Newton Kismet Review

Newton has been a bit hot and cold with me over the years.  Additionally, neither of the local running stores I have worked at every carried them.  So I haven't had a ton of experience with them.  I ran in one of the original Newton Gravity for a while but the lugs really started bothering my metatarsals after about 250 miles.  Did they help me run faster?  I'm not sure, but they actually took a little load off my left achilles tendon as it was a bit irritated from running full time in Altra shoes for a while.  I quickly went back to Altra being a complete zero-drop fan-boy at that time, but always kept my eye on Newton from that point forward.  Fast forward to March 2014 when I won a road race and a free pair of shoes from a local running store in Southern California.  I was curious about the new 5-lug Newton Motion and decided to give it a try.  The Motion was quickly exchange for another shoe (another pair of Brooks Purecadence 3s).  Despite the shoe feeling more stable with the 5 lug system (and being a lightweight support shoe in general), I found the lugs to be overly intrusive and actually slowed me down quite a bit.  I again carried on my way.
   I decided to give Newton another chance with the release of their more moderately priced Kismet, Fate, Aha and Energy II.  I went for the Kismet as it appeared to have the best shaped toe-box, but I was still a bit hesistant to actually commit and run in them (thus voiding my ability to return them.  I did pay full price for these).  I finally gave them a try and am glad I did.  Here are my thoughts:

(This is my first time taking my own photos)

Sole:  Obviously with Newton, we have the lugs that are supposed to provide a prioprioceptive cue to help move the runner toward a forefoot strike.  Does it actually help?  Not sure.  Initially they are more annoying until my foot gets used to them.  I do however appreciate that they are less prominent in the Kismets as part of the new POP system Newton has recently created.  They feature the POP II, which is supposed to be a moderate version of the lugs, as opposed to POP I in the Gravity/Motion (supposedly the most prominent/highest responsiveness the Newton lugs provide).  All I know is that they are not irritating my metatarsals as much.  Have previous Newtons caused any major injury issues with that?  No, however I found some of the original versions to be a bit annoying.  With the Kismets, I actually think the Lugs need to be broken in a bit.  They have gotten much more comfortable as I've put more miles on them.  In fact I'm curious to see how the Kismets feel when the Lugs are worn down completely!
     What I do like quite a bit about the sole is how Newton has decided to do support.  Instead of putting a hard slab of firmer foam on the medial side of the shoe, Newton has simply extended the medial base of the shoe to provide a wider platform.  They call this the Extended Medial Bridge or EMB.  I am a big fan of this as it not only makes the shoe feel much more stable, the shoe is not forcing your foot into a semi ridge position.  This system seems to work much better with my  biomechanics and I have not had any issues.  In fact the ride has felt really good!
     Finally, although not super new, we have the addition of a 5th lug on each shoe.  I really appreciate this because it makes the forefoot more stable, especially going around corners.  I had major issues with that when I was wearing the Newton Gravity a few years ago.  The 5th lug lines up better with the metatarsals/phalanges of the foot, which as a Doctor of Physical Therapy student I really appreciate.  The old 4 lug system of the Gravity definitely contributed to irritating my forefoot more than necessary as they were putting forces in odd places.  I applaud Newton for going to 5 Lugs in all of their models (except the Newton Elite, for which I assume a 5 lug version is in the works).

Upper/Fit:  This is actually my favorite part of the shoe.  The upper is VERY comfortable and may rank among the best of any shoe I've tried.  It is almost entirely seamless and can be worn sockless without issue.  The biggest thing is it just FEELS high quality and is so comfortable.  It makes the Kinvara 5 upper seem like a thorn bush (and that's a darn good upper).  Newton, I am extremely impressed.  I don't remember this from the Gravity and I'm sure I would have.  This is the type of upper I would expect out of a $150 dollar shoe and I can say that no $150 dollar shoe I've tried has had an upper this good.
    Also the toe box is great.  Beating out the Kinvara 5 for the perfect amount of space.  It's roomy but not sloppy.  At no point did I feel like my toes were smashed and every run they were able to just relax.  When I briefly ran in the Newton Motion III, the toebox felt slightly too narrow.  If that put you off, definitely try the Newton Kismet.  It will feel SOOO much better.
     I do have one issue with the upper and that is the relatively firm heel counter.  Newton put some padding there to cushion it, but sometimes when my calcaneus is a bit raw (because I haven't been stretching my calves...) I can feel it a bit.  The heel counter has never bothered me for more than a few seconds and 99% of the time I don't notice it is there.  Just wanted to mention that.
     Overall though, that upper... I just can't get over it.... so good (drooling).

