Running Green

I'll admit to not being the greenest, eco-friendliest person on the planet. I eat meat. I sometimes buy non-organic food. I've been driving 300 miles a week for the past two months.

But I try. Most of our produce comes from the local farmer's market. I limit my red meat. Use re-usable things rather than disposable. Take public transit or walk rather than drive whenever feasible.

A few months ago I dug into the ethics of some of my favorite brands of running clothes (or started, rather....); then last week I got an email about a petition to make the NYC Marathon waste-less, which included a few key facts:

• In 2010 the NY Department of Sanitation collected 114.29 tons of litter, 6.34 tons of paper and 2.98 tons of metal, glass and plastic post-race.
• In 2011, the race gave out 237,200 disposable plastic water bottles & 2,300,000 paper cups.
• It creates enough trash from free disposables alone to fill seven Olympic swimming pools.

A year or two ago, I heard a report on NPR about the relative green / not-green-ness of of various road races, which included these facts along with many other unpleasant ones, like the amount of CO₂ created by buses shuttling runners between the finish & start lines, the number of plastic goody bags given out (and often trashed within a day), etc. So these facts weren't a total shock. But it got me thinking about the potential environmental impact of what I typically think of as a relatively "green" sport, which eventually led me to a Runners World article on the yearly carbon footprint of an average runner.

Out of curiosity, I used their data to approximate the carbon footprint of my running. The result? 2,033 lbs CO₂ last year. That's the equivalent of driving 4,236 extra miles. The fact that I didn't fly to any races helped me a lot (a 1,500 mile flight adds 4,000-5,000 lbs of CO₂ to your carbon footprint), as did the fact that I drive a very gas-efficient car. What did not help was the purchasing of running clothes I didn't technically need. (Basically the more new stuff you buy, the bigger your carbon footprint.)

The most interesting part of the Waste-less NYCM petition was its mentions of races that are working to make their events less wasteful and more eco-friendly. The ING Hartford Marathon, for example, has been carbon-neutral since 2010. Some of their strategies include:

The UTC Water Bubbler

• opportunities for sneaker recycling
• locally sourced post-race food
• hybrid transportation options
• corn-based recyclable water cups
• the UTC Water Bubbler (a 70-foot-long water fountain) which the organizers estimate saves about 10,000 plastic bottles per year

In fact, there is even an organization called The Council for Responsible Sport that certifies events according to their level eco-friendliness. You can find certified events on their site, including several big names:

• Certified (the lowest level): LA Marathon, Nike Women's Marathon, Chicago Marathon, Bloomsday Run
• Silver: Austin Marathon, Marine Corps Marathon, Houston Marthon
• Gold: Big Sur Int Marathon, Big Sur Half, Hartford Marathon, Half Moon Bay Intl Marathon
• Evergreen (the highest level): Birmingham Half, UCSD Grove Run, Marin County Tritonman

There are many other races that are making an effort to be more environmentally sound that haven't specifically gotten ReSport certified yet:

• Ojai Full & Half Marathon (CA) - Finisher medals made of recycled materials; special eco-friendly awards for overall finishers; finisher tech shirts made from recycled materials; rideshare program to promote participant carpooling; virtual goodie bag; BOY bag sweat check
• Whidbey Island Marathon (WA) - Organic pre-race dinner, 100% recycled paper goodie bags, & finisher medals made of recycled glass
• Manitoba Marathon (Canada) - Compostable food-service items only; diverts 1,723 lbs of solid waste from landfill
• Malibu Marathon (HI) - On-site recycling of cardboard, glass, plastic, paper, etc.; organic foods at pasta dinner and finish line; leftover food donated to local charities; many biodegrable products; donating runners' throw-away layers to a local non-profit organization (I think CIM does this as well); using fuel efficient vehicles for race business
• Eugene Marathon (OR) - Volunteer "master recyclers" sort all garbage & divert 70% of solid waste; finish-line stage and vendor area powered by solar generators
• City of Portland Triathlon (OR) - Local organic food, solar power, trophies made from recycled bike parts, & organizers buy carbon credits to offset participant travel
• Paris Marathon (France) - partnership with GDF SUEZ to promote eco-friendly behaviors amongst participants & spectators
• Canmore Rocky Mountain Half-Marathon (Canada) - "Waste-free" start & finish areas where everything used must be reusable or recyclable; all proceeds go to environmental causes

