Mizuno Wave Ekiden Series Review

   I love the Mizuno Wave Universe series.  I have raced in the 3, 4, and 5, but the 4 is my all time favorite.  It was the perfect 5k racing shoe (in my humble opinion) at 3.9 ounces, a nice comfortable fit that could be dialed down and a really responsive feel.  The shoe disappeared off the feet and I used it as my racing shoe for over a year.  Mizuno decided to upgrade it to the Mizuno Wave Universe 5 (REVIEW) which was great, but not as good as the 4.  It didn't feel the same, wore out quickly... and I moved on.  I had always kept an eye on the Ekiden, but had never taken a chance on them.  Finally I made the move and was glad I did.  The Wave Ekiden is the Wave Universe 4 with just a hair more there.  And it a really cool Japanese racing flat.  I am also racing in the Adidas Takumi Sen 2 right now and I have to say, both of these shoes give the feel of high quality the second you put them on your feet.  Asia knows how to make really high quality and cool shoes, especially racing flats.  The Mizuno Wave Ekiden is no exception.

Sole:  I would describe the Wave Ekiden as the Mizuno Wave Universe 4 with just a little bit more underfoot.  I can feel that small increase in material and it definitely keeps your feet comfortable during races.  This is a shoe that easily handle 5k-10k and maybe even the half and full marathon.  It's not a super cushioned shoe, but there is just enough there that combined with the 4.7 ounce weight you will totally forget about your feet.  The grip is also much better on both road and XC/trail.  I have used this shoe on wet roads and an XC course with dirt, grass and trail.  The Wave Ekiden has performed very well on all of them.

Upper/Fit:  The upper is drool worthy.  It is extremely comfortable and high quality.  The upper completely disappears off your feet when running.  There is plenty of room for the toes and it is not a super tight fitting flat.  The shoe does really stay on to your feet, especially if you lace lock them (I do that with all my shoes).  The upper is not super thin, but there is just enough there that I don't think I'll ever worry about durability issues.  There is a small heel cup in the back, but it isn't noticeable and keeps your feet locked in.  The achilles tab is perfect.  It is very comfortable and I love the split for the achilles tendon.  More racing shoes need this!

I don't' know what else to say other than the fact that Mizuno nailed the fit of the shoe.

Responsiveness:  This is a fast racing flat.  It has a nice balance of pop and protection.  The Wave Universe 4 definitely has more pop, but lacks that extra bit of protection that allows this shoe to be used from the 5k to the half marathon and beyond.

Heel-Toe Drop/Ramp:  This is supposed to be a 6mm drop shoe and it feels somewhere in that 4-6mm range.  Just a hair more drop that seems to save your legs for longer races.  I can understand why elite Mizuno athletes can race in this shoe up to the marathon.

Durability:  The durability is decent.  It is a racing flat, but I think I can get over 150 miles in these.  Currently I'm at 82 miles and they look fine.  The upper looks exactly the same when I bought it and there is some, but not too much wear on the sole.  Way better than the Wave Universe 4 and 5.

Weight:  At 4.7 ounces, this shoe will disappear off your feet.  While the Universe 5 is almost 2 ounces lighter, I need to remind you of the amazing range of this shoe.  This is the only shoe I can think of that you could use up to a marathon that is under 5 ounces (again, your leg strength and endurance may vary).

Thoughts as a PT (Student):  I can see nothing wrong with this shoe as a racing flat.  Obviously I would not suggest training in it if you have biomechanical issues, but if I had known about this shoe during my super minimalist phase, this would have been on my feet all the time.  I really like the full ground contact which gives it a more stable ride (not supportive.  There is no medial posting in this shoe).  The upper is fantastic as I mentioned early and does not constrict the toes at all.  The toe spring isn't too bad either.  The heel counter isn't hard or soft, but provides just enough to keep your rearfoot relatively locked in.  I have no problems with this shoe.

