Skin. The un-written problem

In the years that I've been racing and competing in fellrunning and endurance events, there is a common thing that has either stopped me from considering some challenges, or really destroyed me after others. That common factor is not fatigue, it isn't injury and it isn't the inability to push through when it matters most. That thing is my skin. 

Irrelevent picture!

For as long as I can remember, ecsema has been an ever present part of my life- to a greater or lesser extent. Sometimes flare-ups happen, sometimes they don't. But what I can predict with utter clarity is that if I'm out in wet conditions for a period of time- my skin is going to suffer for some time afterward. Not only that, but if I run hard for a day and try to go to bed without a shower- covered in sweat and grime- I'll itch for the entire night, not get any sleep- and although I might be able to "race" the next day, the following 3 weeks will be utter misery from a skin point of view. 

This isn't just hands, or just legs or whatever, this is full blown, entire body itch to the point of - and beyond- bleeding. It isn't pretty. And this is the exact reason why I'll always opt for a LONG event where you just don't stop- like the Spine, over a 2 day event where you "sleep" in the middle. If there isn't a provision for showers and dry clothes the next day- uh-uh- that race isn't going to happen for me. 

It's kind of annoying with long distance walks and cycles as well. If I'm doing a multiday cycle or fastpack, not having somewhere to stop at the end of the day and get clean is a real bind- and I haven't really found a way around it. If you look back to my attempt to bikepack to Kielder, it was at the end of the first day when I'd gone pretty hard over the hills, and camped in a random field- coated in sweat, that sleep simply didn't happen. This subsequently meant I was knackered on day 2, and kyboshed me (along with ridiculous temperatures) for a full attempt. 

So. It screws you up. What can you do about it? 

For years I have been trying various lotions and potions... trying to ignore it- and for years it has really screwed me up. Part of the awfulness of recovering from long and wet days in the hill hasn't necessarily been the physical tiredness, but the feeling of trying to rip my skin off, and the consequent inability to sleep and rest. 

I have gone through the usual arguements with a lot of people (and dermatologists)- I'm not allergic or intolerent to foods- my diet can stay the same for a lengthy period and my skin will go through phases of good to horrendous. 

The shower gel I use, I have used for literally decades- for the very reason that it seems to be ok and doesn't destroy my skin on a regular basis- so it isn't that. 

Equally, I've probably been through more than my fair share of versions of treatment. For anyone that tells someone with ecsema to "swim in the sea"- basically- shut up. You know how the phrase "to rub salt in a wound" means to make something more painful... having ecsema is like having an entire body of wound. Sticking that in salty water is like bathing in stinging nettles. Don't suggest it. 

Also- moisturiser... the eternal "this is what you need to do" thing. All well and good until you sweat, and then you have sweat trying to get out of blocked pores, and building up in an incredibly itchy layer inbetween your skin and the cream/oil based moisturiser- and no. It is not pleasent at all. 

Steroid creams are de rigeur and are a necessary part of skin recovery. They aren't great- yet, they do work. Last year I saw a dermatologist who finally listened to me and realised it isn't my diet, my soap, my fitness regime, or anything like that- it appears I'm kind of allergic to my own sweat. Well, not exactly- it's water, or dampness on my skin for long periods of time. That starts the itching, which causes an itch/scratch response, which self perpetuates until I can get it dry and get some steroid cream on. 

There was a suggestion that there might be a medication that might help. Not to the point of a miracle cure (though at one point in a flare up, they did put me on Prednisalone for 2 weeks, which was LITERALLY a wonder drug in terms of clearing up my skin, but is really really NOT something you want to be on long term). The drug was methatrexate- a Disease Modifying Anti-Rheumatic Drug (DMARD) and is generally used to treat Rheumatoid Arthritis and other things of that ilk. It can be a pretty potent drug and I was given the warning that it is metabolised by the liver, so it would probably be a very good idea not to drink alcohol due to the fact THAT is also metabolised by the liver- and you probably don't want to make it work too hard due to the fact you only get one....

It wasn't much of a decision to be honest... the prospect of having better skin and not being able to drink alcohol, or continue on as normal. I stopped drinking- not much of a hardship to be fair- and that was August/September last year. 

So how are things going? 

Worst nights "sleep" ever

Well, I would be lying if I said that everything was hunkydory and I have no issues with ecsema now. Depending on the season, how stressed I am and what I've been up to, it does come and go. I haven't really had the opportunity to get out and do multiday expeditions this year because of one thing or another, but am hoping to do so pretty soon next year. With any luck, the combination of methatrexate and judicous amounts of steroid cream, I should be able to get through a few days without tearing myself apart. 

I'm a year in now- has it been worth it?

