Runblogger

New Balance 730 Preview: A Minimalist Running Shoe that Has Flown in Under the Radar!

noreply@blogger.com (Pete Larson) — Thu, 02 Feb 2012 01:57:00 +0000

A few weeks ago I got an email from a reader asking if I had seen or tried the New Balance 730 (thanks for the heads up Robert!). He indicated that it was for sale at Finish Line, and that it felt very low drop and had a super wide toebox. Needless to say I was intrigued, and in looking at the photos on the Finish Line website the shoe appeared to be built on the Minimus last. As far as I can tell, There has been zero fanfare associated with the release of this shoe, and it would appear that it’s not a shoe targeted to the specialty running market. Instead, you can find it for sale on-line at places like Finish Line, Sports Authority, and Backcountry.com.

Being the running shoe sucker that I am, I couldn’t resist ordering a pair (~$70 with a $10 off coupon ain’t bad for a pair of shoes these days…), and they arrived today. I have not run in them, but I wanted to put up a quick preview post as this looks to be a pretty promising option in the wide-forefoot, transitional shoe category.

First, I can confirm that this shoe is indeed on the Minimus last – fit is very similar to both the New Balance MT110 and the Minimus Road (maybe even a tad wider in the forefoot than the latter). It even has the <=> logo printed inside. It weighs in at 7.2 oz in my size 10, which is a full ounce less than the Minimus Road, and it seems like it may be a bit more flexible than that shoe. There is no plastic heel counter, which I love, and the material lining the ankle is very soft – feels like the same stuff lining the interior of the Minimus Road and MT110. There is no insole, and the shoe is clearly intended to be wearable without socks (I intend to put it to the test soon). There is also no noticeable arch support built into the shoe. The outer layer of material on the upper is similar to that found on the Minimus Trail MT10.

Perhaps the biggest surprise came when I put the shoe on my feet. I had heard from fellow blogger Zak Branigan that the shoe is listed as 4mm drop, but I’ll be darned if it doesn’t feel pretty flat. I pulled out the calipers, and after several repeat measurements I pretty consistently get 16mm heel, 13mm forefoot – 3mm drop, but it sure feels like less. The sole is also pretty firm – no mushiness here, which could be good or bad depending on your preference.

I’ll leave it at that for now, and post again after a few runs. This looks to be a pretty promising shoe, and ticks off a number of key minimalist check boxes (low drop, wide forefoot, no arch, no heel counter…). I’ll also add that my friends Thomas over at Believe in the Run and Zak at Average Guy Hits the Road have purchased this shoe, and will be sharing their thoughts in the near future as well.

Stay tuned, and if you’re as impatient as I am when a shoe like this hits the market, you can check out the New Balance 730 for yourself at Finish Line. They are also available for sale at Amazon.com.

Below is a coupon code for $10 off at Finish Line:

Finally, here are additional color options available for men (top two) and women (bottom two):

Mizuno Wave Universe 4: A Near Perfect Racing Flat

noreply@blogger.com (Pete Larson) — Sun, 29 Jan 2012 19:53:00 +0000

I just returned from a solid 7 mile run in the Mizuno Wave Universe 4 racing flats, and it reminded me that I have yet to write up my thoughts on these shoes here on the blog. Much like the review of the New Balance MO10 that I posted yesterday, this review will be fairly short as the MWU4 is only a minor update to the previous version, which I reviewed previously here. However, the updates that were made address two of the major complaints that I had about the Universe 3, which was in many ways an incredibly solid shoe. I would go so far as to say that the Wave Universe 4 is just a small tweak from being a virtually perfect racing flat.

If you haven’t run in any iteration of the Mizuno Wave Universe before, you’re missing out. The shoe is ridiculously light (under 4oz), plenty flexible, and has a very roomy forefoot for a racing flat (the Adidas Hagio is the only flat that comes close in forefoot comfort). It is listed as having a 4mm differential (18mm heel, 14mm forefoot), which feels about right to me (the sole of the MWU4 is identical to that of the MWU3 as far as I can tell). The ride under foot is fairly firm, but there is enough cushion to allow for comfort on the roads – I do know folks who run marathons in this shoe.