Responsiveness:  The responsiveness is relatively normal.  It's not crazy like the Adios series and not horrible like Sequence Boost 7.  I have used these for most of my hill workouts in the last few weeks and they have done just fine.  That being said they really don't stand out in the responsiveness category, which may also be due to the fact that Newton bills these as trainers and not racers.  If you do want an uptempo shoe, the Newton Distance III, Distance S III, Elite or MV3 would be a better choice.  These work best for the occasional workout and long miles.  Would they work for intervals?  Probably, but I don't start those for another week.  They did well on the uphill and downhill repeats so I would assume they would work elsewhere.

Heel-Toe Drop/Ramp:  Newton lists the Kismet as having a 4.5mm heel drop.  I would agree that the shoe feels like a 4-6mm drop shoe, although at times the lugs make it feel lower.  Heel striking will make the shoe feel like a 0-4mm drop shoe and forefoot striking will make it feel like a 6mm drop shoe depending on the compression of the 5 lugs.

(Yes.. those are my knees.  Give me a break.  Not a professional photographer)

Durability:  Previously with the Newton Gravity, I was disappointed with how fast the lugs wore down.  With the Kismet, the wear is fairly normal on the lugs, but the rest of the shoe looks really good!  And I guarantee that I have been heel striking in this shoe... because that's how I run most of the time.  I currently have 130 miles on my pair and they look really good for that mileage.  Really the only wear I'm seeing is on the lugs and it is minimal considering that +100 mile use.  At this rate I fully expect to get at least 300-500 miles out of them.  Since the lugs aren't very important to me, I'm wondering if I can get even more miles!  The Newton Kismets are a great deal at $130.  For the Newton Gravity at $175?  I got 250 miles.  That was almost a dollar a mile.  Not worth it in my book.  I am very happy with Newton's Core Trainer line (the Fate is the neutral version of the Kismet), especially the more moderate pricing.  I hope Newton keeps shooting for this price range as they will be able to reach a much wider audience.

Weight:  Newton lists the Kismet at 9.7 ounces.  Having not weighed them, the Kismets do feel lighter than that.  If I had to guess it would be 8.5-9 ounces.  They do not feel heavy but are definitely more of a trainer/lightweight trainer than a racing shoe (although I'm sure many people can use them as racing shoes).

Thoughts as a PT (Student):  Newton has done several things well with this shoe.  There is ample room in the toebox for comfortable toe splay.  There is no major toe spring to speak of.  Finally, I do appreciate the addition of the 5th lug.  As I mentioned earlier the forefoot feels more stable, especially going around corners (that was a major issue with the 4 lug Newtons for me) and it better replicates the 5 metatarsals/phalanges.  To be honest I am undecided on the whole lug thing.  It is a great prioprioceptive cue for those wanting to transition to a forefoot strike and it is Newton's defining feature.  However, if I've learning anything from the crazy amount of knowledge I've absorbed not only in DPT school but from earlier, forefoot striking has not been proven to be better than heel striking.  In fact each one carries there own set of issues.  With forefoot striking you are at risk for achilles/calf injuries while with heel striking you are more at risk for knee issues.  That statement I made is not backed up by any article I can cite right now, but is from clinical experience.  Changing from one to the other simply shifts your injury risk.  Each person needs to find what works best for them and where they tend to be injury prone.  To me what is far more important than how your foot lands is where your foot lands in relation to your body, muscular strength and balance!  If you land with a forefoot strike but are overstriding, you still will have some breaking action!  What will most likely protect you from injury is making sure you correct any muscular imbalances and maintaining good muscular strength!  That especially applies to the hips!  The gluteus medius and glute max are extremely important for generating stability and power!  Way more than the calves can produce.  So just keep in mind that switching to a forefoot strike will not immediately make you faster.  Years of hard and smart training will make you faster.  And just because you have a prioprioceptive cue there does not mean your form will change immediately!  I still heel strike in the Newton Kismets. Newton shoes will not immediately change your foot strike.  It will take some work if you really want to change!  Nothing good biomechanically happens immediately.  It will take some motor learning and strength changes.  Rewiring your neurologic system of movement and gaining strength take time!  So be patient.

(How did my knee get in there?)

