Brooks PureCadence 3 Review

    Welcome to graduate school, where your summer break is one week long.  How am I spending the last two days of that break (other than running 41 miles in those two days)?  Writing a shoe review on a personal favorite of mine.

   Today we have the Brooks PureCadence 3 on deck.

   The Brooks Purecadence 3 is the supportive shoe of the 3rd generation of the PureProject line.  It has a 5mm drop and weighs 8.4 ounces.

   My introduction to this shoe started with the original PureCadence and it was not love at first sight.  In fact I thought the shoe was rather unremarkable when I first ran in it 3 years ago.  I was frusterated with not being able to run in zero drop shoes due to an achilles issue that kept popping up (retrospectively I just need to stretch my calves, get some range of motion back, work on my peroneus longus strength and do eccentric calf raises.  At that time I didn't understand any of what I do now).  I was initially taken back by what I considered a narrow toe-box (keep in mind I was coming from Altra running shoes.  So everything was narrow to me), but really liked the 4-5mm drop with mild, non-instrusive support.  The toe-box thing stuck with me for a while until low and behold I stopped noticing it.  By that time I had 400 miles in the shoe, retired them (even though they were fine) and attemped to move back into Altra shoes.  They came into my radar last fall when I was again looking for a low drop, cushioned but mildly supportive shoe.  I again went with the first version as the second version had a sloppy upper that was thick, stiff and uncomfortable.  That combined with a sloppy, soft and unresponsive midsole turned me off to the second version.  The first version (PureCadence 1) round two turned this shoe into a favorite of mine.  It kept a peroneal issue at bay (again, working on all those adjustments I mentioned above has taken care of the issue) and was a wonderful balance of drop, cushioning, responsiveness, toebox width and more.  I noticed the toebox was narrow at first, but adapted to my foot over about 30 miles.  This was confirmed when I purchased another pair when I had 600 miles on the first of the two. Oh... and the durability?  I've never gotten 600 miles out of a shoe before.  I'm pretty hard on them and my prior record was a little over 400 on a pair of Brooks Adrenaline GTS 14.  So yeah.  The Purecadence 1s are a favorite.  The durability, great cushioning, responsiveness for fartleks and tempo runs, adaptive/non-instrusive/full length support (I'll get into that later) and comfortable fit were great.  So as the original disappeared, I decided to give the 3rd version a shot.  I'm glad I did.

Sole:  The sole has recieved several wonderful updates.  First of all this shoe has great grip in wet conditions, which is a first for a PureProject shoe.  The entire first generation of the Pureproject shoes had next to no traction on any wet surface.  Which is weird because Brooks is based in Seattle, Washington..... where there are 300 days of rain a year.  Anyway, the issue has been fixed.  In fact the new outsole has great grip on most terrain, even trail.  That grip may come from the increased depth of grooves in the forefoot, which increases the flexibility of the forefoot as well as may act like large lugs (that are still nowhere near as effective as something like the Brooks Puregrit 2).  Despite less outsole, the white areas of the sole are highly durable.  Just like the first generation, even after +200 miles there is not significant wear on the outsole.  I expect to get many more miles out of this shoe before they are replaced (see the Durability section).
     The addition of a second medial bump in the midfoot gives the plateform a much more stable feel.  This shoe just feels stable in general.  Not forcefully stable, but adaptively stable.  That's thanks to the full length Internal Progressive Diagonal Rollbar (PDRB).  This provides mild support throughout the entire length of the midsole from the medial side.  As I've discussed in early posts (particularly with the Altra Repetition.  I will also discuss this further down in this post) I'm a really big fan of full length adaptive support.  The PDRB definitely provides support when you need it and gets out of the way when you don't.  The full length aspect will provide support in the forefoot, midfoot and heel as biomechanical collapses can occur at any of those three points (not just the midfoot and heel as most people and companies wrongly assume).
     The ideal heel in the third generation of the PureProject shoes has been significantly increased.  This combined with a flexible forefoot and some appropriate toe-spring sets this shoe up for a VERY smooth ride.  I don't think I've ever run in a shoe this smooth.  The curved heel (which is what the ideal heel is) really takes the edge off of heel-striking landings as it progresses down from initial contact through midstance.  It feels so good.  I think this is a wonderful addition that may decrease the heel strike transient force associate with heavy heel striking gait.  The heel strike transient (or impact transient) is the initial very high impact force that is seen with heel first initial contacts that signifies that sometimes jarring feeling throughout the lower extremity with a heavy heel strike.  The ideal heel feels like it smooths that out and also models the shape of the calcaneus (the heel bone).  Always look for a shoe that does NOT have a heel that juts out way behind the shoe.  That will cause a premature initial contact and may increase joint forces and increase the work of your pretibial muscles (anterior tibialis, etc).  And that is one of the reasons why many people get shin splints (I'll have a future post on that).  So again, I love the ideal heel for many reasons, but the main one is that it makes this shoe SOOOO smooth.  Like butta'.