Final Thoughts:  I love this shoe.  It is the Wave Universe 4 with just a bit more.  I have enjoyed racing in these and have won 2/3 races I've used them for.  I will continue to use them and hope to get my feet and legs strong enough to use them in my second half marathon (whenever that ends up being).  I have never had a more comfortable short distance racing flat in my life and will continue to use these.  Additionally, although I don't usually comment on this, they look awesome.  Again... the developers in Asia know how to make racing flats.  They just make you feel fast.

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 trainers and 50 miles on every pair of racing flats before I review them.  Currently I have 82 miles on my pair.

As always, my views are my own.  

-Matt Klein, SPT

*Images obtained from the Mizuno Running USA website.  Head down to your local run specialty store to check them out!

Asics DS Racer 10 Initial Review and Return

I'm going to try something new.  I'm going to start posting initial reviews and the reasons why I return shoes just to get my thoughts out there.  I try a large number of shoes on out of curiosity and hope that they will live up to the hype that companies put behind them.  I also win a good number of races that offer free shoes as the top prize, so additionally I try shoes on trying to pick that one.  Most of the time I end up taking the first one back because I am both curious and picky even after 1-2 hours in the store.   Additionally I try on and end up returning most of the shoes I get from Running Warehouse (yes... I have taken thorough advantage of their free shipping and return policy.  I never take the shoes out on the road though and keep the testing to the carpet and my apartment hallway only).  So instead of just returning them without reason, I'm going to post my thoughts about them.  Maybe something I don't like someone else will and they'll try the shoe.  Or maybe this will serve as a warning and stop someone else who shares my feelings from wasting their time.  Or maybe I'm just looking for a reason for more posts.

On deck first for this round of Initial Review and Return we have the Asics DS Racer 10.

Intro:  I really wanted to like this shoe.  I've been having some stability needs recently due to a neglect of my Peroneus Longus and Posterior Tibialis muscles.  These two muscles are very important in maintaining arch strength and should be kept strong.  I pronate heavily and tweaked my left Peroneus Longus muscle a few weeks ago running in a great but unstable and very neutral shoe while neglecting my foot strengthening routine.  Long story short I'm back trying in stability shoes until I get this under control.  I thought the Asics DS Racer 10 would be perfect for my racing needs having some medial posting and weighing only 6.4 ounces.  It is currently the lightest stability racing shoe on the market right now with the next lightest being the Fastwitch 6 (Review).  I'd hope the combination of mild medial posting and an 8mm drop would take some load off my mildly irritated PL and give me a fast responsive shoe for racing while I strengthened my ankles.  The result was not what I'd hoped for.

Sole/Ride: The sole had major potential.  The initial feel was actually really good!  I liked the springy feel of the sole and the duromax support was present but unobtrusive on my foot.  The 8mm drop felt perfect (actually felt more like 6-7 because of heel compression.... not that 1-2mm matters).  When I ran a few steps though, I immediately noticed how jarring the transition of the shoe was.  Heel strikers beware, this shoe does not transition well.  I actually noticed this when I tried the Asics DS Trainer 19 as well.  Asics just doesn't have the nice rounded heels like Adidas, Brooks, Saucony, etc.  Initial contact is fairly jarring and I don't like that.  Now maybe that breaks in with use and the shoe becomes more smooth with some wear, but I don't want to be out $110 to find out.

    Another issue I had with the sole is that the supposedly durable Asics High Abrasion Rubber (AHAR) seemed to be wearing out a bit even with a bit of jogging on the carpet and back and forth down the hallways of my apartment building!  Now I realize racing flats are expensive due to the work to get them so lightweight, but this isn't a sub 4 ounce shoe.  I usually get ~200 miles about of Brooks T7 Racers (Review) which are very similar to these in regards to weight.  My initial experiences with the Asics DS Racer 10 is that they would not make it that long.  Now I could be totally wrong, but that is what my gut, mind and legs are telling me.