Final Thoughts:  The standout feature of the Newton Kismet is how fantastic and comfortable the upper feels and fits.  It's by far one of the best uppers I've experienced.  Before this review I did run a few sockless miles in these and it felt really good.  By really good I mean I never had to worry about blisters.  The fit is also fantastic.  Not sloppy (Altra) but just right.  Like I said before, it beats out the Kinvara 5 for fit and I REALLY like the Kinvara 5 fit (check out my review here).
    Although the 5 lug feature has been around for a little bit with the Gravity III and Motion III (and Newton MV2 before them), I also really like the 5 Lug feature in the Kismet.  The combination of the very natural extended medial bridge and 5th lug give it a stable ride that is never intrusive.  Definitely a light support shoe that is borderline neutral.  I again want to applaud Newton on the EMB route for providing a stable ride instead of an intrusive controlling one.  I hope more companies learn from them.
    As for the actual lugs, they can bother me a bit at times, but I like switching between shoes.  This is the first Newton shoe I've worn in a while, so maybe I'll get used to them.  They do provide nice prioprioceptive cues in regards to footstrike, but like I said earlier, footstrike is pretty far down on my list of really important things for good form.
    So overall I really like the Newton Kismet and will continue to train in them.  I'm curious to see how many miles I can get out of these and will let you know when they go for their last run.

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

These shoes were a personal purchase and I put at least 100 miles on every pair of shoes before I review them (except racing flats which I put on at least 50 miles).  Currently I have 130 miles on my pair.

As always, my views are my own.  

-Matt Klein, SPT

*Images obtained from my own phone for once!!.  Go down to your local running specialty store to check them out!

Adidas Supernova Sequence Boost 7 Review

  I'm going to start this review off by again saying that I really like the Boost midsole.   I have thoroughly enjoyed my time in the Adidas Adios Boost 2 (review) and am on my second pair.  When I got the Adios Boost 2, I also wanted a shoe with a little more protection for my recovery days (it can be a little to firm and responsive for the days my body is really beat up).  So while helping out at Foot Traffic in Portland on my two week break from DPT school, I also picked up a pair of the Adidas Supernova Sequence Boost 7.  The Boost midsole had pulled me in and I wanted to try another shoe with it.  I had previously tried the Glide Boost and had not liked it for how incredibly unstable it felt (first time my posterior tibialis muscle had hurt in a while), so I decided maybe a bit more stable recovery shoe would work better.  My first run in these was a very quick and unexpected 12 mile progression run and I had high hopes for them.  Immediately after that run I had some trouble with the shoes, but they have definitely grown on me over time.  I have very much enjoyed this shoe and here are my thoughts:

Sole:  The Sequence Boost 7 has a ton of Boost in the sole.  This gives it a very protective ride, but not the fastest.  Despite the amount of Boost, I would not call the Sequence 7 a soft ride.  As this new midsole material has continued to prove, it has a firm/soft combination that I have only ever felt with Boost.  Do I think there might be too much of it in this shoe?  Yes.  There is a ton of Boost from heel to toe.  If the Sequence was lighter this would be fine, but the higher weight combined with high amount of Boost will rob you of quick turnover.  The purpose of the Sequence Boost is that of a trainer, not a racer like the Adios Boost 2.  So it ends up working very well as a long run and recovery shoe, which is exactly what I have used it for.
     The stability comes from the integrated EVA Stable Frame that for the most part is not intrusive and has provided a stable ride.  Not a supportive ride as I only sometimes feel the support, but definitely a stable ride (unlike the Glide Boost).  Normally support can bother me, but I had no issues with this aspect of the shoe.

Upper/Fit:  The upper of the Sequence Boost 7 was definitely narrow at first.  However it does break in with time.  There is some stretch from the ESM upper, giving the Sequence Boost a bit of an adaptable fit.  What really has bothered me is while the shoe has that stretchy ESM aspect, further up there is a plastic toe guard that was really annoying my 4th toe.  While it is fairly flexible and disappears after a few miles, it still bothered me.  I think this shoe will fit you better overall if you have a narrower foot.  Many miles of Altra shoes have changed my feet and made me more picky about that forward fit.  That and the heel is fairly wide.  I don't see the point of a wide heel and a narrow forefoot.  I'm sure someone out there has that foot shape, but most people don't.  If you get this shoe, I would definitely use that last lace hole and lace-lock the shoe.  That solved the problem completely, but it was a bit annoying at first.  The heel cup is a bit firm but has not bothered me at all.  There is some nice material between that and your calcaneous, so for those of you with sensitive heels, you should be fine in this shoe (obviously try them on first and decide for yourself.  Everyone is a bit different).

Responsiveness: Not great.  As I mentioned early, the Adidas Sequence Boost 7 is not the most responsive shoe.  The large amount of Boost provides more of a protective ride than a responsive one.  This shoe definitely falls into the trainer category.  It is not light and can be a bit heavy on the legs.  That is exactly why I have (for the most part) only used it for long runs and recovery runs.