Now, obviously, if you fly or drive a long way to run a race you wouldn't have otherwise just because it's environmentally friendly, you've pretty much cancelled out the benefit. But if you're deciding between two or three races in the same location anyway, knowing something about how they compare eco-wise could be a helpful way to make your decision.

As much as I wish I could tell you I am planning on building my race schedule entirely out of super-green events and doing everything in my power to keep my runner's carbon footprint as small as humanly possible, that would be a total lie. I've never run a single race on the ReSport list, I'll probably continue to drive to the track once or twice a week for the foreseeable future, and if I ever qualify for Boston you can bet your ass I'm flying there at least once.

But there are a few things I try to do as much as I can. They're small things, but small is better than nothing, and I would really like to try to do a better job about doing them more consistently:

• Keep my eye on ReSport and look for more events in my area as more become certified, & try to choose those when it makes sense
• Take my own bottle with me & refill it rather than taking disposable bottles of water or sports drink
• Carpool or take public transit to races
• Bring a reusable bag for the bag check (or don't check anything if the race insists on using a specific type of disposable bag)
• Bring a reusable bag to expos & turn down plastic ones (or just skip the goody bag altogether)
• Lobby race directors & organizers to use compostable(or at worst, recyclable) cups on the course, avoid disposable plastic bottles, cut down on fliers & plastic bags, & use companies like Greenlayer or JL Racing (which makes technical fabrics out of recycled fibers)

Do you think about environmental issues at races? Any other small things you try to do to make a difference?

Related:

• Companies Helping Race Directors Go Green
• Marathons: Reducing the Runner’s Footprint
• The Boston Marathon goes green and so do other road races

Shoe Review: Newton Motion / Motus (old model)

For the last couple of years I've done the bulk of my running in Brooks Adrenalines, which I totally {heart}. (Spoiler - my mother just gifted me a pair of 12's, which I am super psyched about!) They are sturdy, reliable, comfortable, and serviceable for just about anything from intervals on the track to marathons. I have a feeling that no matter what other fancy makes & models may find their way into my little stable, I will always keep a pair or two of these around. (Unless they end up going the way of the Launch, that is. Cold, Brooks. Cold.)

That said, I've been on the look out for a slightly lighter shoe that falls somewhere between the Adrenalines and racing flats and still has a little stability to it. There are many, many intriguing candidates, so mostly I've been going on recommendations from folks I trust and looking for good deals. I know a lot of people who have been super happy with Newtons and read countless other positive reviews, but Newtons don't come cheap, so I'd been reluctant to take the plunge. But when the new model of the Motion (or Motus, as it's called in some places) came out, the price dropped on the old one, I had few other discounts up my sleeve, and the only remaining (reasonable) size in stock was one I could wear, I took it as a sign.

Some basic info about the shoe:

At 7.7 ounces, Newton doesn't actually consider the Motion a light-weight trainer; in that category, they offer the Distancia (neutral light-weight trainer, 6.8 ounces) & the Distancia U (universal light-weight trainer, 7.0 ounces). The descriptions of the two are basically identical, so hell if I know what the difference is, or what is meant by a "universal" trainer. (If you know, please share in the comments!) The Motion is still lighter than anything else I own that's not a racing flat, though, and Roadrunner Sports where I bought them classifies them as "performance stability."

Construction

On the website, the uppers are described as made from "highly breathable, fast-drying, open screen mesh," which is true. They are also described as having "minimal anatomical support strapping" and "metatarsal stretch panels." I have no idea what those statements are referring to, so I can't remark on them. (Again, if you know, please comment!) I can tell you that the insoles & outer soles felt surprisingly solid the first time I slipped them on, given the weight of the shoe.