Upper/Fit: Another set of major problems.  The upper is extremely stiff, it tapers way to fast on the lateral forefoot and bunches badly over the toes.  The toe bunching would normally go away with breaking in the shoe, but based on how stiff the upper is I have my doubts.  The taper issue however,  will probably not go away.  The lateral forefoot tapers really fast and hits my 4th toe in such a way that I am thoroughly afraid of losing a toenail and a lot of blood attempting a 4-8 mile tempo run or any kind of decent length workout (maybe that's why the shoe is red?).
     Additionally, the achilles tab does not have the nice split that most shoes have and digs into the back of my achilles tendon.  This is a bit nitpicky since I have been racing quite a bit in the Adidas Takumi Sen 2 (Review soon) which has something similar but does not come up quite as high.  The Takumi Sen 2 achilles tab did not bother me initially and never has.  Not sure what would happen with the DS Racer 10.

Reason for Return:  As I mentioned, the ride was not smooth, the upper didn't fit well and was really stiff and durability do not look like it would be good.  Not something I would expect from a $110 shoe.  I applaud Asics for getting a stability racing flat down to 6.4 ounces, but they need to smooth out the ride and upper.  If that happens then they will have a winner.  For now though I'm going to pass.

I'm not trying to scare you away from this shoe.  I highly suggest you try it on if it does fit your foot and you do like the ride.  The Asics DS Racer 10 is the lightest shoe with stability and if that's you need you might as well try it on!

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

All thoughts are my own.

-Matthew Klein, SPT

Disclaimer: These shoes were a personal purchase from Running Warehouse and were returned.  I only ran on the carpet and the hallways of my apartment to keep the shoes in good enough condition to be returned.  My thoughts are based on 4 years working in running specialty stores and experience with more shoes than I can count.  If I ever receive the shoes for free I will put them through their full paces, but as a graduate student with little money I have to be careful with my shoe purchases.  Thank you for reading.

*Images obtained from the Asics America website.

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!

Saucony Kinvara 5 Review

Rarely do I buy more than two pairs of a certain shoe in a row.  This comes from being fairly picky and being curious about new stuff on the market.  The first shoe that I went past 2 pairs in a row of was the Saucony Kinvara 1.  Right as the minimalist wave was hitting the market, I was looking for a low drop that still could handle the 80 mile weeks of intense training I was doing at the time as a sophomore on a competitive college team.  I distinctly remember trying on the original Kinvara and thinking it felt like I was running in shoe boxes.  I still gave them a shot because I was desperate to find a 4mm drop cushioned shoe that fit my foot well.  A few runs later I was hooked.  I went through almost a year of only training in this shoe.  For only getting 200-250 miles a pair, I went through a great deal of Kinvaras before transitioning to the Altra Instinct after that track season.  To this day I have not worn the same model for anywhere near that long.  Needless to say when I begin to have trouble running hard +100 mile weeks in the Altra Instinct/Provision/ Torin/Instinct 1.5, I came back to the Kinvara 4.  It was disappointing because either the toe-box wasn't shaped the same or my feet had been spoiled by Altras.  I still had some awesome and blazing fast runs that reminded me of the shoe bliss of the Kinvara 1, but I ended up blowing through the upper of the 4th version at 170 miles.  The shoe also felt dead at 120 miles, so I sadly retired them and got myself to move on....

     Then everything changed when I heard Saucony was making some big changes to the Kinvara 5.  A bigger toebox, full length powergrid and a special heel cup.....  I was excited but didn't want to get my hopes up.  Then when they finally dropped.... I felt like it was a combination of Hanukkah and Christmas (I come from a multireligion household).  The Kinvara 5 is everything I hoped it would be.  Read on to find out my thoughts.

Sole:  The first thing I have to say about the new sole is that it feels nice and simple.  No crazy bells and whistles.  The new sole has just enough cushioning for long runs but enough pop for all out sprint strides.  The powergrid cushioning along with Saucony's EVA+ is very noticeable to me as I vividly remember the Kinvara 4.  The Kinvara 5 has a softer feel in such a way that reminds me that this shoe wants to protect my  feet but also has the responsiveness I would associate with a lightweight trainer/marathon racer.  I would call it the Brooks Launch of 4mm drop shoes (or is the Brooks Launch the Kinvara of lightweight trainers?).  I could definitely see someone using this as a lightweight trainer or a half/full marathon racer.  It can really do everything and I have used it as such.  Hills, tempo runs, 300 repeats, sprints.  The lugs on the bottom work well on trails as well.  Obviously the Kinvara 5 isn't the Peregrine, but it definitely is much more road friendly and can handle any terrain you throw at it. I would really call the Kinvara 5 the Jack of All Trades shoe.

