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!

Altra Repetition Review

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

-Matt Klein, SPT

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

Saucony Fastwitch 6 Review

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

We have the Saucony Fastwitch 6 on deck today.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

-Matt Klein, SPT

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

Training Update 4/5/14: Return From Injury, Racing Plans (Maybe an Ultra?) and More

So good news and bad news.

   The good news is my foot has healed and I've been able to jump right back into running.  The foot thing was probably a Peroneus Longus tendon irritation due to a lack of strength of the PL and the Posterior Tibialis muscle (leading to very weak arches).  I plan to continue my rehab program for those muscles just as a precaution and I'll stick to training in shoes with some amount of support.  I've been running all my recovery miles in the Altra Repetition which has been a great shoe so far.  The zero drop with a wide toe box, cushion and support have been really nice, but we'll see how long my Achilles tendon lasts.  I guess I need to keep hammering those eccentric heel drops.

    The bad news is that this blog is going to be very quite for a while.  School is beating the crap out of me and is taking almost all of my time.  I have to study constantly and my only real break is when I wake up at 5:30 in the morning to get 10-12 miles out on a bunch of trails I just discovered near my location in Pomona, CA.  Or a workout.  So yeah.  I'll do my best to update how I'm doing and what my thoughts are, but know that school and running comes first before the blog.  Someday I'll have more time to really keep this thing up.

   As for a return to racing, I decided to get out for a little bit during the last weekend of my spring break and race at the Anaheim Angels 5k.  Which I won in 15:31.  It was a great race.  I went through the first mile in 4:48, then slowed down a bunch because the police bike left me right before mile 2.  Really it was more that I haven't been doing 5k specific workouts... mostly because I've been injured.  My foot held up well and was only a little sore after the race.

    This last week I managed to get 87 miles in on singles only.  My one hard workout was a 6 mile tempo run averaging 5:22 pace.  I found a great flat two mile loop that I'll be using for tempo runs from 4-10 miles.  Those tempos will be a staple of my workouts the next month as I prepare for my next set of races.  I thought I might want to do some half marathons... but maybe I'll just bypass those and go right to trail ultra races.  Other than that I've been doing those 10-12 mile runs on trails that have very steep elevation gains every morning.  So low key hill workouts.

   I got excited last weekend after the Angels 5k and wanted to race again.  So I signed up for the Derby Day 5k in Santa Anita.  Which was stupid.  I really shouldn't be racing every week.  Oh well.  I placed 6th in 15:52 and felt like crap.  I did not taper at all for this race as I ran 9 miles averaging 6:10 pace the day before.  After the race I cooled down for a few minutes, then launched right into a 30 minute farltek.  It started a bit slow as I was stiff from the race, but after 5 minutes got myself down into the 4:45 to 5:00 minute per mile pace.  After the fartlek I kept going until my mileage totaled to 17 miles.  Because... #tackon.  That's why.  So a nice tempo/fartlek/long run combination.

    I really can't be surprised by the Derby Day 5k result.  I haven't done any 5K specific work since the injury (although it's only been two weeks) and have been focusing on longer workouts and runs.  So I guess that is to be expected.  Combine that with the rigors of DPT school and a lack of sleep.  It all makes sense.

    For the time being with school taking so much of my time I'm going to focus on consistency over the next few months.  I think I'll look into getting some 10k races in, so I'll be sure to get some longer tempo runs in.  I'll also make sure I get some speed stuff in like my favorite 10x400 with one minute rest workout.  Hopefully that speed stuff will help get my 5k wheels back.  Most of my training will just consist of those 10-12 mile trail runs in the early morning before class (in addition to a 18-20 mile long run on Sunday).  Hopefully the hills will build a great deal of strength.

    I know nothing comes quickly, so I have to keep reminding myself that the most effective way to become a better athlete is to be patient and work on long term development.  I know I was complaining about not being selected for various sponsorship programs, but the truth is that I am not even close to those levels.  I'm going to back off on racing, focus on school and workouts and just do my best.

