2022 Mountains 2 Beach Marathon Training Summary

 I signed up for M2B on Dec 7th 2021, a month after the Golden Gate Half. First thing in my mind is to choose a training plan. I was a novice when it comes to marathon training so did a lot of research and reading between Pfitzinger (AM), Hansons, Daniels, Hal Hidgon marathon plans. I like Pfitzinger plan mostly because it is very popular on running forum like r/AdvancedRunning or letsrun.com. Also because I like its format. Daniel's plan on the other hand is very loose in that it only describes 2 quality workouts and leave the rest to you. 

Later I realized that AM is not really for beginners, even the 18 week/55 miles version. Never ran a full marathon before, I foolishly picked the 18 weeks/70 miles plan. The rationale was my base pre-Golden Gate is 50 mile per week (base is defined as your 3-month average weekly mileage). I figured I could start ramping up my volume (mostly easy miles) to 50-60ish starting mid-Nov. By the time the training plan starts in late January, I will have ~10 weeks of ave 55mpw, a good enough base to embark on a 70-peak-mile plan. Note, typically in any training plan, the mileage quoted refers to the peak mileage hit during the plan, not the average mileage. The pre-requisite for any plan is that the mileage for the first week of the plan should be at your base level, i.e. you should be able to finish the first week's training relatively comfortably. That's the why we need to first build the base specifically for the plan you chose. 

After picking the plan, I started scheduling the training, aka putting the daily training on calendar. I counted from the race day and back to determine when the training starts. For me, the M2B 5/29 means the 18 week plan starts on Jan 23rd. The next task is to determine my training paces. For the AM plan, there are primarily 5 paces: general aerobic (easy), long run and medium long run, recovery, lactate threshold, and VO2Max interval. GA/easy pace is about 15-25% slower than the marathon pace (MP), LR/ML 10-20% slower than MP; LT is about your half marathon pace (HMP); and interval at your 5k pace. Recovery usually should be based on feel not pace. Then how do I determine my MP? I used my last Half Marathon Race result (1:31 from Golden Gate), entered it to the VDOT calculator, and it spit out MP is about 7:15 min/mile. Keep in mind the training MP is not your goal MP. It just reflects your current level of fitness. We should train at the intensity determined by our current fitness, not our target fitness. So for a 7:15 MP, my easy run is around 9 min/mile, my LR/ML pace is around 8:30 min/mile, and my LT pace is my HMP pace 6:55. Through training the fitness level improves and we should re-assess your fitness level with races/time-trials, and the training paces evolve accordingly.

As mentioned earlier, the AM plan is pretty aggressive and I need to make some modifications to "dumb" it down to my level. For example, a key characteristics of the AM plan is the medium long run (11-15 miles) in the mid-week, often time the day after an LT workout (the idea is to start the ML with pre-fatigued fast-twitch fibers). Some weeks there are two ML separated by a day. This is quite tough both logistically and physically. So I decided, as a novice, I will run those MLs mostly at easy pace. And my easy pace, instead of following the 9 min recommendation, I will follow my heart rate. My easy heart rate is typically between 130-140 bpm. In fact as shown later, most of my easy runs are on the easier end of the zone, ~130-135 bpm. My recovery runs are done at very relaxed HR, which is below 125 in general but most often below 120 bpm. So for easy/ML/recovery runs, which make up bulk of the training mileage, my effort is about 120-130 bpm. This later on proves to be key for injury prevention. 

To maintain the quality of the training, I did a second modification to the plan. Since I slow down the ML and easy runs quite a bit, to maintain the quality of the training, I added intensity to the weekend long runs. Now this is risky and I have to admit I didn't quite know what I was doing. In AM's long runs, the pace is supposed to be 10-20% shy of your MP. You are supposed to start the long run at the slow end and finish at the fast end of the pace bracket. I started my long runs with easy/slow pace, and after 3-4 miles I move to a steady/moderate pace, which is around 7:30. At the last 6 miles, I threw in a tempo section at HMP. Later on I knew adding speed to the end of a long run could be risky and could cause injury. But have to say it effectively combines two workouts into one. So every week I get 3 workouts: an LT run, a long run and the tempo within the LR. You can see why I slow down all my easy and ML runs in order to prepare for the weekend's long. There are only two MP runs scheduled in the plan (15 w/12MP and 17 w/14MP). I added two more 20 w/14MP. Again this is just an example of how I modified the weekend long run to meet my intention. I also cut out the 22 mile long run and replace that with harder effort in it. I did not think 22-mile easy-moderate pace is as helpful as a 20 miler with workout mixed in it, although the former one is safer.