Heel-Toe Drop/Ramp:  The Adidas Sequence Boost 7 is listed as having a 9-10mm drop.  As I mentioned with the Adios Boost 2, the heel-toe offset seems to change with Boost midsoles.  The Sequence Boost 7 feels the same.  It feels a bit lower than the Adios Boost 2 most likely due to the smoother and less aggressive ride, but not by much.  For the die-hard numbers fans, it feels like a 7-8mm drop shoe.

Durability:  Here is where the Continental Rubber shines again.  The Sequence Boost has a great deal of this outsole rubber that runs the entire length of the shoe.  At 300 miles I am seeing some wear but not much!  The outsole has held up very well, especially when you factor in how many gnarly trails I have taken these shoes on!  I have to say that the Sequence Boost 7 is the most durable shoe I've worn.  By far.  The Boost midsole feels pretty much the same as the first run I did in them and the upper, other than conforming a bit better to my feet, has no tears, seams or other issues.  I fully expect to get anywhere from 500-600 miles out of the Sequence Boosts!  They may be a bit clunky, but they are very durable!  Well worth $130 since most shoes last only 250-300 miles for me!

Weight:  The Adidas Sequence Boost 7 is listed at 10.9 ounces and that is how it feels.  This shoe is a bit of a clunker and is best used for recovery and long runs.  The only workout I have done in them was that first progression run.  I haven't used them for anything fast since (other than some post-run strides).  If you are used to a heavier trainer I am sure you could use them for workouts, but I have been spoiled by lightweight trainers like the Adios Boost 2, the Saucony Kinvara 5 and more.  That and I have been hammering workouts in the Adios Boost 2, so my legs have been pretty messed up!  So I definitely have enjoyed the Sequence Boost for long and recovery runs!

Thoughts as a PT (Student):  While still present, there is less toe-spring than compared to the Adios Boost 2.  If you've read my blog before, you know I have a major issue with that.  I appreciate that there is less of it compared to the other Adidas shoes I have tried.  The toe spring was so bad in the Adidas Boston Boost that I never ran in them and immediately sent them back!
    I do like the integrated support aspect.  The EVA stable frame feels stable but not intrusively supportive.  Instead of trying to control you foot, this frame feels like it is just providing a nice base under it.  I very much like the idea of providing that base instead of trying to force the foot to do things.  Newton has done a great job of this with the extended medial bridge in their Kismet shoe (almost ready to review) and other companies seem to be following suit.
   Finally, the toe box.  I mentioned in earlier.  It's a bit narrow.  Don't squeeze toes!  There are a good number of nerves and other structures in the foot that don't like being compressed!  Luckily the Sequence Boost makes up for it with the ESM upper, but it still could be better.

Final Thoughts:  Due to the narrower upper, I initially didn't want to like this shoe.  However, the Sequence Boost 7 has grown on me.  It is a great compliment to doing workouts in the Adios Boost 2 and is great for recovery/long runs.  The upper did break in as I continued to put miles on them, but I will be waiting for the next version to see if Adidas fixes the toe box before I order another pair.  Plus this pair will probably last at least until then based on how durable they are.  If you do have a narrower foot, I think you will like this shoe for long miles and protecting beaten up legs!  They have definitely perform those two jobs well and they will carry you for many hundreds of miles!

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

These shoes were a personal purchase and I put at least 100 miles on every pair of shoes before I review them (except racing flats which I put on at least 50 miles).  Currently I have 307 miles on my pair.

As always, my views are my own.  

-Matt Klein, SPT

*Images obtained from the Adidas website.  Go down to your local running specialty store to check them out!

Training Log 9/7 to 9/13

I've decided to start posting my training both for those who want to know what I am doing and to also keep myself accountable.  DPT school is my top priority right now, so although I'm still going to get the training in sometimes I don't get as much as I could.  I'm never going to stop running as not only is it an integral part of my soul now, but I'm pretty sure the cumulative soreness would kill me.  This also will keep my accountable with my training plans.  The last year I haven't had much of a plan.  I'd just do random workouts and then race as much as I could.  Before my first half marathon I did a few race specific workouts (by that I mean I did two 10 mile tempos and a 2x30 minute tempo.  That's it.) but really it's just been whatever I've felt like doing.

So now I'm trying to get on some sort of program.  Right now I'm trying an adapted Lydiard program.  By adapted I mean I'm still not completely following the program because I young, stupid and stubborn.  Mostly the first and last one.  I did about 6 weeks of just mileage and tempo runs and now have transitioned into the 4th week of mostly hill workouts and hilly tempos.  I'm messing with Arthur Lydiard's transition of Mileage to Hill Work to Speed Work.  Am I doing it exactly or even close to what he explains?  No.  I've only done one Lydiard Hill Circuit.  The rest have been mostly up and downhill repeats, hilly tempo runs and two very hilly races.  So I'm more flirting with a plan than anything, but it's better than nothing.   I'm going to do 2 more weeks of hill based stuff, then I'll transition to 200s, 300s and 400 repeats along with flying 150s to work on speed for 6 weeks.  It's just one big experiment.  If it works I'll repeat the cycle (with rest).  If not I'll change and actually try to follow a real plan (gasp) for once.