    So for the future?  I'll probably move up to doing more 10ks and maybe ultramarathons.  Why?  Because I like long slow distance, but want to keep my speed up.  I've always wanted to dabble in ultras, so maybe I'll jump into a random 50k and see how I do.

    Those are my plans.  We'll see how they work out.

Thanks for reading!

As always, my opinions are my own!

Tack On!

Matthew Klein, SPT

-On a side note, I'm also really working on my flexibility and strength right now.  Mostly through eccentric range of motion exercises.  I'm been seeing a few articles pop up in the Physical Therapy world about eccentric exercises through the full range of motion doing as well as static stretching for increasing flexibility.  Plus they build a ton of strength.  Why am I focusing on that?  Because my hamstrings are insanely tight, I am lacking in the hip extension department and my form looks like crap because I've been neglecting my flexibility work.  The article can be found here.  Interesting stuff.  I'm curious to see how this affects my running.

Elliptigo Review: Running Without Impact

Good lord I can't believe I actually made it to Spring Break.

    The last two weeks have been very quiet blog-wise due to multiple reasons.  I just survived two weeks of hell, ie DPT school midterms.  It has been a whirlwind of caffeine, no sleep and stress.  I am now laughing at my past self who just 6 months ago thought the first semester was hard.  In addition to that, I injured my foot about a week ago during a uptempo run in the Skechers GoRun Ride 3.  My hypothesis is that I jumped into a very neutral shoe with a higher heel-toe drop than I was used to (the GRR 3 has a 8-9mm drop whereas the Purecadence 1 that I was previously training in had a 4-5mm drop with support) may have exacerbated the amount of pronation I was experiencing.  My assistant professor and I took a look at my foot and after some manual muscle testing, gait analysis and a tuning fork test (testing for stress fractures.  Thankfully it was negative) we began to realize just how bad my pronation issue is and one of the connections of my Posterior Tibialis was seriously pissed off.  The Post Tib functions in plantarflexion and inversion of the foot.  It also plays a huge part in maintaining the arch as well as eccentrically and concentrically controlling the subtalar joint motion during foot strike going through the contact phase, stance phases with pronation, supination and terminal stance phases.  I have always been a huge pronator, but have been a bad DPT student and not addressed the issue/ignored it.  I'm wondering if some of my Achilles issues stemmed from this.... because I've mostly trained in neutral shoes for a long time.  Particularly during my super-minimalist phase.

    Not that pronation is the end all diagnosis.  I'll say this over and over again: when it comes to the mechanics of gait in walking or running, the whole kinetic chain is involved.  Something that happens at the foot is usually a result of something happening at the hip.  And it translates the other way as well.  I'm reevaluating my hip mechanics to see if I've missed anything, other than the fact that I have still have mild imbalances.  Example: my right gluteus medius is a little weak, which is why my right hip drops a bit.  Running mechanics are a constant work in progress because little things will always pop up and the body will compensate for them in amazing and irritating ways.

   Thankfully during this injury I was still able to get some good workouts in thanks to my Elliptigo 8C.  I mentioned this briefly in some previous posts, but I am fortunate enough to have won an Elliptigo from the 2014 Las Vegas CSM physical therapy conference.  I just filled out a little survey after trying one of these things for the first time at the expo and then a week later I got a very special call.  

Yep.  I got the green one.

   Needless to say I was pretty excited, but also a little apprehensive.

   To be honest I've made fun of people who use the Elliptigo for a long time.  I fully admit that.  I think this stems from being a hardcore "Run-Only" type of training guy.  I viewed cross training as needed only during injuries to keep yourself from going insane.  In addition, I had very little success with ellipticals during past injuries in college.  I've found them to not replicate running mechanics very well and never felt like I was getting a good aerobic stimulus from them.  

First Elliptigo Ride (Thanks Rachel  for the video!!)

    Upon receiving my Elliptigo 8C, all those fears were quickly quelled.  The great people at Elliptigo have really done their homework and created a wonderful tool for runners.  Above is my first ride on the Elliptigo and I immediately noticed how different it felt from a normal elliptical.  