http://www.barefootrunning.fas.harvard.edu/Fig1a.jpg

Upper:  The upper is pretty thick in the PureCadence 3 but is nothing like the PureCadence 2.  The second version had a rigid, plastic ridge in the upper around the toebox that refused to let it expand at all.  This contributed to a very uncomfortable fit, which combined with the sloppy upper fit helped ruin that shoe for me.  The PureCadence 3 has fixed that.  While the upper is still thick, it does not have the plastic ridge in the forefoot.  In fact, the shoe has really returned to the feel of the original with what appears to be a narrow-ish fit initially but is really just the thick upper conforming to your foot.  10-15 miles in the shoe did not feel narrow at all and felt like it had conformed to my foot.  Most aspects of this shoe are what I would call adaptive, both fit and biomechanics wise.
     What worried me initially was how thick the heel counter is in the back of this shoe.  It's pretty thick and rigid.  This usually causes me severe discomfort and pain as my achilles insertion is fairly sensitive to those things.  It was for this reason that I couldn't wear the Pureflow 3.  The heel counter really bothered my heel and I had to return them.  The Purecadence 3 solves this issue with heavy cushioning around the heel/calcaneus.  I honestly do not feel the heel counter at all during running or casual wear.  And again the thick cushioning molds to your heel after a few miles of wear.
   I do think the upper could stand to be a bit thinner up front, but that might compromise durability, which I have had zero issues with after +200 miles.  The thick heel counter is offset by the thick calcaneal cushioning.  The combination of those two may contribute to a more stable ride.
   And the newly design burrito upper?  Awesome.  I have no idea why Brooks went the opposite direction with the 2nd generation of the PureProject shoes.  The new design closely follows the contors of the foot and again contributes to a very close-to-skin feel.  There is plenty of room for your toes in the shoe, but your foot will not move around due to the combination of the thick upper, newly designed burrito upper and the anatomic last.
   I cannot forget the controversial Nav-Band.  That is the strap running around the mid-foot that is designed to help hold the foot on the plateform and assist with the anatomic lacing design (also something I like).  Most people seem to hate the Nav-Band or think it's useless.  I like it.  There, I said it.  I like the Nav-Band.  I feel like it helps secure my foot on the shoe and really keeps my foot secure when I've picked up the pace during tempo runs and workouts.  I do think that the prior versions didn't do as well, but Brooks has definitely done their homework and improve both the fit and function of the Nav-Band.  Again, yes I think the Nav-Band not only works but is better than the previous generations of PureProject shoes.

Responsiveness:  Thanks to the Brooks BioMoGo DNA, this shoe has adaptive cushioning.  And it's not just a marketing ploy.  I have used this shoe from everything to 200m repeats (not the best shoe for that, but it works) to 8 mile tempo runs to 20 mile long runs.  It does everything.  There is plenty of cushioning combined with a responsive, lightweight and unhibited ride.  I would probably save this shoe for long runs and tempo runs as the cushioning is a bit much and soft for short repeats.  It can be done though.

Heel-Toe Drop/Ramp:  Despite the Pureproject shoes being listed as 4mm drop shoes, the actual drop varies.  The PureFlows have always had very low drops of what feel like 2-3mm.  The original pureconnect had what felt like a 4-5mm drop.  The PureCadence line has always felt like it was in the 5-6mm range, which in my mind is perfect.  Goldilocks style: not to much and not too little.  This shoe is no different.  Combined with the ideal heel (which again is awesome), the shoe offers a very smooth ride.

