Trail runners, do you suffer the embarrassment of continually being passed on hills? Legs aren't what they used to be? You need the new Hill Climbing Helper®.

The Hill Climbing Helper's portability is the key! The Hill Climbing Helper® may look heavy, and it is, but that's part of the genius of its design.

• Can be used on all your favorite trail runs!
• Fits most hills!
• More effective than elliptical or stair-climbing machines!
• Increases safety. Eliminates fear of slipping or falling.

Includes 10 stairs and 2 hand rails. Constructed of the finest oil field steel - it will last for decades!

You'll notice the HCH difference on your first run!

(From today's run of the Las Llajas loop.)

Related post: Chumash-Las Llajas Loop

Updated February 10, 2010.

At one time or another, most of us have run barefoot -- on a beach or in a park, or certainly somewhere as a child.

As a result of the insight and enthusiasm of Barefoot Ted McDonald, and the publication of Christopher McDougall's book Born to Run, runners have been swept into a new era of minimalist running using Vibram FiveFingers (VFFs). Now a runner can, with VFFs and a little care, run trails virtually barefoot.

"What's the elevation gain?" is a common question when talking about a trail run, because it makes such a huge difference in the difficulty of the run. All the technology we have for recording and analyzing trail runs is remarkable, but it can sometimes produce misleading and wildly inaccurate results. This is particularly the case when using a GPS track to calculate elevation gain and loss.

Last Sunday's trail run in the San Gabriel Mountains is a good example. The course started at Islip Saddle, dropped down to South Fork Campground, climbed to the summit of Mt. Baden-Powell by way of Vincent Gap, and then returned on the PCT to Islip Saddle. The GPS track was recorded on a Garmin Forerunner 205. So what was the elevation gain on the loop?

According to Garmin Training Center, the gain was about 10,500'. The same track in TOPO! calculated the gain at about 6,100'. SportTracks, using corrected SRTM-based elevations and moderate smoothing, came up with 5800'. When uploaded to Garmin Connect, the track produced a fanciful elevation gain of about 13,600'!

Last year I used a Polar 625X on this course. It measures elevation gain/loss based on changes in barometric pressure, and came up with a gain of 5400'. So which of these values is the closest to reality?

Fortunately, in the case of elevation gain/loss it's fairly easy to do a low tech sanity check of these high tech results. All that is required is to get out a topo map, either electronically or on paper, and do a little arithmetic.

In the case of Sunday's loop, the gain from South Fork Campground to the summit of Baden-Powell is about 4830'. The gain on the PCT up and over the shoulder of Throop Peak is about 375'. A couple of other minor climbs total 240'. This gives a total of 5445'. Adding in a fudge factor of 200' for very small climbs that were not included in the total, the result is a reality checked gain of about 5645'.

The title photograph is from a run on the Hummingbird Trail yesterday.

Note: A long-standing rule of thumb, Naismiths Rule, says that the additional time required to gain 1000 ft. on a run/hike, will be the same as the the time to run/hike 1.5 miles on the flat. See "Short and hilly or long and flat?" in the Mountaineering Council of Scotland's The SCOTTISH MOUNTAINEER (Issue 7, March 2001).

Last updated 08/05/09.

The trail shoes I've been running in the most over the last several months are the Salomon XT Wings, Salomon SpeedComp, and the adidas Response Trail 15. I've been happy with the performance of these shoes, but still like to try something new from time to time.

Recently, the cushioning on one of my pairs of XT Wings died, so I thought I'd give the Montrail Mountain Masochist a try. I've now run about 35 miles in the Mountain Masochist, on a variety of courses, including the Mt. Pinos trail run on Sunday. Trail surfaces have ranged from smooth dirt road to very rocky, technical single track trail.

From the first mile the shoes have been comfortable, and fit my moderately high-arched, D-width foot well. At 12 oz./each (US size 9.5) are on the lighter side for a medium weight shoe.

The outsole appeared to have good traction on a mix of dry surfaces without being overly aggressive and grabby. On the rocky sections of trail, the shield in the midsole did a good job of protecting against pointy rocks.

My foot likes a neutral shoe with little or no pronation control, and so far the modest amount of pronation control in the Mountain Masochist has not felt overly restrictive. (See update below.)

The shoe seems to encourage a more forward body position and foot strike, which I prefer. The forefoot cushioning is good, and the strike-to-toe transitions feel smooth. On rough trails, the shoe has been stable, and I have not noticed any abnormal tendency to roll an ankle.

Overall, the Mountain Masochist appears to be a balanced, well thought out design. I hope to get them out on a 20+ mile mountain run soon.

Update 08/05/09. I now have 81 miles on this shoe and used it on the Cottonwood - New Army Pass loop in the Sierra back in July. Overall, the shoe has performed well. I do notice the pronation control on longer runs, and would love to see a version of this shoe designed for a neutral foot.