So here is my training for 9/7 to 9/13

Sunday

 AM: Long Run: 14 miles in 1:50:25.  Average Pace: 7:53.   Drills done after.

        Notes:  Legs were shot after doing a 3 mile uphill tempo followed by a 3 mile downhill tempo followed by 2 miles at half marathon pace on Saturday.  This definitely was a long recovery run and is the slowest run I've done in a while.

Monday
AM:  Recovery Run: 8.51 miles in 1:01:46.  Average Pace 7:16.  Drills done after.  

PM: Recovery Run: 4.71 miles in 34:22.  Average pace 7:18.  Drills done after.

Tuesday

AM:  Hill Repeats 10x200m Uphill and Downhill Repeats (10 each).   100m rest between each.
     Total: 8.01 miles
       Notes: Working on strength and durability via uphill and downhill repeats.  Every 200m uphill repeat was followed by 100m jog recovery and then a very fast 200m downhill repeat.  Another 100m recovery jog and I would hit another set.  Again.  Just trying things.
PM: Recovery Run: 4.04 miles in 28:47.  Average Pace 7:07.  Drills done after.

Wednesday
AM:  Recovery Run: 8.36 miles in 1:01:34.  Average Pace: 7:23.  Drills done after.
PM: Nothing.  I bitched out.  Too tired from class 8am to 5pm.

Thursday

AM: Tempo Run 4 miles on Rolling Hills in 22:15.  Average Pace 5:33.
     Total: 8.65 miles.
      Notes:  Did this perfectly.  Not too fast and not too slow despite not feeling great.  The rolling hills make things difficult and mentally challenging.
PM:  Recovery Run w/ 12xDiagonals:  3.35 miles in 24:54.  Average Pace 7:26.
        Notes: Just a thing I'll doing at night where instead of jogging I'll run diagonals on a  gravel parking lot just south of where I live.  The diagonals are about 100m.  Good way to get blood flowing and not slog through an easy night jog.

Friday
AM:  Recovery Run: 9 Miles in 1:02:14.  Average Pace 6:55.  Drills done after
      Notes: Somehow got some 6:20 miles in there.  Did not mean to do that.  Trying to keep the recovery runs easy.
PM: Shake-Out Jog: 3.01 miles in 20:52.  Average Pace 6;55.
     Notes:  Meant to go longer but waited too long before a group meeting.  95 degrees outside.

Saturday
AM:  Recovery Run followed by 10x210m Hill Down-Ups.  100m rest between repetitions.
      Total: 11.02 miles
      Notes:  Ran with a friend but wanted some hill work.  I've done this before where I supplement this workout onto easy runs.  This hill has a 100m downhill followed immediately by a 100m uphill.  So I'll run fast down the downhill and power up the uphill with 100m rest at both ends.   I also like doing this after short 3 mile tempos.
PM:  Nothing.  Again I bitched out but spent 12 hours straight working on my research project for DPT school.  Got a lot done on that!

Total Mileage: 82.66

I did get 3 days of quality in there so not a half bad week!  I'm still wimping out on a few second runs here and there.  I'm not as intense as I used to be hammering 100-120 miles a week with workouts, but school has done me in a bit.  Maybe I can get more quality out doing 80-90 miles a week.  Again this is one big experiment!  Let's see what happens.

More related to the blog, the above picture has my current shoe rotation.  From the left I have the Mizuno Wave Ekiden, Adidas Adios Boost 2, Newton Kismet, Adidas Supernova Sequence 7 Boost and the Adidas Adizero Takumi Sen 2.  I've already reviewed the Adios Boost 2 (review here) and am working on the others.  The Sequence Boost review should be up soon (school permitting) and I am still putting mileage on the other three.  The Takumi Sen 2 I've wanted to try for a long time but never had the guts to get my hands on.  I'm saving them for my first big race and maybe a workout soon.  Just walking around in them is a dream.  So I'm pretty excited to have them.  The Newton Kismet is turning out to be a fantastic shoe.  As in better than the Kinvara 5.  That's a big deal.  And those Wave Ekidens are the Wave Universe 4's big cousin.  To be honest I didn't completely like the Universe 5 (review here) and the Ekidens are everything the Universe 4 was with just a bit more.  Which means I really like them because the Mizuno Wave Universe 4 is my current favorite racing flat of all time.  Although that may change when I put some mileage and races on the Takumi Sen 2.

