molecules. Some are easier to digest than others, but again it relies heavily on the individual's ability to break down certain molecules and use them as an energy source. Where a lot of sports drinks fail is when it comes to their electrolyte profile. Most sports drinks seem to get at least two things right: Potassium and Sodium- these two ions are crucial for electrical stimulus and nerve firing in your body and they are easily lost through sweat. However, there are two crucial ones that Gatorade and Powerade neglect- Magnesium which is crucial for muscle and nerve function (producing energy), and Calcium which has its most important role intracellularly causing muscles to contract (if you can find one with chloride in there the better- you need chlorine to balance out your nerves and muscles during impulse firing). Having a good profile of all four (or five) of these electrolytes is hugely important to overall health and to maintain peak performance during strenuous exercise.

In short, the best sports drink is one that is going to sit well in your stomach (so as not to make you feel bloated and crampy), provides a suitable carbohydrate profile to keep you glycogen reserves up, and has an adequate profile of the four/five main electrolytes. Somewhere in vicinity of 100mg Sodium, 50-60mg Potassium & Calcium and 100mg Magnesium would constitute the electrolyte profile of a very well-rounded sports drink. The one that I would recommend trying is HoneyMaxx.

HoneyMaxx is unique in that it is the only sports drink on the market that uses honey as its base sweetener (mixed with maltodextrin). Honey is sweetened by a multitude of sugars including glucose, fructose, maltose and sucrose. You might be thinking, "Hey! You said sugars were gassy and bad and fructose was the worst of all! What gives?" And you'd be right. But remember, this is all-natural fructose- untampered by modification processes. So even though it gets converted to fat faster than any other sugar, it doesn't come with any of the chemical baggage associated with the corn processing. And the make-up of honey is such that it isn't so dependent on any one carbohydrate source for its sweetness. Rather, it has a wider profile of sugars in lesser individual quantities which means it sits a lot nicer in your stomach. The sugar profile allows things to be broken down more easily and efficiently which causes less strain to the gut which means less cramps and gastrointestinal problems for you on your run. For those diabetics looking to get into shape or if you are worried about drinks that raise your blood sugars too much- especailly for children growing up these days, HoneyMaxx is a great alternative. HoneyMaxx's sugar profile alters gastric emptying and helps decrease the blood sugar hit thus altering the insulin response. It is more of a time-released formula to keep you going for the long haul.
 On top of that, Honey Maxx has a great electrolyte profile. 

It has the four main crucial electrolytes, Calcium, Magnesium, Potassium and Sodium, in effective quantities. Compared to the original Gatorade mix:

Nutritional value per serving
Serving size	20 US fluid ounces (590 ml)
Energy	50 kcal (210 kJ)
Carbohydrates	14
- Sugars	10
- Dietary fiber	0
Fat	0
Protein	0
Potassium	30 mg (1%)
Sodium	5 mg (0%)

Now, to be fair, Gatorade has changed quite a bit in the past two years. Since the 80s, Gatorade had been using that high fructose modified corn syrup as their main sweetener in their sports drinks. In 2010 they went back to a cane sugar base because "it's what the customers like" and they've upgraded their product line to include pre, during, and post drink formulations to include a little bit better performance. But what a lot of the larger companies fail to do is ensure the electrolyte profile is well rounded as well as taking into account the sugars used within their drink. Gatorade seems to be half way there, and some of the other sports drinks seem to be looking like they are fairly good, but I have yet to come across anything that is as complete, sits as well and tastes as good as the new HoneyMaxx drink. 

But again, that's my opinion. I'm sure you all have different ones. And as always, I'd love to hear them! Let me know in the comments section, or e-mail me about your experiences with some of the sports drinks; what are your favourite and if you'd like me to look at one in particular that you want to know more about. If you're interested in trying Honey Maxx just swing by the Runners Mark store, we just got some free samples of their two flavors Lemon Lime and Orange, and we'd love some input as to what you think of it.