Upper/Fit:  Oh yes.  It's so good.  The second I put this shoe, the upper fit perfectly to my foot.  I'm usually a size 10 and the Kinvara 5 fit me perfectly in that size.  The toebox is much improved and roomier than the Kinvara 4.  No longer does the front dive in and smash my 1st and 5th digits.  The Kinvara 5 has the perfect width for me in that I have plenty of room in the front but do not slide around at all.  This shoe has the Goldilocks of uppers.  I really like the ProLock technology in the midfoot as it hugged my foot nicely without being compressive and secured my foot extremely well.  And that heel cup?  It feels SOOOOO good on bare skin.  Every mile after the first 60 miles I ran in the Kinvara 5 was sockless.  Completely sockless.  I never had a single chaffing issue and I took this shoe up to 17 miles on trails.  Rumor had it that the Saucony Team was trying to design this shoe to be worn sockless.  I would say they achieved this goal.  However, on my second pair (yep, already working through the second one), I had some chaffing issues the first 50 miles and then after was fine.  So the upper needs some time to break in.  As always, everyone is different, so proceed with caution on the whole sockless running thing.  I do love my Injinji socks a great deal.

Oh baby.  It's so good.  That upper.

Responsiveness: As I mentioned this shoe has just enough cushioning and responsiveness to handle any type of workout you undertake.  The 7.7 ounces really helps make it light enough to never be in the way of high leg turnover and the sole responds well to high speeds.  Even on trails the shoe feels fast enough to race in but protective enough to do a long slow recovery.  I began training in this shoe during a recovery period of my training.  By that I mean I wasn't doing very many workouts because I felt like the end of the summer semester of the 1st year of DPT school was eating me alive (everything turned out great though).  The workouts I did do were surprisingly fast.  3 mile tempos at 5:10 pace, uphill trail tempo runs, 200m hill repeats.  All of these went very well despite the high level of stress I was under.  I'd like to partially credit the Kinvara 5 for having enough of a lightweight and responsive feel to remind me that it was time for a workout.
    And just the way it is responsive enough workouts, the shoe has just enough cushioning to handle longer runs without destroying my feet.  I would again liken it to the Brooks Launch but just a hair firmer.  Again... a Goldilocks shoe.

Heel-Toe Drop/Ramp:  As always the Kinvara is listed as a 4mm drop shoe, but it feels a bit more than that.  Obviously the heel-toe drop will feel different depending on the shoe.  To me the Kinvara 5 felt more like 5-6mm drop but in a good way.  My calves weren't completely wrecked when I got up in the morning but my stride never felt inhibited.  There was just enough there to be a middle child between the current 8-10mm drop shoes and the 0-4mm drop shoes.

Durability:  The most surprising part?  I took my first pair of Kinvara 5s to 350 miles.  The most I ever got out of the Kinvara 1 was 230 miles.  I probably could have kept going on my first pair of 5s but didn't want to chance an injury.  Really the only thing that wore out was the sole.  Long gone are the days when you would blow a hole in the upper at 150 miles.  This upper is extremely durable.  I never saw any signs of wear (other than dirt and scuff marks) or seams busting.  I am extremely impressed by what Saucony has done with the upper of this shoe.  Everyone knew the stereotype about how terrible the upper durability was on the previous 4 versions.  The 5th version is a completely different shoe in that regard.

Weight:  Saucony lists this shoe at 7.7 ounces and I would agree with that.  Other sources will tell you there is some 0.1 ounce variation between models, but who really cares about 0.1 ounce in a lightweight training shoe.  This falls in the perfect weight category that I like in a training shoe.  High 7 ounces to mid 9 ounce shoes.  Being on the lighter side of that spectrum, you could definitely get away with doing some serious racing in the Kinvara 5.  It has a fantastic balance between weight, cushioning and responsiveness that can handle any distance (obviously depending on the person).