The third modification I made to the AM plan is I dropped most of the tune-up races. The plan called for 3-4 8k-15k tuned up race at about 2 months out from the race day. The idea is to sharpen your speed. But again out of the goal to minimize injury, I dropped most of them but added a tuned-up half-marathon race (Modesto Half) on 3/27, roughly about half way of the plan. The HM race proved to be a good step: it gives me an update on my fitness so that I can re-assess my MP and all my training paces; and it injected confidence to my training. I ran a 1:23 in that HM race (8-min PR from the last HM 4 months ago). 

The last modification I made to the plan is I replaced the last two interval sessions with LTs. The last two intervals, scheduled around 4 and 2 weeks out from the race, are 6x1200m and 3x1600m at 5k pace. When I ran an earlier version of this workout, 6x1000m@5KP, I felt very tired and even a bit injured after that. So I knew that was about my limit. Considering at this phase of the training, avoiding injury is the key so I promptly replaced them with 6-mile @LT and 3-mile @LT workouts. 

 Now let's talk about the data analytics (graphs). 

Figure 1 shows my MPW profile. The entire training averages 62 miles per week, with three weeks touched 70 mpw. Besides the tapering phase, the plan has three major cycles: endurance, endurance + Lactate threshold and race preparation. In each cycle, it features a gradual ramp of volume to a peak before a cut back/recovery week. My experience the cut back week really helps, especially after some tough peak sessions. 

Figure 2 and 3 show the histogram of running paces and distance. For paces, I spent most of my time in two zones: 7-9 mins/mile and 10-12 mins/mile. Those 7-9 min miles are mostly my L/ML/Easy runs whereas the 10-12 min miles are recovery miles. I avoided 9-10 mins because it is neither easy enough for recovery, nor fast enough for aerobic. When it comes to distance, bulk of my miles are in 4-10 miles. Those are my recovery and easy runs. Then second most type of run is the ML. I only ran 6 twenty milers and all of them have either 6 miles of LT in the end or 12-14 MP. 

The next three graphs are about my heart rate. I rely heavily on heart rate instead of pace to gauge training effort. From Figure 4 we can see the heart rate is highly correlated with pace, provided that the running condition, such as temperature, humidity and elevation gain, is consistent. Figure 5 shows my intensity vs distance. As I mentioned earlier, for most of my EZ/RC/ML I ran mostly at low heart rate whereas in 16+ miles long runs I tend to run fast. From Figure 6 you can see the distribution of my training effort, and bulk of them are low heart rate running of <140 bpm.

Some words about my training progression. I started the training on Jan 23rd with a MP of 7:15 and HMP of 6:55. But actually not long after the training start, I kept searching for my lactate threshold based on heart rate, and at around 170-175 I found that I could run 6:20 or less in mid Feb. So I adjusted my LT pace to sub 6:20, and long run final miles to 6:40. For LT runs, the AM plan only calls for 4LT, 4LT, 5LT, 5LT, 6LT and 7LT within the entire 18 weeks. I added a 5LT, 6LT and 3LT at the end. The paces for the LTs runs are: 6:16 (4 LT), 6:12 (4 LT), 6:10 (5 LT), 6:15 (6 LT), 6:18 (7 LT), 6:12 (6 LT), 6:20 (5 LT sick), 6:10 (3 LT). From the LT paces that I can hold for 5-6 miles, I can roughly estimate my HMP is +7-8s, which is 6:20-6:22, and my goal MP is HMP + 15 sec = 6:35 - 6:37. Considering these paces are for a straight flat course with perfect weather, the actual MP at M2B is then targeted to be 6:40 - 6:45. 

Some final words on my MP long runs. In AM program, there are only two MP long runs: 15 w/12MP and 17 w/14MP. They were planned on 10 and 6 weeks out from the race. Somehow I did not feel secure with only two MP long runs, so I added two more: a 20 w/14MP in 8 weeks out, and 21 w/14MP in 4 weeks out (this one is my peak long). The progression of my MP paces: 15 w/12M (6:45), 20 w/14M (6:37), 17 w/14M (6:32), and the last 21 w/14M (6:36). This proves my earlier estimation from LT pace is correct and also the effect of the training is evident. 

What I would change or keep for the next training cycle:

1. I really like the medium long run mid-week although it is a bitch to schedule them in. I will definitely keep them and maybe run them a tad faster (may be progression style from easy to steady);

2. I will see if I can finish all the VO2Max workouts. 

3. For MP, I will try to mix them in most long runs instead of just relying on one or two key long runs. But I will mix them in in an interval style. Daniels' running formula has a lot of good M/T workout templates that I can use.