I had a very favorable opinion of the Mizuno Wave Universe 3, but the shoe was quite frankly ugly (almost looked pink in color), and the material lining the inside of the shoe was abrasive. The Universe 4 resolves both of these issues – the bright orange upper with flame patterns looks great (it is now being replaced with an identically patterned red version), and the interior is now lined by a soft mesh that is more comfortable against the skin if sockless.

Unfortunately, there is one issue that still gives me trouble when running sockless in these shoes – the smooth, synthetic-leather-like material lining the ankle collar rubs my skin and causes blisters. If I could change one thing about this shoe it would be to add a softer, fabric lining around the ankle collar, perhaps with just a small amount of cushion underneath. I can’t comment on durability (I never get enough miles on a single pair of shoes to wear them out given the number of reviews I do), but know people who get a lot of miles on a pair - as always individual results will vary depending on the specifics of you stride.

I think what I like best about this shoe is that it’s so light that you barely feel like you have anything on your foot, but it provides just enough cushion to save my legs if I feel like running fast on the roads. I finished my 7 miler today with two miles at around 6:30 pace, which is faster than I’ve run in a bit, and my legs felt great. This is a shoe that does not get in the way, and that’s perhaps the highest compliment I can give a running shoe. Finally, one complaint about the Wave Universe is it’s price – MSRP is around $125. I’d guess the steep price tag is probably because it takes some effort to make a shoe this light that doesn’t just fall apart after a few uses. That being said, these shoes were a personal purchase and not media review samples, which tells you how much I like them. Because a color update has arrived, the orange MWU4 can be had for a considerable discount in Running Warehouse closeout shop. If you’re looking for a new flat, this one is definitely worth a try!

New Balance Minimus Multi-Sport MO10 Review

noreply@blogger.com (Pete Larson) — Sat, 28 Jan 2012 19:47:00 +0000

The New Balance Minimus Multi-Sport (MO10) is not so much a new shoe as it is a variant of the New Balance Minimus Trail MT10. As such, this review will not be comprehensive, and you can read my original NB MT10 review if you’d like more detail on how the shoe performs all around (disclosure: the shoes reviewed here were media review samples provided free of charge by the manufacturer).

In reality, there are only two significant things worth discussing that distinguish this shoe from the MT10, and both have to do with the upper. First, instead of the breathable mesh upper of the MT10, the MO10 has a water-resistant synthetic upper. Functionally, it’s important to emphasize that water-resistant does not mean waterproof. I’ve run in these shoes quite a bit this winter, and they do a good job keeping my feet dry. I’ve held them under a running faucet to see how well they shed a steady flow of water, and the water beads up and rolls right off. However, I ran in them in some really nasty wet conditions yesterday, and they do allow water in near the junction of the upper and the sole if you submerge your foot in a puddle. In contrast, the Merrell Sonic Glove, which is also billed as water-resistant, prevented leakage even when submerging my foot in a river to a level just below the laces. In any case, the MO10 will keep you dry in rain and help shed splashing water, but don’t expect it to keep you completely dry in puddles.

The second significant point I’ll make about the MO10, and this is a big one, is that the forefoot band in this shoe has not caused me any problems. With the MT10, I had to sever the forefoot band on the right side to prevent it from squeezing my foot to the point of causing pain. I’m not sure why things have improved with the MO10 – perhaps it’s just the case that there is some variability from pair to pair in how tight the band is. Alternatively, perhaps the more rugged upper has changed the fit in some way. In either case, it’s made for a much improved shoe, and one that does not require me to pull out my scissors. That’s always a good thing!

I’ll finish this brief review by saying that both the New Balance Minimus MO10 and the MT10 are among the most versatile shoes that I own. They’re solid performers on non-technical trails (I’ve run a trail 50K in the MT10’s, but the lack of a rock-plate means you’ll feel rocks and other trail debris through the sole), and the 4mm heel lift provides just a bit of cushion for roads (I’ve run up to 20 miles in a run on roads in the MT10). I also use these frequently as casual shoes, particularly when it’s wet, snowy, or slushy, and I have been known to wear them to work on occasion as well. A very solid offering from New Balance.

