text:
Tuesday, November 29, 2011
It's Not About The Shoes... Or Is It?
64 comments:
- Scotty K. said...
On the Hoka point, seeing them from afar (the internet), they definitely seemed to be ultra-oriented. However, I saw Simon Gutierrez run a local 5K here in Alamosa (part of an Adams State alumni event), in which he ran a 15:XX, pretty impressive by most standards, I'd say. So it seems to me that they may have better crossover into short races than some shorter distance oriented shoes would have for an ultra. - November 30, 2011 at 4:17 PM
- eric said...
i think that a lot, but not everything, you wrote applies quite well to any type of running, specifically "distance running", a relative term related to what your average long distance run is.
interesting post. - November 30, 2011 at 4:32 PM
- Olga said...
Thank you. Took words out of my brain. Neat previous laugh too.
- November 30, 2011 at 5:01 PM
- Chris Boyack said...
Good post. Definitely up for fair discussion. I have been slowly moving towards less shoe over the past few years and have had good results. It is a long process, though. I recently ran the Slickrock 100 in MT101s and they felt 'just right'. Wouldn't have been the case a year ago. I think the body is good at adapting to whatever we choose to run in.
I do think the nudist colony analogy is a little bit off. Studies have shown (and I really hate that phrase) that impact forces to the body are actually greater in cushioned shoes. So translating that to the guy with the down coat - yes, he will be better protected and warmer, but relatively speaking the naked guy doesn't feel as cold. Or something like that... - November 30, 2011 at 5:02 PM
Geoff, you seem to write timely on topics that are bouncing around in my head. For me, minimalist shoes are spot-on up to 50mi (well, depending on the terrain, on a super rocky course i would be hesitant or if it was mostly road). I'm 5'10", 140lbs, have a high-cadence, neutral stride, am light on my feet, so they work with how I'm designed/geared. Over 50mi, I agree with you. I made a lot of mistakes in my first 100 and not having enough shoe to balance the difference, I think, played a significant role. Over the last 4 months, I've cut back my weekly mileage in minimalist footwear to about 40% because - in terms of sustainability - giving my legs a break on recovery days by wearing a little beefier shoe, I've seen, has made a difference in terms of my legs feeling better and recovering quicker (short-term) so that I'm able to enjoy this gift of running for the rest of my life (long-term). Anywho, thanks for the post. See ya in a few days on the start line.
- November 30, 2011 at 5:18 PM
- Brandon Mulnix - Owner Modern Photographics said...
"If it ain't broke, don't fix it" is something that comes to mind when it comes to the type of running shoe one might wear. I on the other hand found less was more. Big and Bulky caused injury and time off. I have run 100 miles in a pair of Soft Star Shoes RunAmoc Dash with no support and very little less than 4mm of rubber under my foot. I ran the entire 100 miles at Burning River in one pair of shoes. It wasn't Western States or Hard Rock, but 100 miles in one pair of shoes seems strange to many of the runners limping around at the finish line.
Not every runner needs minimalist shoes, but for the ones that do, the shoes work for ultra distance. Your post is a great post, but its written from your perspective. The other perspective could be the 220 pound guy that takes 26 hours to run the same race it took you 15 hours to run. That is why I enjoy reading your blog so much. Its written from you, someone at the front of the race.
Thanks for the discussion, but you can keep your thick shoes until I find myself side lined on the JV squad of the minimalist movement. - November 30, 2011 at 5:42 PM
- mtnrunner2 said...
I think people of superlative ability (such as yourself) may not always abstract that ability from the background of the issue at hand.
In this case, it may mean that people of high ability who have good mechanics can wear whatever they want and win ultras, i.e. good runners are (surprise!) good runners.
However, that's not the same as saying that supportive cushioned shoes are why they do it, or that over the life of a runner they are a good thing.
In other words, it still may be the case that someone who grew up barefoot running could clean up in the ultra world wearing minimal shoes. That happened in Leadville in '93-'94, and often happens on the world circuit in the marathon space (North Africans, who have sometimes grown up running barefoot). - November 30, 2011 at 5:48 PM
Man, you're on a roll with the blog, Geoff!!! It's almost too bad you have to race this weekend instead of writing more!
The way I see it, football players hit each other harder because of the pads they wear (just like the impact of cushioned shoes) but why give up the advantage?!?! It makes about as much sense for competitive ultras as well.
I can't vouch for running fast in them, but I second the Mountain Masochist!!! I wore them for 43 hours at SBER 100 and 33 at Headlands 100. They were the most comfortable shoe I've worn for an event over 22 hours! (9 so far!) I like them so much that I'm going to toe the line with them at TNFEC (a no brainer on that easy to run course!) and even HURT 100! I just wish they had a knobbier (can't believe that word just made it through spell check!) tread option for muddy courses...
All Day!
~Ken - November 30, 2011 at 6:02 PM
- David Hill said...
My issue here is that you are an anomaly. You run in what I would call a "tank" shoe, but maintain good form and have good mechanics. Most people will/do heel strike in a shoe like that and there's no way to convince me that is better for you than a mid or forefoot strike. You take much more shock up in the knees, hips, and back landing on the heel. Common knowledge but just saying. So I basically agree with mtnrunner2.
Personally I've transitioned down to zero drop, minimalist type shoes with very positive results: stronger below the knee, no injuries and much better form. I think Anton has it right - races ultras in a sub 8oz, low drop shoe that promotes good form while still giving him protection on rugged terrain. And to answer your one question - I train in 5fingers or other zero drop, light shoe and then bulk up a little for 50 or 100 miles, something with more protection and 4-6mm drop. I agree with you that doing an ultra race is less of a shoe than your normal trainer just makes no sense. Good luck this weekend. - November 30, 2011 at 6:23 PM
- Ben Nephew said...
I talk about this with runners all time. Over the past 7 years I have trained and raced in shoes ranging from 155 grams to 330 grams. I've probably put a decent amount of mileage on 50 different models.
I think you are being too conservative in your opinions on the shoe issue. It pertains to all distances, although the key issue with shorter races may be protection from stones and roots rather than cushioning. The overall objective should be finding the best shoe for the terrain you run and race on. Minimal shoes do seem to work for some runners on flatter, softer, less technical terrain. Speed also plays a factor, and shoes that I would not wear at short technical trail race work for someone who is not generating as much force on the downhills.
One of the arguments for minimal shoes is enhanced proprioception. Too much of anything is never good, and this holds true for feeling the trail as well. While being close to the trail helps with balance and overall confidence, you need a certain amount of protection. On most trails, the proprioception from running barefoot will make you slow down compared to running in shoes, and this process can occur without the runner being aware of it in shoes that are too minimal for the terrain. I have experienced this dozens of times on trail intervals as short as a half mile, 10 tempo runs, and 50 milers. I run my fastest times in shoes that are relatively light, but have enough protection to allow me to run hard on downhills and technical sections. The lightest shoes are usually not the fastest. These types of differences are often only apparent with hard and/or long efforts.
I do think you can adapt to less protection and/or cushioning, but it only goes so far.
The first year I ran the Headlands 50k I didn't have enough shoe and the last two downhills were incredibly painful. I went with more cushioning the next time and was much happier, and a little faster.
The nudist colony analogy fits. What doesn't fit are the impact force studies. Those studies don't translate to practical observations of late race muscle fatigue and soreness. - November 30, 2011 at 6:48 PM
- sharmanian said...
You put it the way I do when asked and I completely agree. Minimalist shoes (as with any other type of gear you buy) aren't some magic cure to make people better runners. Shoes don't need to be tanks even for really long distances but I can't see any advantage in really light, unprotected shoes over 100 miles of rocks.
Plus, aren't racing flats really just minimalist shoes and people have been using them for ages? The idea isn't really new. I wear them for roads and shorter stuff but they just don't protect me enough on long trail races. - November 30, 2011 at 6:57 PM
- Dominic Grossman said...
In regards to the millions of footsteps we take in races, I think this is a similar argument for minimalist running. Many minimalist runners would argue they're faster in a 100 mile race with a 7 oz shoe (myself included at Angeles Crest). If you have to climb 10,000 vertical feet, every oz adds on a significant amount of work from 500-1,000 ft-lbs per additional oz (just on climbing alone). Conversely if you're an efficient downhill runner, this can go positive or negative as a clunkier shoe can have more inertia to deal with that also slows down the runner or too minimal a shoe can injure a runner.
At the end of the day though, all competitive runners are minimalist runners by definition. No one is wearing a heavier shoe than they need to, and we're all choosing the lightest things that work for us. Whether you have a stride that demands less or more cushion out of shoes, you're going to experiment and wear the lightest thing that works.
Also, based on the material advances trickling down the pipeline, there will be 8oz and 7oz shoes in a few years that offer the same performance as 9-11oz shoes today.. Some already do. - November 30, 2011 at 7:17 PM
- TrailClown said...
Crystal ball into the future: Every runner has shoes custom-made after going through a scanning machine at their local running shoe store. These conversations about mass-produced shoes will seem so strange.
- December 1, 2011 at 12:22 AM
- Gancho Slavov said...
For the reasons you listed, I quite like the Masochist, although I think I slightly preferred its predecessor (the Streak). But after recently moving to the UK, I acutely realized that both have a major weakness. They just don't seem to provide adequate traction in very muddy conditions or on wet grassy/boggy hills. I remember you alluded to a similar problem almost exactly a year ago, and I was wondering if you've brought it up with Montrail and if they are intending to do something about it. - December 1, 2011 at 1:51 AM
- Rob Youngren said...
Man it's like I just read my own thoughts put down to print! I've been effectively arguing most of these points towards barefooters and ultra-minimalist runners for a long time now. Most just can't comprehend running ultra distances to begin with ("that's just not natural man!" is a common reply) and don't understand why their hobby barefoot jogging a few miles a day, every other day on easy terrain doesn't translate well to high mileage and ultra distances on rough terrain. While I do dabble in some minimalism, i.e. I do appreciate the low heel-to-toe drop, but I also understand the need to full foot protection especially for the longer races.
*However*, one aspect you neglect is the possible benefit of minimal or ultra-minimal training sessions. While I totally understand that I won't be fast trying to race in huaraches or toe shoes, I do believe that doing a few short training sessions in such footwear periodically does have performance benefits: toughens up the bottoms of my feet, not just the outside, I'm talking about the entire musculature and bone structure. I also believe they've been good for my "recovery" days because running in these things is a definite speed governor and the enhanced proprioception, like others have said, feel great but also slow you down.