~E

Man do your feet stink: On minimalism and barefoot

Is it finally safe to step outdoors again? Has the dust settled? After the meteoric rise of the barefoot and minimalist movement, it would seem as though the shoe genre is falling back to Earth. This, according to many industry analysts pointing to the 10% fall in minimalist shoes during the first quarter of 2013, could mark the beginning to the end of an era. That development is in contrast to SportsOneSource's quarterly reports of the last few years, in which the minimalist category had some of the highest growth, while sales in categories such as motion control and stability stagnated or fell.

Sales in motion control shoes rose by more than 25% in the first three months of the year and hot on its heels was a 10% increase in stability shoes. In fact, barefoot and minimalist type running shoes only represented 4% of total running shoes in SportOneSource's analysis. Was barefoot really just a fad? Or was it just sorely misunderstood, a tortured sole looking for a home?

My feet hurt just thinking of this.

Much of the barefoot movement came about because of some pilot studies looking at various Kenyan tribes and one particular tribe in Mexico that runs long distances barefoot. It was reported that it was more fuel efficient- you spared your glycogen reserves more (your carbs), because your VO2 max was lower and you could use your high energy fat reserves longer- basically you were a running machine and super efficient. Your foot fall contact was light and your turnover quick- you were faster and you weren't stomping/slapping the ground when you ran. Maybe it was because you were more self-aware that you were running over hard surfaces, you could feel every stone and every crack, that you ended up changing your gait and your knee and hip alignment and you got less injured. These were all the reasons presented in these few pilot studies suggesting the benefits of switching to barefoot.

But new evidence is coming out that contradicts everything. Injury rates didn't fall, and in a lot of cases, they increased. New studies show that VO2 fell when going barefoot, and efficiency went down with it. Even the Kenyan foot strike data was disputed. And more science about the rearfoot strike being more economical at submax speeds has come out contradictory to the idea that barefoot is more efficient in terms of running.

After such a HUGE increase in the barefoot movement at the start of the decade, it seems to have come crashing down. But why? Most people who aren't in the know don't read all the scientific literature to see why it was or wasn't such a great idea. If I could hazard a guess as to why minimalism has slowed so much, it would be because of a lack of knowledge. People just jump head first into these things without ever knowing the how-to's and why's of the situation. People get injured and don't know why, when these shoes and the whole minimalist ideals are supposed to prevent injury.

The main thing that people don't realize is that barefoot running takes a long time to transition to. A long time. Especially if you've been running in big motion control and guidance shoes for so long. This is one of those things where you run maybe once or twice a week for 15 minutes at a time just to get used to it. You work your way up, GRADUALLY, to the point where you are able to run everyday barefoot or in your minimalist shoes, then you start ramping up your mileage in your minimalist shoes. Too often have I come across a poor soul that has destroyed their achilles or knees or shins from thinking they can do the same workouts they had previously been doing whilst in standard runners, but now in their trendy new barefoot shoes. And one of the problems was that dealers were all too happy to sell them to an unaware customer without warning them of the potential dangers of transitioning too fast to barefoot.

Vibram revolutionized the running scene and took the community by storm but people never knew how to get the most out of them.

 Which brings me to another point. Motion control shoes and stability shoes exist for a reason. People, if you haven't noticed, are different. We all have different running forms, our foot falls all differ slightly, and we each have our own, individualized gait. You could have the strongest feet in the world, but if you overpronate or you run knocked knee, guess what? Barefoot shoes aren't going to change that- it is just how you run, it is what is most natural for you. You do it naturally because it is what works best for you, it may not be efficient for others, but it gets the job done for you pretty well.

Maybe this decrease of the barefoot/minimalist is a good thing (much to the chagrin of podiatrists everywhere). Maybe it gives everyone a chance to step back and re-assess the realities presented. Some people swear by it and have found huge success with it. Others have scoffed at barefoot running and called it nothing more than a passing fad. There still remain many benefits of trying barefoot once and a while- it does indeed help to strengthen your feet and will get your foot speed turning over quicker, both of which are useful for being the best runner you can be. It has also drastically changed the running shoe market today. Heel-to-toe drops in running shoes are disappearing. Consumers are calling for shoes that are lower to the ground but offer more padding and cushioning than a traditional minimal barefoot shoe. Barefoot running will always have a niche I think, and minimalist shoes are great tools for becoming a better runner but the go-to shoes now are going to be lightweight trainers. Shoes which offer more neutral, cushioned shoes that offer a higher performance ride like the Saucony Kinvara and Virrata, the Brooks Pure Project, the "Zero Drop" style shoes like the Altra Instinct, and the New Balance 1400 and 890.