4. For easy and recovery runs, I like what I am doing today. In fact, with workouts and LR being hard, I don't mind dropping the so-called general aerobic or easy runs altogether, and running all of them in RC effort. And I don't mind at all running RC runs in 11 min pace or even slower. The purpose for those runs is to promote blood circulation and we should feel better after the runs, not worse. 

5. For LTs, AM's plan looks good and it works for me. 

 

2022 乌俄形式分析-2

 上次发文分析了俄罗斯是否会侵略乌克兰以及北约到底会不会参战。不幸被言中。

这次再分析一下这个冲突会以什么方式结束。

在分析战争的结果前需要先列出几个基本的已知量，然后按逻辑推算未知的可能：

1. 美国不会正面参战。因为这意味着核武战争和世界末日；

2. 俄罗斯不会进攻北约国家。理由同1；

3. 中国不会直接参战，因为中国没有任何利益。

以上这三条基本上100%可以肯定的。我能看得见的东西，普京和北约的领导早就算到了。所以最自然的下一步发展，就是乌克兰基辅政府会失手，Zelensky要么流亡海外，要么被判死刑。接下来俄罗斯到底是直接把乌克兰纳入自己版图，还是安插个代理人政权呢？这个有点难。按道理这个年代不太流行直接进略改变国界这种逆时代又高成本的政治行为的。但是普京是个不一般的政治家。他骨子里一直认为乌克兰是个伪国家。历史上并没有乌克兰作为主权国家存在过，只有罗斯文化作为斯拉夫的一个分支而已。在他眼里，乌克兰就是台湾一样，是要被收回的。另外上一篇文章分析过，乌克兰的地理位置决定了俄罗斯必须要紧紧控制的。如果安插代理人政权，还是有可能被推翻或者颠覆。夜场梦多。所以综上分析，我觉得俄罗斯是会把乌克兰归入自己的版图。

那这就是完了吗？一个核武器国家就可以为所欲为把邻国说吞就吞吗？把乌克兰打下来没有什么悬念，问题是俄罗斯能守得住吗？这些问题都是克里姆林宫决策者在选择战争前都仔细盘算过的。接下来让我来分析这个问题。

首先俄罗斯马上要面临的是全球的孤立和制裁。孤立普京是不怕的。那么制裁呢？2014年的制裁和油价暴跌并没有把俄罗斯搞死。为什么呢？原因是中国还有欧洲在背后撑腰。欧洲还离不开俄罗斯的油气。中国还有很多长期合同。我也预计普京在计划攻打之前肯定和庆丰已经达成协议。具体条件以后分析。但是离不开台湾和能源。

但是这次和2014年有所不同。这次是一个赤裸裸没有任何理由的侵略行为。在道义法理上说不过去。所以没有国家敢公开支持一个侵略国的，否则它也会被列为同盟而被制裁。这次兔子在联合国就是否谴责和制裁俄国问题上投了弃权票，被问及为什么的时候也是支支吾吾的。所以公开的经济往来和合同应该是不会有的。

那俄罗斯能不能熬下来呢？ 先让我们看看前苏联是怎么瓦解的。前苏联瓦解有三个基本因素：能源价格暴跌，美苏军备竞赛，还有拖沓冗长的阿富汗战争。在这种前提下，前苏联撑了大概十年。首先现在没有军备竞赛，也没有类似阿富汗的战争。乌克兰相比阿富汗是好打很多的（由于地形决定）。能源由于刚才说的中国和欧洲暂时还离不开俄罗斯的油气，所以还不至于会被破产。要知道，人们的记忆是短暂的。历史上很少国家被制裁超过十年。记忆中的一个是伊朗。人家获得好好的。所以目前为止被制裁拖垮的大国还真没有。

那联合国安理会就这样让俄罗斯蒙混过去吗？常任理事国的身份还能留在吗？我个人觉得，如果联合国让一个常任理事国公然侵略另外一个主权国家，那已经表明这个理事会的职能已经失去了，联合国就沦为一个没有公信力的草包组织，慢慢被各国摒弃。最后我们所知道的联合国会瓦解成地区性的军事联盟。一个没有战争威胁力联合国是没有意义的。那都有什么军事联盟呢？还不是已美国为首的北约，五眼和美日韩吗？所以俄罗斯早就判断到联合国就是一个可有可无的东西。如果连真正拿枪荷弹的地痞流氓都不怕，还会怕联合国谴责？