Anyhow, love your blog and good luck this Saturday! - December 1, 2011 at 4:31 AM
- Drew Gunn said...
I agree with many of your points. On my shorter training runs I will wear more minimal shoes to build strength and form, but anything longer I really like Newtons' trail shoe. It weighs about the same as a Mtn. Masochist, but fits me better. I don't see many of the Newtons at trail races, but they really work for me. I like that you encourage people to find what works for themselves, and not to buy into the hype. Thanks Geoff.
- December 1, 2011 at 7:09 AM
- Wyatt Hornsby said...
Geoff et al: I'm on my third pair of Hoka One One Bondi B's (recommended to me by Speedgoat) and they are without question the best shoes I've ever worn. So long as Hoka keeps doing their thing, I'll be a customer. I tell people Hokas are best and worst thing that's ever happened to me as a runner. Best because they're ultra soft, light, super comfy and built for the long haul. Worst because they're $170 a pop. Contrary to how they look, they are light and perform well in almost every circumstance, except running down Hope Pass as I learned at Leadville this past year. Unfortunately, the Mafates do not accommodate orthotics (yet), but the Bondi B's do. Anway, I think the whole minimalism thing is overblown. There are only a few runners who can handle minimal shoes. For the rest of us, we'l reach our breaking point in them if we go far enough. This was yet another great post. Geoff, you contribute to ultrarunning in so many ways. Thanks for all you do!
Wyatt - December 1, 2011 at 7:44 AM
- Spencer said...
I agree with you to some degree. If I am running on a something that is a mix of mountain and trail, I want something thin, like a cross spike or flat, that I can somewhat feel the ground without killing my feet. If I wear something thicker, my feet kill me. I wore the new balance mt101 for a solo 50k that was a mix, not a good idea I couldn't really tell what I was doing, and it wasn't flexible enough. I did the same thing later with a thinner shoe, worked great. But, if I was running all mountains, think scree and jazz the mt101's work great. And if I'm running roads, I have to go with a thinner shoe, otherwise my gait gets screwed with. I agree with you too, 99.99% of the world wasn't trying to blast out really fast 100 milers when they ran barefoot. They were just moving over land and stuff. I mean watch Erwan Le Corre, the guy can move well over tough terrain, but at the same time, he's not going to be blasting out 6 minute miles down scree covered trail. I just really think it comes down to efficiency, and what works for you.
- December 1, 2011 at 8:25 AM
- Thomas Bussiere said...
Interesting responses!
Mountain Masochist for all my trail races (50 & 100). Why fix something that works great! Feels light, protective, good support, and gets the job done for me. Bottom line, use what works for you. There is no one shoe that will make everyone happy. You just need to find what works best for you, and don't assume it will work best for everyone. Also, for us middle-of-the-pack runners, you would get more "bang for the buck" by focusing more on training than worrying about an oz or two for shoe weight.
Caveman – If they had trail shoes like we have, I'm 99.99999% sure they would have used them.
I would like to hear more on your food (Cal intake) and water strategy for 50 and 100! Liquids, solids, salt, gels… This is an area I struggle with after the first 40 miles. - December 1, 2011 at 9:32 AM
This is pretty funny!:
All Day!
~Ken - December 1, 2011 at 11:43 AM
- Roger said...
Wow, great bit of stream of consciousness followed by some of the same clicheed comments that mark the difference between 'The Barefoot Movement' and barefoot or minimal running for the sensation of whatever benefits it offers.
The assumption that heel striking = always bad, an 'overlong stride' = always bad, prancing on tippy toes = 'natural'. If it's so natural, why think about it so hard? If the body's an expression of nature, but we're never meant to touch the ground with our heel, wtf did it grow there for?
People embracing thin footwear for purposes it doesn't suit would do well to sort out what is actually known and proven from assertion and assumption.
Thanks for saying what's on your mind Geoff. - December 1, 2011 at 1:20 PM
- Geoff said...
some thought provoking responses here. at least a few I'd like to respond to:
CB, there may be studies out there that show this, but to me the most important study of all is reality. until i actually start to see runners running 100 mile trail races barefoot (or with vibrams or whatever) and doing it quite well and quite consistently i'm not going to take much stock in these studies. What is actually happening in the type of running that i'm talking about is the most reliable study of all.
Brandon, many good points... especially the, "if it aint broke, don't fix it" comment. fwiw, i have never used more than one pair of shoes in any race i've ever run.
I agree entirely that a heel strike is pretty bad news over the long haul, and yes, many shoes out there push runners toward a heel strike. in this regard I think using barefoot or uber minimal footwear to help learn a midfoot strike can be a very helpful tool for many folks, but then once you've figured that out and you're going to try to run (and train for) 50 or 100 miles on trail as fast as you can I think most people are going to pay the price if they don't put something on their foot that gives them a lot more support, protection, and cushioning then the shoes they have been using in shorter runs to correct the foot strike thing... and essentially this is what you are saying you have been doing. I just think the amount of shoe that most people need to try to race ultras hard (especially 100 milers) is a bit more than you do. I think the example of Anton that you bring up essentially reinforces my point. Tony is an incredible runner, a great guy, and someone I have learned as much from as any runner, but it's hard for me not to question his footwear when he's been injured more than he's been healthy in the last several years. This isn't to say that his injuries have definitively been a result of what he's wearing on his feet, but I'd certainly think twice about anyone's footwear choices who are spending more than half of their time injured, especially with the types of injuries that Tony has had - almost all of which have been injuries that could potentially be a result of wearing too little shoe for the amount of running that you're doing. - December 1, 2011 at 1:41 PM
- Geoff said...
- This comment has been removed by the author.
- December 1, 2011 at 1:42 PM
- Geoff said...
i do agree that this conversation applies to all distances/types of running, but i think the range of shoe that makes sense at 100 miles is a lot different than the range of shoes that makes sense at 5k... and in this particular case i'm interested in exploring the idea of what range of shoes makes sense for the 100 mile distance. and yeah, i couldn't agree more about the proprioception point you make. feeling the ground under your feet is great until you're feeling it too much, and when you are trying to run as fast as you can down technical trail you can definitely feel it too much.
i agree with your point about the hundreds of thousands of footsteps. it's definitely something that works both ways. in my mind though, the time lost from a shoe being 3 or 4 ounces heavier than another shoe is not typically going to be as much as the time lost if you end up having completely fried muscles in the later parts of a 100 miler. I do believe that we can adapt to less and less cushioning over time, but i also feel like no matter how much you adapt there is going to come a point in a 100 mile race when we can have too little cushioning and if we get to this point we are going to lose way more time hobbling to the finish than we will ever gain by being a few ounces lighter. and thus, your comment about all competitive runners being minimilasts makes a lot of sense. we all kind of try to go as light as we can without being too light. i guess the whole point to my post is that i think we're at a time in the sport of ultrarunning when a large percentage of runners are going too light.
the traction on the masochist has really been the only thing i could say negative about this shoe. montrail has injected a little more butyl into the outsole which should make it grip better. i believe they did this on some of the 2011 shoes and it should be this way on all of the 2012 shoes. for some reason the outsoles on the outdry version of the masochist have way more traction than the standard version, so hopefully going forward this will be the outsole material on all models. - December 1, 2011 at 1:43 PM
- Collin O'Bryant said...
I love my Mountain Masochists! I think they are the perfect shoe for running on the crazy rugged trails around my home in Tucson AZ.
I ran my first ultra, the Old Pueblo 50 miler (near Tucson), in 9:30 in a pair of the Masochists and my feet felt great the whole way.
I do like to use VFFs about once a week on short runs (3-7 mi) just to work on form and strengthen my feet. But when it comes to flying along rocky desert mountain trails, I love me some MMs! - December 1, 2011 at 2:36 PM
- Jim P. said...
It's funny...since running requires so little gear, we spend a huge amount of time talking about the one piece of gear we (almost) all need...shoes. I can't begin to imagine the sheer volume of stuff cyclists obsess over.
- December 1, 2011 at 3:10 PM
- David Hill said...
Geoff - that's a fair point about Tony's injury issues. Seems to me that may have more to do with crazy high training volume than from having too little shoe. If you doubled your weekly mileage you might start having a few problems as well - regardless of what was on your feet. He's definitely shown one can move fast over 100 miles in a more minimal type shoe. But still, different strokes for different folks. What's right for one ultra runner may not be right for another.
- December 1, 2011 at 3:21 PM
- Jeff Valliere said...
Hey Geoff, great post, I agree with this entirely. Being in the fortuitous position of being a shoe tester for several running magazines, I get to test just about everything out there, from 3.8 oz road flats and the 4oz trail minimus all the way up to 13 plus oz. hiking boots marketed as trail runners. I don't run the losg distances that you and many of my friends run, but for runs like the GC RRR, I found the Montrail Streak to be the perfect shoe (predecessor to the Mt. Masochist), offering a great balance of protection, performance and lightweight.
There is no perfect shoe for everything, but agree that most runners need/should wear something a bit more protective for the longer runs. I used to chuckle at the Hokas when they first came out, but now I own the Mafates and the Bondi Bs and just love the Bondi, one of my all time favorites (now if they would only make a serious trail version).
Oh, almost forgot.... I have been testing the NB 110 and I think they really hit a home run, Very light and minimal, but still has pretty darn good protection considering.
Hoping to test some of the newer Montrails soon, definitely one of my favorite brands.
Good luck this coming weekend! - December 1, 2011 at 3:24 PM
- Alex Beecher said...
So many variables. Which, I think, points to the title of the blog as the answer: It's not about the shoes. What we all want, really, is something on our feet that lets us take full advantage of our fitness. What that means varies by person, distance, and terrain. But it is mostly about the fitness. No shoe will do the training for you; and if it would, there would be no fun in that. Find what's most comfortable for you, then put in the miles.
- December 1, 2011 at 3:55 PM
- Hone said...
- This comment has been removed by the author.
- December 1, 2011 at 4:05 PM
- Michelle said...
LOL at Ken's Video ^^
- December 1, 2011 at 5:03 PM
- Tim Finocchio said...
Interesting post. I am not going to go down the path of talking about "the book" and how humans should be running. I am just going to talk about "my" experience because essentially that is what is most important to everyone their own experiences in shoes.