The New Balance MO10 is available for sale at Backcountry.com.

Saucony Kinvara 3, Kinvara TR, and Peregrine 2: More Details and Photos

noreply@blogger.com (Pete Larson) — Wed, 25 Jan 2012 16:17:00 +0000

Running Warehouse just posted a blog with some additional photos and more details about both the Saucony Kinvara 3 and the Saucony Peregrine 2.

Let’s start with the Saucony Kinvara 3. It’s a nice looking shoe with what appear to be some pretty significant changes from the previous two versions. Here are photos of the some of the first-wave color options for the men’s and women’s Kinvara 3:

Men’s Saucony Kinvara 3

Women’s Saucony Kinvara 3

In addition to photos, RW posted a list of the updates found in the new Kinvara:

More Durable Sole: Saucony heard the feedback about the durability of prior Kinvara models and responded by adding XT-900 rubber where it counts. Added rubber on the lateral midfoot and forefoot means you can expect more mileage out of your Kinvara 3′s compared to previous pairs.

Same Heel-to-Toe Drop: Though many other Saucony models are lowering their offsets, 4mm is still the name of the game for the Kinvara. You know it, you love it, and Saucony didn’t mess with it.

Smoother Transition: Already known for its flexible, light, and comfortable midsole, the Kinvara series is now designed to move with your foot even better thanks to a de-coupled and beveled heel, along with added flex grooves in the heel. While the Kinvara remains geared toward a midfoot strike, these updates make the shoe a little more welcoming for heel strikers as well.

Still Lightweight: Official weights from Saucony are 7.7 oz (Men’s size 9) and 6.7 oz (Women’s size 8). That’s a few tenths of an ounce heavier than our measurements for the Kinvara 2, but identical to the official weights for the Kinvara 2, so we’ll have to wait to see whether or not the shoe has really bulked up at all.

Redesigned Upper: Look for a streamlined upper with improved fit thanks to the use of FlexFilm™, a thin material bonded to the upper to secure your foot to the sole a little better throughout your gait.

Widths Now Available: For those of you with a wider foot, Saucony is producing 2E widths in the Men’s version and D widths in the Women’s version.

Pricing Uptick: All these innovations come at a price, specifically: ten bucks. MSRP on the Kinvara 3 rises to $100.00. We still think that the Kinvara is a tremendous value, especially since we expect increased durability in the latest iteration.

News about the availability of widths and a more durable sole should make a lot of folks happy as these are the two complaints I hear most about the previous versions of the Kinvara. Regarding durability, I’m still a bit skeptical that the new sole design will solve the lateral forefoot wear issue that some runners experience with the shoe. I personally have not had a problem with this, but I know plenty of folks who eat through the sole of the lateral forefoot really quickly – I suspect that true forefoot strikers are most likely to have an issue here. Thomas over at Believe in the Run posted a photo of the sole of the Kinvara 3 (see below), and though there appears to be added rubber under the lateral midfoot and extending forward onto the back of the forefoot, there does not appear to be any under the anterior two thirds of the outer forefoot. Not sure if any of these are final versions though, so time will tell.

The Saucony Peregrine 2 is the first update to Saucony’s first lightweight, 4mm drop trail shoe. I did a lot of running in the Peregrine last winter, and found it to be a very serviceable option as a lightweight trail shoe that could also be used on roads if needed. Sounds like the update mainly targets the upper, which Running Warehouse reports as being “more minimal” in the Peregrine 2. Here’s a photo:

One last teaser – Sam Winebaum recently attended the Outdoor Retailer’s Show and posted some photos of the Saucony Kinvara TR, a new trail version of the Kinvara set to be released at the end of the summer (July, to be exact). Sam has this to say about the Kinvara TR:

This new trail member of the Kinvara family shares the use of FlexFilm technology in the upper with the Kinvara 3 as well as the 4mm heel to toe drop. It weighs 8.5 oz men's size 9 and has forefoot stack (midsole and outer sole) height of 12.5mm and heel of 16.5mm. It has a rock plate running from the forefoot almost to the mid foot. I imagine this shoe will have a quite firm stable ride over varied terrain. Kinvara TR is a strong new contender in the light (<10 oz), low drop, yet protective trail runner category.