There are some good things to come!  Stay tuned for a training log update next week along with my review of the Adidas Supernova Sequence 7 Boost (hopefully).

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

-Matt Klein, SPT

Fluid Recovery Review

     I always been interested in the many aspects of performance, recovery being a major one.  When I began running in college, I religiously took some kind of carbohydrate and protein in a 3:1 or 4:1 ratio (based on what I was seeing in the research world at the time) after ever single run.  That quickly evolved to having chocolate milk after ever run because that is what I had heard was "Nature's Natural Recovery Drink."  Putting aside the fact that natural is a horribly misused word and that the chocolate must be added to cow's milk (which some people may also argue is not natural for us to drink), I love chocolate milk and it has been a staple of my diet and recovery for many years now.  I dabbled a bit in the more commonly known recovery drinks like Endurox R4 (which never mixed well) and First Endurance Ultragen (left a weird taste in my mouth) but didn't really feel a difference from using chocolate milk.
    Fast forward a few years to the late winter of 2013 when I saw at Foot Traffic (the local Portland running store I work at part time when I am home) we were caring a new product from Fluid.  Our customers had good things to say, so I finally bought some Fluid Recovery to test out.  I honestly went in with the mind that it wouldn't do anything, but was very quickly proven wrong.

Nutrition:  Fluid is a lactose and gluten free recovery drink that has a ~3.5:1 carbohydrate to protein ratio (research seems to support either a 3:1 or 4:1 ratio for endurance exercise).  A single serving has 128 calories, 0 grams fat, 25 grams of carbohydrate and 7 grams of protein.  Vitamin C (166%), Calcium (4%), 250mg of Sodium, 125mg of Potassium and 2500mg of L-Glutamine (an amino acid) are also listed in the nutrition facts.  For carbohydrate, Fluid Recovery uses a combinatino of Maltodextrin and crystalline fruit sugar.  For protein, whey protein isolate is used.  L-glutamine is a nonessential amino acid (our bodies make it) that can be found in sources of meat, dairy, eggs, wheat, beans, beets and various vegetables.  Although the body makes it, L-glutamine level drop after long exhaustive exercise and supplementation after such episodes may have an increased immunologic effect (Castell, Newsholme & Poortmans, 1996).

Taste:  I am a big fan of the Chocolate flavor.  It tastes pretty good and settles well in my stomach after runs.  I was not a fan of the Berry flavor until I experience my first Southern California Summer.  I have not tried the Tropical Flavor yet, but plan too soon with my next order.  Back to Chocolate.  I'm probably biased because for almost 3 years I had to drink some form of chocolate milk after every run.  Do I have a hot chocolate/chocolate milk addition?  Yes.  I was following the research, which has supported the use not only of carbohydrate and protein supplementation post-exercise, but also chocolate milk due to it's 3:1 or 4:1 Carb to Protein ratio along with the full amino acid profile (Lunn et al., 2012).  Do I think that chocolate milk is as good as Fluid?  Read on....

Consistency/Mixing:  Here was another surprise based on my based experiences with Endurox R4 and other recovery drinks.  Fluid Recovery actually mixes pretty well.  I haven't had any issues with clumping unless the water I use is REALLY cold.  I can fully rely on the fact that when I come back from a hard run, my recovery drink will be ready in seconds if I haven't already mixed it.  Obviously if you don't shake or stir your bottle or glass well enough there will be some particles left at the bottom.  Just make sure you mix it well enough for 5-10 seconds and your drink will be ready to be guzzled.

Price: Like all specialized recovery drinks, Fluid Recovery is a bit expensive.  Price wise it comes out to $2-3 per serving.  To me this is well worth the price.  I have felt and experience a clear difference in my running the days following the use of fluid.  I have hammered workouts and been able to not only think clearly after during class, but have also felt better, less stiff and been able to run faster the following days.  And yes, when I ran out I did not purchase more Fluid Recovery for a few months.  During that time I felt the clear difference that Fluid Recovery had made.  It was enough that I made another order and will continue to do so because this product has worked very well for me.

Conclusion:  As I mentioned, taking Fluid recovery after runs has resulted in noticeable results the next day.  I've felt better, been able to run faster and recover better using Fluid when compared to chocolate milk.  I even alternated hard workout days with fluid and chocolate milk just to see what would happen.  Every time Fluid helped me recovery better by the next day.  The Chocolate flavor tastes great and I have had next to no clumping issues or problems with consistency.

I highly suggest at least trying one packet of Fluid Recovery (Fluid Sports Nutrition does sell individual and sample packets).  I have thoroughly enjoyed this product and plan to make a new order as I ran out again a while ago and haven't been recovering as well!!!