You talked about when you find the right shoes you will know, I find this very true, I found mine in the Brooks Cascadia 4's and 5's. Then something happened in the design of the 6's and things were not the same. To answer one of your questions indirectly, do you run so far that you want more or less shoe, my answer is this. I want a company to stay consistent in their shoe design. There was a conversation on Irunfar that I participated in and someone said the shoe industry is like car industry it evolves and changes, what if Ford was still making the Model T. I understand that point, but I think with shoes keeping things consistent with a model over the years is very important.
Since I am someone that likes consistency, I am someone that trains in what I race in. I think it makes practical sense, you spend all of the time training in them, it works, why abandon that principal come race day for a couple ounces? There are other ways I guess to save the weight?
Question for you if you don't mind. Montrail has been a very consistent company and not rushing to the minimalist movement. Out of curiousity are they thinking of doing this? I am sure you do provide them feedback on prototypes I am curious to know how much of your important or that of other sponsored athletes go into their design. It seems they have been consistent with their Mountain Masochist. I have read that the Brooks Casadia 7's are going to be similar to their 4's and 5's of years past. I am also curious to see what the Montrail Bajada's will be like.
Thanks! - December 1, 2011 at 5:54 PM
- Ben Nephew said...
There is no need for the traction you required in the UK anywhere in the US that I can think of. I thought I had run on some pretty slippery terrain over the past 13 years of trail racing until I went to Connemara. I was in total disbelief at how hard it was to stay upright in a short run on road shoes that worked great in a wet grassy 50 miler in Maine. Most of the guys in Ireland who were not falling all the time were wearing inov-8's.
If the Tarahumara that ran Leadville were running with trunk tires strapped to their feet, then they had a lot more protection than the minimalist shoes of today.
It is hard to separate the mileage and shoe factors with someone that does high mileage in thin shoes, but we could just look at WS 2010. I though I remembered reading that Tony's quads were shot towards the end, and he was having a hard time running downhill? Sure it's an n of one, but many of us have witnessed similar scenarios, or had similar experiences.
Most of us that wear heavier shoes are fully aware of the benefits of light shoes in terms of the physical work involved, and we choose heavier shoes.
The "you can wear anything" argument might pertain to a few runners, but I don't think it is relevant to this discussion even in those examples. Maybe Geoff could wear anything, but his shoe choice is unlikely to be random. If people assume top runners are training on the edge between maximal fitness and injury, isn't shoe choice going to be as important for them as for someone with less natural talent that doesn't train 100 miles a week? - December 1, 2011 at 6:35 PM
- Chaser Williams said...
What about Ultra Runners that do well in races, and wear minimalist shoes? Patrick Sweeny, Jason Robilard, Jesse Scott, and Anton Kupricka come to mind. While they might not be the fastest on the course, their usually pretty competitive. I think the reason were not seeing alot of podium placing minimalist ultra runners is because its a relatively "new" trend, therefore there arent alot of minimalist runners that are capable of running 50's and 100's yet, and I repeat, YET. Combine that with the fact that the percentage of runners in general that wear minimalist shoes is pretty small. So just based off of saturation and statistics its not likely that you will see a minimalist runner, and even more unlikely that youll see one running 100 miles, amd highly improbable to see one winning 100 mile events.
That said, I think you have a very valid point. In rougher and more technical trails I think that too minimalist of a shoe will do more harm than good. Granted I havent ran an ultra yet, so I cant say that with any personal evidence, but roots and rocks hurt. lol.
Great post either way! - December 1, 2011 at 6:41 PM
- Dominic Grossman said...
Hahaha, I've won a few, but you have a point as my (insert negative look alike) mustache at ac wasn't pretty..
And for the record, evan hone complains about the drop being too high on the 101.. He is minimalist in everything but his shorts and diet coke intake.. - December 1, 2011 at 6:44 PM
- runwildrunfree said...
Great debate and it is ideal that somebody at the top of our sport posts about this. Barefoot and minimalist is a band wagon that 'Born to Run' has much to answer for. Don't get me wrong, great book, great read and fun. BUT it is a 'story' and certainly to imply that minimalist and barefoot for all is nonsense.
Barefoot Ted has said in many interviews, if it aint broke, don't fix it. He went minimalist because nothing else worked. It was for him (and others) a revelation.
Elite runners have been running 'minamilist' from dot and you still see all the top marathon runners using a 'light' and what has know become minimalist shoe. STOP the hype.... the have always been minimalist!!!!
I use Hoka's. I love them so much I started to sell them. Yes, they are not for everyone and it is great Geoff that you acknowledge them but say they are not for you.... 2012 and the introduction of the Stinson B Evo may very well address some of the issues that you have had with the 'stiff' feeling.
Shoes are personal but ultimately, as you say, the longer you run in one go OR the more running you do in a week effectively means you require more protection over time.
Many 'new' minimalist runners feel great for 4-6 weeks and then all the niggles, injuries and problems start. If you want to go minimalist then do so but give yourself 3 years to make the transition. Oh, and don't run too far or too often..... - December 1, 2011 at 10:58 PM
- MV said...
Great post! I only run in he Mountain Masohists. I have found the work great at any time/distance. I have run 10k and 50k races in them and they always feel great to me.
On the barefoot controversy...rignt on!! I love the theory but it just does not work for most runners. I have found it to be a good training tool but running longer distances is just plain painful. It is also important to realize that all the data that is being discussed is based on biomechanical studies and not clinical studies. There are no studies that have compared injury rates in barefoot and shod runners. Interesting.
Good luck this weekend! - December 2, 2011 at 2:37 AM
You've opened a can of worms Geoff!
I think the shoe is just a tool and should be used to offer the best Protection, Grip and Comfort for the situation. For Elite athletes looking to get that extra 1%, this could make all the difference.
If you give me a block of marble and a chisel, I doubt I'll be able to create Michelangelo's David... Despite using the same tools I couldn't produce the same results. I'm sure you and Kilian could run WS100 in your slippers and still beat most of us!
The emphasis should be on training, recovery and technique - I really don't think footwear plays that big a role.
Good luck at TNF50 and try not to get lost! ;) - December 2, 2011 at 2:56 AM
- Len said...
Hi Geoff
The barefoot fad is a bit overblown, agreed, especially the idea that simply because prehistoric runners may have run barefoot this makes sense for us. But what about the argument that we have a kind of foot/impact intelligence, closely linked to bio-feedback stuff, so a more cushioned shoe simply makes us come down harder, a less cushioned shoe we come down softer? So impact similar, though running style changes. - December 2, 2011 at 8:15 AM
- Cloud said...
Geoff ya its me again, yer buddy Cloud. Good fortune tomorrow in Frisco!! Yah you won uroc but only cause Wardian took a wrong turn. Sorta a hollow victory as its said. On the topic of shoes, um why do you wear tanks?
Go Killian!
Cloud - December 2, 2011 at 8:36 AM
- Alexander Nunn said...
This is wat too long a comment, but are my thoughts:
When training, I used to wear shoes as to what my feet were feeling like for that day. Let me explain: If my feet were feeling reasonably fresh, I often wore my NB MT110 (and were my first choice of shoes), if tired - Asics trail runners, even road shoe Nimbus 12, and sometimes just to switch it up Cascadias. However I was wearing the Cascadias for a while but they don't seem to agree with my feet on runs longer than 20-30 miles here on O'ahu. NB MT110, I loved but felt were good to about 35 miles. So I bought a pair of Mountain Masochist. I know it is your fav shoe but I had heard some good reviews so decided to give it a go. While here in HI it is best to have a shoe that drains well and grippy for slippery rocks and muddy trail, the Mountain Masochist does not. On top of that they are quite heavy once dipped ankle deep in mud compared to NB MT110. That said, the shoe fits what you described about a shoe that delays fatigue and is comfortable for the long haul. So while training for the HURT 100 these are the shoes I love now even though there are other shoes that might seem more logical (for grip, drainage, etc.), but my feet feel great no matter how much I run in them. So they are my choice shoes right now, and I will wear them for HURT 100.
ALOHA - December 2, 2011 at 11:51 AM
- Unknown said...
so i have been running in the nb minimus for about 4 months now and still get very sore calves when i go over 6 miles. my feet have become stronger though and am able to run over rocky terrain without my feet getting sore. can only go about 12 miles before calves have had it but my feet are fine at that distance. i planned on being transitioned into the minimus by march for chuckunut but this topic has brought up great insight and may help me re-evaluate my situation.
right now i have to switch back to my vasques about every third day or switch into them for my longer runs. but it has taught me to mid foot strike and i feel that is the most important aspect at longer distances.
so maybe i need a shoe with minimal padding and a very slight heel lift? any suggestions?
good luck this weekend.
and it's good to hear from cloud again, isn't it? - December 2, 2011 at 12:56 PM
- David Hill said...
After reading your post again, I pretty much agree with you. You said "super minimal" and "extremely minimal" - which I agree in a 100 mile race over tough, rocky, rugged terrain doesn't make much sense and the cost will outweigh the benefits, especially over the last 30 miles. I once wore VFF for 37 miles of a trail race and had to switch out, feet hurt like hell. Also you acknowledged, under 3 hrs, a more minimal approach makes sense, so we agree there.
As a minimalist runner, I do want good protection for a technical ultra of 50+ miles. But what I really really don't want is that 10-12mm heel drop. What Born To Run (and the experiences of many) showed pretty clearly is that the human foot wasn't meant to run on a propped up heel. It promotes heel striking and interferes with natural, good mechanics. So I think this all really comes down to the drop, and it's where Montrail is falling short - way short. They put out a Rogue Racer with a 4mm drop and I'd totally buy it. If Montrail continues to resist the low drop trend - which you yourself said was going to be around for years to come - they will lose a healthy chunk of market $hare, in this runner's opinion. - December 2, 2011 at 6:48 PM
- Unknown said...
Great conversation here. Lots of good points by everybody!
I struggled finding the "right" shoe for awhile, then decided to approach it scientifically. I went to our local running store, where the owner put me through an arch scan and a gait analysis. It turned out that my left leg is a bit longer than my right, my left leg rotates outward during extension and to compensate (keep me running straight) the left foot pronates pretty nastily on footstrike. Minimalist shoes would be of no help for sure.
I settle on a pair of NF Double Tracks and so far they have served me well.
I guess my point is that if you want to go minimalist, take the time to get your feet and stride assessed or you may be doing yourself some serious harm!