Thoughts as a Physical Therapy Student:  I just like how simple this shoe.  Any support comes from the higher arch that Saucony is known for and the ProLock technology.  But the arch is EVA so it does not intrude into your foot.  Instead your foot will be cupped nicely and held to the platform (the Kinvara 5 is listed as a neutral shoe).  There are no crazy bells or whistles in the sole of this shoe so just protects your foot and lets it do its thing to a degree.  Combined with the wonderful toebox and the (what feels like) 5-6mm drop it is a fantastic shoe.  I have no complaints with this shoe from a medical or biomechanical standpoint.  Obviously if you have a severe restriction in calf length, foot/lower extremity foot strength or have some kind of foot deformity that requires you to have an orthosis, this shoe may not work for you.  Otherwise, I highly recommend this shoe.  Even just to try it, have a lightweight shoe in your rotation or to use as a racing shoe.

Final Thoughts:  I definitely think of the Kinvara 5 as the Goldilocks shoe.  I also realize I've already said that multiple times.  It really is the perfect balance of a shoe, although I wouldn't mind Saucony adding a bit more to the sole and bumping it up to 8 ounces.  I realize that sounds sacrilegious to the Church of Kinvara, but for all that it can do, the Kinvara is a lightweight trainer/marathon racer.  I tend to think of it more as a lightweight trainer and wouldn't mind just a hair more there.  That's personal preference.  Or Saucony could just keep it like it is because they really did an unbelievable job on this shoe.  The upper is fantastic, the sole is nice and simple, the shoe can handle any workout or race and it is surprisingly durable (at least compared to the previous versions).  I have really enjoyed my time training in the Kinvara 5 and plan to continue doing so.  I want to thank the Saucony team for rekindling my love with the Kinvara series.  I highly suggest giving them a try!

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 in at least 75 miles).  Currently I have 350 miles on my first pair and 125 miles on my second pair.

As always, my views are my own.  

-Matt Klein, SPT

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

Asics Gel-Hyperspeed 6 Review

Long ago when I began my jump into minimal shoes, one of the those was the Asics Gel-Hyperspeed 5.  It was a pretty awesome shoe with a 6mm drop, responsive cushioning and weighing around 7 ounces.  It was great but the drainage holes in the forefoot drove me crazy as they would pick up almost every small rock I came upon.  I put them through their paces and then moved on to the original Kinvara which I stayed in for a long time.  I didn't give much thought to the hyperspeed other than hearing that it was being discountinued a few years ago.  I was more a fan of the Asics Piranha, so it didn't bother me too much.
    Not long ago photos began emerging of Ryan Hall in a new shoe.  Talk of the Asics Gel-Hyperspeed 6 began to show up and then boom.  There it was.  The successor to the very popular Asics Gel-Hyperspeed 5.  And that is the shoe that's on deck today for a review.

    Without further ado, let's talk about Asics's premier racing flat: the Gel-Hyperspeed 6.