    The biomechanics are very similar to running without the impact.  This is achieved with a much greater hip range of motion allowed by the Elliptigo, particularly through really good hip extension.  If anything having one of these might help your running form (Not confirmed.  Just a thought).  I immediately noticed that my glutes were really working, as opposed to the normal quad tightness I've experienced with ellipticals.  I attribute this to the hip extension allowed.  My inner physical therapist was quite aroused (in a good way, not a weird way).  Stimulating the glutes to work over the quads is almost always a good thing! 

   As excited as I was about my new cross training tool, I didn't use it much after that first ride until a few weeks later.  Why you ask?  Because Pomona has NOTHING in the way of bike lanes and the streets are horrendous.  I'm pretty sure if I tried to take my Elliptigo out for an actual workout, I would get hit by a car or shot.  Or both.  

Enter an example of the Stationary Trainer.  This is not mine.  I have the Kinetic Road Trainer 2.0

    This is when I decided to get my hands on the Kinetic Road Trainer 2.0 with an adapter for the Elliptigo. And I can say it was well worth the investment (especially since I got the Elliptigo for free).  Once I got my hands on the stationary trainer, the Elliptigo started getting used a great deal more.

    I have to say I am very impressed with how much of an aerobic stimulus I get from using this awesome tool.  Every time I've used the Elliptigo (time ranging from 30 to 60 minutes) I've come away with sweat pouring off me (even with a fan, which I put up later) and fatigued in a good way.  It really provides a good stimulus that is CLEARLY above and beyond what an elliptical provides (even with the stationary trainer).

    What makes the stationary trainer and Elliptigo combo even better is that I can study while using it!  I've been using a large binder clip and attaching my class notes to the handlebars to get studying and a second "workout" in.  As DPT school has continued on, I've realize that I have less and less time to do things outside of school.  Adding the Ellptigo into my routine has allowed me to get some really good aerobic work in while still preparing for class and exams.  Plus without as much impact, I can still run at a high level due to the high level of work I can put in.  I've found myself recovering faster due to replacing that second run with a non-impact form of exercise.  My normal runs have been increasing in pace due to both my increasing aerobic capacity and possibly my glutes firing better.  Those are the major muscles that are sore after using the Elliptigo, which is perfect.  Those are the muscles you really want to be using during running if you want to run fast!

Just posing with my new Elliptigo.  And no.  I don't wear jeans while I use it.  

    The Elliptigo was especially handy with my foot injury last week during the harder of the two weeks of 2nd semester midterms.  Luckily it didn't aggravate my posterior tib at all and I could still hammer away.  It allowed me to study without going completely insane from a lack of physical activity.  And I got a lot of studying done on that thing.  Although I was probably driving my neighbors nuts from working out on the Elliptigo in my apartment (with the stationary trainer) at 6am most mornings before class and again at 8 or 9 pm in the evenings.  For their sake I'll hopefully heal up quickly and get back to running in the morning and Elliptigoing (Is that a word?  If not, it is now) in the evening for 30-45 minutes.  

    I feel very fortunate to have one of these tools that is and will continue to be a integral part of my training.  I am very excited to see where the Elliptigo helps take my training.  I cannot recommend it highly enough.  This product has changed my view of cross training because it does such a good job of stimulating your aerobic system with impact.  Do I still hate ellipticals?  Yes.  Is the Elliptigo the same as an elliptical?  Hell no.  Like I said before, the people at Elliptigo have done their homework and created a wonderful thing.  Do I love the Elliptigo?  Hell yes.  Go check one out.  

Thanks for reading!

As always, my opinions are my own!

Tack On!

-Matthew Klein, SPT 

*I won the Elliptigo 8C from the 2014 Las Vegas CSM physical therapy conference and it was provided free of charge.  This did not change my view of the product.  However I would like to thank the kind people at Elliptigo for giving me the opportunity to try the Elliptigo.

Please go check out the Elliptigo website.  They have some really great products that I highly recommend.  Elliptigo is an awesome company with a bright future.