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

As always, my views are my own.  This product was a personal purchase.

-Matt Klein, SPT

*Images obtained from the Fluid Sports Nutrition website.  Go down to your local running specialty retailer to check it out!

References

Castell, L., Newsholme, E & Poortmans, J.  (1996).  Does glutamine have a role in reducing infections in athletes?  European Journal of Applied Physiology and Occupational Physiology, 73(5): 488-490.

Lunn, W., Pariakos, S., Colleto, M., Karfonta, K., Carbone, J., Anderson J & Rodriquez, J.  (2012).  Chocolate milk and endurance exercise recovery: protein balance, glycogen, and performance.  Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, 44(4): 682-691.

Adidas Adios Boost 2 Review

  I've wanted to try the Adidas Adios Boost for some time.  I didn't have the guts to drop $140 on a shoe until I went home to Portland, OR for my 2 week break from DPT school between the summer and fall semesters.  Thanks to Foot Traffic (the store I work part time in when I'm home) I was able to pick up a pair of the Adios Boost 1.  It was quickly exchanged as I did not like the upper at all.  It felt like a hard plastic that seemed to squeeze my foot in a bad way.  Instead I picked up the Adios Boost 2 as I was still set on getting this shoe in some variation.  The upper was much better (more on that later) and I was very intrigued by the boost sole.  Years ago when I worked for Fit Right Northwest I made fun of our Adidas rep when he showed off this new midsole material.  I told him that putting styrofoam in the shoes was probably not a good idea.  I still remember the look he gave me because I was clearly being an dick.  He was completely justified too.  However, like Peter Quill I am not 100% a dick.  Boost is the real deal and Adidas is way ahead of the entire market.  Especially with the Adidas Adios Boost 2.

Sole:  This is where the magic happens.  The Boost midsole perfectly combines the feeling of responsive and cushioned.  In the Adios it is more on the side of responsive, but both are present.  I thought Brooks did a good job with this combination in some shoes with Biomogo DNA, however after experiencing what Adidas has done I realized the DNA is really just soft and cushy compared to Boost.  The Adios Boost 2 also has a combination of a flexible and snappy ride.  The harder you push this shoe, the more it will slingshot you forward thanks to the extended torsion system in the forefoot.  I had the same experience in the non-boost Adios 2, but that shoe was extremely firm.  The Adios Boost 2 has the benefit of having the Boost midsole, which will give you enough protection to be used as a lightweight trainer.  I have used this shoe for everything from lydiard hill circuits to flying 150s to 6 mile tempo runs.  It really does everything.  I know I've said that before about other shoes, but I didn't realize how those other shoes paled in comparison to the Adios Boost 2.  I have also used this shoe for long runs and recovery runs, but really it should be used to run fast.  Slow recovery runs can be difficult in this shoe, but it works for me since I like training in shoes that boarder on the responsive and somewhat firm side (and I usually hate soft cushy shoes).
    There is really nothing else out there like the Boost midsole.  If you have not tried it I highly suggest you do as it can be difficult to describe how awesome it is in words.  Combined with the fast adios ride there is no other shoe out there like it.

Upper/Fit:  As I mentioned early, the Adios Boost 1 upper was stiff and uncomfortable.  As soon as I picked up and started running in the Adios Boost 2, the upper disappeared.  I immediately noticed that a 10.5 Adios Boost 2 fits just like a size 10 Adios Boost 1 or almost any other shoe, so make sure you go up a 1/2 size.  When I first tried it on I thought it was unremarkable, but on the run I can say this is the first shoe I've had that has felt comfortably snug.  The upper forms to your foot, keeps it from moving, but does not squeeze your toes.  I have not had any hot spots, slippage or points of pressure on my foot running in the Adios Boost 2.  Granted it is not the most breathable upper out there, but I have not had any issues with my feet sweating.
    There is a heel counter, but it is moderately flexible and has not bothered my heels at all.  Normally I am very sensitive to them, but I have not had a single issue.  The Adios Boost 2 just continues to impress me.

Responsiveness:  Heck yes this shoe is responsive.  Push the pace and you'll go flying.  That being said the ride is not rock hard firm.  It has that taste of cushioning that I would associated with a marathon racing shoe.
 At the same time I understand how elite athletes have used it for everything from the 5k (the 2014 Carlsbad 5000 was won in a pair of Adios Boosts) to the Marathon (I don't need to tell you how many elites have won major marathons in this shoe).  I know it is more about the athlete than the shoe, but the Adios Boost 2 has some amazing versatility.

