UD Fastpack 25

I managed to get all my kit in with about 5L to spare which was a good thing.   The main drawback though was the chest straps, despite being tight there was some rubbing underneath the soft flasks around my collar bone.   Despite me adjusting and readjusting the chest straps every mile the rubbing still occured.  This was a biggy for me as who knows what might happen after 100 miles.  The other concern was that despite having all of the straps as tight as possible there was some movement when jogging as the backpack swayed from side to side.  Not good economically.   The  other downside was that the side pockets (where I kept my extra foodstuffs) I could not get at without taking the backpack off.  Some more pockets at the front would have been ideal.  The +ives were that the soft flasks were at the right height and good storage as long as you pack the items right.  

Salomon Adv Skin 12 Set Goji Berry

Salomon Adv Skin 12 (12L).  

This will be a very short review as it's so good especially when compared to the UD 12L alternative I used for JOGLE 2019 ...  I used my 2L bladder - couldn't fit it in at first so ditched the thermal carrier which looks like a hot water bottle you might use to keep you warm at night.  I couldn't find anywhere decent to tie the hose pipe thingy (which you put in your mouth to get your drink from) to stop it flapping about so after faffing about whilst jogging where to stick it I started with it under the bungee cords but that became awkward when trying to get some fluid from the hose pipe thingy.  I then opted for one of the pockets - the one with the mini-bag (big enough to hold a few small Easter eggs) attached but the hose pipe thingy keep falling out.  Alternative number 3 was when I stuck it in the right-hand pocket (once again a bit awkward as I'm left-handed or a lefty as some might say but I'm actually semi-dexterous - too many products are right-handed designed - you won't know what I'm banging on about unless your a lefty) but the hose pipe thingy kept falling out.  In the end I stuck it in the right-hand pocket the one with the zip and that worked fine.   Normally when a backpack is designed for bladders/platypuses (no idea why there called a platypus as it doesn't look like one) they have a small hole to put the hose pipe thingy through but there wasn't one on the Salomon.  It could do with somewhere to tie it too.  The other concern was heat spots.  Yeah you heard me right - heat spots.  I normally only talk about heat spots when referring to trainers and/or feet.  However, on this occasion I was getting some heat spots on the left hand side of the chest but as the bungee cords worked well to keep the backpack nice and tight I shouldn't really complain.  It might be an issue on longer runs with chaffing.  The final fault was with the instructions.  There weren't any!  I was expecting some instructions as to what this fastener or that fastener is used for but I guess I can find that out online.  Now I've had my winge now for the +ives.  The pockets at the front are so expandable you could fit many double-deckers in there (the chocolate not the bus); it also came with 2 water bottles which I wasn't expecting (but declined to use them and stuck to the soft-flask but hard wearing UD one's) and you can also fit alot in the rear pocket.  This backpack is 12L but it seems to be able to carry so much more with the expandable pockets at the front.  The way it's looking at the moment (although I haven't got all of my foodstuffs yet) I might be able to use this for the FKT NDW self-supported attempt.  Today, I carried 3L of fluid, 3 x small bags of Macadamia nuts, 1 x small bag of Fruit & Nut mix, 2 x Mobile phones, 2 x packets of toilet wet wipes, Pebble charger (plus carry case and Garmin and phone connectors), keys, the Petzl head lamp (which went down from 3 to 1 bar) and my waterproof jacket.

UA Phantom Hovr RN review

 UA HOVR PHANTOM RN REVIEW

The UA Hovr Phantom RN allows you to connect your running shoes to MapMyRun which provides personalised coaching to better your results and reduce injury.  For example: stride length, pace and splits so you can chart your improvements and form.

So I downloaded the app and it didn't work the first time so I downloaded it again and had to sync the app a few times so it could recognise the trainers.  After starting the run I then had comments like "warm up pace for 3 minutes ... looking good and increase your stride length." After about a dozen of these runs I did get "bored" of hearing the "increase your stride length" every few minutes when I was pushing as hard as I could.  So I stopped using MapMyRun. They do however provide regular blogs on running tips.  

Anyway, back to the UA Hovr Phantom RN.  The Phantom comes in four colours: Red, White, Black and Black/White.

  The RN is built for the runner who wants to feel nothing as they’re pounding the pavement. I've got the black/white version.  The red is too bold and bright for me, the white will pick up stains if you just wanted them to look good for going out and I prefer a two-tone colour combination rather than one.  The black/white version has black for the upper and white for the midsole and outsole.   