Durability:  Just like the first generation, the third generation of the PureCadence is very durable.  I have a little over 200 miles on my current pair and they are going strong.  I would expect another 300-400 miles out of this pair based on the feel and wear of the outsole.  There is minimal outsole wear, the upper has absolutely no seems loose or signs of ripping and the sole feels the same if not better than when I first put them on.  Durability wise, these are fantastic shoes for the money.

Weight:  The shoe feels just right weight wise.  It's somewhere in the relm of 8.4 to 9 ounces, which seems to be a sweet spot for me for lightweight trainers.  The PureCadence 3 never feels heavy and as I mentioned easily responds to faster workouts.  At the same time, I am convinced that the ideal heel (the curved rearfoot portion) significantly contributes to the shoes lighterweight and smooth feel.  I love this aspect of the pureline and hope that more companies start doing it.

Thoughts as a SPT (Student Physical Therapist):  I am a huge fan of the full length support.  Most shoes only have some kind of support in the medial heel or midfoot.  This shoe provides in throughout the entire medial length of the shoe.  Most running and walking companies seem to completely forget about people who either pronate at the forefoot and/or have a forefoot varus deformity.  This deformity can be due either to a weakness of the peroneus longus or other plantar muscles (technically only the tendon of the PL travels through the plantar area of the foot) or from a structural issue.  Significant pressure can be taken off someone with this issue by providing support in the forefoot and bringing the ground (or the shoe) up to front medial arch rather than forcing the arch to try to fall down to the ground (again either due to a structural issue or a muscle weakness issue).  The only other company that does this is Altra with the Altra Repetition and the Altra Provision (through a removal wedge in the shoe in the Provision).  Newton did this with their support shoes up until the 2014 line when they returned their support to the medial heel and midfoot.  Hopefully we will see more shoes with full length adaptive support in the coming years.
    4-6mm drop shoes with anatomic fits and mild adaptive support shoes are perfect in my mind for the general population.  I hope to see more shoes like the Brooks PureCadence 3, the Saucony Mirage line and the Asics Super-J33 on the market in the coming years from Nike, Adidas, Mizuno, New Balance and more.  From what I've heard, the Purecadence line has been the most successful shoe in the pure series and I completely understand why.

Final Thoughts:  Brooks really brought the PureCadence line back to life.  I love this shoe just like I loved the first version and the love happened faster this time (we won't talk about the second version.  In fact let's pretend it didn't happen).  The combination of responsive cushioning, adaptive full length support, an anatomic last and a moderate weight makes the Purecadence 3 almost a do-it-all shoe!  You could use this as a training shoe if you're used to lower drop shoes or could use this as a racing shoe if you train in something like the Brooks Adrenaline or Ravenna.
     Brooks is doing some really cool stuff between interesting tweaks to the pure series as well as new ideas like the guide-rails in the new Transcend.  I am very excited to see where they go because there is some serious envelope pushing and innovation going on!

Thanks for reading and don't forget to Tack On!

These shoes were a personal purchase and as always, my views are my own.  

-Matt Klein, SPT

*Images obtained from the Brooks Running website.  Go down to your local running specialty retailer to check them out!

Altra Repetition Review

   Apparently Saturday is now Shoe Review Day.  Today we have the Altra Repetition on deck.

    The Altra Repetition is a maximalist zero drop high support shoe with a wide toe box.  Those four attributes make it a very unique shoe.  In fact it is the only one on the market right now.  The Repetition is 11.4 ounces, has a 0mm heel-toe drop and has a high stack height of 26-30mm from the lateral to medial side.  The different stack heights has to do with how Altra has been doing support.  From the heel to the forefoot, there is a 4-5mm wedge that is thickest on the medial side of the shoe in the midsole.  The midsole and outsole both have a technology called StabiliPod, which provides stability in the heel, midfoot and forefoot.  This is also one of the only shoes that has stability in the forefoot.  For that reason it may be a fantastic shoe for people with a forefoot varus deformity or a lack of peroneus longus strength or length (it's also known as the fibularis longus and is responsible for assisting with arch strength, depressing the first ray of the foot and maintaining the arch). 