所以很不幸，还真没有它什么辙。在不违法我前面列的三个基本原则的前提下，乌克兰恐怕是要归入俄罗斯版图的。但是这里有一个最大的未知数是普京本人的身体健康。目前看普京在本国的支持率还是超过60%。他69岁并不算高龄。至少还能玩十年。但是十年以后呢？眼下并没有一个像他那样的强人。如果普京挂了以后，俄罗斯内部出现政变动荡的可能性是很大的。西方国家可能会等待这个时刻的来临更靠谱一些。

2022 乌俄局势分析

最近普京在乌俄边境聚集了将近13万兵力，外媒都在讨论普京是不是要攻打乌克兰。在这简单对局势做个分析。

核心问题：俄罗斯是否会侵略乌克兰？

要回答这个问题，首先要知道俄罗斯的核心利益是什么。乌克兰就是俄罗斯的台湾。就像中华民族的正统文化跑到了一个要闹分裂的台湾一样，乌克兰是斯拉夫文明的发祥地。拜占庭帝国时代，东斯拉夫人种基辅罗斯民族没落以后分成了乌克兰，俄罗斯和白俄罗斯三国。前苏联好几届书记都是来自于乌克兰。比较有名的是赫鲁晓夫，博涅日洛夫等。由于乌克兰地处东欧，比较靠近欧洲文明，俄罗斯人如果失去了乌克兰就是一个没有欧洲灵魂的游走于中亚草原和高加索山区的亚洲民族。这是他们文化认同感底线。

从地缘战略位置角度看，我以前的文章已经做过详细的分析。一个国家的安全感来自于它的天然地理屏障。俄罗斯的天然屏障是：北面常年冰封的北冰洋，东面无法跨越的西伯利亚平原，南面的高加索山脉，西面。。。西面是俄罗斯蛋痛的地方，一马平川到欧洲大平原波兰。唯一一个西边的地理屏障是喀尔巴仟山脉。但是那在东欧。所以对于俄罗斯国家安全来说，最理想的防线是把波兰-喀尔巴仟山脉一线全都归到自己势力范围内。无独有偶，这就是冷战期间前苏联阵型的版图。这条分界线，是俄罗斯的核心利益所在。

但是自从前苏联瓦解以后，这个核心利益一致被北约侵蚀。北约的东扩已经把俄罗斯的势力线一直推到家门口的波罗的海三国。乌克兰是最后剩下的防线了。乌俄之间是一马平川的。如果乌克兰加入了北约，加上波罗的海三国的北约军队，南北两面夹击，那俄罗斯很快就会被消灭。所以乌克兰是俄罗斯的仅存的核心利益中的核心。必须得抓在手里的。

为什么要选择现在攻打乌克兰呢？

首先乌克兰基辅政府不亲俄。2014年的内战差点把乌克兰倒向西方。为什么俄罗斯必须要拿下Crimea? 因为从Sevastopol北上是容易把乌克兰的黑海入口全都堵上的。那乌克兰就是一个没有海军力量的内陆国家。但是如果相反，乌克兰变成北约盟友，那黑海就被北约的了。俄罗斯黑海舰队想进入地中海都成问题，就更别说进大西洋了。另外最近有信息指出乌克兰有导弹计划。尽管俄罗斯的军事技术在乌之上，但是害怕万一北约的导弹安装在乌俄边境这就麻烦了。所以不听话的乌克兰是必须要惩罚的。

那俄罗斯是具体诉求是什么呢？长远看具体有三点：1. 北约军队撤离俄国边境；2.北约离开东欧国家；3. 北约不再为东欧提供核保护伞。就是回到冷战结束前的势力划分。短期看俄罗斯希望：1.乌克兰如果不是亲俄就的打烂，分裂成联邦制国家。把中央政府削弱的同时把亲俄的东乌扶植上台以实现远程控制。

那北约是否会保护被侵略的乌克兰呢？这就看站在北约的角度看利弊分析了。北约的最终目的并不是要侵略和瓦解俄罗斯，因为它知道它做不到。俄罗斯是核拥有国。一旦北约开始对莫斯科宣战，整个西欧马上夷为平地。这点是肯定的。那北约这些年来不停的东扩到俄罗斯的家门口是为什么呢？主要是为了：1. 军事威慑；2. 军情收集；3. 压缩你的外交空间和战略范围。但是在导弹为主的二十一世纪，你把战斗机挺在我家门口，和停在1000公里外没有任何区别。战争开始的头半分钟所以机场都早就被炸的粉碎了。飞机就是个摆设。所以对于北约来说，不断地靠近俄罗斯其实没有起到太多作用。正因为对俄罗斯发动全面热战的可能性极低，我个人认为北约拿没拿到乌克兰其实意义不大。反而，一旦北约拿下乌克兰就等于和俄罗斯宣战。所以乌克兰从军事上对北约是一个鸡肋。这个从2014年就看得很清楚了。那是乌克兰被亲俄分子内战打得稀巴烂，北约除了送武器送物资就啥都没有。

