RUNNING MCMILLAN'S BEST 10K WORKOUT & RUNNING AT 180 TURNOVER RATE

Sometimes I am a little wary about one-size-fits-all advice. Constantly, I find myself testing out supposedly "tried and true" running advice. Does more millage work better for me as many elite coaches advise, or does something like the Furman FIRST minimalist program work better? Is the mid-foot strike really best for everyone, or are some people built to heel strike a little more--even if they are the exception to the rule?

Of course, as always, nothing here is qualified advise, just personal experiences.

The lesson I learned today came by accident as I decided to give G. McMillan's "Best 10K Workout" a go. He advises on his site that it is a tough workout, so I geared up for it mentally. 

RUNNING THE "BEST 10K WORKOUT"

The workout is: Jog to warm up, the 3 x 2M with 5 minutes jog to recovery in between, then cool down.

IF YOU CAN COMPLETE THE WORKOUT AT YOUR DESIRED 10K RACE PACE YOU ARE ON TARGET (McMillan says that if you can do it, you will hit your 10K goal pace based on what he has seen).

My 10K pace is supposedly 6:26. I haven't run a 10K race in ages but I have done plenty of 10K tempo runs at about a 6:40 or 6:50 pace. I've been going out too hard on the tempo runs  though and then fizzling so it is really like a few miles at 6:20 or 6:30 pace, and then I am struggling to just hold on at 7:00 pace at the end.

McMillan suggests working up to the full 3 x 2M workout but I decided to just jump right in because I have been doing 6-7 mile tempo runs anyway.

I get my best 1 mile time with a rather high turnover rate (208-210).

My best 10K tempo run recently came when I tried to (and did) hold a 190 turnover rate for the whole time. But I fizzled pretty bad toward the end of that run.

I was not going to use a metronome on today's Best 10K Workout, but was feeling sluggish so I turned it on to 180 just to keep me from being too sluggish.

TO MY GREAT DELIGHT I FOUND THAT IF I JUST KEPT THE 180 TURNOVER I WAS ABLE TO HOLD THE DESIRED PACE.

I did fizzle a little toward the end of the workout, but not nearly as bad as usual. I managed to hang onto a 6:30 pace which I was happy with even though it was not the 6:26 the McMillan predicts.

Here were the splits:

FIRST 2M: 6:24 pace
SECOND 2M: 6:28 pace
THIRD 2M: 6:38 pace

My Best 10K Workout (McMillan)

As a sort of side note: On the last 2 mile effort I looked at the GPS wrong and thought I was done at mile 1. That's why there is a dip for the second half. I quickly realized I had to do another mile but it threw me off psychologically!

MY ASSESSMENT OF THE WORKOUT

This is a great way to get your 10K race pace for someone going to race a 10K for the first time, or the first time in a long time.

It gets in almost a full 10K (minus the 0.2) at race pace, but is not quite so hard mentally and gives the body a little recovery in between so that it is not so hard on the body.

Does it work? Can I do a 10K race at 6:30 pace? That I don't know yet, but I will update after I try it out (either in a "real" race setting or giving a 10K race effort on my own).

I can say that the workout was as hard as McMillan says, so believe him. I felt like my legs had been to the dentist afterwards as I "slopped" my way home. But that's what we runners love after all isn't it? Now I feel a few rest days coming up!

Finally, I found the little jewel that is the subject of this post: the wonder of the 180 turnover. It was so efficient compared to even 190. It is that magical turnover where you keep your momentum and build on it (very little "braking" force like you feel at lower cadences) but it is not turning over so much that you burn out.

WHAT IS YOUR EXPERIENCE? DOES THE 180 TURNOVER WORK BEST FOR YOU? WHAT IS YOUR FAVORITE 10K WORKOUT? COMMENT BELOW!

Burst and Coast strategy for racing

Burst at your race pace for the next shortest race distance (HM pace if running a Marathon, 5K pace if running a 10K and so on), then coast for 10 steps. Keep alternating like this until you are ready to kick at the end of the race.

The idea with the coast is to "give in" to the momentum you have built up during the burst and keep it going as much as you can with the least amount of energy. It should be about a minute to 90 seconds slower than the surges.

You can build up to this by doing fartlek workouts, yassos, alternating tempo workouts and advanced intervals (instead of the jog between intervals, just do back-to-back intervals with part a fast tempo and part at a fast pace). There is an article here on these different workouts, and on using surges during a race.