Fit:   The fit is classic Altra.  The toebox is wide and awesome.  The heel is a bit loose.  Even when I cinch down the laces.  The amazing fit from the midfoot to the forefoot makes up for the heel, especially when you use a runners loop lacing technique (also called "Lace Locking").  Basically if you have wide feet, you'll feel right at home in this shoe.  If you have average width feet, you'll have plenty of room in the toebox and will need to cinch the heel down.  If you have narrow feet, you'll probably be swimming in the shoe unless you wear REALLY thick socks. 

Sole:  Oh the sole.  It's thick.  Thick and supportive.  With a 26-30mm stack height there is a ton of protection for your feet.  Combine that with the StabilPod midsole and outsole and you have a wide and supportive platform.  The sole provides stability to wherever you need it on the medial side because it travels the entire length of the shoe.  Almost all running shoes have support only in the medial heel or midfoot.  Newton is probably the only company that provided support in the form of a dual density midsole in the forefoot in their previous models, but the current line-up does not appear to have that.  This amount of support is great for those who need a high stability shoe but want to get into the low to zero drop game.  In addition, the thick stack height provides a great deal of protection for long miles, which is what this shoe is made for and excels with.

Upper:  The upper is fairly thick, but due to the high volume of the shoe is never obtrusive.  I did not have any issues with the front of the upper buckling and pressing on my foot like I do with many other shoes (The Mizuno Wave Cursoris and Levitas are big offenders of this).  In fact, Altra does an awesome job on their uppers in my experience.  The inside is very soft and comfortable. I have worn the Altra Repetition sockless many times and never had an issue.  The materials they use are top notch and I never had an chafing issues with or without socks.  The only issue I had with not wearing socks was that my foot had a little too much room due to the high volume of the upper.  But even with my foot moving around a bit at times when I forgot to cinch down the laces while sockless I never had any chafing issues.  So the upper is thick, high volume but comfortable. 

Heel-Toe Drop/Ramp:  It's Altra, therefore it's a zerodrop shoe.  I notice I wasn't as sore training in this shoe than other zero drop models, probably due to the rounded heel and toe spring.  The rounded heel I am a big fan of as it seems to take the edge off hard landings for heel strikers or when you get tired. 

Durability:  My current pair has a little over 500 miles on them.  The outsole is a bit torn up, but more so what I would expect of a shoe at 200ish miles.  Some of it has worn off, but thanks to the thick midsole I can't really feel it.  The upper is what I was really worried about due to what appeared to be threads and seams coming loose on the lateral sides of the mid/forefoot area at around 150 miles.  At 500 miles they have not come any more loose, so it's clearly more of an aesthetic issue than anything else.  Due to the maximalist design, you could probably get well over 500 miles on a pair of Altra Repetitions, but since every person is different, your mileage on this shoe will differ. 

Weight/Responsiveness: So at 11.4 ounces and being a maximalist shoe (ie there is a huge hunk of stuff under your foot), this shoe can be a bit sluggish.  It's obviously not supposed to be a light and nimble shoe, but it is a bit heavy when you start your runs.  Especially when you're tired.  The trade off is that it's extremely protective, supportive and is great for either extremely long runs or recovery runs. 
    That being said, I have done many fartlek workouts in these shoes.  They are not soft cushy shoes.  They are protective.  Which lends themselves to being responsive but solid shoes. I wouldn't use them for tempo efforts or speed work, but medium effort workouts and long runs are great.  I really do not like soft pillow shoes.  Despite their thick cushioning, I never felt like my feet were sinking into this shoe.  And I like that.  I don't like running on pillows.  Pillows don't make good shoes. 

Thoughts as a SPT (Student Physical Therapist): I like this shoe.  Why?  Because it provides support wherever you need it.  Not just putting everyone into a box and expecting them to have hypermobile or unstable subtalar or transverse tarsal joints (ie heel and midfoot).  There are those that will have either a forefoot deformity or a weak peroneus longus/fibularis longus muscle and can't depress the first ray of their foot to touch the ground, maintain their arch and assist with the shock absorption qualities that the arch is supposed to have (optimally).  This shoe really helped me out with a peroneus longus injury that I was able to train through while rehabbing myself.
    Plus, combine that support with a zero drop design and you have an EXTREMELY stable shoe.  This shoe feels more stable to me than the Brooks Adrenaline.  The interesting part is that the support in this shoe does not feel controlling like many traditional support shoes do.  When I needed that support it was there.  When I didn't, it wasn't intrusive.  That is really important because some days you are really tired and others your feet and legs are great and you don't want to have your feet forced to do anything.  I like non-obtrusive, on-demand support.  Altra has done a great job with this shoe.  They just need to lighten it up a bit.  11.4 ounces is pretty heavy. 