And here are Sam’s photos – looks like it might be another great multi-surface shoe:

Merrell Barefoot Road Glove Running Shoe Review and Giveaway

noreply@blogger.com (Pete Larson) — Sat, 21 Jan 2012 19:50:00 +0000

If you’ve followed this blog for any length of time you’ll know that I’m a big fan of Merrell. I like their shoes, I like the company, and I’ve had nothing but positive interactions with the people who work there. Over the past year I’ve done quite a bit of running in the Merrell Trail Glove (read my Merrell Trail Glove review here), and it has also seen quite a bit of causal use. While the Trail Glove is a great all-around shoe, my one complaint about it has to do with the design of the heel. Because the sole under the heel is slightly rounded, it tends to put pressure on my heel in an odd way when I stand or walk around in them, and sometimes it bugs me if running on a hard surface (not much of a problem on trails, which as the name implies are the intended terrain).

I’ve been in regular contact with the folks from Merrell for quite awhile now, and when asked about what I’d look for in a road version of the shoe, my immediate response was a flatter sole under the heel. That’s all that would really be needed to convert the Trail Glove into a solid, barefoot-style road shoe.

Back in September, I was invited to participate in a roundtable discussion in NYC with reps from Merrell, as well as a bunch of fellow bloggers, writers, and running experts. While at the meeting, Merrell gave each of us with a pair of the much anticipated Road Glove. I was pleased to see that they had indeed altered the sole construction, and it was significantly wider and flatter than that of the Trail Glove (see comparison below). They also filled in the area under the lateral midfoot a bit, which allows the entire outside length of the foot to easily contact the ground when standing. These two changes have resulted in a very solid minimalist road shoe.

Soles of the Merrell Road Glove (left) and Merrell Trail Glove (right). Note the wider, flatter heel of the Road Glove.

The Merrell Road Glove retains pretty much all that I liked about the Trail Glove. It’s lightweight (7.3 oz in my size 10), has a very roomy toebox, is extremely flexible, and provides excellent ground feel. The sole thickness is officially listed as 11mm in both the heel and forefoot, making it a zero drop, low-to-the-ground shoe (the Trail Glove is listed at 10mm, so maybe just a tad more cushion in the RG). A number of people I know have commented on the fact that the Road Glove seems to have a bit more contour under the arch than the Trail Glove – I would agree. Arch support doesn’t bother me, and I’d hesitate to call this true “support” as the area under the arch is cut out (i.e., the sole under the arch does not contact the ground – this is the gray region in the photo above). Rather, Merrell has gone with the phrase “Glove” to describe their barefoot shoes, and the midsole material curves up and hugs the arch closely to give a glove-like fit. Again, it does not bother me, and it’s possible that the midsole will develop some additional flex in this area as the shoes break in. But, if you are highly sensitive to material under your arch, this could be an issue.

Internally, the integrated sockliner of the Road Glove is nicely constructed and is designed for sockless running. I still tend to get heel blisters when I attempt to run sockless in Merrell Barefoot shoes, and I would love to seem a version with a bit of softer cushioning ringing the inside of the ankle collar, particularly in the region behind the Achilles tendon. The somewhat stiff lip behind my Achilles tends to rub my skin and dig in a bit, though it seems to be a bit less of a problem in this shoe than it is in the Trail and Sonic Gloves.