A search on the phrases "stride rate" or "running cadence" will turn up numerous articles extolling the benefits of a running cadence (stride rate) in the neighborhood of 90. An often quoted source of this axiom is Daniels' Running Formula: Proven Programs: 800 M to the Marathon (Human Kinetics, 2004). The idea is that for a given speed, the faster your stride rate, the less time your body will spend airborne, the less you displace your center of mass, and the softer you hit the ground on landing. Less up and down should translate to more energy efficient running.

Comfortable, cushioned and durable. That's how I would characterize the adidas Response Trail. I've had two pairs of the Response Trail 14s in my shoe rotation since September 2007, and logged around 1000 miles between them. (Your mileage may vary.)

About a month ago I replaced one of the pairs with the adidas Response Trail 15s. I've put 75 miles on the new pair, and other than a change in colors, it seems not much has changed in the shoe. It's still well-cushioned, comfortable and lightweight. The new pair weighed in at 24.7 oz./pair (US 9.5). At $80 or less, the Response Trail 15s are an excellent value.

At the moment, my primary trail running shoes are the Salomon XT Wings (105 miles), Salomon SpeedComp (110 miles), and adidas Response Trail 15s.

A sib of the ultralight SpeedCross 2, the Salomon SpeedComp trail running shoe trades the "snow and mud rated" lug sole of the SpeedCross 2 for a high traction tread reminiscent of a low profile, high performance tire. The result is a fast, lightweight shoe that should perform well on most trails and in a variety of conditions.

Mine arrived yesterday and I took them out for a 7 mile spin at Ahmanson Ranch. There were no surprises -- the SpeedComp ran very similar to the SpeedCross 2, with good shock absorption and cushioning for such a lightweight shoe.

In addition to the outsole tread, there are a few other differences in design. The toe cap of the SpeedComp extends further back along the welt, and the sole wraps up over the sides of the cap, providing additional protection on rocky trails. A heel pull-tab has also been added.

My pair of SpeedComps (US 9.0) weighed in at a light 22.6 oz.

Update 05/29/09. In rotation with two pairs of XT Wings, and a pair of Adidas Response Trail 15s, I've now logged 235 miles on the Speedcomps, and have not changed my opinion of the shoe. I used the Speedcomps in the Boney Mountain Half Marathon, Bandit 30K, and Malibu Creek Challenge 22K, with excellent results -- two firsts and a second in my age class.

Update 01/29/09. In rotation with my other shoes, I've logged 150 miles in the Speedcomps now. I've used them on a variety of trails and terrain, and am very happy with the shoe.

Update 09/21/08. Did the 14 mile Bulldog Loop in the SpeedComps today. This course is mostly ungroomed dirt road, but there is also some rocky single track, a section on exposed sandstone, and even a little pavement. The SpeedComp was comfortable, nimble, and it's traction on the rocky sections was impressive.

Related post: Salomon SpeedCross 2 & adidas Response Trail 14

Introduced around 2000, the Garmin eTrex was the first GPS unit I used to trace a trail run. The GPS tracks were imported into TOPO! where the length of a run could be measured, an elevation profile generated, and the topography of the run examined.

Since the eTrex was designed to be used in an "orienteering" position -- flat in your hand in front of your body -- it would frequently have trouble receiving GPS satellite signals if hand-carried while running or hiking. About the time enterprising hikers and runners began to resolve this issue with creative hats, holsters and harnesses, Garmin released the Forerunner 201, greatly simplifying the task of tracing a route.

In 2005, while preparing a presentation about kayaking Piru Creek for a meeting with the Forest Service, I stumbled onto Keyhole.com. To say I was blown away by this bit of "Eureka" technology would be an a gross understatement. Now, in addition to seeing Piru Creek in photographs, and on a topo map, you could get a "before you paddle" preview using Keyhole -- even if you couldn't paddle class IV whitewater! Google acquired Keyhole in late 2004 and launched Google Earth on June 28, 2005.

Shortly after Google Earth was launched, SportTracks added the ability to launch Google Earth and view the GPS trace of a run or other activity. Since SportTracks could also directly import data from Garmin's Forerunner, the software made it very easy to view a run in Google Earth.

I've been working on updating the posts on Photography on the Run that reference a trail run to include a link to a Google Earth KMZ file. A KMZ file is just a zipped KML file, and either can be opened in Google Earth. A list of the trail runs with KMZ file links can be found by clicking "Google Earth KMZ Files of Trail Runs" in the sidebar.

These are actual tracks recorded by a GPS during a trail run and may contain GPS errors, route-finding errors, and wanderings that are difficult to explain. In a few instances tracks have been modified to correct errors, or to remove side excursions that are not part of the usual route, but not all errors have been corrected. No claim is being made regarding the appropriateness or suitability of the routes indicated. The GPS devices used to record these tracks include the Garmin Forerunner 201, Foretrex 201 and Forerunner 205; and the GlobalSat GH-615B.