Final Thoughts:  This is a fantastic shoe that other than weight and the slightly loose heel, I don't know what I would change.  It has served me well through it's lifetime and is an extremely unique shoe that no one else has been able to match.  I really like the full length support through the shoe, especially in the forefoot.  Combine that fact with being a protective, zero, drop and wide-toe boxed shoe and you have an awesome product (that is a bit heavy).  This shoe shines on long runs both on the road and trail and would be a fantastic ultramarathon shoe.  Also because it is extremely comfortable and unobtrusive. 
   I am very excited to see where Altra takes this shoe and how it develops.  If you need a shoe that has moderate to high support but also want a wide toe box and a zero drop platform, look no further.  I cannot recommend this shoe enough.

Thanks for reading and don't forget to Tack On!

These shoes were a personal purchase and as always, my views are my own.  

-Matt Klein, SPT

*Images obtained from the Altra Running website and Running Warehouse.  Again, go down to your local running specialty retailer to check them out!

Saucony Fastwitch 6 Review

   Shoe review time!!  Time for a brand I have not reviewed and a shoe I've wanted to try for a while.

We have the Saucony Fastwitch 6 on deck today.

    This shoe is 7.5 ounce supportive racing flat with a 4mm heel-toe drop (approximately.  More on that in a bit).  I've always wanted to try this shoe after hearing raves about how well the toe-box fits combined with the 4mm drop and mild support.  Here are my thoughts:

Fit:  As others have reported, the fit is pretty great.  The forefoot is not constricting and the midfoot and heel are appropriately snug.   It's like a combination of a racing flat fit with a comfortable training shoe fit.  I would call the forefoot "just wide enough" or "almost roomy."  It's definitely not Altra wide, but it gets the job done as I don't feel any constricting feeling in the toes that will normally kill the feel of a shoe for me.  The shoe also consistently runs a 1/2 size short, so make sure you order up.  Even if you want a racing fit.  I'm normally a 10 in most shoes and I found the 10 way too short and snug.  The 10.5 fit perfectly with or without socks both width and length wise.  Sometimes I'll go down a half size if I plan on wearing a shoe sockless full time.  This shoe still required me to size up half a size with either condition.  Even with the sizing issues, the fit is fairly secure, comfortable and has worked well at fast and slow speeds. 

Sole:  This is not a shoe for slow recovery miles as the sole feels extremely stiff when you try to push them through that.  Not a responsive stiff either.  Just an extremely firm, "am I even wearing a shoe or am I running barefoot on the pavement" type of stiff.  I'm exaggerating a bit as I have done recovery runs in this shoe, but it is very firm.  However, when you pick up the pace, the shoe begins to show it's true colors.  It's still extremely firm, but feels more responsive at faster paces.  Let's just say to find the true purpose of the Fastwitch 6, you have to push it a bit.  Anything fast this shoe does well.  From short sprints to long tempo runs, it gets the job done. 

   Being a supportive racing shoe, there is some mild posting in the form some dual density EVA and  what Saucony calls a "Midfoot Support Bridge."  In the picture above it is the grey and white stripped part of the midsole.  It does provide support, but it's also very stiff (hmm... there seems to be a pattern here...).  I guess I've been spoiled with technology from Brooks, Nike and others who offer either progressive or dynamic support rather than the old-school stiff "hold your foot and don't let it move" type of support.  The stiffness of the support bridge also limits the flexibility of the shoe and does not provide the responsive ride that I would expect and hope for from a racing shoe with this much under foot.  There is a good amount of sole under your foot, so you'd at least think you get some protection for longer miles.  Honestly though it feels like 5 ish ounce shoes like the Asics Gel Hyperspeed 6, Brooks Puredrift, the Saucony Type A6 and others have softer cushioning and more responsiveness than the Fastwitch.  Even with the lower weights. 