As far as performance goes, the Road Glove is an excellent choice if you are looking for a barefoot-style minimalist shoe to use on hard surfaces. The thin sole allows for ground feel similar to what you would find in some of the more built up versions of the Vibram Fivefingers (e.g., Bikila, Trek, Komodo Sport), but it does so without having little pockets for each toe (which can be a plus or minus depending on your personal preferences). The tread on the Road Glove is also sufficient enough to make this shoe usable for many trail situations. There is no rock plate (it is a road shoe after all!), but the outsole is fairly rugged and it should handle rocks and debris fairly well (I have not done any serious trail running in them, just going based on a comparison with the Trail Glove sole).

I also find the Road Glove to be an excellent choice as a casual, zero drop shoe. If running in a thin-soled, zero drop shoe is something you want attempt, getting used to wearing such a shoe around and about is a good way to start. Some are a bit hesitant to do this with a shoe like the Fivefingers, but the Road Glove looks like a pretty normal, albeit very flat, low-profile shoe. I used them as my recovery shoe between legs of the Ragnar relay I ran a few weeks back, and they felt great on my fatigued feet.

I would offer one comment about aesthetics. The Trail Glove is a great looking shoe, but when I look at the Road Glove I can’t help but feel like something is missing. I think it might be that the sides of the shoe are just too plain. I almost feel like Merrell should be a bit more willing to splash their logo around - the Merrell “M” placed on the outer middle panel might do the trick and also help them to gain a bit more brand recognition (my feeble design attempt below…).

Conclusion

The Merrell Road Glove takes the successful design of its sibling, the Trail Glove, and adapts it for the roads. The result is an excellent minimalist road shoe, and a great option if all you are looking for is a zero drop shoe to use for casual wear. I’m quite impressed with the sole of this shoe, and actually wish that this sole was the base for some of the other Merrell Barefoot shoes that I have worn rather than that of the Trail Glove – it’s a much more comfortable sole for standing and walking on hard surfaces. While I don’t have plans of running a marathon in a barefoot-style shoe anytime soon, the Road Glove will get lots of use as the weather warms up and the snow clears off the roads and sidewalks. This one has earned a place in my regular rotation.

The Merrell Road Glove is available at Running Warehouse.

Giveaway

Merrell offered up two pairs of Road Gloves as a giveaway in conjunction with this review. To enter the giveaway, simply fill out the form below. I’ll leave the form up until next Friday, and then choose and contact the two winners via email. Good luck!

One entry per person please – multiple entries will be deleted!

Podcast: On Shoes, Form, Injuries and More with the Geeks in Running Shoes

noreply@blogger.com (Pete Larson) — Mon, 16 Jan 2012 18:37:00 +0000

Quick post to direct you to a podcast interview that I did last night with my friends Jason and Ray over at Geeks in Running Shoes. We cover a lot of ground, from why Kenyan’s are dominating distance running to why runners will always get injured, and I talk a bit about the book that I’ve been working on for the past year.

If you’re interested in listening, you can visit the Geeks in Running Shoes page to download the audio file.

Alternatively, you can download the podcast episode on iTunes.

Soleus GPS 1.0 Watch Review: A Minimalist GPS Watch at a Minimalist Price

noreply@blogger.com (Pete Larson) — Sat, 14 Jan 2012 19:56:00 +0000

Although I tend toward minimalism in my footwear, I’m a major tech geek and stats junkie, and a GPS watch is a constant companion on my runs. I’ve flirted with the thought of running “naked” more often as espoused by my friends Mossy and Robbo of the Naked Runners Podcast, but I can’t seem to bring myself to the point of actually ditching the little data collector on my wrist.

For the past 3 or so years I’ve been running with my reliable old Garmin Forerunner 205 or a Garmin 305 that I bought for use by students in my Exercise Physiology class (the Garmin Forerunner 205 was actually one of the first pieces of running gear that I reviewed on this blog). Both are incredible little watches – though rather large, they give me a ton of information and they have far exceeded my expectations in terms of durability and battery life. Both watches have been rock solid and still have plenty of life left in them.

My one complaint about the Garmin 205/305 is that their large size makes them a poor choice for wearing around as an everyday watch when not in use for running. This necessitates popping the watch on and off prior to and after runs, and also requires that I remember to bring the watch with me if I plan to run at work. This is not a big deal, but I’ve long coveted a GPS watch that could also serve as a full time wristwatch.