Until next time!

It's the pits: On Anti-odor Garments

I've just had the pleasure of sitting through my first round of product-rep "displays"/ meetings. It's an odd thing to have all these sales people come into your business carrying racks of blue-bagged clothes and wheeled bags full of the new shoes that are coming out with. Sure, you get some free stuff here and there, it gives you the chance to try it out, and I will be writing about some of the coolest things that are coming out in the next little while. But you start to see come commonalities between the companies. One of the "neatest" is the new anti-odor clothing that they have all been working on. While each manufacturer has their own unique and special name for their technology, and it goes without saying that each maintains that their new product is the best, it seems that all the high-end garments are headed towards anti-odor fibers.

All the new high-end tech and performance gear is headed towards these anti-microbial and anti-odor garments. And they all seem to be using something of the same sort of material as well- a silver nano-particle weave. Silver's use as an anti-biotic dates back to the 19th century where it was used in many bandages and disinfectants before anti-biotics started gaining wide use. Silver dollars were dropped into milk bottles to prevent milk curdling before the pasteurization process was made common place. The same thought process is now being applied to create these new antimicrobial running garments.

First, a little background info on how silver may work against microbes. While silver's antimicrobial properties have been know for hundreds of years, we still don't know exactly how it works. Some of the proposed mechanism are that it can bind to thiol groups and inactivate certain enzymes by altering certain bond types within cell membranes. Changes in bonds can alter protein shape and ultimately alter their function, usually for to the determent of the microbe. Silver has also been hypothesized to alter the actual DNA of these microbial organisms by again altering bonding between the two strands of DNA.

Running garments make perfect mediums for bacterial growth; they are damp and warm. Bacteria thrive in such an environment and when they reproduce and colonize, they create metabolic by-products. And while some bacteria can smell nice, a lot smell musty or just downright awful. You'll know from opening up your compost bin and getting a nice face full of that smell. It isn't exactly the most pleasant smelling bucket int he world. What the silver weave does is prevent the growth of these odor-causing bacteria.

Previous incarnations of anti-bacterial/anti-odor garments focused mainly on anti-bacterial sprays. These "fumigated" shirts worked well... so long as you never washed them. The problem with these old technologies was that the anti-bacterial spray was completely gone in 10 washes. This new silver weave allows for longer shirt life and keeps you smelling great. And who likes to smell rank all the time anyway?

Said no one ever

Not only that, but some of the companies have even developed new anti-bacterial sprays that last longer. For instance, the New Balance rep came in and said that the new spray they were working with depleted to 80% efficacy after 10 washes but then after that the efficacy remained at around 80% for the rest of the garment's wearability. This represents a huge step forward to creating performance garments that you aren't afraid to wear to the gym or on group runs as well as on your own daily runs.

**Remember to always wash your workout gear with a sports-specific wash. This will preserve the efficacy of both the silver fibers and the spray treatment.**

There's a bunch of cool and exciting stuff coming out in the next little while. I'll be sure to keep you posted on all the newest developments and products as I get them. Team Runner's Mark Signing off!

ASAE: The wonder of water?

Water, water, everywhere, what type should I drink? 

I was passed along an e-mail this morning about this new and revolutionary product called ASEA (you can check out the mumbo-jumbo here).

They have even produced an inspiring YouTube video meant to evoke some upwelling feeling of accomplishment.

ASEA is a diet supplement described as a “life-changing” health aid that can benefit everyone. "Every human being has three basic needs: to believe, to belong, and to become." Hold the phone. Isn't this supposed to be the next great nutritional supplement? It claims to act by creating 16 new chemical particles formed from salt and water which act as redox signaling molecules in your body.