Sole:  The biggest thing you will notice with the sole is how soft it feels.  The Hyperspeed 6 definitely does NOT have a firm ride.  It's fairly soft and cushioned for a racing flat while being a little closer to the ground than a lightweight trainer.  Maybe you'll thing it's firm if you're coming from the Asics Nimbus or a Hoka shoe, but I am not.
    The other major change I noticed is that the sole is much narrower than the Hyperspeed 5.  While the 5 felt like a stable (not supportive.  No medial posting at all) and well balanced shoe, the Hyperspeed 6 feels narrow underfoot and unstable.  Granted I am a bit of a pronator, but I spend a great deal of time in shoes like the Altra Instinct, Mizuno Wave Universe 4, Kinvara 5 (as of yesterday) and more and those shoes feel much more stable underfoot due to slightly wider bases.  It's also probably due to the huge cut out in the medial arch, which just like my experience with the Nike Zoom Streak XC/LT series makes the shoe even more unstable combined with a narrow last.  The upper isn't too narrow (more on that in a bit), but the sole certainly feels like that.
    Asics has also taken away those extremely irritating holes in the Hyperspeed 5 for a full ground contact outsole in the Hyperspeed 6.  There is one drain hole in the midfoot, but I haven't had any rocks get stuck in it like the last version.  I guess that holes in the Hyperspeed 5 wouldn't have been so bad if they hadn't gotten so many rocks stuck in them.  That's what made it frusterating and was the only thing I didn't like about it.  The Hyperspeed 6 takes care of that issue with a full ground contact forefoot along with deeper flex grooves that also make the shoe very flexible.
    Typical of Asics's shoes, the midfoot is slightly cut out, separating the forefoot and heel.  Luckily because this was done so minimally the Hyerspeed 6 practically has a full ground contact outsole and I do not feel that separation that I normally hate in shoes.  Mostly because it's really not there.  The only bit that is there is from the separation between the forefoot and heel high abrasion rubber areas.  Which are fairly durable (see durability).

Upper/Fit:  I have to put this out there.  I hate the insoles.  They just plain suck.  Sorry Asics, but I had to say it.  After putting about 10 miles in the shoe during my first test run (2 mile warm up, 6 mile tempo, 2 mile cooldown), the insole started slipping around when I put the shoe on, took the shoe off and when I didn't have the shoe absolutely locked on to my foot.  I dealt with this issue and it hasn't bothered me too much during the run (it has a bit and contributes a bit to the unstable feel), but I am now going to try running without the insoles.  They are pissing me off that much.  The plus is that the inside of the shoe only has a few major stitch points that with a pair of socks shouldn't be too much of an issue, but I'll have to try this out and report back.  I've put about 75 miles in this pair and I think the shoe is broken in enough for me to try insole free running.  Although this will require socks.
    The upper has decent room for a racing flat but initially is a bit narrow in the forefoot.  The upper is fairly stiff and initially does not flex well with the foot.  My pinky toe felt especially pinched by that last and furtherest forward stripe of the Asics logo.  Eventually it broke in after about 20 miles, but keep in mind at first it may feel narrow.  And not just racing flat narrow.  Racing flats should have a narrow form fitting grip on your foot that keeps you locked down but not pinched.  I would never call myself locked in with this shoe because of a little more spacious heel and no extra last eyelet (for laces) to use a runner's loop lacing technique to lock in my heel.  I had to really tie the laces tight to keep my heel from slipping out of the shoe.  That combined with a bit of a stiff upper intially made me want to hate this shoe.  I gave it a try over using by skipping the first few eyeltes which gave me a bit more wiggle room and then I tried running without socks.  That also helped.... kinda.
   You can run sockless in this shoe if you get used to it.  I had some chaffing on the top of my foot and the sides felt a bit rough because I don't think the upper was designed with sockless running in mind.  However with few seams it turned out ok and my feet eventually got used to them.  Now that I'm throwing the insole out I'll go back to socks.  After testing them out walking around my apartment without the insoles and with socks (while writing this review) they seem to be ok.  Again, I'll report back later.

Responsiveness:  This is not the most responsive racing flat out there.  I'd actually call it one of the least responsive of all the ones I've worn.  What this shoe does have is a lot of cushioning for being so light as I mentioned earlier.  For that reason I would use this shoe for the half to full marathon distance or tempo runs/long runs.  It does not have the get up and go required for 5k/10k racing like the Mizuno Wave Universe 4 or 5, the Asics Blazingfast, the Asics Piranha, the Saucony Type A5 (have not tried the A6 yet), the Brooks T7 racer (very versatile) or the Asics Hagio (just listing the ones I've run in or tried).  However, what this shoe has over all of those shoes listed (except the T7 racer) is that the cushioining is more than sufficient for long runs or the marathon.  There is quite a bit there.  There's almost no pop that I usually get from racing flats, but they will protect your feet.
   However, I do love this shoe for longer tempo runs.  It's one of my favorites because of the cushioning.  Since I live in an area where I can't take two pairs of shoes with me and leave one behind while I do a workout without fear of having them stolen (I currently live in Pomona, CA), this shoe provides some cush for the warm up and cooldown.