You never know when buying a pair of running shoes whether they are true-to-fit - each person's feet are different.  I'm a UK size 7.5 and the running did not feel tight or loose - just right and the speed foam sockliner meant no sliding of the feet and the mesh upper meant breathability.  This led to no blisters.

There are four logos on the RN - a black HOVR on the white layer:

A grey HOVR and white Phantom RN on the tongue:

A black UA symbol on the upper: 

And a white UA on the outsole which is part of the HOVR cushion element. 

I'm not keen on having four logos, just one for me is enough - the black UA Hovr on the upper is the best one for me as it stands out:  

  

The upper section of the RN is built into three parts: the knit at the front:

to the tongue: 

And then to the ankle collar.  I like the use of the ankle collar: 

to put your feet in the shoe and once the laces are done up it does provide a tight fit.  The second part is a more durable element that also attaches to the laces, has airlets for breathability (which look like croc shoes):

and attaches to the knit:

The third part seems to have harder substance attached to around the ankle part of the RN which has the black UA logo.

Maybe this provides durability or is just aesthetic looking?  The knit has two layers for the laces which makes for a tighter fit and also adds more breathability:

There were no problems with the laces - they did not come undone when running.  The insole is non-removable and fits your feet really well:

It has a sock-like fit and a soft, comfortable SpeedForm™ 2.0 sockliner.  The soft foam in the upper and a molded 3D footbed provided shock attenuation and comfort to support the midsole of the shoe.  

The white middle section of the RN has two functions.  The EVA foam which is used to propel you forward and the heel with an odd-like mesh colouring (black/white) of what looks like pebbles:

This is the HOVR cushion element which provides a good return.  

The outsole of the RN has some dimples (shaped like snowflakes) and some white round circular inlets. 

The dimples protrude outwards so should provide a little bit more grip than the inlets.  The dimples run from the middle of the outsole and then a narrow strip to the top of the toe-box whereas the circular inlets are predominantly at the front of the toe-box and the back.  I found that there was adequate grip on asphalt and on trails in dry conditions. In wet conditions there were some slippery moments but these are not trail shoes. Running also on wet grass my feet were wetter than trail shoes in the past and did not keep out splashes.  The HOVR seems to have compromised breathability more than dryness (or is that a contradiction?). There is also a UA symbol which forms part of the HOVR cushion element:

and perhaps where the synching happens for MapMyRun.  I like the thickness of the outsole (when compared to zero-drop running shoes): 

as this adds more cushioning which for me doesn't seem to be compromised on weight and the HOVR cushion element does provide a good energy return.   This is enhanced by a full-length platform of the UA HOVR foam and when combined with the dynamic mesh energy web it creates a zero-gravity feel. The durable rubber runs the full length of the outsole, for comfort and abrasion resistance from the road.   

Overall the design/appearance I wouldn't say is stylish to look at as the rear of the RN has three protruding parts not in line with each other: the odd-like mesh colouring; the durable element and the ankle collar:

 

Responsiveness/Cushioning:

UA has developed HOVR foam technology, which promises a “zero gravity feel” through its energy-returning responsiveness.  The Phantom is designed for easier efforts and aimed at runners who value comfort above all. 

I tried the Phantom on many runs: 25 runs in total for 5 miles (130 miles) each on different surfaces - treadmill, asphalt and on trails and also on the flat, uphill and downhill.  

Supinator wear after 130 miles:

I was most surprised by how springy it felt when I decided to work on my sprints, especially because it felt cushioned during the subsequent slow section of the run.  I didn't feel as is if it was a "heavy" shoe to wear - on the contrary it did feel surprisingly light since it is not a zero-drop running shoe. 

The retail price is £120 (excluding sale prices and including the use of the app) which I think with or without the app is overpriced.  The RN performs just as well as the Brooks Ghost 12; the Ghost does not let in as much water which I prefer when compared to the RN but the RN is more breathable and the Ghost was at £100 not in a sale.  Maybe I'm being a bit harsh on the Hovr as you can get it for £80 in a sale which I would buy but not if I was asked to pay £120 even with the app. Having said this I'll give the Hovr 90 out of 100 - the Hovr lost 5 points for the app which didn't benefit me (but probably would have been more beneficial if I could spend the time reading the blogs and seeing where can I improve) and lost another 5 points because it didn't keep out enough of the water, especially on wet grass and it wasn't currently raining!   