Yes, I think it has. Ok- I get a monthly blood test to make sure my liver function is fine (I then put everything into an ever expanding spreadsheet- so I'm treating it as a variable that I can track through my training as well). My skin is generally better- though it has to be said, I have had a couple of major flare ups- one in August and one in November- and while this can be attributed to stress and weather etc. it is a good reminder that the issue isn't completely cured, and still needs to be monitored and have adjustments made for it. 

One other thing that was a game changer was a podcast about ecsema, which I have since directed numerous other sufferers toward. If you have ecsema- whether you are a sports person or not- the PCKP podcast No.67 should be on your mandatory listen list.  Find it HERE

Dr Rachel Hilton is one of those dermatologists you wish all dermatologists were like. She appears to actually know what she is talking about- and there are some real knowledge gems in here. (Yes, it is aimed at medical professionals, but give it a listen- even if you aren't, you'll take something away from it). 

 

So am I cured? No. 

Will I be doing any Mountain Marathons? No. 

But hopefully I should be more comfortable doing consecutive day travel, running or cycling with less repercussions.  We shall see.

 

Waterproof Trousers. Pointless?

I was talking with a friend about the "how to buy waterproofs" blog that got published recently, and the conversation turned to waterproof trousers- which I didn't really address. 

Me. As standard. Very little use for waterproof trousers.

Waterproof trousers are an interesting one. For YEARS I hated the concept, hated the item of clothing and simply wouldn't wear them unless in the *direst* of circumstances. There were many reasons for this, and the primary reason was because I had cheap, shit waterproof trousers. 

You know the type. They're *kind of* expensive- but really, the zips on the legs (if there are any) only come up to mid calf height, the fabric itself is barely breathable, they're a nightmare to get on over boots or shoes, and you end up just as wet from sweat inside as you would have been from rain anyway. These are some of the many reasons why I just run in shorts all year. Skin dries quickly, it doesn't get too hot because of excess layers etc etc. 

So for a long, long time waterproof trousers were something that was on a kitlist and stayed at the bottom of my bag, only to be disturbed for a kit check. 

What made me change my mind?

Where they really come into their own. Berghaus Paclite (reviewed below)

First things first. When you consider the construction of a waterproof jacket, the main part of it is the body, with the arms being tacked onto the outside. Ok- it's not quite like that, but the main "body" of the garment is indeed, the body. With trousers, the main part of the garment is generally the leg- the appendage- the bit that is doing ALL of the movement. Making something that fits that is going to be a bit of a challenge. Especially as we all have different lengths of leg etc. 

The second point is this: Waterproofs work really well if you have the right kind of layering system underneath it. Close fitting wicking fabric means that sweat wicks away from the body into the environment in the garment- which hopefully- will then "breathe" that moisture out. Put the wrong layers on underneath and the whole thing goes pearshaped and you end up wetter from sweat than you do from water ingress. 

So it is the shape, the material AND what you wear underneath that makes or breaks the trousers and their ability to perform well. 

What makes a bad pair of waterproof trousers?

Summer "decathlon" pair

Here we have a pair that are my "summer racing" trousers. They cost the princely sum of £10 from outdoors magic, have taped seams (which is essential for them to be deemed "waterproof") and are made from polythene. There is nothing breathable about these. The crotch is a horrendous mis-mash of seam tape and fabric, the leg zips come up to about half way up my calf, and you can't get them on without taking off your shoes- (let alone boots). These are a pair of trousers that stay in a bag. I have never worn them. I never intend to wear them. They are for summer races where there is literally no chance of rain, but kit check demands you *have* to have a pair of waterproof trousers. This is their only function. 

Waterproof trousers with pockets? That's surely a bad idea.

Not a lot of zip to get your feet through the legs. And VERY crinkly material.

Regatta? trousers

Next up is a pair of *slightly* better trousers. The main difference is that they are green(!), are made of a slightly nicer fabric than polyethelene, they're taped and the zips on the legs are still pretty much the same- but probably come up to knee height. Neither of these trousers have waterproof zips, so they rely on a fabic gusset behind the zip to keep that bit "waterproof"- all very nice, but it absolutely limits the ability to get your foot through the leg.... thus you either have to take your shoe off and use someone else to hold onto while you put your leg in the hole, or you sit on the sopping wet ground to put on your trousers, rendering the waterproof abilities of said garment fairly pointless. 

 

Challenging access if you have shoes or boots on.

I think I took these on a DofE expedition and was fairly miserable with just how wet I got wearing these. Partially to do with the crapness of the trousers, and partially to do with what I was wearing underneath. I can't imagine that my normal leg wear was particularly wicking or breathable, and 2 layers of trousers - in ANY situation isn't really all that comfortable. So yes, these do a job, but to be honest, they might as well be the really really cheap ones as they just sit in a bag and will literally *never* get used again. 

I can't believe I spent 3 days wearing these.