Upper:  Here's the part I really like.  The upper is a mesh material with flex film overlays that conform fairly well to the foot.  The forefoot has a light and breathable mesh that for the most part will keep the front of your foot cool.  I've worn this shoe both with socks and without and have never had any chaffing issues.  To be honest though I have not worn this shoe sockless over 10 miles but up to that the shoe is comfortable.   My only issue is in times of heat, the shoe is not very breathable in the heel and midfoot, which can lead to sweating.  I can feel a bit of friction on the medial midfoot when this happens, but haven't had any issues.  Overall I really like this upper. 

   Here's what I don't like but doesn't seem to bother me: the heel counter.  My heel is a bit sensitive to stiff heel counters and the Fastwitch 6 definitely has one.  There is not a ton of padding back there, which I was very worried about at first.  However, I have not had any issues with it.  It seems to actually be somewhat flexible and doesn't come up super high.  For those of you that are extremely sensitive to these things, be aware that the Fastwitch 6 does have one. 

Heel-Toe Drop/Ramp:  Even though this shoe is listed as a 4mm drop shoe, it feels a bit more than that.  It's not a bad thing, but die hard 4mm drop people should be aware it feels more like a 6-7mm drop shoe.  Although RW reports have shown most Saucony 4mm drop shoes are in the 7mm drop range anyway.  It's 2-3mm.  Not a big deal.  For long mileage it's actually really awesome for when your calves start getting really tired.  It's not too much but also not too little.  Just right. 

Durability:  After 100 miles of use I am indeed seeing some wear in the sole that is to be expected.  I wouldn't expect to get more than 300-400 miles out of them, but overall though I am not seeing as much wear as I would expect on a racing shoe.  This definitely fits more into the lightweight trainer relm of wear and tear.  I am impressed that they are holding up as well as they have been due to the intensity of workouts I have put them through.  I'm not seeing any major issues with the upper so far but have heard reports of the lateral midfoot busting open on people.  

Weight:  The shoe is reported by Saucony to be 6.9 ounces, but I definitely agree with with other reports that the shoe is at least 7.5 ounces if not more.  It's decent for a long distance racing flat, but it could be lighter.  I can feel the weight of the shoe and think that when you compare the Fastwitch 6 to the Saucony Kinvara, the Kinvara feels lighter, more responsive and has a bit more functional support with the high arch (but lack of the midfoot support bridge.  Which again I don't like and think really weighs down the shoe both physically and performance wise).

Thoughts as a SPT (Student Physical Therapist):  Really what is bothering me is the use of a stiff and non-movable support system in this shoe.  When you remove the motion from one joint, it will be taken up in another joint.  This is one reason why people with stiff orthotics may experience knee pain after a time.  The loss of ankle joint mobility for shock absorption means that the knee will have to take those forces, resulting in higher joint forces through the knee which may bring out any weaknesses and exaggerate certain motions that can cause pain with time.  Some people may never have any issues while others might.  I'm not saying that stiff orthotics are always bad.  Sometimes a motion needs to be restricted for whatever medical reason.  For the general public though, I don't see any reason why Saucony can't get rid of the midfoot support bridge and stick with the duel density EVA.  I think that would lighten the shoe up from a relatively heavy 7.5 ounces (for a racing flat) and drastically increase the flexibility and responsiveness of this shoe.  This is supposed to be a racing shoe with mild support, not a motion control shoe.  Get rid of that midfoot support bridge and stick with the dual density EVA.

Final Thoughts:  This is a great shoe if you like a really firm ride or like stiff support in a racing shoe-like package with decent room in the toe-box.  I definitely think there are significant improvements that can be made in the sole to lighten the shoe up and turn it into the racing monster it deserves to be.  Right now though I believe the midfoot support bridge is hindering the shoe both in flexibility and responsiveness.  For someone coming from a motion control shoe this might be a great racing shoe.  For others it might make a great lightweight trainer.  Despite my heavy apparent criticism of the shoe, I do like the Saucony Fastwitch 6 and will continue to use it until it wears out.  It has been a great shoe for both long workouts and short repeats.  If I ever make it onto the Saucony Hurricane team, this will definitely be a shoe in my arsenal.   

Thanks for reading and don't forget to Tack On!

These shoes were a personal purchase and as always, my views are my own.  

-Matt Klein, SPT

*Images obtained from the Saucony Running website.  Again, go down to your local running specialty retailer to check them out!