Thanks for the post, goeff and good luck today! - December 3, 2011 at 4:06 AM
- Unknown said...
I recently ran a 100k in VFFs(sport treks) on some of the gnarliest trails possible, and my feet felt great at the end. I had zero blisters and no sore spots. I feel that these provide enough protection even on the sharpest rocks. Regular shoes cause me to roll my ankles as the cushioning seems to act as a lever. On relatively smooth hard mountain courses(such as Wasatch) with lots of descents I do find cushioning to be an advantage and almost necessary, but on very technical terrain I am way faster wearing VFFs. Granted I have spent a lot of my summers barefoot as much as possible, and racing flats have been around forever. I say use what works.
- December 4, 2011 at 3:16 AM
- Dean said...
Just to correct a common misconception:
YES, forefoot or midfoot strike means LESS impact forces sent to the knees and hips...
It also means a corresponding INCREASE in impact forces felt in the ankle and calf. This is a sneaky fact that often gets totally lost in the conversation.
(Look it up if you don't believe me)
On the most efficient running form, etc... is also shocking to those who haven't read anything other than "the book".
I'll give you a hint: It's not about where on your foot you land. It's about your cadence, the placement of your center of gravity, and the quality of your particular tendons and muscles.
Great post, Geoff. - December 4, 2011 at 4:15 PM
- Unknown said...
Great post!
To me it is refreshing the see this coming from a pro runner. This echoes what has been my gut feel of the trend since it began. I've read "the book" and also found it entertaining, but the notion of running an ultra, like Wasatch, barefoot is laughable to me. I think you are dead-on in your assessment of the trend.
I've tried some minimal shoes - MT100 - and did some marathon distance trail runs in them back east. But when I got back to the Wasatch Front they just were enough should for me on the trails out here.
Thanks for a great post. - December 5, 2011 at 6:49 AM
- Ben said...
I'm glad Dean said something about it not mattering where you strike, it has to do with efficiency in the strike and stride. I happen to be a heel striker, it has worked for me for 40+ years of running. I used to do everything barefoot, played baseball, ran, etc. One day in a 15 miler (in 1972) I got huge blisters on my feet from running a road race barefoot. I put shoes on after that and have stuck with them since. I usually get my shoes (after someone else has broken them in) from thrift stores. Sometimes my shoes do not even match. None of these things has ever affected my ability to run 100 miles, or fast or slow.
All of that has to do with training. If you do enough training the shoe really does not matter, too little training and the shoe becomes another of the many placebos we have embraced in our sport. - December 5, 2011 at 7:58 AM
I'm glad Dean said something about it not mattering where you strike, it has to do with efficiency in the strike and stride. I happen to be a heel striker, it has worked for me for 40+ years of running. I used to do everything barefoot, played baseball, ran, etc. One day in a 15 miler (in 1972) I got huge blisters on my feet from running a road race barefoot. I put shoes on after that and have stuck with them since. I usually get my shoes (after someone else has broken them in) from thrift stores. Sometimes my shoes do not even match. None of these things has ever affected my ability to run 100 miles, or fast or slow.
All of that has to do with training. If you do enough training the shoe really does not matter, too little training and the shoe becomes another of the many placebos we have embraced in our sport. - December 5, 2011 at 8:14 AM
- Ashley Ringo Walsh said...
Ha, IRONIC! the above comment happens to come from Ray Krolewicz- who yesterday, during 100, told me about pushing Ann Trason to a record back in the day. He knows his stuff.(Ask anyone!) And coincidentally I was about to write this: yesterday, in Ancient Oaks 100, my friend (RayK) was wearing 2 different shoes. One of the shoes I believe he picked up from GOODWILL! He explained to me that it was like staggering tires on a race car. Ray is an ultra legend no doubt. He can give a reason for everything he does-backed by years of experience and success at winning ultras. Talk to the guys who've actually been winning and racing ultras since before we were born and get some really solid feedback!
- December 5, 2011 at 12:32 PM
- Patrick said...
Appreciate the thoughts shared here, as always. I'm not remotely at this level of performance and doubt I'll rearrange the priorities in my life to get as close to my personal peak performance so my opinion's not worth as much, but I agree that the key thing is to experiment, find what works, and to expect that the same things don't work for everyone. The aspect of the barefoot running trend that is most unappealing is the the attitude that it's a panacea, which I think is nonsense.
With that leadin, mostly I wanted to share this topical video which is obnoxious but, I think, very funny:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=theHXQP9Bo0 - December 5, 2011 at 8:06 PM
- Andrew Zitofsky said...
This is a great read, thanks for the post Geoff. I appreciate the thoughtfulness you put it into this rather than just jumping on one side of the argument and railing against the other like so many have done. This discussion about footwear is a nuanced one, and, frankly, not being an ultra runner I never considered this part of the subject before.
I did weigh in (in a much less thorough way!) on the subject a few weeks ago on my blog: www.atriathletesblog.com.
Thx - December 6, 2011 at 6:30 AM
- Ryne Melcher said...
You are on a roll with hilarious blog posts! I believe you have sealed UBOY and they are engraving your name on the trophy!
Couple comments. I'm curious as to those that are associating heel striking as a negative thing. From a biomechanics standpoint if you ARE NOT over striding and your heel is striking underneath the knee and body there is no science/proof indicating this is detrimental to you. Look at video of Meb or the worlds top marathoners. They are heel strikers. They just kiss their heel on the ground, with an efficient strike and transition through the gait phase.
Question on mid foot striking. Wikipedia defines it basically as landing flat footed or the entire foot striking the ground at once. I know some people talk about mid foot striking being that as it sounds, landing on the middle part of your foot first. I would like an explanation on how that is physically possible. The three landing options are heel strike, forefoot strike or entire foot at once. Unless you wear a convex shoe then you can mid-foot strike.
The biggest message is of course if it works for you, don't change it! The argument of having less weight makes sense to a degree as well to the point until the machine breaks down cause it didn't have enough protection and you don't make the finish line.
If your changing the pitch of your shoe from the traditional 12mm to say a 4mm just use caution as that is going to put a lot of stress on the achillies and calves. You didn't jump into running by starting with 100 miler (I'm sure there are some that actually did!) but textbook says start with a 50k and get comfortable with that before trying a Hardrock or Wasatch etc.
Happy trails and happy holidays!
Ryne - December 7, 2011 at 10:48 AM
- David Hill said...
People defending heel striking, really? Try this...with bare feet on a hard surface, jump up and down on the balls of your feet. Then jump up and down on your heels. See which one feels better. But hey, if it works for you. It's like a golfer with a "bad" swing who still hits the ball straight - some people can get away with it.
Agreed that moving to lower and lower drops should be done slowly. The extra stress on the calf muscle? Tends to build stronger calves.
As for the strike definitions: heel striking = landing on the heel; forefoot strike = landing on ball of foot; midfoot strike = landing simultaneously on the ball and heel of the foot.
Peace - December 7, 2011 at 4:32 PM
Completely agree with you here Geoff. If you want to run fast, you're going to want to have some shoe underfoot. You simply cannot run as fast with five fingers on as you can with minimal running shoes. I've always liked minimal, low to the ground, lightweight shoes - long before it became a trend. I like the low profile so I can feel more stable and less likely to turn an ankle and I like the lightness because that makes me feel fast. But, you can have lightness and relatively low profile and still have decent foot protection to run fast in for long distances. You can't do that with five fingers or barefoot. Not if you want to run fast. Like you said, you'll know when you find the right shoe with the right blend of protection, lightness and low profile.
- December 8, 2011 at 6:15 AM
- Unknown said...
hey trailrunners,
would like to know what shoes you like in the minimalist category that you referred to about have slightly more cushion and heel lift than the VFF.
thanks - December 8, 2011 at 2:41 PM
- Ben Nephew said...
Hi Drew,
I've put a few people with broken toes and stone bruises from VFF's in Inov-8 F-lite 230's and X-talons, and they seem to like them. The Road X 155 is also popular with people looking for a bit more cushioning. - December 8, 2011 at 4:58 PM
- Pepp said...
I find it odd that you rule out minimalist for ultramarathons, as this is where they are having the most success. Champions are actually using/designing them.
I think even Scott Jurek usually preferred racing flats for all distances before he got to make his own light weight trail running shoes.
Personally I think long speed training and racing, like that done by Ryan Hall, would be far more difficult in minimalist than running twice as far half as fast even on tougher terrain. The impact forces simply must be much larger. - December 19, 2011 at 6:39 PM
- joerunner said...
The ability to run long distance safely is a long term adaption. For those without the patience to allow those adaptions to happen we present to you the miracle of barefoot or minimally shod running.
Seems we are always looking for the next magical elixer. Thank you Christopher McDougall. - December 20, 2011 at 6:32 AM
- Tim Brennan said...
Great post Geoff!
Am really looking forward to never eating cooked food again as my ancestors did before the invention of domestic fire - NOT! Cushioned shoes are a tool and our prehistoric relatives would have definitely utilised the odd discarded extra terrestrial trainer if available! Tim - January 2, 2012 at 8:20 AM
- Tim Brennan said...
Great post Geoff!
About time minimalism was confronted. In art it is indeed difficult to be minimal, very difficult. It is also difficult to produce more complex and elaborate forms. The point is to make good art whatever it takes. Just because our prehistoric ancestors ran barefoot is not a good enough argument to base a future running philosophy upon - however it does advertise the niche in the market.
Hey I'm really looking forward to never eating cooked food again as did our ancestors before they domesticated fire as technology! How authentic will I be then? - January 2, 2012 at 8:37 AM
- iverenxx said...
i think that a lot, but not everything, you wrote applies quite well to any type of running, specifically "distance running", a relative term related to what your average long distance run is.
Buy WOW Gold
Runescape Money - January 4, 2012 at 9:48 PM
- allen said...
I saw Simon Gutierrez run a local 5K here in Alamosa (part of an Adams State alumni event), in which he ran a 15:XX, pretty impressive by most standards
Buy WOW Gold
Runescape Money
Here Comes The Runescape Money - January 5, 2012 at 8:23 PM
- Ed Hansberry said...