Back in early December, I received an offer from Soleus to try out their first ever GPS watch (disclosure: the Soleus GPS 1.0 reviewed here is a media sample provided free of charge by the manufacturer). Soleus has been around for a bit, and they specialize in affordable, colorful stopwatches for active people. I was intrigued by the watch for two reasons: 1) it looked slim enough to use as an everyday watch, and 2) it was priced at under $100, which is quite affordable for a GPS watch, thus making the technology accessible to a larger user base.

Here’s how Soleus describes the GPS 1.0:

Our brand new Soleus GPS 1.0 has everything you need, nothing you don’t. Simple, easy to use digital watch that will accurately track your speed and distance. Auto lap splits at every mile and night light mode helps for your late night runs. Our GPS 1.0 knows exactly where to find the same global positioning satellites orbiting miles above the Earth that are going to help you navigate your run, walk, or hike.

You can even Personalize your Soleus GPS 1.0 by inputting your personal data to track calories burned during that rough exercise routine.

Best feature is its compact design. One of the smallest GPS watches on the market today for your wrist.

I’ll start by saying that the Soleus GPS 1.0 works pretty much as advertised. It’s a simple watch with a fairly low-profile form factor, which means that it’s plenty suitable for all-day wear. When you’re ready to run, the GPS is easily turned on by pressing the yellow “GPS” button on the left hand side of the watch (see photo above). Syncing takes about the same amount of time as the Garmin 205/305, so I have no major complaints about that. Once you’re ready to go the watch will use the GPS to calculate and display your current speed or pace (min/mile), and distance traveled. That’s pretty much it – no frills with this watch. However, for the vast majority of my runs, this is really all the data that I need. At the end of the run you can get your total distance and average pace for the entire run, as well as for each lap (you can set the watch to auto-lap every 0.5, 1, 2, 3, 4, or 5 miles).

Given that the Soleus GPS 1.0 only really provides two metrics (current speed/pace and distance), the big question is how accurately they are reported. I’ve now run with the Soleus on one wrist and the Garmin 305 on the other on several occasions – I’ve been extremely happy with the accuracy of my Garmin after several years of constant use so I find it a useful benchmark on which to base a comparison. I’ve found that current pace on the Soleus seems to not track closely with what is shown on the Garmin (or with my self-perceived effort), possibly due to the Garmin recording waypoints more frequently or the Soleus using some sort of smoothing algorithm. The Soleus doesn’t seem to jump around as much, but it also therefore doesn’t seem to as closely track sudden changes in pace. For real-time pace measurement I’d give the edge to the Garmin 305.

In terms of recording average pace and distance, the Soleus is spot-on. Comparing the results between the Garmin and the Soleus at the end of a run demonstrates a strong congruence between the two watches. As such, although the Soleus does not seem as good at moment-to-moment pace reporting, the average pace reported for the run matches very closely what is reported by my Garmin. Thus, I’m wondering if a firmware update might allow for alternate ways to report current pace on the Soleus watch.

Perhaps the biggest limitation of the Soleus GPS 1.0 is that it currently has no mechanism for uploading data to a computer. This is the main deal-breaker for me as I upload all of my workouts to Sporttracks – doing this manually gets old quick. However, in his recent (excellent!) review of the Soleus watch, DC Rainmaker reports that uploading support should be coming soon (unfortunately at additional cost for a peripheral connector, but should still probably cost less combined than other GPS watches on the market).

Battery life has so far been excellent. I can use the watch for well over a week without need for a recharge as long as I shut the GPS off in between uses (very easy to do). Charging is accomplished via a USB clip cable, and the watch recharges quite quickly – no complaints.

Conclusion

All in all, this is a very nice little GPS watch at a very reasonable price (currently $89 at Amazon, similar pricing at Running Warehouse). Pluses are the low price, low profile form factor, long battery life, and accurate recording of average pace and run distance. Minuses are somewhat iffy current pace reporting, inability to upload data to a computer, and limited data field options on the watch face (most of these could probably be improved via firmware updates and the planned addition of a peripheral uploading device).