Another reason I've been interested in checking out Newton's is the company's reputation for socially responsible manufacturing. The shoe also has a number of green features, including 100% recycled yarn shoe laces, webbing, insole topcover and 10% recycled outersole rubber.

I have heard rumors here and there that Newtons can last up to 2000-3000 miles, but thus far I've been unable to find anything that substantiates these claims, and the official website claims only that if you take care of them well, "you should expect to get the same amount of mileage out of your Newton shoes as your current running shoes." The "Science" section of the site does describe the shoes being tested up to 1000 miles for the purposes of examining how the materials hold up, but they include a note that the reason for going up to 1000 miles was that it was so far beyond what they'd reasonably expect someone to put on a single pair mileage-wise that any problems would be guaranteed to show up.

Re: the technical details, one of my pet peeves about running shoe companies is when they list a whole bunch of high tech-sounding features but don't explain what any of it actually means or why we should care. For example, the Motion offers you:

• Biomechanical metatarsal sensor plate
• Dual-density medial posting to forefoot
• Met-flex enhanced forefoot flexibility

Does anybody who doesn't work for Newton actually know what any of that means? Every time I see this kind of thing, I have a sneaking suspicion that the company in question is just hoping that all the fancy words will impress people enough purely by virtue of their fanciness that they will just buy the shoes. Just to be sure these weren't specialized running shoe industry jargon with which I just happen to be unfamiliar, I googled all of these terms, & in every case the top 50 or so results were from the Newton site or articles about Newtons, usually as part of a list of features with no explanation. So Newton, if you're reading, please explain this stuff. Using jargon no one understands to sell shoes is hella sketch.

(Update- I did find a Runner's World review of a different Newton shoe that described the biomechanical metatarsal sensor plate as "essentially a triple layer of plastic plate, foam plate and sockliner." Feels a bit anticlimactic, no?)

Comfort

The Motions were quite comfortable right out of the gate. By far, the most unusual thing about these shoes are the "external actuator lugs" under the ball of the foot. These puppies are why this shoe doesn't actually look like a minimal drop shoe; the heel looks the same as most running shoes, but the lugs lift the forefoot so that the insole is almost level. Sure, the sensation was a little weird at first and took some getting used to, but wasn't uncomfortable.

External actuator lugs.

Quoth the Newton website:

"When your midfoot/forefoot LANDS on the ground, the technology's four external actuator lugs are pressed into hollow chambers inside the shoe's midsole via an elastic membrane (ACTION). This movement absorbs shock. As you LEVER inside the shoe, the lugs release their stored energy and propel you forward through a burst of energetic return (REACTION) from the Action/Reaction Technology™. You then LIFT your knee and begin a new stride."

I am always suspicious of shoe construction gimmicks that claim that something about the way the shoe is built can actually make you run faster or more efficiently than you would in another shoe of the same weight, but then again I definitely don't claim to be an expert when it comes to the construction of running shoes so who knows. For me, these claims alone would not be a convincing reason to pay triple digits for shoes.

The instructions that came with the shoes suggested limiting runs to a mile or 10:00 of running every other day in order to adjust to "the Newton way of running," but as far as I can tell, "the Newton way of running" really isn't all that shockingly differently from the way many folks have been running for years. Yes, if you've been running in shoes with a 10-15mm heel drop, you will probably want to ease into these guys, but that's not about wearing Newtons; it's about wearing any low drop shoe. (Also FYI, you can heel strike in Newtons without a problem. The heel is maybe not quite so built up as in more traditional shoes, so that may wear them out faster, but you can certainly run in Newtons easily without converting to a mid/forefoot strike.)

If I'd been running solely in Adrenalines, starting out with a 10 miler in these probably would have been too much too soon, but I think the modest heel drop in the Mirages (5-6mm?) & various racing flats (4mm) over the last six months to a year prepared my calves & Achilles for this shoe pretty well. I could definitely feel that my feet had been doing some extra work (which is good; I'm trying to make them stronger & gradually wean myself off of the orthotics altogether), so I personally would probably not run a 15-20 miler or a marathon in these without building up to it, but they are totally solid enough for that & more.