NDW100 - DNF - 78 miles - 20:00:12

NDW 100

DNF with a time of 20:00:12 after 78 miles.

Lessons learnt from this race were:

1) Drink.  There was no checkpoint 1 due to Covid so the first available checkpoint was at the 15 mile mark.  Tested this during training and I needed 1.5L.  At the 10 mile mark I knew I would have run out by the time I got to the checkpoint so alternating with drink one mile and no drink the next until I got to the checkpoint.  From then on it was about 10 miles to each checkpoint so having 1.0L of litre would have been sufficient had it not been for the heat. 

2) Food.  I was wasn't eating enough.  I had energy gels, snack bars and sweets which worked in training.  However, doing a maximum of 30 miles to testing was different to the NDW100.  I should have eaten 60-90g carbs per hour but instead I was eating half that amount.  Moving forward will also need to add more variety to my food.  Would also need to add some sandwiches to the mix to soak up the gels.

3) Lacked judgement to change the strategy.  I decided to go for a sub 21 hour finish.  The heat conditions totally passed me by and stuck to the 21 hour pace.  This then went pear shaped come the 40 mile mark when I was starting to feel sick.  I then decided to change strategy and stick to a sub 24 hour finish. In hindsight I should have stuck to the sub 24 hour finish from the start given the conditions. 

4) Kit.  Tested my kit during training but could have been better.  I knew it was going to be hot but I still went with my traditional black leggings.
I should have switched to some short leggings.  The long leggings also gave me some chaffing because I was carrying some gels in the pockets but this wasn't an issue during training.  My legionnaires hat stopped me from having a suntan but it heated up my head.  During the checkpoints I soaked my hat and took it off when  my head started to warm up again.  My Raidlight Revolutiv 24L didn't really cut the mustard.  It tears easily, taking items out of the bag is annoying with the bungee cords and just won't last.  I'll try a different rucksack for my next 100 miler

5).  Unhelpful comments by the Centurion volunteers.  Probably best if I keep my opinions to myself on this one like what the Centurion volunteers should have done.  I've done four NDW100's in a row.  After spending an hour in a bush at the side of a lane puking my guts up I knew a sub 24 hour finish was out of the question.  That was goal - not doing a 20 mile death march just to please someone else's objectives.  

Despite these lessons this was actually my best NDW100 in five attempts.  I was on target for a sub 21 hour finish until I had stomach issues.  Sort that out and a sub 24 hour finish for the NDW100 is in sight. 

 

Centurion One Up Challenge - 20/07/20 - 11'145 ft - 17 hrs 59 mins - 108 miles

To see how many feet I could climb in one week ... British Three Peaks achieved.

Inov-8 X-Talon Review

INOV-8 X-TALON 230 REVIEW 

SPECIFICATIONS:

Make: Inov-8

Model: X-Talon 230

Fit: Standard Fit

Pronation: Neutral 

Size: 8.5 (UK); 9.5 (US); 42.5 (EURO)

Colours: Black/Red; Grey/Blue 

Weight: 230 grams 

DESIGN AND APPEARANCE

The Inov-8 have put these trail shoes as a fit scale of 1.  Inov-8 has a scale of 1 to 5. 1 is a narrow fit and 5 is a wide toe fit.  This means that since a scale fit is 1 there is minimal internal movement which is what you'd require running on trails.  However, the downside is that since your feet spread when running longer distances there is little room for your feet to spread.  In essence there was no wide toe box and I suffered from rubbing on my little toe on my right foot. I would recommend not running more than a half marathon distance in these shoes, unless you opt for a one size larger.  

HEEL-TO-TOE-DROP

The heel to toe drop is 6mm.  The 6mm drop is calculated as the heel height outsole of 13mm minus the forefoot of 7mm.  

As I have a supinator gait (one where the outside of the heel strikes the ground first) I'm trying not to have a heel strike where the wear pattern is neutral.  This would make the trainers last longer. This would increase running efficiency and speed and make you less prone to injuries particularly in the knees and hips.  I experienced a wear pattern on the outer side of the sole, but this was more to the fact that I have a supinator gait. 

Inov-8 claims that because the midsole has a 6mm drop there is a 10 percent better shock absorption.  I don't know whether I could agree with 10 percent but there is certainly some absorption when jogging.  