If all you need in a GPS watch is a measure of how far you ran and what your average pace was, then this watch is a fine choice. If you’d like a bit more data and the ability to upload to a computer, then springing for a more expensive watch might make sense. I still love my Garmin 205 and 305, and these can be purchased quite cheap nowadays, with the only real downside in my opinion being their large size. If you want a watch that does it all and more (but at a higher price), stay tuned for my review of the Motorola Motoactv, which has pretty much become my full-time watch these days.

Usain Bolt Running Form While Sprinting and Jogging

noreply@blogger.com (Pete Larson) — Mon, 09 Jan 2012 19:13:00 +0000

The below videos provide some great footage of Usain Bolt’s sprinting and jogging gaits. In the first, you’ll notice that Bolt has the characteristic ball-of-of foot touchdown seen in sprinters, and it appears that most of the time his heel does not touch down at all (note – distance runners should not attempt to emulate Bolt’s sprinting form!). It’s amazing to watch how he reaches out with his lower leg, but then pulls it back so that he lands close to his body with a nearly vertical shin (I apologize for the ads that show up on the video, it’s not my video and I have no control over their ads):

The second clip shows Bolt jogging along a track during what appears to be a post-sprint cool-down. Gait is quite different, and he appears to now bring the heel down after landing on his forefoot, and in some cases he may be landing flat. However, he’s clearly not overstriding and mashing his heels into the ground just because he’s running slowly!

Tackling The 10 Myths Of Barefoot Running: Article on Podiatry Today

noreply@blogger.com (Pete Larson) — Wed, 04 Jan 2012 19:28:00 +0000

Image via Wikipedia

My buddy Tuck over at the Yelling Stop Blog just posted a link to an interesting article published recently on the Podiatry Today website. Authored by Dr. Nicholas Campitelli, a podiatrist from Ohio, the article discusses the “10 Myths of Barefoot Running.” Dr. Campitelli is actually a minimalist running advocate, and he opens his list of myths with the following passage:

“Barefoot running, minimalist running and natural running are all terms that describe running in a manner that allows our foot to function the way it was designed (or has evolved). This happens through the use of little or no shoe at all. Many runners suffering from chronic injuries are adopting this way of running and are experiencing relief of symptoms to find themselves running with enjoyment and a more relaxing form.

I too have been cured of a running injury, which I suffered from for over eight years, after transitioning my gait to that of a “barefoot” runner. Without further ado, here are the 10 myths of barefoot running.”

To read Dr. Campitelli’s myths, head on over to Podiatry Today: http://www.podiatrytoday.com/tackling-10-myths-barefoot-running

It’s probably worth reiterating my personal position on this topic – I believe that that minimalist running (or at least adopting a more barefoot-style running form) has many potential benefits, but that it is not something that must be pursued at all costs if one is already running well and injury free in typical running shoes. As always, my desire is for runners to recognize the variation in footwear options that are available, and to not be afraid to experiment with something less in a quest to find the shoe that best matches their needs. It should be interesting to watch any discussion on the subject that ensues in the comments posted after the article!

Runblogger’s Top Running Shoes of 2011: Lightweight & Minimalist Trainers, Trail Shoes, Racing Flats, and Barefoot-Style Shoes

noreply@blogger.com (Pete Larson) — Fri, 30 Dec 2011 17:47:00 +0000

This has been a bit of an off year for my running. As work and writing commitments expanded, my running mileage correspondingly decreased, and thus the number of miles I have put on any given pair of shoes is below what I typically shoot for. Things are slowly improving, but my running shortage has made it difficult for me to come up with a definitive top shoe list for 2011. Also complicating factors is the fact that many of my current favorite shoes either just came out, or will not be released officially until 2012. As such, rather than a top 3 for the year list like the one I produced last year, I’m going to provide a list of favorite shoes in various categories that I have worn in 2011, rather than focusing just on shoes that were released in 2011.