(**A quick note, because I can see it coming up & it's a fair question -- My bizarre heel pain has been going on since February, long before I started trying to transition out of the orthotics or do any significant amount of running in anything other than Adrenalines, so I don't think it's shoe-related.)

In terms of footstrike, I've probably been a 75/25% forefoot/midfoot striker for something like ten years, but in the last few months I've been having some discomfort in my left forefoot that almost feels like bruising. This was where the big squishy lugs came in really handy -- thanks to all the Action/Reaction Technology™, I could barely feel the road. This was the first time in a long time that I can remember running on concrete without my left forefoot feeling tender every time it touched the ground. My main issue with attempting anything longer than a 10K in racing flats is the lack of forefoot cushioning; I can totally see racing a half marathon in these, even without orthotics.

The top of the shoe rubbed uncomfortably against my big toes a little at first, but that went away as I broke them in.

Fit

The website describes the Motion as having a "variable fit," which I don't understand. (A variable fit seems like something you'd want to avoid, no?) With a new shoe, I generally get a size 8, and sometimes find that I need to go with a 7.5. Based on my first run in them, I would probably go with a 7.5 instead of an 8 if I were to get them again. They felt a little big, and with this shoe in particular (and maybe all Newtons?), I think you *definitely* want to avoid too big -- those giant actuator lugs need to sit perfectly & snugly under the ball of your foot, and if you're sliding forward in the shoe, they can end up pressing against the part of your arch just behind the ball of your foot, which is uncomfortable and I'm guessing probably not good for your feet in the long run. They also felt a bit big all around. I feel like I have slightly wide, slightly thick feet and thus usually don't have to lace my shoes up very tightly (or sometimes actually have to loosen them). With these, I had to cinch the laces up pretty ridiculously tight to keep my foot from sliding around in the shoe. All that said, the 8 is totally functional for me.

Ride/Feel

Like I said before, for a shoe that's advertised as promoting a "natural" running style, I was surprised at how hard & solid the Motions actually felt when I first slipped them on. I spent the first day just walking around to get a feel for them, and found myself shaking my head at the absurdity of some of the statements on the website. For example, "Newtons allow your foot to feel the ground as if you were running barefoot." Sorry; no. Not even close. What Newtons allow your foot to feel are the giant slabs of rubber between your foot and the ground. You can argue that they make it a little easier to land on the ball of your foot, and that the lugs make doing so nice and comfy without having to suffer through the toughening up process that you might have to endure with minimalist shoes like Vibrams or Merrell Dash Gloves. You cannot argue that running in Newtons lets you feel the ground as if you were running barefoot. In these puppies, the ground is a distant dream.

They do feel SUPER light for such a solid shoe, though, for which I suppose we have the "highly breathable, fast-drying, open screen mesh" and some of the mysterious jargon above to thank.

In terms of flexibility, the Motions remind me a lot of my Saucony Mirages, but to a lesser extreme. Both shoes are decidedly more flexible than the Adrenalines, but less so than either of my racing flats. The Mirage is slightly more flexy than the Motions -- that, I can't run more than a few miles in without orthotics and have to pay very close attention to every foot strike. The Motions, I ran 10 miles in without orthotics right away, with no problems. (I think the extra cushioning from the actuator lugs helps a lot there.)

Eventually, I would like to be able to run longer distances in a shoe where I can feel the ground (I really enjoy this on the track and in shorter races), but for me right now, the Motion seems to be a good compromise -- light & fairly flexible, but still with cushioning & enough stability where I still need it.

Bottom Line

I like these shoes, both from a practical and philosophical standpoint. They are light and comfortable, feel great, and I am willing to pay a premium for socially & environmentally responsible production. I do not care for the cult-like vibe of the website and the amount of Kool-Aid they seem to be pedaling. Sorry, Newton; you are not the first company to create light, low/zero drop shoes or to promote mid/forefoot running. I would totally recommend these to a runner friend, but you will not see me pushing Chi Running books or Pose Method seminars. As far as I can tell, this shoe would probably work equally fine for just about any running technique or style.