Heel-Toe Drop/Ramp:  The heel drop is listed at 6mm but feels more like 4-5mm (not that 1-2mm makes a difference).  There's a little protection there but not too much.

Durability:  What's amazing to me is that this shoe actually has decent durability for a racing flat.  After over 60 miles in the Hyperspeed 6, there is almost no wear on the heel.  In fact, most wear is in the forefoot but is actually not that bad.  It's a bit chewed up but I can see myself easily getting at least 150 miles out of this racing flat if not more.  Generally for a 5 ounce shoe I expect more like 100, but it seems to be holding up well.  There are absolutely no fraying, ripping or major wear of the upper.  Other than being a little dirty the Asics Hyperspeed 6 is holding up very well for a racing flat.  I'm really impressed with this aspect of the shoe.  That combined with the fact this shoe is only $85 dollars really makes the Hyperspeed 6 a really good deal.

Weight:  At 5.6 ounces, this shoe is pretty dang light for how much cushioning it has.  I'd expect it to be at least in the 6-7 ounce range, but Asics really stepped up their game.  This weight reduction also might be due to how much Asics narrowed the sole, which does again make the shoe feel a bit unstable.  It does not feel clunky in any way shape or form.

Thoughts as a SPT (Student Physical Therapist):  Other than the non-anatomical toe-box, I would say the narrow sole could be a problem (and this is just me being nitpicking), but it really depends on the person.  Again the narrow sole lends itself to an unstable ride, however someone with a rigid high arch is not going to have any issues with a shoe like this.  Others like myself may.  I tend to prefer shoes with a wider base, but that's more personal preference based on my own mechanics.  Everyone will respond differently.

Final Thoughts:  So overall the Hyperspeed 6 will do very well for you if you want a well priced, very lightweight shoe that has enough cushioining to handle the half or full marathon distance and will last you a long time.  For those people who like training in mininalist shoes this might be a good option if you want more cushioining but don't want to sacrifice weight.  It was an interesting experience to try this shoe out and I will continue to use it for tempo runs and shorter recovery runs where I want a lightweight shoe.  The Hyperspeed 6 would not be my first choice for a 5k or 10k, but definitely for a half marathon.  The upper has ended up fitting ok, but I would still like to see an additional eyelet in the shoe to lock in my foot a bit better in the next generation.
   I have very much enjoyed breaking in this shoe and using it on longer tempo runs.  It has certainly saved me legs while remaining lightweight and at the same time was well worth the money for how durable it is.  I'm very curious to see where Asics goes with the Hyperspeed 7, because with a few tweaks this could be an absolutely amazing shoe.

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 in at least 75 miles).

As always, my views are my own.  

-Matt Klein, SPT

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

Altra Instinct 2.0 Review

   Today we have the second full version of a shoe that introduced me to zero drop running.  Back 3ish years ago, I jumped from the original Kinvara into the original Altra Instinct at the end of my sophomore year of college.  The following summer was filled with 90-105 mile weeks on lots of hills which eventually lead to my best track season (junior year).  Despite the ride being a bit firm, I was in love with that shoe.  I went through more pairs and ran in it for longer than any other (the original kinvara is the only shoe that comes close).  Then I developed some achilles issues because I wasn't addressing restricted range of motion (ROM) in my ankles and had to move away (retrospectively I just needed to hammer eccentric heel drops, assess whether the restriction was coming from my gastrocnemius or my soleus muscles and stretch).  I was finally fully turned off when I tried the Altra Instinct 1.5 which I did not like.  The upper felt totally different (and not in a good way) and had horrible durability.  I then fully moved on.  Now Altra has released the complete 2nd version of the Altra Instinct and I have to say that I REALLY like this shoe.  It reminds me so much of my love of the original.  Without further ado, we have the Altra Instinct 2.0 on deck for today.