The downside is that the absorption is at the heel and not at the forefoot.  If your gait is a midfoot or forefoot you can increase your cadence as you can push off once striking the ground.  For me, I'm trying to have a forefoot or midfoot strike pattern to increase my cadence. There's probably some scientific reason why not but I'd like to see more cushioning at the forefoot. 

Inov-8 also claims that because of the 6mm drop there is a 15 percent better energy return.  This is also due to the lightweight and flexible rockplate design. This supposedly gives underfoot protection.  I'm not convinced as jogging long distances certainly felt the impact on my forefoot, particularly the metatarsals.  Especially when striking numerous stones.  

GRIP

The Roclite 275 has hexagonal lugs with a lug depth of 8mm , one mm more than the Roclite 275.  

I didn't notice better grip when comparing the X-Talon 230 to the grip on the Roclite 275. The former has the sticky grip compared to the Meta-Flex Graphene grip on the Roclite 275.    

The lugs are smaller in diameter when compared to the Roclite 275. On the Roclite 275 they are 20mm x 15mm at their longest longest length.  In comparison, the lug diameter on the X-Talon are 12mm x 10mm. More grip surface area means more grip on wet, muddy trails.  

HARD-WEARING UPPER 

They are certainly not waterproof (although they don't claim to be).  I did experience wet feet dashing through puddles and the like at the forefoot but certainly not at the heel.

The design does not have a wide toe box so I did experience rubbing on my right small toe.  The size was one size larger than I would normally accommodate so I would have thought my feet had even more room to spread.  

PROS:

• Lightweight
• Comfort
• Value for money
• Cushioning and responsiveness

CONS:

• Loud noise when running after high mileage

Overall rating:

• 80 out of 100   

https://runrepeat.com/inov-8-x-talon-230

Inov-8 Roclite 275 Review

Inov-8 Roclite 275: From the North Downs Way 100 (NDW100) to the Ultra-Trail Mont Blanc (UTMB) …

Front view 

I bought three of these pairs for the NDW100, the UTMB and for general jogging all this year.  The market price from Inov-8 was initially £130 per pair but with a 30% discount this was reduced to £91 per pair.  Nowadays, you can get them a little bit cheaper in a sale. Nevertheless £91 is what you would expect to pay for a good quality trail running shoe.  

Grip 

After completing JOGLE in April 2019 with the Altra Torin 3.5 Mesh Running Shoe (See the review here - Shannice can you add in a link to the review once it's being approved …) I was glad to be back jogging on trails rather than on asphalt.   

Top view 

Here is my review:

SPECIFICATIONS:

Make: Inov-8

Model: Roclite 275

Fit: Standard Fit

Pronation: Neutral 

Size: 9 (UK); 10 (US); 43 (EURO)

Colours: Black/Blue; Black/Yellow; Red/Black

Weight: 275 grams 

Rear view 

HEEL-TO-DROP

The heel to toe drop is 16mm as per the Brooks calculation but using Inov-8 different calculation is 8mm.  The 16mm drop is calculated as the midsole being 20mm plus the heel height outsole of 28mm which equals 48mm.  The midsole is 20mm plus the forefront height outsole of 12mm which equals 32mm. The heel height of 48mm minus the forefront height of 32mm equals a heel-to toe-drop of 16mm.  A larger heal drop would mean this encourages a heel strike.

Inov-8 Roclite 8mm drop 

As I have a supinator gait (one where the outside of the heel strikes the ground first) I'm trying not to have a heel strike where the wear pattern is neutral.  This would make the trainers last longer. This would increase running efficiency and speed and make you less prone to injuries particularly in the knees and hips.  I experienced a wear pattern on the outer side of the sole, but this was more to the fact that I have a supinator gait. 

Supinator gait left the studs worn out on the right trail shoe on the outside

Inov-8 claim that because the midsole has a 8mm drop there is a 10 percent better shock absorption.  I don't know whether I could agree with 10 percent but there is certainly some absorption when jogging.  

Inov-8 Roclite 275 shock absorption with Graphene symbol

The downside is that the absorption is at the heel and not at the forefoot.  If your gait is a midfoot or forefoot you can increase your cadence as you can push off once striking the ground.  For me, I'm trying to have a forefoot or midfoot strike pattern to increase my cadence. There's probably some scientific reason why not but I'd like to see more cushioning at the forefoot. 