北约有一条规定，有战争进行这的国家是不可以进入北约的。因为一旦加入了北约，根据Article 5，一旦被打北约就会反击。这就是等于和俄罗斯宣战。根据上面的分析这是不可能发生的。

俄罗斯的底牌是什么？它的底气主要是来自于三点：1. 它的核武器存量； 2. 核弹头的投送能力（导弹技术）； 3. 它的战略纵深。普京前段时间演示过超高音速导弹。哪怕莫斯科被打得稀巴烂，在西伯利亚还有巨大的二次核打击能力。基本上从地理上就已经证明，俄罗斯是一个打不死的国家。历史上拿破仑试过，希特勒试过。不光打不死，还是西欧帝王灭亡之处。F35隐形战斗机可以深入俄国境内炸掉导弹发射点吗？不行，战略纵深太长了，飞机没有那么长的航程。

北约的底牌又是什么？美国的军事技术核保护伞。但是要知道北约国是没有核武器的。它就只有F35战斗机。这些战斗机用了干嘛呢？是用在战争发生之前先毁灭地方重要战略资源的。可是先不说俄罗斯的地对空导弹S400之流传闻是可以看见F35。在导弹年代，航母和飞机机场都是被打的靶子。飞机飞得是没有导弹快的。

所以经以上分析，俄罗斯具有侵略乌克兰的理由，能力，以及战略优势。北约有保护乌克兰的理由，但是在不想和俄罗斯硬碰硬的前提下，乌克兰变成一个可有可无的鸡肋。

巴尔干之魂 - 1

 花了一年的时间，终于读完了Robert Kaplan的成名作《巴尔干之魂》（英文名Balkan Ghosts)。由于中间断断续续的读，有的地方有点忘了。在读完第一遍以后，又花了一个礼拜时间重新翻了一遍，并用笔记整理了一下思路。光笔记就写了十几页。第二遍看完以后，把书合上，感觉把过去一千年的人类历史重演了一遍。

世界上没有一个地理位置，比巴尔干更能够浓缩激化文明的矛盾，历史的无情，以及人文的挣扎。当年读Sameul Huntington的《文明的冲突》时，就讲到世界的冲突线主要是文明和宗教的冲突。如果地壳的交界会产生地震，那巴尔干岛位为处于人类文明的最强的地震带上。

从地理角度上，巴尔干位于欧亚大陆的交界，也是传统的欧亚商道。横贯罗马尼亚的喀尔巴阡山脉和保加利亚的巴尔干山脉使这个地区成为自古文化交流和军事侵略的屏障。中亚的游牧民族和后来的奥托曼帝国对欧洲的进攻就被这些山脉挡住。同时他们的文明和宗教也止步于此。

从宗教的角度上，巴尔干处于三个宗教的交汇处：西方罗马天主教通过奥匈帝国的势力影响着克罗地亚；中间的前南斯拉夫国家，保加利亚还有希腊是东正教（东罗马帝国的后裔）；但是大部分巴尔干国家又曾经是奥托曼帝国的殖民地，所以伊斯兰教也深深地影响着当地很多地区。很多国家，像波斯尼亚-黑塞哥维那，像阿尔巴尼亚，像马赛东尼亚，都是好几个宗教族群混居的地方。无独有偶，也是火药味最强，冲突最严重的国家。

从人种族群角度上，这里最早有斯拉夫人，后来有罗马拉丁人。中亚的入侵带来了土耳其，突厥人。简直是个人类基因的一个大染缸。

在一个一个国家讲解之前，想先讲讲巴尔干地区的总体历史命脉。这样有助于随后了解后来的很多冲突的来源。巴尔干地区最早是在700BC在古希腊亚历山大帝国势力范围内。亚历山大大帝认为这是通商要道所以把它控制。所以希腊文化和语言是自古巴尔干地区的文明基础。在大概600BC-500BC，这个地区被波斯入侵。一直到200BC变成罗马帝国一部分。现在的罗马尼亚曾经是罗马帝国的一个分支。但是尽管罗马帝国的统治，希腊文化对这个地区的影响之巨大为日后的矛盾奠定了基础。巴尔干从这个时期起就是东西罗马教廷的分界线。