Sole:  The Altra Instinct 1 and 1.5 had a fairly firm (if not harsh at times) midsole.  The new 2.0 midsole is much softer and responsive (not cushy).  The ride is definitely more forgiving than before, but it's not a "my foot is sinking into the shoe" type of feel.  It strikes a nice balance betweeen the cushy and responsive spectrum.
    The plateform is also much broader plateform than before.  Where the arch used to be cut it, the new Instinct 2.0 arch area has been filled in.  I like that because it creates a very straight last and lends the shoe to be a bit more stable but not supportive.  I wouldn't say the new Instinct has arch support or a high arch (like the 1.5 seemed to), but it is more balanced than the previous versions.

Upper/Fit:  The upper is quite different than before (as is the whole shoe).  There's a bit more there, which I would almost describe as a bit heavy.  Which I guess is a trade off for durability, because after +100 miles I have had absolutely no issues with the upper so far.  Something I do really like is what appears to be an Altra version of Nike Flywire attaching to the laces.  While there is the typial awesome Altra wide toebox, the heel again is a bit too wide.  The padding around the heel collar attempts to make up for that but it's still a bit too wide.  Once you cinch down the laces though, that Altra Flywire really locks in the foot and keeps you very secured to the plateform while allowing your toes to be free.  I still use a lace lock technique to prevent heel slippage, but I really like that new Altra addition to the midfoot.
   One area I was very worried about was the heel counter.  It looked very thick and solid, which I really don't like in shoes.  My calcaneus (heel bone) tends to be very sensitive to that and it can be a major shoe  turn off  in my opinion.  Once I got the Altra Instinct 2.0 on my feet, I discovered the heel counter is actually fairely flexible.  Combine with the thick ankle collar cushioning and I have not felt a thing.  My calcanei are very happy.
   

Responsiveness:  The cushioning is fairely responsive for being a amoderately thick shoe.  The fit does not lend itself to this shoe being the fastest out there (if you don't have the laces cinched down, you may have some movement in the shoe at higher paces.  Go for the Altra One2 if you want fast), but it can handle it's own if you push it.  I have done a few hill workouts and a large number of strides in the shoe and it has performed fine.  Remember that this is a training shoe, not a racing shoe.

Heel-Toe Drop/Ramp:  Being an Altra shoe, it's zero drop.  It doesn't feel as harsh on my legs as the Instinct 1.0 and 1.5 did due to the cushioining and padded heel collar.  It's not a hard zero drop, it's a softer zero drop (if that makes any sense).

Durability:  Normal sole wear as expected.  Again I haven't seen any issues with the upper.  Nothing spectacular or horrible here.  I can see this being a normal 300-500 mile shoe (your mileage may vary).

Weight:  A little heavier than the Instinct 1.0 and 1.5 at around 10 ounces but feels a little lighter due to the soft and responsive feel (compared to the first two versions).  Again though, the Altra Instinct line is meant to be trainers, not racing flats.  I think that's pretty clear when you put them on.

Thoughts as a SPT (Student Physical Therapist):  I like the wide toe box not cramping toes.  Narrow toe boxes can easily kill a shoe within a few seconds for me.  Having been on my first clinical rotation as a physical therapy student and seen SOOO many hallux valgus (bunion) issues/surgeries, neuroma issues/surgies, and many damaged feet from narrow shoes (in both men and women), having a wide anatomical toe-box is very important to me in training shoes.  Protect your toes!

Final Thoughts:  Altra has really made some significant progress on their shoes.  I am extremely impressed after being away from their main line for so long.  I had a love affair with the original Instinct and am glad that the shoe has improved so much.  Some people will be butt-hurt that Altra has added cushioning to the shoe, but I believe that it has not only made the shoe less harsh but also more protective and responsive.  I am excited to see where Altra goes from here and am chomping at the bit to try the Altra One2.

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 at least 50 miles on before I review them).

As always, my views are my own.  

-Matt Klein, SPT

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

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!