	Burst steps	Coasting steps
MAR	25	10
HM	66	10
10K	100	10
5K	160	10
mile	200	10

CYCLICAL NATURE OF RUNNING CALCULATORS

*Nothing I say here (or ever) constitutes professional advice, just personal experience and some experience-based questions.

It may seem ironic for me to start a post that is critical of running calculators by saying that I LOVE THEM. That's not to say that they are for everybody (nothing is), but I find them to be a very helpful training tool. One of my favorites is the McMillan calculator...and I mean that. 

The McMillan calculator is one of the biggest tools in my arsenal that I use to coach myself as a runner. What could be better? You just pop in one of your most recent race times, hit the button and out pops a full list of your ideal race paces for any practical distance, and training paces. It's great.

This does not mean that I am oblivious to the criticism of the McMillan running calculator and other similar calculators. 

For example, a few years ago, I could have popped my "magic mile" time of 6:10 into the calculator and up would have come a bunch of paces: 

I should run a 5K at 21:24 (that was pretty accurate)

A 10K at 44:27 (a little less accurate)

A Half Marathon at 1:39:06 (no way in Gehenna! Not happening!)

And a Marathon at 3:28:34 (not a prayer! The odds of rainbow-colored unicorn sipping a latte running across my path during the run are higher!) 

So the criticism with the McMillan running calculator is that it gives paces that are too aggressive the longer the distance is! The rebuttal is that the times given are not what you could run right now, but reflect your potential to train up to that pace at the longer distances. So, if you are a 6:10 miler, you have roughly 3.5 hr marathon potential. I agree with that. That's why I like calculators like the McMillan because I take them for what they are. They acknowledge that you need to train up for a given distance in order for the time to be most accurate. They also know that everyone is different and that some 6:10 milers will NEVER run less than a 4 hour marathon, and some 3 hour marathoners may not be able to drop a 6:10 mile very easily. So, potentially, some 6:10 milers will NEVER hit the 1 hr 39 minute half marathon time and some 1 hour 39 minute half marathon runners will never hit the 6:10 mile mark. 

The first kind of runner has more genetic potential for speed over short distances, and the second runner is more adept at endurance than short bursts of speed. Fast twitch, slow twitch, fast twitch I and II and Ia, b, c and IIa, b, c, neurological adaptation, blah...blah...blah {insert some scientific studies if you want here...They're not really my point in this whole post anyway...}!

So, I acknowledge that, and I acknowledge that, depending on a bunch of science that we will not delve into here, some runners may be better adapted to speed at short distances vs. endurance or whatever...

Moving on...It dawned on me one day that there is still something of a conundrum about running pace calculators!

The conundrum is this: Improvement at one kind of race often leads to improvement in others.

So that sounds obvious, but stay with me and you will see what I mean. Again, this is nothing to do with science or expertise of any kind, just personal experience.

So let's say in my first year of running I am a 6:10 miler. Entering this time into the calculator, I get a projected half marathon time of 1 hour 39 minutes and change. Let's say that there is no way I am even able to run 13.1 miles at that point and even if I run as far as I can and walk when I can't run anymore, I am looking at maybe a 2.5 hour time.

The 1 hour 39 minute time isn't about this though--it is about my POTENTIAL. So, I happen to agree and decide to train up for the 1 hour and 39 minute time. What does this involve? Working up to maybe 6 x 800 intervals once a week, a 2 hour long run, 50-60 minute tempo runs and some easy runs.

Now take a straw poll: "If you do 6 x 800 intervals at a 7:00 pace once a week, a 2 hour long run once a week, and an hour of tempo work at around 7:45 pace, what will happen to your mile time?"

BINGO! You see where I am headed, right. Doing Half Marathon training to hit your "potential" is going to improve your fitness at the mile.

Finish playing out the analogy though for the sake of fairness. I wake up one day and drop a Half Marathon in a time of 1 hour and 39 minutes. So, I have hit my potential, right? In terms of the original McMillan running calculator (or whatever running calculator), yes. The projected potential was attained.

There is a problem with the running calculator prediction though!