Redox stands for reduction and oxidation- a process by which you body transfers electrons from one particle to the next, changing it in a way to illicit some sort of signal, be it a release of a hormone, an electrical stimulus generation, or chemical production to call immune cells. It acts as a signalling pathway within the body. As ASEA puts it,

“ASEA is trillions of stable, perfectly balanced Redox Signaling Molecules suspended in a pristine saline solution—the same molecules that exist in the cells of the human body. Redox signaling is a function that is central to all life. Signaling molecules are created within every cell in the body. After the age of 12, our cells make fewer and fewer of these molecules. ASEA is the world’s only source for replenishing them.”

 Now, behind all that is what they are really trying to get at, and what a lot of these products are trying to get at; the concept of reactive oxygen species, or ROS for short. These ROS, as you've probably read in just about every health and nutrition article in any form of media, are what cause cellular damage- aging, cell death, and ultimately- cancer. The damaging inflammatory effects of ROS have long been known to the scientific community- why obese people are unhealthy is because they are in a constant inflamed state due to ROS production- and with the advent of all the anti-oxidant products being marketed today, most people are getting some sense of the types of things ROS can do. 

 And that is what ASEA is ultimately trying to do, be something of the ultimate antioxidant. It allegedly promotes enhanced immune function, supports vital cellular function, provides superior "support" for athletes, boosts efficiency of the body’s own antioxidants by 500%, and protects against free radical damage. Vague claims from a products claiming to be revolutionary and the only source for replenishing these signalling molecules that we lose at the age of twelve (we don't). They can't legally claim to be effective against any disease, but because there lies the association between free radical damage, immune function and illness, they can make these purposefully vague claims about their product so long as they say the claims haven't been evaluated by the FDA and the product shouldn't be used to treat every illness. They instead turn to testimonials about how ASEA has helped everything from curing sleep problems and minor aches and pains right up to curing cancer.

But, perhaps they have something here. Let's take a closer look at what they actually have going on shall we?

Oh, wait, what's this? Their product label just has two ingredients; water and salt. But they explain ,

"ASEA is a mixture of 16 chemically recombined products of salt and water with completely new chemical properties. It is no longer salt or water just like table salt is no longer chlorine gas or sodium metal." 
 

But what are these mysterious 16 new chemicals? ASEA has been quite coy about what exactly these miracle chemicals are,

"ASEA is made in Utah from municipal water that is highly purified using both reverse osmosis and distillation. The pure water is then combined with pure salt and allowed to cure, before undergoing a patented process that oxidizes and reduces the saline solution into the final product. During processing most of the chloride ions are integrated into redox molecules. Sodium ions are not effected [sic] and help to maintain electrical neutrality. Hydrogen and oxygen also contribute to the formation of redox molecules, but most of the water forms a matrix of clusters around the active redox molecules and ions. This micro-clustering further contributes to the stability and electrical neutrality of the product. The final product is no longer a saline solution. It is not salt and water. It is a balanced buffet of redox molecules. The raw materials have been transformed into a new product. Ingredients: Some people ask why redox Molecules are not listed as an ingredient on each bottle of ASEA. By comparison, when we look at the ingredients on a loaf of bread, we find flour, water, eggs, sugar, oil, yeast, etc. Nowhere on the list does it say “bread”. The raw ingredients have been blended and heated and forever transformed. You can no longer locate the eggs or oil that we know went into the process. It’s the same with ASEA."

It sounds all scientific and they do try to compare it so something more laymen like baking a cake. And yet, this isn't science. The chemistry of what they are trying to describe doesn't exist. The chemical and physical nature of the individual elements (Sodium, Chlorine, Hydrogen, Oxygen) are slaves the the physical properties that dictate the laws of nature. Essentially they have created an expensive saline solution from tap water.

"But wait!" you cry, "surely they must have backed up a product with science!" Surely they must have right? Well, the science that they have done is what you consider poor science. They have claimed that they were able to determine the solution contained an equilibrium of several known compounds stabilized within ASEA. Yet they failed to state the compounds. They then performed a VO2 max (rate of maximal oxygen uptake) test on 17 athletes and found a 3% increase in VO2 max. Yet the data is pretty meaningless as there was no placebo control group. Then a small study of cyclists was done with a crossover control but with no placebo control. It measured a number of changes in metabolites that “may represent effects on inflammation, oxidative stress, and physiologic stress.” But again, this study was no placebo controlled, rendering the data relatively meaningless in any sort of context. What's more is that these studies were done "in-house" by the company and were never published in any scientific peer reviewed journals. Without being peer reviewed and published, there is a lack of credibility to ASEA's claims. Extraordinary claims require ordinary evidence, which they don't have. 