Inov-8 also claim that because of the 8mm drop there is a 15 percent better energy return.  This is also due to the lightweight and flexible rockplate design. This supposedly gives underfoot protection.  I'm not convinced as jogging long distances, like the NDW100, I certainly felt the impact on my forefoot, particularly the metatarsals.  Especially when striking numerous stones.  

The rockplate design in the middle of the Roclite 275

GRIP

Although I could compare the grip to different makes and models I'm just going to keep this in-house by comparing the grip on the Inov-8 Roclite 275 to the grip of the Inov-8 Terraclaw 250.  

Here is the link to the Terraclaw 250 review:

https://runrepeat.com/inov-8-terraclaw-250#expert-calvin-hemmings

The Roclite 275 has hexagonal studs compared to the triangular stud shapes of the Terraclaw 250.  

The hexagonal Roclite 275 studs with the dimples still in tact

For a number of reasons the grip on the Roclite 275 is better than the Terraclaw 250.  The former has the Meta-Flex Graphene grip compared to the Dynamic Fascia Band found in the Terraclaw 250.  

Secondly, the studs on the Roclite have a height of 7mm whilst on the Terraclaw 250 it is only 5mm.  Two millimetres does not sound much, but it does mean the grip will last longer before being worn down.  

Thirdly, the studs are bigger in diameter.  On the Roclite 275 they are 20mm x 15mm at their longest longest length.  In comparison, the stud diameter on the Terraclaw 250 are 13mm x 10mm. More grip surface area means more grip on wet, muddy trails.  

Lastly, the Roclite 275 studs (unlike the Terraclaw 250) have little dimples.  However, after a long run (12 miles) this has been worn down. I would have preferred if these dimples could have been implemented throughout the whole of the height of the stud and not just on its surface. 

Imagine the scene.  Your walking up hill with no trail just wet and muddy grass which has turned to slush.  Your not relying on trekking poles for extra grip but just your Roclite 275. They got me up the hill without trekking poles and without losing my footing.  Just like what happened on numerous occasions at UTMB.  

HARD-WEARING UPPER 

They are certainly not waterproof (although they don't claim to be).  I did experience wet feet dashing through puddles and the like at the forefoot but certainly not at the heel.  Imagine the scene - you've trodden through a deep puddle. Your front feet are soaked. Once you've recovered onto a dry patch you certainly can feel the water disperse out of the trail shoe making your feet drier. 

No wide toe box but hard wearing upper

The design does not have a wide toe box so I did experience rubbing on my right small toe.  The size was one size larger than I would normally accommodate so I would have thought my feet had even more room to spread.  

Rubbing on the right foot small toe 

PROS:

• Lightweight
• Comfort
• Value for money
• Cushioning and responsiveness

CONS:

• Loud noise when running after high mileage

Overall rating:

• 80 out of 100  

RunRepeat
https://runrepeat.com/inov-8-roclite-275

Altra Torin 3.5 Mesh Running Shoe Review

Altra Torin 3.5 Mesh Running Shoe: From John O'Groats to Lands End …

Having completed John O'Groats to Land's End (JOGLE) in 21 days in 2018 one of the reasons why I struggled was because I was wearing a Inov-8 Terraclaw 250 - a trail shoe.  (See the review here - Shannice can you add in a link to the review once it's being approved …)  

Personally, I prefer trail shoes rather than wearing a running shoe just because of the zero drop.  However, in 2019 I attempted JOGLE again with this time opting for a running shoe with a zero drop and Altra are on the best running shoes.  I was recommended the Altra Torin 3.5 Mesh Running Shoe by a fellow Ultra runner.  

Here is my review:

SPECIFICATIONS:

Make: Altra

Model: Torin 3.5 Mesh 

Fit: Standard Fit

Pronation: Neutral 

Size: 7.5 (UK); 8.5 (US); 42 (EURO)

Colours: Blue; White 

Weight: 220 grams 

The Altra Torin provides three key areas:

The Foot Shape, Zero-Drop and Comfort/Durability …

THE FOOT SHAPE:

When you run your feet expand rather than staying in the same position when you walk.   Traditional running shoes feature pointy toe boxes that squeeze the toes out of their natural position.  Altra's Footshape toe box allows the toes to relax and spread out naturally and the big toe to remain in a straight position.  This reduces over-pronation, enhances stability and creates a powerful toe-off to maximize running performance.  