What is the problem? The 6:10 miler should run a 1:39:00 half marathon according to the calculator and that is what happened. So where is the problem? The problem is the improved mile fitness. Go run a mile again with fresh legs after all that half marathon training and see what happens. Maybe the 6:10 miler now runs the mile in 5:30 as a result of all that "half marathon training!" So that runner goes back to the drawing board and puts in the revised mile time of 5:30...

Here are the new running calculator times:

A 5K at 19:05 now instead of 21:24 

A 10K at 39:39 instead of the former time of 44:27 

AND HERE'S THE KICKER--A Half Marathon at 1:28:23 instead of 1:39:06 

SO IT WAS ALL FARCE! I DIDN'T REALLY HIT MY RUNNING-CALCULATOR-PREDICTED HALF MARATHON TIME! It only looked like I hit my "potential" because I was using an outdated mile time! I really had the potential to hit 1:28:23!

MC Escher's Drawing Hands

So you see the problem? Running calculators are cyclical. They are like the song that gets on everybody's nerves or an M.C. Escher painting! 

 Running calculators basically set up an impossible situation in which satisfying one end of your potential (speed--the mile) can alter the projection at the other end (endurance--half marathon).

Now here is where I issue a huge note of caution!

The conundrum is not necessarily a bad thing. Otherwise it is like saying that as a runner you hate improvement. Isn't that why a lot of us like these calculators in the first place? To try to improve? I don't see any problem with the cyclical nature of running calculators other than to be aware that it happens.

For me, I started around the 6:10 mile, and got my training paces off of that time. Eventually, the mile time dropped which changed my training paces. I am learning to simply become diligent about running the "magic mile" every once in a while just to make sure my training paces are on par. (I recently wrote a post about my tempo pace being too low for too long because I had slowly gotten faster without realizing it and kept running tempos at the outdated, too slow pace!)

For me, the step-back week is a great time to run a magic mile and update your training paces (or at least make sure they are on track).

Recently, I have lived the "hypothetical" example I have outlined here. I based my training paces off of the McMillan calculator and worked to hit the half marathon time it suggests. In the course of my half marathon training, my mile time improved.

The result is that just as I was getting close to hitting the half marathon pace suggested by the running calculator my mile time improved, causing the running calculator to give me a faster suggested half marathon time.

So you can see from my experience that training for the half marathon pace improved my mile time which suggests I should be aiming for a faster half marathon pace.

The problem is: How can I ever know the right training paces if it is so cyclical?! The benefit is: Who cares?! It is a great problem to have because it means I am still improving! That is a problem that most people can envy, so if it happens to you, just enjoy it. 

At some point, most runners hit a plateau and would stop seeing this cycle with running calculators. But that becomes the subject of a much different post for another time!

What is your experience? Post in the comments below to help out other runners! Do you have any luck with running calculators? Love 'em? Hate 'em?

THE WORLD'S GREATEST INSIGHT EVER ABOUT LT WORKOUTS: EVERY BLOG POST NEEDS A CLICK BAIT TITLE!

For some reason, I can't shake the half marathon bug, even though I mostly consider myself to be a 5K and 10K runner...

My long runs are between 10 and 12 miles anyway, so it seems like it is right there for the taking--but that's not entirely true for me. I just don't like to race at distances that I am not really trained for and the fact that I easy run up to 12 miles does not really constitute being well trained for a half marathon. Being able to finish a half marathon and doing well at it are two different things, and I would prefer the latter. 

SO I SET OUT TO LEARN HOW TO DO A HALF MARATHON THE RIGHT WAY.

Remember, I am building from 5K and 10K experience which is a little more about speed and a little less about endurance than the half marathon. So my first thought was to extend my long runs a little bit. So, goodbye 1:15 long run, hello 1:45-2:00 long run. But it turns out it is not a longer long run that I needed the most. This is the story about how I found that out...

SURE, THE FIRST "LONGER" LONG RUN KILLED ME!

But not in the way you may be thinking. I had plenty of endurance, plenty of speed and plenty of mental fortitude, but around mile 11 or 12 of an 1:45 run I was tired in a way I had not felt since I started running 20 years ago. In fact, it baffled me so much that I walked around for the better part of a week wondering what I had experienced. Legs worn out? No. Lungs worn out? Nope. Joints hurting? No more than usual...Just a generalized feeling of wanting to stop running.

WHAT WAS THIS NEW KIND OF EXHAUSTION?