Bottom Line: ASEA is salt water. Who knows, maybe its something you want to try, maybe you want to spend a dollar an ounce for filtered Utah tap water. Maybe time will show that they've created something magnificent. Or maybe you can just find enjoyment reading through their website.

Any thoughts? Let us know in the comments section! We at Runner's Mark  are always trying to keep you informed and up to date on the latest happenings!

Running Shoes: Myths Debunked! PART 2

Myth #7: But I’m just a beginner. I don’t need all the fancy bells and whistles on the expensive shoes, do I?
BUSTED: I don't know about bells and whistles but it is imperative that beginners get the best shoes they can for themselves. Unfortunately, that's rarely the economic option. A beginner usually needs the best cushioning and support that he/she can find. It’s far more important for a beginner to spend a little more and get the best shoe, as opposed to someone who’s been running several years and already knows what works best. Their feet will have adapted and be that much stronger and be used to being used for strenuous amounts of time. 

Myth #8: Cushioning is the most important factor for me. I’m a big runner and need as much cushioning as I can get. When I try a new pair on, I like that soft, cushy feel I get walking around in the store.
BUSTED: Almost all standard running shoes these days have adequate amounts of cushioning but some shoes/brands may have a softer level of cushioning or even a greater amount of cushioning. Yet that doesn't mean that a shoe has better quality or even a greater amount of cushioning. It simply means that it has a softer grade cushioning material (foam) which may feel amazing when you're simply walking around in the store. But just a light walk from one end to the store to another is not an adequate way to truly test a shoe's cushioning level. Researchers have long ago concluded that a running shoe with softer cushioning (rather than firmer) increases impact forces. There’s no evidence that a softer cushioned shoe is better for you than a shoe with greater firmness. In addition, running shoes that are too soft bottom out on road surface, don’t support the foot well (the foot sinks into the midsole) and the cushioning wears out quicker.

Myth # 9: It takes me two or three weeks to break in a new pair of shoes. It’s frustrating that it takes so long.
BUSTED: It's quite understandable that you'd be frustrated. But the reality is that today's running shoes are good to go right out of the box. The idea that you had to break in a pair of runners is something of a by-gone era (the 70s and 80s) when many running shoes had a board in the rearfoot, ere very stiff and necessitated several short break-in runs. It’s simply not necessary today. The only exception is before an important race (especially a marathon) a few shakedown runs are important.

Myth #10: I’m a woman who is tired of buying women’s shoes. It bothers me that women’s running shoes are technically inferior to men’s and just more colorful versions designed to pander to women.
BUSTED: That simply is not true. It used to be true when women made up a fraction of the running population and women’s running shoes were a little narrower, but today’s women (who make up more than half of all runners) demand just as good a shoe as men. Women are more sensitive to fit than men and absolutely won’t settle for a running shoe that doesn’t fit properly. Many shoe brands design their ladies shoes with lady-specific lasts, and softer/lighter material for the upper meshing of the shoe.

Myth #11: I like to rotate between two pair of the same model shoe. That way I can extend the life of the shoe.
BUSTED:  There’s certainly nothing wrong with using two different pair of training shoes, but it won’t extend the life of a shoe. Shoes have a limited life span of a certain number of miles (which differs for everyone) and rotating between two pairs won’t help the shoes last longer. Shoes don’t need a day or two of rest like you and I do. Generally, a running shoe’s midsole (the cushioning element) needs just a couple of hours of “rest” to rebound from the day’s run, rather than 24 or 48 hours to recover. Doing so, won’t hurt the shoe but it won’t extend its durability.