300BC左右基督教被罗马正式接纳为国教。后来的一千多年，罗马教廷控制着整个欧洲的文化和信任。但是由于巴尔干半岛受希腊文化影响多于罗马文化，它更亲和于东罗马教。1054AD，东西罗马教廷分裂，东罗马帝国变成后来的拜占庭帝国。巴尔干自然归到拜占庭的势力范围内。但是事情没有这么简单。在巴尔干西北的克罗地亚是罗马天主教，罗马尼亚是罗马拉丁裔。他们自然会跟拜占庭的邻国产生各种冲突和矛盾。

600AD附近巴尔干地区也出现各种外族的融入。主要有中欧和东欧的斯拉夫人，还有中亚的保加利亚突厥人，还有土耳其的突厥人。其中保加利亚人在巴尔干地区拓展势力，在700-1100AD建立了保加利亚帝国，曾经是欧洲最强大和先进的帝国。鼎盛时期包括了现在的阿尔巴尼亚一直到黑海，从喀尔巴阡山脉一直到爱琴海入海口。

然而从14世纪开始，巴尔干地区被土耳其奥托曼帝国占领。变成土耳其欧洲省。这个占领一直维持到第一次世界大战结束。想象一下，一个曾经是欧洲，古希腊的西方文化地区，被伊斯兰教的土耳其占领并融合六百多年。宗教的压迫，人种和民族的冲突都极端的集中在巴尔干这个地区。在这里，每个邻国之间都有芥蒂，每个民族之间都有仇恨。哪怕是同文同种的人，因为在不同帝国势力底下成长，结果被洗脑成仇人。人性的悲剧，在巴尔干的历史下渐显无遗。

Excerpts from The Frankfurt School Philosophy

The workers of the west, were sort of bewitched and beguiled when they saw all the cool new stuff humans are able to do now that capitalism is responsible for…the power of industry…increased levels of efficiency…the scientific and technological progress that capitalism produces…they’ve seen these changes, have been raised to believe that this stuff is the measure of progress and that this is just HOW the world is now and to not question it…all the while immersed in a system that from birth tells them they are first and foremost a worker and consumer, through media tells them how to act, think and feel, programs into them false needs, sells them one product after another to satisfy these false needs, socially alienates them, keeps them confused and scared, provides them with an illusion of political freedom and through many different types of coercion gets them never to question the fact that all of this rapid technological progress is only made possible by the exploitation of other human beings. In other words, the workers of the west no longer resemble the free-thinking proletariat that Marx talked about rising up…they’ve been indoctrinated to love their chains in a sense

Review of shoe reviewers

Just want to review all the shoe reviewers/channels that I follow on YouTube based on my personal preference, from the least to the most favorite. My scale is simple, if you can offer something unique, insightful, have the exact content that scratches my inner itch, you will be high on my scale. Again, this is entirely my opinion, not meant to be objective at all. 

Fordy Runs: this guy's British accent (I meant is he a Scot or something) is so strong that I couldn't figure out half of what he said. He seems to have a fetish on pink and his targeted demo is middle-aged intermediate runners. His reviews however are pretty empty.

RunLikeHeller: Boring. Same old jokes repeating every single time (the "good morning YouTube intro, the TrueToSize accent, the Pull tab joke). Her shoe review format is too templated and the content is predictable. She does answer question in comment pretty diligently so that is a plus.

GingerRunner: I want to say pretty boring too but his reviews are a bit more upbeat than the last one. His content needs some diversification.

FOD Runner: this guy is more of a runner than a shoe reviewer. He is more about picking the right shoe that fits His training block rather than just reviewing whatever shoes that people want to see from him. I like him. But more because of his running not his shoe reviews.

BelieveInTheRun: Robbe and Thomas duo is just hilarious. I don't care if they are talking about shoes or not (I mean if I seriously want to know I can read their written reviews) But just hearing them talking is a fun pastime. Meghan on the other hand is like a dead fish. They understand why people still want to watch YouTube on shoes these days, certainly not for tabulated specs.

SethJamesDemoor: to be honest his shoe reviews are meh. Not very informational and very predictable. His only preference is lightweight, lightweight, and lightweight. He would give a shoe an edge just because it is an oz lighter. That's why he keeps going back the VF1 for racing despite he was given dozen superb shoes to try for free. But I like his channel because his running is inspirational. This guy has four kids, runs 140 mpw and I am not sure if he (still) has a day job or not.

RoadTrialRun: this is the first review channel that I like entirely because of their reviews. More importantly, I prefer reading their full reviews rather than watching their videos (because no offense Sam is kind of boring when it comes to entertaining). But their multitester reviews are top notch. I especially like they include shoe comparison in their reviews which usually are what I often ponder about too.