Unfortunately for me, my gait is a supinator so I need a wider forefront outsole to prevent me from rolling my ankles too much.  As you would expect my worn out Altra Torin 3.5 Mesh Running Shoes shows a wear pattern on the outer side of the sole. Having said this I did not experience the rolling of my ankles.  

Pictures below of the wear pattern: 

PICTURE OF WEAR PATTERN 

ZERO-DROP:

Most running shoes feature elevated heels that promote poor form by encouraging high-impact overstriding.  We were born without an elevated heel so why have this in a running shoe?  

The Altra Torin 3.5 Mesh Running Shoe allows you to maintain a natural foot position throughout your run.  In essence, the Zero-Drop platform places the heel and forefront the same distance from the ground. This naturally aligns the feet, back and body and encourages a low-impact landing.  

Well, that's the theory anyway.  In reality I felt the impact on my feet.  I would of liked more cushioning. I also experienced a loud noise when running on the road.  

COMFORT AND DURABILITY:

As mentioned previously, the comfort was less than expected from Torin because I did experience loud noises when running on the road.  This made my toes painful where the proximal phalanges meets the metatarsal bones.  

The durability was consistent with a running shoe - JOGLE was 882 miles so using three pairs each pair lasted roughly 294 miles.  

However, I was alternating each pair after the end of each day to prevent heat spots.  I did not come across any hotspots which can lead to blisters just because I brought three pairs and alternated the pairs of running shoes on different days.

The actual mileage was: 

Pair 1 = 311 miles

Pair 2 = 304 miles 

Pair 3 = 267 miles 

I also experienced a wear pattern on the outer side of the sole, but this was more to the fact that I have a supinator gait. 

When I bought three pairs (January 2019) they were £130 each so they were expensive.  Nowadays, you can nearly get them for half that price in a sale.   

PROS:

• Leightweight
• Comfort
• 'Feel the road'

CONS:

• Cushioning and responsiveness
• Value for money 
• Loud noise when running
• Zero-Drop 
• Limited colour choices

Overall rating:

70 out of 100 

Thanks to the Altra Torin 3.5 Mesh Running Shoe I completed JOGLE in 17 days. 

RunRepeat
https://runrepeat.com/altra-torin-35-mesh

Inov-8 Terraclaw 250 review

https://runrepeat.com/inov-8-terraclaw-250#expert-calvin-hemmings

UTMB - 30/08/19 - DNF - 161.2km - 44:38:32

Update to follow ...

Centurion North Downs Way 100 - 03/08/2019 - 29:31:59

Update to follow ...

JOGLE - John O' Groats to Land's End - 17 days - 22/03/19 - 07/04/19

Update in progress ...

After a epic 24 hour coach journey I arrive in John O'Groats and the following day I start a epic adventure going from John O'Groats to Land's End in 17 days.  The plan is to jog at 5 mph for 4 miles and then walk at 4 mph for mile 5 and then keep on repeating ...