Myth #12: Minimalist running shoes are the best way to improve running form.
BUSTED: There isn’t anything magical about minimalist or zero drop shoes. Yes, minimal running shoes—i.e., shoes with minimal cushioning and lowered (or zero) heel heights—might help you change your stride, but it is usually more of a result of making a conscious decision to change your running form and foot strike while running in this type of shoe. While it is true that because of the low heel heights and overall lightness of minimal shoes, runners do tend to strike the ground lighter and closer to the midfoot or forefoot with each stride. But, there is still an adaptation period as the typical runner has to biomechanically retrain. The shoe won’t do that; the runner must. Even so, many runners in minimalist shoes, continue to heel strike, just as some runners in conventional training shoes, use a mid or forefoot strike.

So there you have it, myths debunked. If you have questions that you want to ask please do so in the comments or if you want to chat further shoot me an e-mail! I'd love to hear from you.

And as always, check out Runner's Mark 

Running shoes: Myths Debunked! PART 1

Buying running shoes should be the simplest task in running. But the fact of the matter is that it is one of the most challenging aspects of running for most runners. There are so many options and with so many terms like "gait analysis," "barefoot minimalism," "structured support," and  "ultra-lightweight" being thrown around theses days, finding the right shoes for you can be a bit of an adventure.

Also getting in the way of selecting the right shoe for you are an exorbitant number of myths surrounding running shoes. Many of these myths may have had basis 20-30 years ago, but today they are just that- myths- not grounded in reality, which somehow have managed to endure.

The separation of fact from fiction is an always challenging battle due to the grounded and ingrained misinformation that has based itself within the running community. Such things do nothing but complicate the matter of selecting new running shoes.

Here are but a few of the most common myths surrounding running shoes:

Myth #1: There is a best shoe for every runner.
BUSTED: There simply isn't. Perhaps you've found a specific shoe model that you deem to be the best or you've found a brand that you can reliably turn to when looking for your next pair if your model has mysteriously been discontinued or the update wasn't quite what you were looking for. But there is simply no one running shoe that is the "best" shoe. Running shoes do not deal in absolutes, there is no one shoe or brand that is the be-all and end-all of running shoes that works for every runner. And the reason why there isn't an absolute best is because we are all different. We all have individual biomechanics which dictate how our bodies move, how our feet fall and ultimately, what type of shoe will work for us. The greatest running shoe on the planet won’t work for everyone and the worst running shoe will work for some runners. Don’t worry about what someone else says or recommends; get the best shoe for you. Spend the time to try the shoes on, make sure its the right one for you.

Don't worry, we've got you covered

Myth #2: All running shoes are basically the same
BUSTED: Not true at all. It is a known fact that each company has their own patented special shoe technology, be it their type of cushioning or gel supports or some type of carbon-fiber speed plate, but further than that, each shoe simply fits differently. Each shoe company has their own unique foot mold that they deem is the right one and that is the one they are going to use. Different shoe are going to fit differently. What one brand may deem to be a size 8 may in fact be more like a size 8.5 in another brand  or a 7.5 in an other. That’s why a shoe or a specific brand your running partner swears by might not work for you because it may not fit you as well as your friend. Fit is absolutely the most critical factor when selecting your next pair of running shoes. The fit characteristics every runner should seek in every pair of shoes is a snug heel without any slippage, enough space for the ball of the foot and wiggle room for the toes. Comfort and fit are the two greatest factors in reducing risk of injury. Never compromise on fit.

Myth #3: The shoes make the runner
BUSTED: This one may seem a little self-evident but the fact is, some people still think that by simply having the most expensive or flashy-looking shoes, they will instantly be a better runner. The key great running isn't shoes. Shoes are necessary tools but they are not what makes you the runner. The training, the dedication, the commitment and the sheer will to be better are what make you a better runner. Shoes can help you along the way by adding protection and stability for those who need it, but the key to great running is staying health and being consistent. In other words, great running is being able to run everyday. Shoes certainly help, and are usually required, but they do not make you a better runner.