InTheLongRun: this guy is an elite runner and his review is from a pro angle. I was super impressed watching his review on the Alphafly. Super detailed and technical and on point. I am an engineer myself so I like (and know) it when people know what they are talking about.

Kofuzi: another inspirational shoetuber. Religiously wake up at 4am, quit his lawyer/legal job to run the channel. His reviews are very personal but touch on a lot of topics that I am interested in and that's what I like about it even though I don't have to feel that same things that he feels. He always reads my mind of what I want to see on youtube, as if he has access to my search history. Whatever I was pondering, he either has a video on it already or he is making one next week. One drawback is though he used to do a lot of 100 mile reviews, but now I am seeing less and less. I guess as he is gaining popularity, more shoes are coming his way so he has less time per shoe. One thing I don't like about shoe reviews are they separated into first impression and long term reviews. I understand people want the first impression more because of the urge of buying new stuff. The shoetubers understand that too that's why we are seeing more and more first impression reviews and less and less long term reviews (or replaced by shorter term reviews) because few people care after the first impression.

EddBud: now the final, my favorite shoetuber. He is from UK too but I have no issue understanding him (what's up with that Fordy?). Edd has a great sense of humor. He is the only one pointing the negative in the Invincible while everyone else is praising it like a cult. His content is updated, on point, but without the feeling that he is rushing out content just to catch what wind is blowing out there.

The hyped, the workhorse, and the surprise: Comparison of Three Max Cushion Shoes

First off some basic stats: (US mens 8)

Endorphin Shift: 4mm drop, 10.3 Oz, 70 miles

Triumph 17: 8mm drop, 9.75 Oz, 450 miles

Nike Invincible: 9mm drop, 9.35 Oz, 15 miles

[Upper lockdown/comfort/fit] 

All three shoes have no issue locking down. I don’t have any heel slippage. The Triumph initial feels like slipping a bit but that is only a sensation due to the heel collar is very slick. I don’t feel that anymore after some running in it. In terms of step-in comfort, I would say Triumph > Shift ~ Invincible. The Triumph is very plush and soft. It screams comfort. Some people may find it too much shoe and it does feel warm in the summer. The Shift feels comfortable in the way that it fits better than the Triumph and has a better/snugger lock down. The breathability in the Shift is the best out of the three. The Invincible has a comfortable step-in too, but not quite as plush as the Triumph. The “flyknit” somehow feels stiffer than the engineered mesh on the Triumph, and certainly not as comfy as the Shift. I don’t want to comment on the style of Invincible as it hurts my eyes to look at it.

[Midsole Ride]

This is where the three shoes have distinctive characters. Because of the stack height, in none of these shoes you will feel the road at all. If I may try to describe the midsole in three different sub-categories, they would be the shock absorbing capability, the energy return and the rate of

the retu啪啪啪怕了怕了评论了啪啪啪0啪啪了老婆力量rn, and finally the sole geometry. 

First off, the shock absorption. This means the ability of the shoes to absorb impact on the road and shield your feet and joints from the pavement pounding. Softness or durometer is a good measure for this property. In my experience, while all of these three shoes provide good enough shock absorbing capability, the Invincible is clearly the softest one. So in this sub-category: Invincible > Triumph > Shift. That said, we all agree that softer is not always better. So the sweet spot of softness is a personal choice. I personally am not a big fan of a soft ride and find it working against my gait cycle. 

Secondly we come to the energy return, the most hyped up property of a running shoe midsole. There are many adjectives describing energy return, like bouncy, responsive, snappy, springy, or pingy. They are all very subjective descriptors based on personal sense. I want to boil down this characteristics into two simple measurable terms: the amount of energy returned, and the rate of the energy return, so that we can demystify things in a measurable way.  The former simply means how much energy that you put in comes back in your toe-off instead of dissipated as heat, and this can be measured roughly by heart rate effort; The latter is how fast the energy is returned in your toe off. Imagine two springs, upon the same impact loading, both return the same amount of energy but one does that faster than the other. If you have a foot pod, this can be measured as time elapsed between max compression to toe-off. I don’t have a foot pod so I can only provide comments based on my own experience.

For the energy return or saving, I did three longish runs, all around 11-12 miles, at similar heart rate of 140 bpm (this is my zone 2 HR). The one shoe that gives me the fastest pace should deliver the best energy return.