Ounces count when you're fighting gravity -- in your pack, on your body, and especially on your feet.

The Salomon SpeedCross 2 (left) and adidas Response Trail 14 are my two lightest trail running shoes. My Response Trail 14's weigh 24.2 oz./pair (US 9.5), and the SpeedCross 2's weigh 21.3 oz./pair (US 9.0).

Last updated 02/22/10. Symmetrical lacing on XT Wings 2!

Wow -- what a great ride! That was my impression the first time I used the Salomon XT Wings trail running shoes. That continues to be my feeling after using the shoe for a couple of weeks and doing several runs in the 15-20 mile range. For my particular trail running requirements, this shoe has a near perfect balance of comfort, smooth ride, cushioning, traction and support.

Update 7/26/08. There have been recent USB driver (4-28-08) and firmware (5-07-08) updates, and the PC software has been replaced (7-04-08), but the most significant change is that SportTracks now supports the GH615 via a plugin. Since I use SportTracks I have not looked closely at the new "g-Sports PC Utility" software, but it appears to be more functional than the original "PC Utility" software. Some significant quirks remain. When the GH615B is set to STATUTE(ft, mph) units, the elevation still displays in miles -- e.g. 1.702 miles instead of 8987 ft.

Update 9/10/07. Shortly after writing this post I learned that the GH-615B has been discontinued in the U.S. in favor of the GH-615M, which includes a heart rate monitor.

Chugging up Mt. Baden-Powell, I pushed various buttons on the GlobalSat GH615B, searching for the screen that displays elevation. I had seen it on a run during the week, and now I couldn't find it. Wait... What? My elevation is 1.702 MILES??

When my Forerunner 205 had to be returned to Garmin a second time, it seemed like a good time to see if there were any new GPS-based running watches I could use for tracing the routes of my trail runs. The description of the GH615B on the GlobalSat web site looked promising. Like the Forerunner 205/305 it had a watch-like design, and the specs said it also used the newer, more sensitive, SiRFstarIII GPS technology.

Updated Wednesday, May 29, 2009.

The Google Earth image above shows two GPS traces. Here's a larger image. The red trace was created using a Garmin Forerunner 201, and the yellow trace was created with a Forerunner 205. The course is comprised of a mix of fire roads and trails, through a variety of terrain and cover. The better tracking of the Forerunner 205 is clearly evident. Here is another view of the same course with the two traces.

I've had my Forerunner 205 since March 2006, and in my experience, it is a huge improvement over the 201:

• It is more compact and less obtrusive.
• Tracks are more accurate, and it almost never loses reception.
• It accepts routes for sequential navigation.
• Uploading and downloading data is easier and faster with the USB interface.
• The GPS chipset firmware (as well as unit firmware) can be updated.
• It has multiple customizable data screens that are easily displayed during a run.

The performance of the GPS receiver in the Forerunner 205 continues to amaze me. It is tenacious. I was wearing the Forerunner 205 when I got caught in a fierce thunderstorm running in the Mt. Pinos area in July. Even in the middle of a thunderstorm, on a north facing slope, in a fir and pine forest, the unit did not lose reception. Here's a Forerunner 205 trace of the run, exported from TOPO! Note that the traces going out and coming back very nearly overlay each other. The only exception is a real deviation between Sawmill Mountain and Mt. Pinos where I wandered off the trail to a minor summit. Also note that the trail is incorrectly marked on the topo map in the vicinity of Grouse Mountain.

In my experience there are some cons:

As mentioned in the post North Backbone Trail Revisited, in early October 2006, I had a problem with not being able to power on my 205 after it was charged. Garmin promptly replaced the unit, under warranty, without charge.

In June 2007 the replaced unit began to experience an intermittent issue where it would suddenly start to rapidly cycle through display screens, beep, and not respond to key presses. The only way to stop it was pressing the power + mode + reset keys. Garmin promptly replaced the unit, but charged a flat rate $79 repair fee. Oddly, when the unit was returned, the history included a few runs from the London, Ontario (Canada) area from late February and early March 2007.

It's been almost two years since the flat rate repair/replacement of my Forerunner 205, and I've had zero problems. One apparent improvement is that the contacts on the back no longer get corroded from sweat. This used to cause problems with the USB connection and transferring data, and I would need to clean the contacts from time to time with a pencil eraser.

In my opinion the Training Center Software is still poor, and for that reason I continue to use SportTracks, which was updated in February 2009 to version 2.1. 

Note: The course is the run from the end of Reseda Blvd to Trippet Ranch described in the post Musch Trail Mule Deer.

Technorati Tags: gps, Forerunner 205, Garmin