Heel-Toe Drop/Ramp:  The Adios Boost 2 is listed as having a 9-10mm drop.  That is only half the story.  The boost midsole compresses to point where it never seems to interfere with your stride.  This shoe has an incredibly smooth ride to the point you will stop caring about heel-toe drops.  Additionally, the drop does not feel as it is listed.  If you are really hard nosed about knowing the drop, it feels more like a 7-8mm drop shoe. What I've also noticed is that when switching to low-drop racing shoes, I have not experience any residual DOMS (delayed onset muscle soreness).  Normally switching between traditional and low drop shoes usually causes significant calf soreness, but this time I came away with only general body fatigue.  Again I am impressed with Boost.

Durability:  Adidas is known for using Continental Rubber (yes, the same used for tires) as outsole material.  At 220 miles I am seeing significant wear on the outsole but the sole feels almost exactly the same.  The same responsive/snappy/just enough protected ride.  I fully expect to get at least 100 more miles out of this shoe if not more.
     The upper has remained completely the same other than continuing to break in nicely.  It feels like a really comfortable pair of jeans that just get better with time.  I have not noticed any seems, tears or other issues with upper.  As I mentioned before with regards to the fit, I am really impressed!

Weight:  The Adidas Adios Boost 2 is listed at 8.0 ounces, which in my mind is a little heavy for a racing flat.  As a lightweight trainer/workout/marathon shoe, I think it is perfect.  As I mentioned in the heel drop section, the shoe never feels like it is in the way.  The ride is very smooth and it has just the right amount of cushioning and responsiveness for my tastes.  If you want something a bit more cushioned, check out the Adidas Boston Boost (I'm working on getting my hands on a pair soon.  Review to come).

Thoughts as a PT (Student):  I really love this shoe, but it does have some toe spring (see above).  I've touched on my views of this in my previous posts.  I do understand that it allows the shoe to ride smoother and may be one of reasons I can train full time in it.  However I am worried due to the fact that excess toe spring does keep your toes in an extended position.  This can lead to various toe deformities but only after wearing shoes with high toe spring for many years (think decades).  The toe spring is not that bad in the Adios Adios Boost 2 but it is noticeable.  I would prefer it if they returned to the reduced toe-spring of the Adidas Adios Boost 1 as that contributed to a very snappy ride when I briefly tried them on.  Would I be still be able to use them as a lightweight trainer as opposed to a workout and race only shoe?  Would they lose the smooth ride I love?  That remains to be seen.  Most brands have this incorporated into all their shoes now, so it is really not significant. This aspect has not deterred me from wearing them at all.  In fact I already purchased a second pair and admit that the Adidas Adios Boost 2 has overtaken the Saucony Kinvara 1 as my favorite shoe of all time.

Final Thoughts:  Yep.  I just said that.  The Adidas Adios Boost 2 is my favorite shoe of all time.  I have purchased a second pair and I'm sure I'll purchase a third.  Will I still keep testing shoes?  Of course!  I still would like to see what happens if that toe spring got reduced.  And if it doesn't I'll just stockpike this version.     The Adidas Adios Boost 2 really showcases the new Boost midsole in a way that has pulled me in.  I realize the Boost material has been around for a year or two, but sometimes I like to hold back and see if things are really worth the hype.  This has been a bit of an Adidas gateway shoe for me.  I am also currently training in the Adidas Sequence 7 Boost (review on the way) and am eyeing the just released Boston Boost 5.  And although it is not a Boost shoe yet (you'll have to wait until early 2015), I am getting closer to pulling the trigger on getting a pair of Takumi Sen 2s.  I've always wanted a pair of those and they are getting harder to resist.  I may have to hold out for the Takumi Sen 3 Boost but it is going to be difficult.
    If you have not tried on a pair of Boost shoes yet, I highly suggest you do so.   Even the experience will be interesting.  I honestly didn't like Adidas Energy boost because the toe spring was so excessive and the upper was too tight, but the Supernova Glide Boost (only if you have a very neutral gait), the Sequence Boost (if your foot is narrow.  More on that in the review), the Adistar Boost (only tried briefly) or the Boston Boost (out 9/1... or today as I write this review).  At least try them on.  I think Saucony, Brooks, Altra, Asics, Mizuno, Nike and everyone else needs to start thinking about moving away from EVA midsoles.  Never have I tried a shoe that had the same ride constantly for so long and such a good ride at that!  Adidas has definitely raised the bar with this midsole and this shoe.  I am excited to see where they take it and how the rest of the industry will catch up!

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

These shoes were a personal purchase and I put at least 100 miles on every pair of shoes before I review them (except racing flats which I put on at least 75 miles).  Currently I have 220 miles on my first pair and a second pair in waiting!

As always, my views are my own.  

-Matt Klein, SPT

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