Just came across this today. A few points:
1) Your analogy about clothing and shoes doesn't work. Look at what clothing does. It is used for fashion, modesty and some level of protection from the elements - heat/cold/UV rays, etc. However, clothing does NOT restrict our movement in general. You can move your torso and arms just as effectively in a shirt as you can shirtless. You might need to make sure your pants are made for exercise, but even when wearing something as heavy as jeans, your legs aren't too constricted. When wearing gloves for protection, your hands and fingers are restricted to some degree, depending on what you are doing - going out in the cold, chopping wood, fighting fires or handling toxic materials. The hands though are *not* immobilized. And it bears saying that gloves are not worn during every waking moment. Shoes, on the other hand (foot?) are worn by many people during waking hours and the VAST majority of shoes almost completely immobilize the foot and toes. If you want proof of this, just look at injury rates of people that have worn foot coffins their whole lives and try to run 4-5 miles barefoot, or with barefoot-style shoes. Muscles, tendons, bones, etc. are not ready for that. You need to slowly build up distance and degrees of difficulty, just as you would for someone that had been in a coma for 6 months. That does NOT mean you must become a barefoot runner or wear sandals or Vibram shoes that have a 2mm sole. It does mean though that you can do those things but if you don't, you need to be very careful to select shoes that give your foot room to maneuver as it was designed, not wrapped in a cast.
2) You are putting too much faith in those that design shoes. Entirely too much shoe "design" is done by the marketing team. Even running shoes are designed by people that are selling shoes, not by scientists in a lab evaluating all aspects of how the shoe performs in different circumstances.
3) Cushioning is not bad, but you are missing the point about the problems it causes. Go jump up and down on a bed. What do your feet instinctively do? Push through. That creates more stress on the ankles, knees, and hips. It is well known that barefoot runners create less impact force than shod runners. Your feet may not feel it because they are wrapped in a marshmallow, but your other joins can tell the difference.
If you are trying to run the fastest time for an ultra, you are on your own. People that try to push to those limits are consistently doing things that are not beneficial for their bodies long term. Weight lifting, pro football, Olympic events, etc. These people have full time physicians helping to mitigate the damage they are doing to their bodies. As you said, 99.99999999% of people never consider running an ultra. I submit to you though that 99.99999% of those that DO run ultras are all about finishing, not about winning. If you are competing at that level, you and your doctor will work it out. Otherwise, you have to take care of your own body, and that means not relying on the marketing departments of shoe companies, but doing your own research. - January 17, 2012 at 12:06 PM


text:
Big multimillion-dollar water projects, once a favorite target of good-government reformers who made them a poster child of political pork, are back in vogue as a rare force of concord in a dysfunctional Congress.
Republicans and Democrats who found little common ground in 2013 are rallying around a bill they hope to pass early next year authorizing up to $12.5 billion over the next decade for flood diversion in North Dakota, widening a Texas-Louisiana waterway, deepening Georgia's rapidly growing Port of Savannah and other projects.
That's the Senate bill's total. The House version would cost about $8.2 billion. Negotiators are confident they can merge the two and pass the package for President Barack Obama's signature early in 2014.
Unlike a farm policy-food stamp bill also the subject of ongoing House-Senate negotiations, the differences in the two houses' water project bills are modest and the acrimony is less.
Negotiators say the roughly $4 billion gap between the two bills is more about how they are written than substantive policy or political differences.
"The important thing is that we all care about reform," said Rep. Bill Shuster, R-Pa., chairman of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee.
Shuster's Senate counterpart, Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., has said much the same thing.
The last time Congress enacted a water projects bill was 2007, and it took two-thirds majorities in both houses to override President George W. Bush's veto of it.
Negotiators held their first formal meeting just before Thanksgiving on blending the two versions. Staff talks continued until Congress left for its year-end break and will resume in January.
Lawmakers have been drawn to the big investment in infrastructure sketched out in both bills — and the promise of jobs that entails. Business groups, led by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, have lobbied members to support the bills, saying they'll help keep American businesses competitive.
The bills try to address perceptions of years past that water project legislation was loaded with favors inserted by key lawmakers for their home districts and states. This time, both bills eliminate billions of dollars in dormant and duplicative projects. Shuster stressed that this bill contains no such "earmarks."
Those reforms still aren't enough for some conservative groups that pressed lawmakers to oppose the bills, saying they are reform in name only and don't do enough to cut spending.
"Even before the predictable increase in authorizations as this bill goes through the process, this legislation would only shave a few billion dollars off the backlog," Heritage Action and other groups wrote House members.
Tea party sympathizers in the House largely brushed off conservative critics, buying into the idea that this water projects bill represents both reform and needed investment. To wavering Republicans, Schuster cited Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution, which directs Congress to establish roads and regulate interstate commerce.
For their part, Democrats breezed past environmental groups concerned about language that speeds up the environmental review process for projects.
The House bill passed 417-3 in late October, winning support of everyone from Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi to tea party stalwarts like Rep. Tim Huelskamp, R-Kan. The Senate easily passed its version of the bill in May by a vote of 83-14.
Both bills accelerate environmental reviews and allow more money from the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund to be spent on harbor improvements, but the House version of the bill ramps up spending from the fund more slowly.
The legislation would affect virtually every facet of America's waterways and authorizes or reauthorizes dozens of projects, though Congress still has to pass separate bills appropriating money for them.
Among them:
—Dredging and widening the Sabine-Neches Waterway, billed as "America's Energy Gateway" because the nearly 80-mile waterway services many oil and natural gas refineries in Texas and Louisiana.
—$954 million for environmental restoration along the Louisiana coast.
—Expanding the Port of Savannah. Georgia officials have long lobbied for federal backing to improve one of the country's fastest growing ports; the bills designate up to $461 million for that purpose.
—Flood diversion for the flood-prone Red River Valley region of North Dakota and parts of Minnesota. The bills authorize spending of about $800 million to relieve flooding in a region that includes the cities of Fargo, N.D., and Moorhead, Minn. The region has suffered major floods in four of the past five years.
—Up to $43 million to reduce hurricane and storm damage risks along the San Clemente, Calif., shoreline.
The bills would shelve about $12 billion in old, inactive projects that had been approved in water resources bills prior to 2007.
Follow Henry C. Jackson on Twitter at www.twitter.com/hjacksonap
Copyright © 2013 Capitol Hill Blue
Copyright © 2013 The Associated Press All Rights Reserved.

subset: commoncrawl


text:
When a truck is lifted above the manufacturers factory height, the steering geometry is changed. Depending on your truck and how high it is lifted, the angles of the steering components can be affected enough to cause steering problems and prematurely wear out steering components. Steering problems include "bump steer", poor "memory steer", "Death Wobble" and "reduced turning radius."
Bump Steer: If the steering angles are not proper, the energy caused by a tire going over a bump or hole will be transferred through the steering system to the steering wheel--where you will feel a ''bump''. This can be dangerous-especially in emergency situations.
Memory Steer: When you turn your wheel and then release, the wheel should go back to center pretty much on its own. If the steering angles are not geometrically correct, the wheels can tend to stick in the turned position. This can be dangerous-especially in emergency situations.
Reduced Turning Radius: This is another problem caused when steering components are not properly aligned-you will not be able to make as sharp of turns as you did prior to installing your lift. Fortunately, there are solutions to these problems...unfortunately, each make and model is different and what works for one may not work for another. You may need a drop pitman arm, or a raised steering arm, you may need a combination of a drop pitman and an adjustable drag link, or a raised steering arm and adjustable drag link. The links on this page will help you determine what your vehicle will need. The steering components we sell are heavy duty, forged and heat treated with correct taper of mounting holes to allow for simple and secure installation.


text:
hey mam..
in my furious..angry mood..i have forwarded u a mail from the Blank Noise Bangalore page..(The NGO against Sexual harassment..and i am involved with) ..please read it and you will be startled with aimless exploitation of human worth...
regards..(but still furious)ABHI
Blogdosts, I just had to share this with you. I met young Abhishek Choudhary in Bangalore a few months ago when I'd gone there to address students at his college. I found him sincere, impassioned and courageous. We have been friends since then... De
A few of my friends and I were just paying our bills and coming out of our regular Friday night watering hole and dinner place in Rest House Road, just off Brigade Road, and most of the women in the company were already standing outside. Some of us outside were smoking, people were happy, there was laughter and jokes, as there were many other people in the street, all coming out, satiated, in the closing hour of the various pubs and restaurants around.
Suddenly from up the street a massive SUV comes revving and speeding, hurtling down, and stops in a scream of brakes and swirling dust, millimeters away from this group of 4 women, barely missing one of their legs. A white Audi, imported, still under transfer, with the registration plate of KA-51 TR-2767. Some millionaire's toy thing, that in the wrong hands can kill.
Naturally the women are in shock. And quickly following the shock comes indignation. These are self made women running their own businesses, managing state responsibilities for global NGO firms, successful doctors. They are not used to being bullied. So they turn around, instead of shrinking back in fear. They protest.
And as soon as they turn around in protest, the car doors are flung open, and a stream of 4-5 rabid men run out towards these women, screaming obscenities in Hindi and Kannada against women in general, fists flailing. Some of us who came in running at the sound of the screaming brakes now stand in the middle in defense of our women, and then blows start raining down. One of the goons make a couple of calls over the cellphone, and in seconds a stream of other equally rabid goondas land up. They gun straight for the women, and everyone – a few well-meaning bystanders, acquaintances who know us from the restaurant, basically everyone who tries to help the women – starts getting thoroughly beaten up.
Women are kicked in the groin, punched in the stomach, slapped across the face, grabbed everywhere, abused constantly. Men are smashed up professionally, blows aimed at livers, groins, kidneys and nose. A friend is hit repeatedly on the head by a stone until he passes out in a flood of blood.
A plain-clothes policeman (Vittal Kumar) who saunters in late stands by watching and urging people to stop, but doing absolutely nothing else. A 'cheetah' biker cop comes in, with our women pleading him to stop this madness, but he refuses action, saying a police van will come in soon and he cannot do anything. Everyone keeps getting hammered. Relentlessly.
The carnage continues for over 20 minutes.
Finally when the police van does come in it is this vandals who are raging and ranting, claiming to be true "sons of the Kannadiga soil", and we are positioned to be the villainous outsiders, bleeding, outraged. How do the cops believe them, especially seeing the bloody faces of our men and the violated rage of our women, while they carry nary a scratch on their bodies? Don't ask me! Yet, it is us who these goondas urge the newly arrived law-keepers to arrest, and the police promptly comply, and we are bundled into the van, some still being beaten as we are pushed in. Some blessed relief from pain inside the police van at least, even if we are inside and the real goons outside, driving alongside in their spanking white Audi. The guy who was hit by the stone is taken separately by the women to Mallya hospital.