I tried to do a "practice" half marathon close to my target pace of 6:50 and wanted to quit so badly for basically the entire time. I ended up finishing around a 7:50 pace because I abandoned the 6:50 pace and slowed down quite a bit. I was totally baffled...everything seemed to suggest that I should be able to run a half marathon around a 6:50 pace. My last 5K time on a flat course was just over 19 minutes (6:14 pace), so I plugged this into the McMillan running calculator which suggested a half marathon time of around 1:29. It also gave the following training times:

MY ENDURANCE PACE SHOULD BE BETWEEN 7:19 and 8:37 

MY TEMPO PACE SHOULD BE BETWEEN 6:29 and 6:45

MY PACE FOR SPEED WORK SHOULD BE 6:14 to 6:30

So, this corroborated my hunch that I should be able to run a sub-1:30 half marathon, but it also snapped me into a realization about my training times:

I HAVE BEEN FAILING TO ADJUST MY EFFORT AS I HAVE IMPROVED!

Over the course of a year, my 5K pace had dropped from 6:54 to 6:14, but I was keeping my workouts at the same pace. The implication:

MY TEMPO WORKOUTS HAD INADVERTENTLY BECOME ENDURANCE WORKOUTS!

This is because one year ago, running at a 7:20 pace would have been considered a tempo workout for me, but as my running has improved, this pace had dropped more into the "endurance" category. (See the McMillan times given above that suggest endurance paces starting at 7:19).

SO IN EFFECT, I INADVERTENTLY HADN'T RUN A TEMPO RUN IN WELL OVER A YEAR!

I thought my tempo runs were getting easier, and in fact I had become able to maintain a 4/4 breathing pattern at that speed--that alone should have been a trigger to me, but I didn't really think about it too much...It is a "plus one" for those who advocate running by feel instead of by pace. However, if I run completely by feel, all of my runs end up being super sluggish or super fast. That must just be how my body feels comfortable. Like a light switch I have two speeds: On and off. Turbo and turtle. So the tempo run is one case that is dictated by the GPS for me in order to keep me moving.

Despite the realization that I had not done real tempo work in so long, I wondered if it would make much difference for my half marathon time. After all, my endurance had increased over that time, and so had my speed work. Additionally, my understanding was that tempo runs teach your legs to not feel tired, and I was not having that problem. The only way to describe the exhaustion I felt during my extended long runs (of 13+ miles) and my practice half marathon was a generalized desire to stop running at that pace. 

My exhaustion could only be described as a generalized (rather than specific) feeling of wanting to quit. Not "my legs are tired" or "I'm out of air" or even "I've hit 'the wall'"--just a generalized feeling of wanting to quit.

Once again, I hadn't thought that it was a lactate threshold issue, but then I looked again at the McMillan LT pace which was 6:29-6:45 minutes per mile. Then I made a connection: My goal half marathon time (6:50 pace) is basically in the LT range given by the McMillan calculator.

SO THE HALF MARATHON IS BASICALLY A 1.5 HOUR TEMPO RUN!

I already knew that, but I say it here in hug font in order to come back to it later on. It will be important.

This week I had been on a quest to find the source of this mysterious form of generalized exhaustion, so at the beginning of the week I had decided to run one of each of these three different kinds of workouts: endurance, tempo and speed. I ran the endurance run first: CHECK. No problems. Next, I did a speed workout: 4 x 800 at 5K pace with 400m jogging in between. CHECK. In fact, I kept having to slow down a little, and still ended up running them a little too fast. I even left the track with a lot of gas left in the tank. So from these two workouts, I realized that I felt good running a 7:30 pace for however long I need to, and I have to ability to run at 5K speed with very little rest in between. So, could anything be left? Endurance is good; speed is good...aren't those the two main components of running? Finally, I did the third workout, a 45 minute tempo run.

I did a 10 minute warm up and then eased up to the 6:50 pace. After just 1 mile I wanted to quit so badly! My legs weren't burning, my lungs were fine, but I just had this powerful generalized feeling of wanting to quit--not to quit running, but to quit running 6:50 pace!