What makes a GOOD pair of waterproof trousers?

Mountain Equipment- I can't remember what model they are...

Now we have the pair of waterproof trousers that made me realise what waterproof trousers are *meant* to be like. I can't remember why I bought these- but I suspect they were in a sale and I knew I needed something for a Mountain Leader assessment that was better than the stuff I've already written about. These are *hardcore* waterproof trousers. Bib/braces, goretex, internal gaitors- heavy duty things that must have been bought more than a decade ago (I have a suspicion they might be an old version of the ME Kongur- but don't really know). They have zips ALL the way up the leg (bottom to top and top to bottom), zip pockets in the bibs, a zip in the middle- easy to get into and out of whilst wearing boots (though because of the bib/braces you have to take a jacket off to get them on). They are heavy- expedition weight. If these are being worn, they're being worn from the start- I don't like carrying them to put on later. 

The zips go all the way to the top. And then some.

Pockets on the front. Zips all the way down. Internal gaitors. These are the bomb.

Why were these such a revalation? 

I realised that with these, they are pretty much THE layer that should be worn as a trouser. Why wear 2 trousers over each other- that seems silly. A pair of tights underneath to keep your legs warm- that wick sweat away from you- and then these over the top. It's like wearing a thermal top with a waterproof jacket over the top- it's an efficient way of staying warm and dry. They're easy to vent if you need to- and if you want to take off/ put on at any point- as mentioned, the zips enable you to do that with relative ease. Yes, they are expedition weight- but if you're going walking in the rain- they are amazing.

The inside of the back part of the braces are fleece lined as well. Toasty.

 

However- if you're running, or even walking and want something to carry in case of rain, you don't necessarily want something that weighs more than a kilo, just in case... what do you do then? Enter the next revalation in my waterproof trouser odyssey: 

Decent running trousers- eVent or Paclite. 

The first ones I owned were eVent- Astro Ascent trousers from Montane, and were followed by the Berghaus Paclite ones- which are actually Lynnes. The Astro Ascents have zips that go 3/4 of the way up your leg, don't have bib/braces, and, importantly- *feel* like a normal pair of trousers once you have them on.

Montane Astro's. They literally don't make them any more. Shame.

(I suspect it might be a different story if - as ever-  you have another pair of trousers underneath them)- but with tights on- they're brilliant. Because of the robust nature of the zip, they don't fold down particularly small (they fit into a 1 litre drybag)- so they're ok for walking and the like, but are a bit bulky for lightweight running. However, because of those decent zips- I've never had an issue doing them up in the rain. 

Montane eVent trousers- big zips!

The Berghaus paclites have a lighterweight zip, so yes, they pack down smaller, but the zip *does* get caught a lot on the fabric and can be a right pain to zip up in extremis. Or even just normally. However, these are my go-to waterproof trousers if I'm heading into the hills on a run and the weather looks a bit dodgy and I might be using them to actually be water/windproof. Again- excellent with tights on. Not so great with trousers.

Berghaus Paclite trousers. The main difference to the eVent is the skin facing fabric

Difference between the Montane (left) and Berghaus (right) zip sizes

 

Mountain Equipment Karakorum

The last pair in my collection are my MRT issue ones- which are braced Drilite trousers. Robust- and will do the job. They pack down smaller than the insane expedition ones, but will stay up when you're using a rucksac due to the braces. Leg zips go all the way up and down- which is essential for this kind of thing. Again. Bombproof- though not as mountaineering focussed as the Kongur which ME market as the Mountain Rescue specific waterproof pant. I'd like to have a pair, but these are more likely to get trashed than any other pair, and it's much better to replace a £200 pair than a £500 pair.

We use the ME Karakorums, not the hyper expensive Kongur MRT waterproof pant.

So the main takeaways from this- I guess: if you're going to wear waterproof trousers, a pair of tights is much better to wear underneath for comfort than a pair of trousers. At this juncture I must apologise to those in MRT who have to suffer me prancing around in a pair of thermal tights for half the year. (the other half of the year its shorts). But I'm over 40 now and I don't care any more. They're perfect for hacking around on the hill and if it rains- waterproof trousers go right on over the top and I'm still comfortable and able to do what needs doing. 

If you're going to buy a pair of trousers and intend on using them- go with as long a side zip as you can for easy access/taking off. 

If you're going to buy a pair for "race kit check" be *damn* sure you aren't ever going to use them if you're going for the crappest lightest thing out there. If you *are* going to use them- ie. in a race that is long, arduous and the weather might change at any point- spend more. Get a decent pair. They might be the bit of kit that is the difference between finishing and quitting. 

Waterproofs.... how do you choose?!