Inside the police station at Cubbon Park it becomes clear that these goons and the police know each other by their first names. The policeman in charge (Thimmappa) initially refuses to even register any complaint from me, on the purported grounds that I am not fluent in Kannada and I have taken a few drinks (3 Kingfisher pints, to be precise) over the evening. No, it doesn't matter that I didn't have my car and was not driving, and no, it doesn't mater that the complaint will be written in English. We watch them and the goons exchange smiles and nods with our our bloodied and swelling eyes and realize in our pain-clouded still-in-shock brains the extent of truth in the claim of one of the main goons when he claimed earlier in the evening in virulent aggression: we own this town, this car belongs to an MLA, we will see how you return to this street!!
This was the turning point of the saga, I guess. For we refused to lie down quietly and be victims.
One of our girls, a vintage and proud Bangalorean who is running one of the town's most successful organic farming initiatives, took upon herself to write the complaint, when I was not allowed to write the same. Another Bangalore girl, a state director of a global NGO firm, wrote the other molestation complaint separately on behalf of all the girls. Some of us called our friends in the media and corporate world. Everyone stepped up. And even when the odds were down and we were out, we did not give up, and as a singular body of violated citizens we spoke in one voice of courage and indomitable spirit. That voice had no limitation of language, not Kannada, nor English, or Hindi. It was the voice of human spirit that cannot be broken.
And in the face of that spirit, for the first time, we saw the ugly visage of vandalism, hiding behind the thin and inadequate veil of political corrupt power, narrow-vision regionalism and self-serving morality, start to wilt.
We spent 6 hours next day in the police station. The sub-inspector of police who filed our FIR, Ajay R M, seemed a breath of fresh air inasmuch that he did not appear a-priori biased like others, even though the hand of corruption and politico-criminal power backing these goons was still manifest in many ways: a starched, white-linen power-broker walked in handing over his card to the sub-inspector in support of the goons; the goons got an audience with the Inspector because of this intervention, while we had to interact one level lower down in the hierarchy; the plains cloth policeman of last night, even though he had arrived far too late in the crime scene, gave a warped statement, passing it off as a "neutral" point of view, repeatedly stressing that we came out of a pub and hence were drinking, positioning this as a 'drunken brawl', while completely forgetting to mention the unprovoked attack against the women and the one-sided vandalism and violence that ensued. I guess one cannot blame the low ranked police officer – the criminal connections of these goons must be pervasive enough for him to be careful.
Thanks however to the impartial handling of the situation by Ajay, soon the goons were all identified. The lead actor was one Ravi Mallaya (38), a real estate honcho and owner of a small property off Brigade Road which he has converted into a "gaming" (you know what that means, don't you?) adda. The others identified are Mohan Basava (22) of Chamarajapet 12th Cross, R. Vijay Kumar Ramalingaraju (25) and Shivu Rajashekar (20). All are residents of 12th & 13th Cross in Vyalikaval. Their bravado and machismo were by that time evaporated. It was good to see their faces then.
Of course nothing much happened to them, nor did we expect it. They were supposed to be in lock up for at least the weekend till they were produced in court, but we understand that they were quickly released on (anticipatory?) bail. The car, purportedly belonging to an MLA, also does not figure in the FIR, apparently for reasons of "irrelevance to the case".The media also have given us fantastic coverage and support so far, strengthening the cause.
The goons meanwhile, as an after thought, also filed the customary reverse complaint on the morning after we filed our own complaint: the women have apparently scratched the car! (Why did they not file the complaint the same night, considering they came to the Police Station in the same car? Why was the car allowed to be taken off police custody? Why is the car still irrelevant to the case and not in the FIR? Questions.. questions..).
Is this the end of this saga? Probably not. Are these women, more precious to us as friends and wives than most things in our lives, safe to walk or drive down Brigade Road from now on or are the goonda elements, slighted by this arrest and disgrace, are lying in ambush, waiting, biding their time to cause some of us more grievous harm? We don't know. Is there reason for us to remain apprehensive of future attacks and victimization? Perhaps.
But here is the point.
We stood up.
We believed in the power of individual citizens even in the face of hooliganism, intolerance, corruption and power mongering. Even though many of us have the option of leveraging political or government connections, we deliberately chose to fight this battle as individuals. Sure, these connections have been activated and they have been kept informed, should the worst case scenario unfold tomorrow. But we have chosen to not leverage them. And in every small win we register as a group of individual outraged citizens of Bangalore and India, however insignificant these milestones may be in the larger scheme of things, there is one small notch adding up in favor of what is right, one small notch against what is wrong. And we believe that every such small notch counts, each such mark is absolutely invaluable.
It is the people who make this city, this country, this world. It is you and I, as much as the terrorists inside and outside. And in our small insignificant little ways, it is my responsibility and yours to not shirk from investing effort – not just lip service or any token attempt, but real effort – in backing up what we ourselves believe in. It is so easy to logically argue that everything is corrupt, nothing is worth it, there are so many risks involved. We must not fall trap to this ... Reply Forward
shobhaa de to Abhishek :Bravo!! Proud of you. Am putting it up on my blog asap. thanks !! De1:53 PM (5 minutes ago)


text:
Thursday, July 24, 2008
BlogHer Awards Big and Small
So without further ado I present my BlogHer 2008 awards:
1. Best Swag Award. This one is tough--I'm tempted to give it to my cute little Joby Gorillapod or maybe to Mom Select who hosted a semi-secret swag room full of blankets, diaper bags and clothes for kids. They greeted you at the door, told you to grab and bag and fill it with whatever you'd like and I think I outfitted my niece for the next year. Well maybe I'm exaggerating just a tad but it was impressive, very impressive.
"Is this heaven?"
"No, it's a BlogHer swag room."
However, despite all of this I think I have to give the Best Swag Award to the Emily Post Institute who, when I walked by their table, decided that I looked like I needed more meat on me or something because they handed me--no lie--six boxes of gourmet Merci chocolates totaling approximately 25 or 30 pounds of good stuff. Though I have to ask: if I eat 25 pounds of chocolate why do I gain more than 25 pounds of fat? There's something wrong with a world where that's the reality.
2. Fastest Talker Award. Goes out to the lovely and talented twins, Janice and Susan from 5 Minutes for Mom--though Janice might have Susan beaten out by a nose. I met up with them deep in the catacombs of the Westin St. Francis first thing upon arriving at the hotel for a video production they're creating featuring footage from BlogHer (it's just wonderful and you can view a trailer for it here--can you spot me?).
They're kind and friendly and glamorous and . . . the fastest talkers in the west. And that's saying something as I can keep up with the best of them when it comes to lip speed. Of course the fact that they'd been interviewing all day, changing clothes for each segment, trying not to sweat their makeup off in a room filled with lights all while running upstairs intermittently to nurse their infants probably contributed. Just a bit.
It was such a treat to work with them and I've never felt so glamorous in my life as I did when I sat down in the chair to have the makeup artist work her magic on me. See that picture their crew took? You'd never know I have warts all over my face would you? Amazing!
3. Most Lifelike Award. Goes to Gabrielle Blair of Design Mom--the second person I met at the conference and one whom I would have known anywhere. Easy to recognize from her fabulous sense of style and beautiful curly hair she gets the award for being the most like you'd expect her to be (not to imply every one else was just faking it--please don't infer that) and I enjoyed talking with her.
Though I have to admit that when I got off the red eye flight from Anchorage (where dressing up means wearing pants not held together by duct tape) I was wearing a mere white t-shirt and jeans for traveling comfort. Seeing how nicely she was dressed induced a quick panic attack of "Oh my gosh, who knew there were places in the world where people wear more than just jeans and t-shirts everywhere?" At least they were a new pair of jeans--does that count?
4. Best Celebrity Moment Award. This one is easy and it goes to Karen Walrond of Chookooloonks. The first time I discovered the world of momblogs I saw Karen's blog about her life in Trinidad so I timidly made a comment and within 15 seconds she'd sent a kind reply. It was about 5:30am in Anchorage and I think I woke Andrew up with my squealing but I read her blog faithfully in devotion. She has since moved to Texas and runs a photoblog but when I saw her at Guy Kawasaki's party Thursday night I knew I had to embarrass myself and say something to her. She was as gracious in real life as she was on her blog though I wasn't gutsy enough to ask for a picture with her--I'm a coward at heart you know. I have to also mention Foodmomiac--another blog I found at the early stages of Scribbit--and when I ran into Danielle in the halls of the Westin she actually recognized me and said hello and I got a little star-struck! That's going in the journal my friend.
5. Shyest Moment Award. Speaking of being a coward that would lead naturally to my shyest moment which would definitely be at Guy Kawasaki's Alltop party at his beautiful home in Atherton. I met some wonderful people and wanted to say thank you to Guy Himself but was waiting for a better moment than to just run up and interrupt his conversation by squealing, pumping his hand in a handshake and asking for an autograph. Kind of throws off the flow of things you know?
The moment never really came so I never said anything and ended up leaving without speaking to him. Gutless aren't I? I have the hardest time just walking up to someone and introducing myself, and then it's kind of awkward to say, "I'd love to speak with you but I'm much better at writing so how about I just send you a note in a few minutes after I've had time to edit out all the dumb things I'm sure to say?" That's why I blog folks, that's why I blog.
6. Best BlogHer Panel Award. Well besides the FAQs for Beginning Bloggers (which I heard was just breathtakingly AMAZING of course--that tall girl really knew her stuff) the best panel award is to be shared by the "There's More to Monetization than Advertising" crew and the "Blog to Book Redux" trio. When discussing monetization Dana Loesch from Mamalogues had interesting insight into advertising networks that got me thinking. It wasn't that there was anything earth-shattering revealed and much of the affiliate information the panelists shared was technical and full of jargon--but hearing each of their backgrounds and areas of expertise gave me ideas about where I could take things here. They were personable and entertaining and it was kind of like a quiet little back row brainstorm session for me as they shared their thoughts about the industry and was time well-spent.
In the "Blog to Book Redux" panel the best part was demystifying the process of writing a book and getting me to think that if I can churn out 1000 posts here at Scribbit that maybe I yet have a book in me. Though the panelists dodged that pesky question that everyone wanted to know, namely, "How much traffic should your blog have before you can pitch a book?" Rita Arens sidestepped that one--the proverbial elephant in the room--and left us still wondering about the mysterious question of traffic but it was definitely worth the time to attend.