Myth #4: I’ve heard the wet test (i.e., placing a wet foot on a dry surface) is the best way to determine my foot type and the type of shoe I should wear.
BUSTED: You heard wrong. A simple tracing of your foot and/or the wet test is not an accurate predictor of your foot function. Only severe overpronators (with a full, flat arch) or extreme underpronators (with a high arch) have definitive foot shapes. For anyone else, the wet test is pretty useless. There have been no studies or scientific literature that have ever suggested that foot shape accurately indicates what kind of shoe is the best for you. In fact, three recent studies conducted by the military showed consecutively that wet test/foot shape test and assigning shoe type based on that had the slightest impact of injury rates.

Myth #5: My shoes wear out first on the outside of the outsole which I know means I’m a supinator, right?
BUSTED: If you are a TRUE supinator, the actual supination movement happens well after you land. Wear on the outside of the heel is the most common wear pattern within the running population because 75-80%. The simplest explanation for this is because most runners land with their heel and strike with their outside of their heel first. Which is precisely the point where most of the wear pattern occurs. But that is all it means.

Myth #6: I know I need to buy a good shoe, but a $50 shoe is just as good as shoes costing $100 or more. 
BUSTED: Not in a million years. Different models have different materials and technologies, and they are going to fit differently. Running shoes are very different from each other because of each brand's individual foot mold, the technology they have at their disposal, and their own personal design choices. Buying a $50 department store athletic shoe may seem like an economic choice, but realistically you bought something that is going to wear out faster and it isn't made for running. You have different shoes for different sports because they are the proper tools to help you be the better athlete (in our case, the better runner). Even if the shoe is supposed to be purposed as a running shoe, the sweet spot in running shoes (between $125-$160) offer the best shoes in terms of cushioning, support, fit and durability.



If you have questions that you want to ask please do so in the comments or if you want to chat further shoot me an e-mail! I'd love to hear from you.

And as always, check out Runner's Mark 

What's The Deal with Protein

If you've frequented the gym any time in the past little while you'll have noticed, or perhaps heard, the little wire sphere bouncing around in plastic bottle, shook by "hardcore-look gym rats" (as is often the term muttered by some of the more slight runners I've bumped into at the gym). Amongst groups of these inverted triangles you may hear utterances of "whey", "casein", "alanine" or something along those lines. What does it all mean? And why should you care too?

Protein is an essential part of your diet. It is needed to keep your body functioning, be it from building and regenerating muscles, down to the intricate nature of how your body works- enzymes and cellular signaling functions. In terms of training and running, protein supplementation has been studied time and time again and proven effective when trying to build or maintain muscle strength and improve regeneration post exercise. Yet, what protein source is the best? When should you take it? Before you work out? During? After? When's the best time to take it? In today's blog we're going to look at some of the science behind protein supplementation.

The Basics

Protein- The basics

Proteins are chains of 20 (or 22 if you add the two additional created by genetic code) Amino Acids, 10 of which are considered essential to human adults. Essential Amino Acids (EAA) are ones that humans cannot create ourselves, we must take them in from external sources in order for us to be able to create some of our own enzymes and proteins. When our body is starved of proteins, we call this being in a state of negative nitrogen balance. Nitrogen Balance = Nitrogen intake - Nitrogen loss. Being in a negative nitrogen balance means you are losing more nitrogen through urea than you are taking in via diet. This creates a whole host of  problems, least of which includes muscle wasting and degradation.

Nitrogen Balance and Amino Acids- Phillips 2004- Nutrition

Thus, to build muscle we want muscle to be in positive energy balance- the reason why protein supplementation post exercise is so important. If you resistance train or work your muscles to the point of exhaustion (any kind of exercise really) you can go into negative protein balance. By eating food loaded with protein or supplementing with amino acids, you can decrease the breakdown of muscle protein and maintain a positive balance needed to gain muscle mass and maintain muscle growth- especially important for those shorter-end running events or recovering after long runs for distance athletes.

Protein Balance and degradation- Phillips 2004-Nutrition

But what's the optimal dose? How much protein supplement do I have to take to get the maximum effects? is it just the one scoop that they give me? or do I need two? What's the deal? Much research has shown that the perfect dose is right around 20g of protein post workout. You're more than welcome to take more, but the relationship between the fractional biosynthesis rate (FSR) and protein intake is asymptotic, not linear. This of course varies person to person based on individual physiology, but the fact remains that the process is saturable, there are only so many amino acid transporters that we have to be able to move amino acids into our body. 