4.5 / 5 stars

Gear: Ethical Consumerism & Running

Having gone to a hippy-dippy liberal arts college and residing in hippy-dippy liberal San Francisco, I've spent a reasonable portion of my life concerned about things like labor practices, social justice, civil & human rights, environmentalism, sustainability, etc. This can be conflicting sometimes because it's difficult to live in the 21st century without doing or supporting *something* that doesn't match my values in one or more of those areas. I try to do what I can, but you can only delve so far down that rabbit hole before you're living in the woods gathering roots & berries for sustenance and weaving your own clothes out of hemp seed and dandelions.

I suppose, to a certain extent, it started back in high school. I'm sure you remember the Nike sweatshop scandal of the early nineties. Before then, Nike was my brand of choice when it came to athletic gear. When I found out about their repugnant labor practices, I was horrified that I'd been supporting such things & swore off the brand forever. The real trouble, though, came when I tried to find another brand I could purchase with a clear conscience; although most weren't as bad as Nike, just about all the major athletic brands at that time were engaging in a few practices that turned my stomach. The one exception seemed to be New Balance, so that's what I ran in for a while. With regard to clothes, I kind of threw up my hands & started just buying stuff at Target. (Don't think I don't see the irony of that now.)

In college, my roommate & I found out we could no longer shop at The Gap, for similar reasons. Then we found out Old Navy was part of The Gap, so that was out. Then we found out that Taco Bell, our one fast food indulgence, was horrible to its tomato pickers, so then we couldn't eat there. Then we learned that formaldehyde is routinely used in the manufacturing of "wrinkle-free" frabrics, which brings up all sorts of environmental & health concerns, so we couldn't buy those anymore either. At one point, my roommate began an active campaign to avoid hearing about such issues, because once she knew, her conscience wouldn't let her ignore it. "Pretty soon I'm going to be eating weeds & hunting & skinning squirrels to make my own clothes," she said soberly. (There were a lot of squirrels at our school.) "It's the only way to be sure."

Which brings us back to, no, you can't do everything. Most of us don't have time to sew our own clothes, grow our own grain, make our own bath products from scratch, etc. In general, my philosophy has been to do what I can, within reason, and to do the most where I spend the most. My big ones are food and health & beauty products -- if it's going in or on my body, I can take the time to do a bit of research. I try to buy recycled and reusable as much as possible, and avoid patronizing companies known for poor practices.

In the last few years, though, I've spent enough money on running shoes & clothes that I've started to feel like that's an area where I should make more of an effort. If I'm going to regularly support a brand or company with my hard-earned dollars, I decided, I needed to find out what their policies and practices are with regard to the things I value. Are they environmentally responsible? Do they pay their workers a living wage? Are the chemicals they use in production safe, both for the workers handling them and the consumers who will be wearing/using the product?

For a long time, I kind of figured that unless I heard something particularly egregious about a certain product or company (like Nike in the 90s), then most of them were pretty much the same and it didn't matter which one I went with.

Well, they're not. It matters. And thanks to technology, it's easier now than ever to find out who's making it a better world (or at least not actively making it worse) and who isn't.

So I've started looking into the brands that I personally have purchased the most, and those that I see and hear a lot about in the broader running / active community. It's a bit of an ongoing project, but I'll try to post about one or two every week or so.

(Disclaimer - The purpose of these posts is NOT to make you feel guilty or like a horrible person if you prefer a brand or product that doesn't have the greatest practices ever, or to necessarily persuade you to switch to something different. It's purely to inform. I absolutely, 100% believe that we should get to make our own choices, using whatever criteria we want (this is 'Murika, after all). But I also believe that we make our best decisions when we have all (or at least more of) the information. These posts have one purpose, and that is to inform.)

Have a favorite brand or company whose practices you're interested in? Let me know!