Sidenote: Least useful session award? Any session or meet-up where the moderator or panelists said something like, "I really haven't prepared anything to say I thought I'd leave it up to you guys." That's just a little bit irritating because if I came prepared with questions I'd like answered why couldn't they have done the same? But no grumping here, overall I was pleased.
7. Biggest Disappointment Award. Well besides missing opening night of The Dark Knight? Not getting to meet a few of the bloggers on my list: Rancid Raves, The Not Quite Crunchy Parent and Julie Pippert to name a few though there are others. Next time I'll have to do a better job of emailing and scheduling meet ups which is how I had such a lovely lunch with Jessica from Zakka Life Crafts in the basement at Macy's Thursday afternoon. Maybe I can convince Elisa Camahort Page and Julie Stone to hold BlogHer 2009 in Anchorage? Anyone willing to campaign with me? We'd set you up in style!
8. Strangest Party Award. Goes out to Macy's for the Saturday night party held after the infamous closing interview with Heather Armstrong (a.k.a. Dooce)--which could be a post in itself but don't worry, I won't subject you to more about BlogHer. Macy's is next door to the Westin St. Francis and the party there was rather dreadful. Yes, "dreadful" would be the right word to use here and for several reasons.
Macy's didn't close the store but crammed us all in there among shoppers craning their necks to figure out why we were in their way. We were like veals I tell you. There were security people checking tags at various places which created horrible congestion and the whole thing made it feel as if Macy's was corralling us there to get us to buy their stuff and perhaps write about how wonderful it all was but without any care as to what they could do to create a comfortable experience.
The food was . . . alright. A couple of the things they served were fine but the dessert consisted of fluorescent pink cardboard cookies glued together with spackling paste and they had nothing but wine to drink. Can you believe that? A party full of women and all they have is wine (and cheap wine I heard) so anyone nursing, pregnant or (like me) who doesn't drink was out of luck in that stifling crowd. I finally got them to give me some mineral water which is barely a step up from swilling a glass of crude oil in terms of pleasure--even for an Alaskan.
The party was sponsored by KY. Lovely. They had a table set up with samples though I heard they weren't giving them out because of "airport security issues" and those who wanted samples had to sign a mailing list. Odd. Apparently they're worried about a lot of women getting patted down for smuggling KY samples out of SFO. So instead of going out to dinner with a great group of ladies who'd invited me to join them I ended up in the lingerie department of Macy's, feeling rather homesick, dehydrated and staring at KY jelly displays. Sigh. I guess it could have been worse? Somehow?
9. Best Conversation Award. So why did I stay at the party? Well there were a few people I still hadn't met yet and I wanted to catch them before leaving the next day. I didn't get around to all of them unfortunately but the highlight was seeing Susan from Foodblogga--one of my most favorite bloggers--and her husband Dr. Jeffrey Benabio who writes at The Dermatology Blog who were up from San Diego for the event. It was one of those times where you enjoy talking with someone so much that suddenly half an hour or more later you look up and notice the party's over and everyone's gone. Getting to know them a little better made the evening worthwhile.
10. Funniest Blogger Award. This one is too easy and anyone who was there will agree with me that Megan Jordan of Velveteen Mind goes home with this one despite her desperate efforts to get me to say something incriminating.
I could try to list some of the funny things she said but it would kind of be like Hillary Clinton trying to recreate a Steve Martin SNL sketch, I'd be that successful. So you'll just have to take my word for it that the woman's got a wicked sense of humor and every time I talked with her I was laughing. In a good way.
11. Tastiest Treat Award. This could also be labeled "The Man I Was Most Tempted to Kiss Award" and it goes to the guy running the espresso cart next door to the grand ball room. You could--get this--walk up to him, smile and say something crazy like "I'd like a hot chocolate please" then he'd say "Whipped cream?" and I'd say, "You bet your patootie!" and he'd make up a hot chocolate for me. FOR FREE. Nothing says "I'm in love" like free fancy hot chocolate.
I kept coming back for more and considering how painfully frigid the entire city of San Francisco is (no offense to all you cryogenically preserved people living in the Bay Area) he is the one solely responsible for my survival that entire chilled weekend. I think air conditioning was invented in San Francisco or something because it's like it's made there and they bottle it for export to other markets. Freezing!
12. Best Roomates Award. Definitely goes out to Amber at Crazy Bloggin' Canuck, Jill at GlossyVeneer and Loralee from Loralee's Looney Tunes who made me feel very welcome and put up with my nonstop jabbering for the entire time--they didn't even kick me out of the room, how cool is that?
Loralee seemed to know everyone and if there was any squealing to be heard you could bet she was involved--her stamina was amazing. Jill has been blogging since 2001 which in blog years is, like, 79 years or something. She's pretty amazing in her own way, the only person I saw who could walk up those San Francisco streets and not get winded--I even caught her doing Pilates before one of the parties. Amber has terrific business sense and besides being kind and sweet she was generous enough to share her Bacon Mints with the rest of us. Mmmmmm . . . bacon mints. Oh and if I haven't confused you all enough the picture shows me, Loralee, Amber and Jill from left to right, tallest to shortest.
13. Customer Service Award. I'm totally giving this to Alaska Airlines. First, the red eye flight down to San Francisco was half full (nice of them to arrange that for me) and through careful planning and sneakiness on my part I was able to snag an entire row for myself with enough pillows and blankets to get an hour of sleep.
Then get this, on the return flight when I went to check in I walked up to the ticket counter and the friendly, perky agent said, "I see that you're tall [you noticed?] would you be comfortable in a seat with a little more leg room?"
In response I jumped up and down and danced around in glee until they had to call security. I had one of the emergency exit rows with no seat in front of me and here's the picture as proof. It may never happen again so I had to capture the moment. Though now that I look at it I wonder if I couldn't have got a more flattering angle on those thighs . . . 25 pounds of chocolate . . . maybe I shouldn't have eaten it all myself.
Anyway, it was a good weekend and quite productive though I was so happy to be home I clung to Andrew for quite some time in joy--I've gotta say I'm tired of sleeping with women, even such nice ones, which is kind of funny because I get to finish out my week chaperoning at our church girls' camp and sleeping with more women. Here's to BlogHer 2009!
Sponsored by Oaki at Outdoor Adventure Kid Company--Gear for kids who live outside.
If you liked this post you can subscribe to receive updates through RSS feeds or email.
Technorati tags: lists, blogging, BlogHer
66 comments:
- Mrs. O said...
I love your red dress. Your list makes me wish I had been there (except for the KY thing, how anticlimactic).
WOW look at that leg room!! My husband would have been in heaven!
Sounds like a fabulous trip. - 2:11 AM
It sounds like you had a blast. I'm hoping to join you next year.
loved meeting you! and agreed - FAQs for beginning bloggers was surely the BEST panel!! :) i don't drink either, so it's a good thing i missed that party!
What a creative post! I missed the Mom Central thing because it took our shuttle guy 2hrs to get us to Guy's house...ugh!!! We were so upset:(
I'm glad I got to meet you even if only for a second! - 4:28 AM
- Suburban Correspondent said...
Sigh. If someone could please, please explain just what BlogHer is, I'd much appreciate it. I've been to the site numerous times, but it is just so huge, I cannot get a handle on it. Is it just a social networking site for women bloggers?
And, let me get this straight - you're from Alaska and you are complaining about the cold? What? - 4:37 AM
- Christie O. said...
doh! i am so sad i didn't make it to blogher 08. i can't stand it i'm so sad. (and almost as sad that i didn't win the alarm clock, oh well).
looks like you had a great time! it was all i pictured and more! i am sooooooooo going next year! and wow, you're tall! - 4:53 AM
- ames said...
Okay, now I really *am* jealous that I didn't go. I'm so glad to hear that FoodBlogga is as groovy in person as I suspect she is, wish I could have been there and joined in!
I *love* that lamppost in the picture! San Francisco is so cool. - 5:02 AM
- Christine said...
Security issues with KY? What about, uh, packing it in checked luggage? Weird. And thank you, thank you, thank you, for that review on the Macy's party. So on target and I truly hope someone planning BlogHer '09 reads it. And pays attention to it.
Anyway, very creative recap! - 5:22 AM
I am so jealous! Even though I'm a very new blogger I would have love to be there, so much to learn and so many lovely bloggers to meet.
Thank you for posting about it. I for one am reading as much as I can about it, I wish there was a complete recap online. - 5:53 AM
- Allysha said...
so fun! I'm glad you had a good time.
- Heather {Desperately Seeking Sanity} said...
it was great meeting you and ditching macy's for dinner... and i loved your awards... :D very clever!
- Unknown said...
I'm exhausted just reading that! But don't worry. You could have given ONLY me the best roommate award over the others. They wouldn't have cared or noticed. Really....
- Owlhaven said...
So nice to meet you!
Mary - 7:12 AM
- Blessed said...
I like that Gorilla-Pod...
Maybe one year I'll get to go to BlogHer :(
The leg room would have been awesome! - 7:29 AM
- J said...
I always feel sorry for people who are tall on flights...with their knees up around their ears, and then the person in front decides to recline their seat...uh oh. (And the person in front SHOULD be able to recline their seat, it just shouldn't be painful to the person behind them.)
I was wondering if you were HOT in SF, since when I saw you in Alaska in February, you were wearing a short sleeved shirt, and I was frozen. :) Hotels are indeed evil that way...I worked in one for many years, and they have two settings - freezing, and naptime inducing hot. Neither good for conferences. - 7:33 AM
- Musings of a Housewife said...
Awesome recap! I wish I could have met you. Next year?
- Stephanie Wilson she/her @babysteph said...
This is my favorite recap of BlogHer yet. And I laughed outloud at the award you gave to Janice & Susan. Michelle, I just might have to come to Anchorage so we can hang out more!
Steph - 7:50 AM
- jolibe said...
I really liked how you summarized the whole BlogHer experience using the "Best of/Awards" theme - very cool and creative!
Just out of curiousity, how did you find your roommates? Was it a random thing, or did you already kinda know them through blogging? I'm still a pretty green blogger, and this whole BlogHer conference thing is utterly fascinating to me! - 7:56 AM
This is one of my favorite summaries of BlogHer yet--extremely telling, about you and everyone else! While I wasn't dying to attend, I DO feel like I missed out on something wonderful...and I would've loved to have met many of the women who are already a part of my life.