The result is: 

-Endorphin Shift: 8.08 min/mile

-Triumph 17: 8:23 min/mile

-Invincible: 8:21 min/mile

I don’t really feel which shoe give me a “fresher leg”. To me leg freshness is very subjective or ambiguous, and it involves not just the midsole, but also your fatigue level, and mostly your form. I understand the pace has lots of other factors. I made my best attempt to try to keep other factors equal. But take it with a grain of salt.  From this crude comparison the Shift has the best energy return. And the Triumph and Invincible is similar.

For the rate of return, Shift>Triumph > Invincible. The TPU foam in the Triumph has less compression/travel than the Invincible and it snaps right back while the Invincible decompresses leisurely. The Shift returns the fastest but it might feel too firm to some. To me it feels pleasantly firm. Different rates of energy return affect the peak paces which the shoe excels at, simply due to the fact that the natural frequencies of the materials resonate with different gait cadences. What that means is that the faster the rate of return is not always better if it doesn't match your pace/gait cycle. Imagine a foam that has instant energy return, i.e. It returns energy while you are still landing down so the returning force is out of phase with the work you put in. The best rate of return is the one in phase with your gait cycle, i.e. It pushes you up when you need it to. The Invincible while being uber soft and has good enough return, it feels not as snappy due to the sluggish decompression.

There is a very nice write up to demystify energy return of running shoes: The Truth About Energy Return in Your Shoes | Runner's World (runnersworld.com)

The last sub-category of midsole ride is the sole geometry. Here the result is Shift > Invincible ~ Triumph. The Shift is the only shoes in the bunch that has a meaningful rocker. I have a theory that a rocker shoe must have some rigid element in the sole in order for it to rock, otherwise it will simply compress and collapse instead of rolling forward. In plated shoes it is the plate that plays this role as the rigid guiding element. In the Shift it is the midsole itself. So I can understand why they make the Shift with a firmer midsole even for a daily trainer, it is precisely because of the need of the SpeedRoll geometry. Another point to note is that I don’t really mind the “firmness” of the Shift at all. First of all it doesn’t bother me. And it provides a quick energy return that it feels fast. In Feb-March I was suffering PF and it was the Shift that helped me run through it. So if it is soft enough for my PF foot, it is soft enough for the normal me. The fact the Shift surprisingly runs the fastest while being the heaviest of the three also tells me weight is an overrated spec that people fuzz too much about.

[Durability]

In this category, there is really no comparison. Triumph >> Shift >> Invincible. Why? Earlier I posted my AB test on my 450 mile Triumph  17 and it still looks (upper and outsole) and runs the same as a brand new pair. It is built like a tank. I can take it to all kinds of terrains without thinking about it. And we all know how fragile the ZoomX powered Invincible is from了 what has been posted here. ZoomX foam typically last 300-400 miles if not less, while the TPU foam arguably never dies. I suspect if I want to, I can take the Triumph to 800 miles. Did I mention that I bought it at $90? Incredible value as a workhorse long run shoe.

The Shift sits in the middle in terms of durability. It is also built like a tank (literally look at the heel armor). However its PWRRUN foam is less durable than the PWRRUN+ (TPU) foam, so I gave it a bit less score. But still no doubt that it can last 450+ miles and can take abuse. 

The Invincible, some has quoted that lasted 400+ mile but many have reported split or torn Zoom X with some twists and turns or simply hiking. I will need to baby this shoe since I spent $180 on it (two pairs worth of Triumph). Mine arrives brand new with some glueing defect on the outsole. 

[How would I use them]

Recovery from beaten up legs or injury: Invincible;

Long slow distance runs: Triumph > Invincible; (Triumph first because it is cheaper).

Long distance moderate-effort runs: Shift > Triumph. I need snap in this kind of runs. Babying my legs is not the priority. I need interaction and these two shoes give me that.

[Bottomline]

I would buy the Triumph 17 again and again without a heart beat. And probably would say the same for the Shift as well. The only thing I wish to improve on the Triumph 17 is to tone down the plushness on the upper to something like the Ride or Freedom but keep the midsole as is. The Shift I wish it can be priced at $130. At $150 I won’t buy it again especially considering the Axon is out there. 

I will not buy the Invincible again unless it: redesign the upper to make it look better and the price drops to $150 or less. And need to fix all the quality and durability issues found in this iteration. The only thing that keeps the Invincible in the comparison is the somewhat intriguing Novablast-like ride. While it is fun, it doesn’t return energy significantly more or faster than the other two shoes. It is what it is, a hyped up daily trainer. With this category of shoes my primary objective is to soak long miles, and to train aerobic endurance. So durability is high priority and mile/dollar is important and all three shoes discussed here are comfortable enough for this goal.

In this running shoe era, softness is somehow marketed and shoved down our throats as better. It is not always the case and it is certainly not true for everyone.