JOGLE 2018:
Day 1 - John O'Groates to Dunbeath - 37miles - 08:29:30 - started at 09:00 - taking it "easy" on this stage - very windy - total bister count: 1
Day 2 - Dunbeath to Tain - 49 miles - 11:05:00 - started at 06:00 - taking it "easy" on this stage - nice and sunny conditions - total bister count: 2 
Day 3 - Tain to Dunmnadrocht - 47 miles - 11:21:52 - started at 06:00 - struggling now to keep over 4 mph - first real test of rain and wind - total blister count: 3
Day 4 - Dunmnadrocht to Fort William - 52 miles - 13:45:42 - started at 06:00 - took a detour in the Scottish Highlands to do some "trail" jogging instead of using a canal path - total blister count: 4
Day 5 - Fort William to Crianlarich - 52 miles - 12:40:54 - stsrted at 06:00 - just about keeping to 4 mph - windy and rainy - total blister count: 5
Day 6 - Crianlarich to Glasgow - 54 miles - 13:39:41 - started at 06:00 - stopped off before the finish for a "takeway" - nice and sunny conditions - total blister count: 6
Day 7 - Glasgow to Moffat - 64 miles - 15:41:41 - started at 06:00 - "pep" talk from Steve advised that if me and Chris did not make over 4 mph today we would be DQ'd - nice and sunny conditions - total blister couunt: 6 - managing the bisters now 
Day 8 - Moffat to Carlisle - 43 miles - 10:54:52 - started at 06:00 - stopped off before the finish for a "takeaway" - cramping up from yesterday's excusion - nice and sunny conditions - total blister count: 6 - swollen left and right ankles 
Day 9 - Carlisle to Burton - 58 miles - 15:27:37 - started at 06:00 - struggling with cramp and stomach issues - nice and sunny conditions - total blister count: 6 - swollen left and right ankles and swollen left and right knees
Day 10 - Burton to Haydock - 58 miles - 15:28:23 - started at 06:00 - same as yesterday - struggling with cramp and stomach issues - nice and sunny conditions - total blister count: 6 - swollen left and right ankles and swollen left and right knees - stopped takiing "tailwind" and now have to find an alternative source of kcal
Day 11 - Haydock to Shrewsbury - 59 miles - 15:25:23 - started at 05:00 - clocks went back 1 hour - struggling with cramp and stomach issues - nice and sunny conditions - total blister count: 6 - swollen left and right ankles and swollen left and right knees - left hip started to hurt - stopped taking "tailwind" and now have to find an alternative source of kcal
Day 12 - Shrewsbury to Hereford - 60 miles - 16:29:22 - started at 06:00 - the "toughest" day so far in terms of cramps and the weather - "hailing" at 2 seperate occassions - thanks for a couple of runners to support me - total blister count: 6 - swollen left and right ankles and swollen left and right knees - left hip started to hurt - stopped taking "tailwind" and now have to find an alternative source of kcal
Day 13 - Hereford to Bristol - 50 miles - 12:43:05 - started at 06:15 - struggling to get prepared in the morning - thanks for some more runners in Bristol - nice to finish in Bristol in daylight unlike last year - total blister count: 6 - swollen left and right ankles and swollen left and right knees - left hip started to hurt - stopped taking "tailwind" and now have to find an alternative source of kcal
Day 14 - Bristol to Wellington - 51 miles - 13:44:47 - started at 06:15 - struggling to get prepared in the morning - seriously struggling now with the 4 mph time limit - thanks for some more runners along the route - total blister count: 6 - swollen left and right ankles and swollen left and right knees - left hip started to hurt - stopped taking "tailwind" and now have to find an alternative source of kcal
Day 15 - Wellington to Okehampton - 48 miles - 14:37:00 - strarted at 06:10 - struggling to get prepared in the morning - "Garmin" failure" - did not fully charge overnight so had to charge along the route so the times are not accurate - last year this route took me 23 hours so glad to get past this milestone - thanks for some runners along the route -last year's "best" overnight stay was Moffat this year it's Okehampton Travelodge as last year they let me stay despite arriving in the early hours of the morning and this year they also left us a BIG WELL DONE message - total blister count: 6 - swollen left and right ankles and swollen left and right knees - left hip started to hurt - stopped taking "tailwind" and now have to find an alternative source of kcal
Day 16 - Okehampton to St. Austell - 50 miles - 16:00:02 - started at 06:45 - struggling to get prepared in the morning - last year had to do this run 100% unspported - this year self-supported - really struggling again to make the 4 mph cut-off but so close to Lands End - too tired to keep moving and with the on-coming traffic decide to take a few "powernaps" during the day - finished in the early hours of the morning - nice and sunny conditions during the day - total blister count: 6 - swollen left and right ankles and swollen left and right knees - left hip started to hurt - stopped taking "tailwind" and now have to find an alternative source of kcal
Day 17 - St. Austell to Lands End - 50 miles - 17:54:00 - started at 05:10 - not enough overnight "kip" - "Garmin" failure" - did not fully charge overnight so had to charge along the route so the times are not accurate - last year had to do this run 100% unspported - this year self-supported - I got up late due to late finish, preparing the "kit" for the next day and lack of sleep and now I may even struggle to get to Lands End before the end of the Day 17 - too tired to keep moving and with the on-coming traffic decide to take a few "powernaps" during the day - I'm currently going at 2-3 mph so at this pace looks like it might be Day 18 when I'll finish - I somehow manage to drag myself to Penzance and with about 30 miles to go now I'm confident I can finish JOGLE on Day 17. I take a final break - eating a couple of sandwiches, half a cornish pasty, some liquorice sweets and a salt tablet. I now head off to Lands End in good spirits knowing the end is in sight finishing at around 23:00 on Day 17.