- avalonne83 said...
Hi Michelle!
I'm avalonne83 from The Black Cat (http://avalonne83.blogspot.com/). I nominated you for the Brillante Weblog Award 2008. See you my post: http://avalonne83.blogspot.com/2008/07/nomination.html - 8:09 AM
- Scribbit said...
I should have given an award to Jory Desjardins, Elisa Camahort Page and Julie Stone for all the work they put into this, it was a helpful conference and I'm glad I went though by the time it was over--really after that Sat night party--I was ready to head home. It's wonderful meeting new people and getting to know those that you've only known through their writing but it can be a little overwhelming to always be trying to remember names, be on your toes and all that. I'd go again and if I did I probably wouldn't have been nearly so nervous.
Suburban Corresp--BlogHer is a women's BlogHer organization that any woman writing a blog can join--it't not just mombloggers it's foodies and tech blogs and any blog written by women. They have an ad network that you can join and on their website there are posts about all sorts of topics relevant to the community. They have editors on the site to chose topics in specific areas and BlogHer works with lots of other media companies to promote women blogging. Does this help? BlogHer is also the name of the conference put on by this organization so it might be confusing--when we say BlogHer it might be the organization or it might be the conference depending on context. - 8:22 AM
- Her Bad Mother said...
I wish that I'd met you. Saw you, but was too distracted/anxious/hormonal/exhausted to do anything about it.
Regretting. - 9:29 AM
- Amanda said...
Saw you, but too timid to cross the room. Maybe another time.
- jean said...
It sounds like you had a great time. If you need to share that chocolate I'm willing to help you!
- dawn224 said...
I loved loved loved meeting you - still shocked you knew exactly who I was - shocked, thrilled, a little starstruck :)
- Deb Rox said...
Fantastic write-up.
Being a drinker I did not know that you didn't have options at Macy's. That's appallling!
But I got free lube, so they told you a story on that one. And I went through security just fine.
What a weekend, huh? - 10:24 AM
- Blog O' Beth said...
I am so sick that I didn't go this year. Next year I'm going - for sure! And I'm meeting you and a whole list of women I want to meet in person and gush over and embarrass myself and eat fattening foods and regret it all later. Alas, the fun of BlogHer.
- Unknown said...
Sad to have missed you at dinner, I wondered what would become of you getting swallowed up by Macy's. :)
I think your readers should know that you are tall and gorgeous and reminded me of a mermaid. - 11:53 AM
- Cagey (Kelli Oliver George) said...
As you know, I was SO disappointed we did not meet up. It seemed as I blinked and the weekend was over. That could be due to the fact that I spent a good portion of running back and to my baby. Darned kids.
So glad I got an award! And I'm also so sad that I missed out on getting a Gorillapod... those things are cool.
You are totally wonderful and I hope we have the opportunity to get together again sometime. - 12:04 PM
Sounds like a great time was had by all! Love the list.
- An Ordinary Mom said...
Am I jealous? Just a tad ... but then I don't think I would have done very well at this conference with a one week old baby ... not to mention the post partum recovery issue :) !!
I am glad you had such a good time. One of these days we WILL meet! - 12:33 PM
Aww, thanks for the kind words! It was lovely meeting you in person. Hopefully, we'll get to see each other again next year?
Say hello to those Northern Lights for me,
- Kristen M. said...
Thanks for being kind enough to share your thoughts. There is so much build-up for BlogHer but it seems like everyone is too tired to write about it when they get home.
- Scribbit said...
Oh I forgot--MileHiMommy you asked about roomates? Seems like I emailed Loralee about what she was doing back in January when I registered and then she asked if I wanted to join them since they were looking for a fourth person. I had a few others email me later to look for roomates so I think people just kind of ask around.
You are awesome.
Thanks for the feedback. I wanted to make sure that people walked away inspired (and not overloaded on terms like SEO and CPM and blah blah).
Why did I not see you and say hi?? There are so many people that I either saw but couldn't get through the crowed to them fast enough, or people I didn't see there at all. BOOOO. - 1:33 PM
- Scribbit said...
Oh I waited in line for a few minutes and wanted to say thanks for the work you all did and to ask a couple questions more but I was behind about four others and chickened out after a few minutes. :) Gutless is my middle name :)
- daysease said...
this may seem silly to you, but you have been awarded. i have stated why in my blog. please go to perilloparodies.blogspot.com to see. :-)
- Susan from Food Blogga said...
Oh, Michelle, I can't believe I made "best conversation." If only my high school mates could see that now. ;)
You made the party for us as well. Now all we keep talking about is, "When are we going to visit Alaska?" - 4:05 PM
- Claremont First Ward said...
Thanks for the commentary.......I really enjoyed it.
- Chrisbookarama said...
Glad you had fun!
- all over the map said...
You needn't give me a paper cut and squeeze lemon juice into it, I'm wallowing in my own little pity party right here in front of the monitor-thanks!
What a great event. I would have been a sponge just sucking everything up. One day!
I can never wrap my head around all the talent out there from woman bloggers.
Your description alone sold me on wanting to be there. Thanks for more good links. Love Velveteen Mind and Guy Kawasaki - what a genius. Sigh.
Looking forward to the video from 5 Minutes For Mom. - 6:58 PM
- M said...
I too missed meeting up with you. I kept asking about you and hearing..." I just saw her..." and "She went that way..." and "you just missed her..."
maybe next year:-) - 8:01 PM
I totally agree about the Macy's party...it was such a let down. I think we stayed for three minutes. After all the great venues, I was really looking forward to what BlogHer had in store for us there. But like you mentioned, it was poorly planned. I couldn't believe there was nothing but wine to drink. That was the topper for us. Stephanie (Metropolitan Mama) and I commented to each other that we wished you had joined us at Lori's Diner!
I'm so glad I got a chance to meet you at the Macy's party. I saw you for a moment at the Alltop/Kirtsy party but you disappeared before I had chance to say "hi."
the list is so interesting!fast talkers...just had to be women!thanks for the post
Great post. I feel a little like I got to experience BlogHer now!
- Caffienated Cowgirl said...
Still laughing about the "patootie" comment. I use terms like that all the time, my husband calls them 'country witticisms'. People tend to find them refreshing and endearing...and apparently worth a free hot chocolate :)
- Julie Pippert said...
Oh I'm going to have to hand out another fabulous recap award for this! Loved how you broke it down and shared.
I missed meeting you too.
I felt the same about the Macy's party. I was opting to not drink, although I did try a sip of the wine (oops) but I was able to get a sprite. I wonder why they didn't help you with that! Also I got some caramel ice cream in a nut cone that was yum.
But it was overall such a wonderful, enriching experience. I'm not sure how to settle back down this week, into normal life LOL.
But the swag rocked my world. My personal fave? The charm bracelet from Emily's list. My husband? Most liked the bluetooth. The kids? Most liked mom on Sesame St. with Grover on a DVD! - 3:50 AM
- Carissa(GoodnCrazy) said...
I'm jealous, and this is it. The last blogher post I'm reading. I'm seriously ready to meet a few of ya.
- Megan Cobb said...
Sponsored by KY? Ohmygosh that is HYSTERICAL. This was such a fun post - I so hope I get to be there next year. And ditto on the mermaid comment (just from the pictures) you look kinda like Darryl Hannah, so it stands to reason.
KY - still laughing!! (Is that immature of me?) - 7:22 AM
- Lei said...
Well the most important thing is that you had leg room on that flight! Lol. Holy cow... that's the best for us long-legged creatures... ;)
Glad you had such a good time, I'd love to go one of these years. - 3:07 PM
- Loralee Choate said...
You were fifty kinds of fun and wonderful, Michelle.
I had THE best time with you guys. Better roomies couldn't be had! - 8:18 PM
- Mandy said...
I am seriously cracking up over the Macy's party description. I love your honesty about it all.
Thank you, thank you, thank you!! What a terrific recap. It made me almost believe I was actually there.
Hey -- does anyone know the details for BlogHer '09? Want to clear my schedule!! - 12:49 AM
- Marlene McGarrity said...
Thanks for the blogher recap. It was fun to read.
The leg room on a plane is awesome. You can always call an airline and ask for the exit row seats. Most times they haven't been sold. - 10:36 PM
Scribbit! I saw you but didn't get a chance to wade across the thousand bodies in between us.
I dodged the question because I don't know the answer, but it's fair to call me on it. Of the 23 contributors in my book, the biggest names have upward of 60,000 unique readers per month. I don't have anywhere near that myself. Of course, that's each, and there are 23 of them. I don't think I could've sold a book of my own with my traffic right now on the basis of traffic. I hope to be able to sell another of just my own work on the basis of my writing.
Therein lies the rub. If you're a fabulous writer, who cares about your traffic? But then maybe just don't mention you're a blogger. You see what I'm saying? - 5:54 PM
- Scribbit said...
Thanks for answering--I figured also that you were looking at a collective work where it took into account the traffic of the group as a whole when publishers looked at it.
I enjoyed hearing your experiences with the project, it was helpful and encouraging! - 6:00 PM
- Marketing Mama said...
Great post, love all your observations about the conference and your list of awards! Sounds like you had a fab time overall, although that Macy's party sounds like a big disappointment.
- jpdmom said...
I am finally getting around to posting about BlogHer - I am so behind the times, I wish I had done it last week. I came home so sick from BlogHer though. So nice to meet you in person, thanks for being so helpfuland informative at the Blogging Basics. Your re-cap of the whole event was great, though I might have added a few things about Moneytizing your Blog.
- SabineM said...
Oh wow!, SOOOO COOL!! (minus the KY party)
I want to go next year!!! - 3:40 PM
- Unknown said...
I totally wish I would be funny enough for the funniest but that would really be stretching it.
I definitely think I could outbeat anyone on the fastest talker award. Growing up in CA and having a load of siblings and limited earshot tiem is good for one thing.
Too bad they don't really appreciate fast talk here in the south. - 8:51 AM
- Gabrielle of Design Mom said...
I am back at my desk this week for the first time since BlogHer and I'm having such a good time reading everybody's reports.
I'm completely honored to receive an award!! I loved meeting you and think your new jeans were hot!
It was especially fun to discover you are supermodel tall, you gorgeous lady. - 8:39 AM
Hmmm i like your post. :)
Found out about your blog from a friend in SF. Hope you don't mind. Great write up :)