 This is a question for the ages.... how on earth do you choose which waterproof to buy? There are so many out there on the market these days. They range from something you could barely tell the difference between and a polythene sheet (technically waterproof... but... um), and all singing, all dancing jackets that cost upwards of £600. Yes, the range is quite insane, but what should make you part from your hard earned cash? 

Harking back to when I actually worked in the outdoor retail industry- which I fully appreciate is more than a decade ago- there was a single brand that reigned supreme in everyones head. Whether that was because of the price point, or because they were actually better- was Arc'teryx. They boasted better fabric, better cut, smaller seams (and therefore better breathability), better hoods, better zips... and a price point to match. The Alpha SV was £400. A clear £70 more than anything else around at that time. 

One of their favourite things to do was get out a USB microscope to show you just how good the facefabric was- all geometrical grid patterns and no stray threads anywhere. In comparison, other jackets might have had a few stray threads- which would "disrupt the beading process, and make the jacket wet out faster". 

What are you going to use the jacket for?

Anyhow- what makes one jacket better than another? 

Goretex- or the membrane that makes things waterproof and breathable. There are now so many different types of goretex I've kind of lost count. You also have eVent which is made by another company, and does much the same thing. Each big clothing company has their own proprietry version of this membrane. Some work better than others due to various variabilities. 

None of them will work if they are dirty and covered in crap. Note- this is the membrane. You can't normally see it as it is sandwiched between layers of other fabric. In the case of the soon to be retired Shakedry- the membrane was on the outside... brilliant for breathability- but somewhat fragile. 

The fabric on the outside of the jacket is the facefabric. It comes in many many different versions. Some are tougher than others- better for dragging up rockfaces in the Scottish winter. Others are lighter-weight but less robust- etc. etc, you get the idea. Again, these fabrics are fairly essential to the waterproofing and breathability of the jacket. If they get dirty, the crap clogs the pores, and enables water to bead less well on the jacket, wetting it out sooner - meaning it becomes less breathable, and you get wet inside the jacket.

All well and good- but I still haven't said which jackets are better etc.

So here is the point. 

A guy walks into the shop and asks for the most expensive jacket we have- considering that the more expensive the jacket, the more waterproof it should be. Ok- standard assumption. But the expense doesn't just go into making it waterproof. It's the cut, the hood (the most expensive bit of the jacket), the pockets, the closures etc. At £400, the Alpha SV was the most expensive, and, by his standards, the most waterproof jacket we had. 

Problem:

I was invited to a "test" weekend by one of the highest profile brands. It turned into a classic wet weekend in Wales, so pretty much the best conditions you could want. There was a minor issue in that the only jackets available were in XL. I am very much not an XL. Nor were quite a few of the other guys, so what happened was actually quite good. I wore my Mountain Equipment Changabang, someone else had a Rab Latok, there was an Arc'teryx Beta AL... basically from personal kit as well as the test kit we had pretty much a permutation from every major brand at the time. 

The day was set to be an easy scramble up something pretty easy in Ogwen valley. Luckily, it rained the entire day so we could have a decent idea of just how good each others waterproofs were. 

Yup- this was that day

At the end of the day, it turned out, there was only one person who was dry. They were the person who was ferrying everyone around and had stayed in a car or a cafe the entire time. Everyone else, no matter what brand of waterproof was fairly damp through. Whether this was from water ingress- which happens eventually, or sweat- which certainly happens sooner rather than later- it wasn't clear, but there was not a dry person among us. 

So what does this tell us? That it doesn't matter how much or how little you spend on a waterproof, you'll still get wet? 

Well- kind of. I have no doubt that if I was wearing a £30 poncho on that trip I'd have been wet, cold AND miserable, rather than damp/wet and able to move and work in the mountains. 

If you're buying a jacket, perhaps the main things to think about are: 

What am I going to use it for? How good a hood do I want? Are the pockets useful? What is the fit like?

I, for one, don't get on with Arc'teryx. The mens Small has shoulders that are simply too big for me. There is a load of wasted space. Other people might get on well with that shape. Also, I don't really tend to drag myself up slabs of granite in the rain any more, so the face fabric doesn't need to be so bombproof for me- I'd go for something a little less thick and heavy. Equally, the hood needs to cinch down well, and move with my head. The Mountain Hardwear hoods just don't do it for me- yet the Mountain Equipment hoods and the OMM hoods seem to be much better- (I have a small head, and some hoods, it seems just don't work). 

That being said, other people have different needs. 

Last word, I suppose- is if you're in the market for a jacket- don't just look at the label and assume that more expensive is better. Try the jacket on. Does it fit? Put the hood up, does it work for your head? Are the pockets in the right place? Can you fit an OS map in a pocket if you need to? Can you fit a warm layer underneath if you have to? 

And remember- the most reliable way to stay dry in the mountains is to stay in the pub. 

Best way to stay dry?