The leveling off of Protein Synthesis Rate with increase supplementation- Moore 2009- Am J Clin Nutr.

So, if protein supplementation is good, all amino acids must be good right? Not so, Essential Amino Acids are just that, essential (Emphasis). 18g/day of EAA has the same benefits as taking 40g/day of whole source/mixed sources of amino acids. There seems to be something about EAA, specifically one in particular- Leucine, which is playing the role of muscle bio synthesis. 

So, you've looked around for the best source of protein but wait! You've hit a snag! You've come across sites that claim their protein source is the best! 

Whey- Milk derived protein source

"Why protein (the highest quality and the best form of protein) is incredible stuff. It provides the body with the necessary building blocks to produce amino acids that are used for building muscle tissue. Whoa! Nearly every bodybuilder know the importance of protein supplementation. Studies have been conducted that compare whey whey protein to other sources. They have found that whey protein contains the perfect combination of overall amino acid makeup... and in just the right concentrations for optimal performance in the body." ~bodybuilding.com/store/whey

Casein- Beef derived protein source

"Beef protein is specifically designed to allow the recycling of amino acids back toward the muscle-building pathway and prevents and prevents the build-up of debilitating toxic scavengers such as ammonia. This amazing product is the only protein with this technology that is capable of recycling aminos back into the anabolic muscle building pathways for increased nitrogen retention and improves muscle growth and performance." 

~fabmuscles.com/index.php?main_page=product_info&products_id=230

Two hilariously written product descriptions about two different protein sources. Odd that Soy protein didn't have such a hilariously macho write up...

Regardless of the hilarity of the body building sites, the question still remains, which protein source is the best? 

Whey vs Casein vs Soy

Most supplements on the market today are made of whey-derived sources of protein. Whey is considered a "fast" source of protein, casein a "slow" source, and soy falls somewhere in between as an intermediate source. Ingestion of whey, when compared to casein, results in rapid gastric emptying and quick amino acid spike within the blood (why it is referred to as a "fast" source- it is digested and enters the blood faster than casein). However, because it enters the blood so quickly, it also results in a larger insulin spike- likely due to the higher Leucine content in whey than in casein.

Whey Insulin Spike vs Soy & Casein In Blood- Tang et al 2009-J Appl Physiol

Leucine blood concentrations Whey vs Soy vs Casein- Tang at al 2009-J Appl Physiol

Each group was matched for essential amino acid content, 10g total, yet the big differences were because of Leucine content and the insulin spike. And while some may scoff at such a high insulin spike, challenging that it damages your body and increases your chance of type II diabetes, this suggest that the spike of insulin is required to increase biogenesis of the muscle.

But what about a functional measurement of muscle synthesis? Well, it would appear that Whey has the highest fractional synthesis rate of the three protein sources. 

FSR Whey vs Casein vs Soy- tang et al 2009-J appl Physiol 

*However, casein is called a slow reactor for a reason. The time scale of the previous data MAY have been to short and it didn't last long enough. Unlikely, but perhaps a flaw in the previous study to consider.*

Importance of Timing

So you've selected Whey protein as your choice for a recovery supplement. Now what? When should you take it in relation to working out for best results? Well, depending on the length of your planned workout, ingesting before may be more beneficial. Protein takes time to be broken down into usable amino acid fractions (~45min). By ingesting before your workout, you are "priming" the system and setting it up for immediate use post exercise. It may be worth splitting your 20g protein dose into two doses- 10g before and 10g after. Protein synthesis is still highest post meal/exercise, but you can prime the system to speed the process along.

Recommendations

So how much do we actually need? 

-Sedentary people need need about 0.8g/kg body weight/day of protein

-Strength athletes needs about 1.4  to 1.7g/kg body weight/day

-Endurance Athletes: 1.2-1.4g/kg body weight/day

Protein use can seriously improve performance because o the gains seen through faster recovery. It is important to keep this in mind while training and looking to get the most out of your athletic performance. 

Check out our the Runner's Mark website for more info and be sure to check out some of our protein supplements in our shop section.

Keep checking back for more running news and cool blogs!