I wanted desperately to slow down OR to speed up! 6:30 pace would have been more comfortable (even though my legs or lungs would probably have tired out more quickly, it would have been more comfortable until then!); 7:20 would have been fine; it was 6:50 that was the problem. Even though I wanted desperately to stop after even just a few minutes I pushed through it anyway...Minute after minute I was so tempted to speed up or slow down but I just kept holding it right between 6:49 and 6:52 pace. "I'm going to bail out after 20 minutes of this" I kept thinking. But that thought was enough to make me stubborn enough to go for the full 45 minutes at the 6:50 pace like I had planned.

At 34 minutes something "miraculous" happened. I hit "the zone". 

As soon as I hit the 34 minute mark, I knew I would make it the whole 45 minutes. My legs were on auto-pilot--like a machine, they kept turning over at the same rate at a 6:50 pace.

SO WHAT IS THE "WORLD'S GREATEST INSIGHT" ABOUT LT WORKOUTS?

That speed-endurance is its own thing that is neither speed nor endurance. You can't get the same benefits from doing endurance workouts and speed workouts or even endurance and speed work in the same run. You have to do speed-endurance workouts to get a specific set of benefits. 

Of course this is no mystery to running experts who advocate incorporating all three kinds of workouts into a training plan. Even though I find that a sort of minimalist approach tends to work best for me (I even take a few days or even a week or two off running sometimes and ride the bike for that time and I always come back stronger than ever at running) I have always tried to incorporate aspects of speed, endurance and speed-endurance (LT/tempo work) in my workouts. I just happened into this realization because what I thought was my speed-endurance pace had changed leaving me without the benefits of those workouts for a time and allowing me to see the negative impact.

If you like the minimalist idea, the Furman FIRST program is my favorite. It involves only three workouts a week. Not surprisingly, one is a speed workout, one is a speed-endurance (LT/tempo) workout, and one is an endurance workout.

Now the question is if I can get by on just three workouts and still hit go sub-1:30 on the half marathon.

Here is my next five weeks worth of goals. As a minimalist, I am using a standard advanced half marathon training plan without the easy runs in the spirit of the FIRST program. Additionally, if I feel a little sore or tired on a given day I just skip workouts and ride the bike instead so that I can come back stronger.

WEEK 1: 6 x 800m at 5K pace, 400m jog in bw/50 min tempo run (6:50 pace)/1:45 long run
WEEK 2: 7 x 800m at 5K pace, 400m jog in bw/30 min tempo run (6:50 pace)/2:00 long run
WEEK 3: 8 x 800m at 5K pace, 400m jog in bw/55 min tempo run (6:50 pace)/HM test run
WEEK 4: 9 x 800m at 5K pace, 400m jog in bw/60 min tempo run (6:50 pace)/2:00 Easy
WEEK 5: 10x800m at 5K pace, 400m jog in bw/30 easy run/HM RACE

We will see how this plan works out...But you will notice I am not leaving tempo runs out of the training! Speed-endurance workouts are the only way to improve your speed-endurance! Be assured that doing speed and endurance workouts or even workouts with endurance and speed is not the same thing!

But in case I don't get "up to speed" on tempo pace, I have a back-up plan--a half marathon pacing strategy that involves no tempo speed:

1 mile @ 8:00 pace
3 mile @ 6:30 pace
1 mile @ 7:30 pace
3 mile @ 6:30 pace
2 mile @ 7:30 pace
3.1 mile @ 6:30 pace for 2 miles and 1.1 mile push to the end.


This gives an 89 minute finish time and best of all involves 0 minutes at 6:50 pace! Physiologically, it allows me to do what my body does best--a nice easy warm up and then it is kind of like running three slow 5Ks with rest in between and double rest before the last one to allow for the big push at the end. I also like the psychological aspects of this strategy. I feel like I can push a little at 10K pace for three miles at a time if I know I have a one mile rest coming in between. I might give this strategy a test run first and then report the results back here!

Minimalist Half Marathon training note: If you are limited in the number of runs you are doing each week (for whatever reason) add workouts in this order: Only one workout--do an endurance run. Two workouts--do an endurance run and a tempo run. Three workouts--endurance, tempo and speed. 

UPDATE: So I decided on an adaptation of the racing strategy above.

This update relates the results of me trying out what I call a "burst and recover" strategy versus a more standard and highly promoted even split or negative split strategy. It turns out there may be something to the burst and recover strategy for me. 

In my long run today, I started doing so math (I love math) and realized that the half marathon is roughly three 4.3 mile runs (it's a little more than that...) So, I reasoned that a 1:30:00 goal can be attained by running three 30 minute 4.3 "mini races" back to back. I decided on-the-fly to try out this new strategy--three efforts that start easy with a surge at the end to make sure to finish in 30 minutes.

So after my warm-up, I pushed and closed in on the 30 minute 4.3 mile distance. (I actually beat it by about 2 minutes). After that, I reasoned that I could kick back into a "recovery" pace for a few minutes so that I have something for the next two 4.3 mile efforts. So I eased back to about 8:30 pace.

The second 4.3 mile "mini race" went well too. In fact, I surged a couple of miles early and got the second 4.3 miles basically locked up (I only needed to keep like a 10 minute pace for a little over a mile). So, I handily finished the second 4.3 mile distance in under 30 minutes as well. The problem was that my surges were around a 6:20 pace.

So I had 8.6 miles under my belt and all looked to be going well, but just past mile 11, I bonked pretty hard! I had to drop WAY back--just faster than a 9:00 pace. I did a little quick math and realized that I also had an extra 0.2 miles to deal with that I had not accounted for (because 3 x 4.3 only equals 12.9). Additionally, I was having to keep track of the total time in my head because I had lost the first 2.7 miles and 26:28 due to a button-pressing error (my bad!). So I had to keep figuring in the rogue 26 minutes and change.

At first, I determined that I had to finish by the 79:00 mark (doing math while running a half marathon distance creates extra challenges--try it sometime if you doubt me!). So, I kept thinking that I had plenty of time and laid back at the 8:50 pace for a mile or two of the third "mini race". Then, it dawned on me that 1:30:00 minus the 26 would simply be an hour and 4 minutes, which is 64 minutes.

So I was giving myself an extra 15 minutes! Running at a recovery pace of 8:50 should have allowed me to burst ahead and try to make up the time, but I was exhausted. (I think our subconscious mind makes some running math errors work to our advantage--more rest!) I had a few very short surges in me, but I bonked at mile 11, so I determined to hang out around 6:50 pace for as long as I could. When I could see the light at the end of the tunnel of the 13.1, I broke out a 6:22 pace (about the last 0.5 miles)--not as much because I had more left in me as I wanted to be done running so badly!

At the end of it all, I could see my time was just over 70 minutes (without the extra 26 and change I needed to add in). I was too spent to think about what that meant after adding the 26 minutes and change. I was pretty sure I came in not too much under the 1:44:00 mark that I had already accomplished by using the standard negative split strategy.

SO, I WAS PRETTY SURE MY "BURST AND THEN RECOVER" IDEA HAD PROVEN TO BE LESS EFFECTIVE THAN THE HIGHLY TOUTED NEGATIVE OR EVEN SPLIT STRATEGY. BUT IT TURNED OUT TO BE NOT THAT CLEAR-CUT...

My time today with the burst and recover strategy, while short of the 1:30:00 goal, and even though I bonked at mile 11, was about 8 minutes faster than my usual results using a negative splits strategy. 

I can't overlook the fact that I bonked pretty hard at mile 11 though. Also, I have seen great improvements at shorter distances (5K to 10 miles) by using a negative splits strategy. So, here is a revised strategy that combines the best of both worlds:

1st 4.4 MILES IN 31.5 MINUTES (avg 7:10 pace)
2nd 4.4 MILES IN 30 MINUTES (avg 6:49 pace)
3rd 4.3 MILES IN 29 MINUTES (avg 6:44 pace)

Each section is treated like its own "mini race" with an easy pace at first, building up speed, and capping off as need with a burst of speed to hit the goal. This makes it so the burst of speed is followed by a recovery pace in the first part of the next "mini race". However, the first mini race is an easy effort, the second moderate, and the third harder in keeping with the negative splits idea.

Additionally, I plan to run the first "mini race" starting off at a 7:20 and only building up to around a 7:00 for the surge--no 6:20 in that first section! So each burst-and-recover mini section gets more intense than the previous one.

Hopefully this will prevent the "bonk" with a couple of miles to go!

The other thing I realized today is that it is hard to simply avoid your tempo pace. It is like a bike with a broken middle chainring and you only have the most efficient gear if it happens to be very high or very low. So with that, I continue to work on my tempo efforts. I have already noticed even after just a week that the low 7's feel more comfortable. Hopefully the high 6's will follow!


 VELOZOUT!