Here goes…

Lightweight Road Shoes – 8mm Drop or Higher

1. Saucony Guide 5

The Saucony Guide 5 is one of the only shoes that I ran in this year that has a heel-forefoot drop of 8 mm or more (8mm exactly for this shoe). While this shoe has more heel lift than I typically like, I’ve actually found it to be a surprisingly nice shoe to run in. It’s also a groundbreaking shoe for Saucony in that it is among the first of their flagship shoes that they have moved from 12mm drop down to 8mm. A full review will come soon.

Lightweight Trail Shoes – 8mm Drop or Higher

1. New Balance MT101

Like the Saucony Guide 5, the New Balance MT101 is one of the only shoes with an 8mm heel-forefoot drop that I ran significant miles in this year. Lightweight and flexible, plus a reasonably wide forefoot make the MT101 one of the best fitting shoes that I own. A rock plate plus decent traction make this a suitable shoe for a variety of off-road conditions. Read my full review of the New Balance MT101 here.

Lightweight Road Shoes – 1mm to 8mm Drop - Long Distance

1. Saucony Kinvara 2

The Saucony Kinvara, which was my top shoe of 2010, remains one of my favorite shoes for long runs on roads. Well cushioned and lightweight, the Kinvara 2 retains the best of the original Kinvara and adds a more durable upper. Probably the shoe I would choose if I had to run a marathon tomorrow. Read my comparison between the Kinvara 2 and the original Kinvara here.

2. Brooks Pure Flow

The Brooks Pure Flow is a serviceable alternative to the Saucony Kinvara for long runs on roads. A bit springier, but also a bit more shoe than the Kinvara, the Flow has performed well on several 10+ mile runs in the past few months. Read my full review of the Brooks Pure Flow here.

Lightweight Road Shoes – 1mm to 8mm Drop – Short Distance and Speed

1. Adidas Hagio

Light, bright, and fast underfoot, the Hagio will be a great addition to the suite of road racing flat options (should be released any day now). Of particular note is the roomy forefoot, which is a bit unusual for shoes in this category. Read my full review of the Adidas Hagio here.

2. Mizuno Wave Universe 4

The Mizuno Universe 4 retains all of the best features of the Universe 3 – it’s feather-light (sub-4oz), flexible, and surprisingly roomy. It improves on its predecessor with flashier aesthetics and improved interior comfort for sockless running (though the heel tab is still a problem when sockless for me). A full review of the Universe 4 should be coming soon, but in the meantime you can read my full review of the Mizuno Wave Universe 3 here.

Lightweight Trail Shoes – 1mm to 8mm Drop

1. New Balance Minimus Trail MT10

Lightweight trail is a tough category as there are some great options out there (e.g., Saucony Peregrine), with others either just released (e.g., Merrell Mix Master) or about to be released (New Balance MT110). But, I’m going to restrict myself to one selection as it’s a shoe that I simply love even given its faults. Although I had to modify my pair to fix a tight forefoot, this is in most other respects a near perfect multipurpose shoe. It works great on trails provided they are not too rocky (it has no rock-plate), and is an equally strong performer on roads. It carried me through a 50K in Maryland, and through a 20 mile training run on roads prior to Boston. I’m now really enjoying it’s all-weather sibling (the Minimus MO10). Great shoe all around! You can read my original review of the New Balance Minimus MT10 here.

Zero Drop Road Shoes

Tie. New Balance Minimus Road MR00 and Merrell Bare Access

Can’t resist including a few shoes that won’t be released until next year. Both the New Balance Minimus MR00 and Merrell Bare Access are mildly cushioned, lightweight, zero drop road shoes. Both are awesome. I’ve provided a few details on the MR00 and Bare Access in another post, but I’ll leave it at that for now :)

3. Vibram Fivefingers Komodo Sport LS

I still have a soft spot for the Fivefingers, and the Komodosport LS is my current favorite among my collection of VFFs. Why? Two reasons – the lacing system allows for a more comfortable fit on my feet, and the insole provides just enough cushion to keep me happy out on the road on longer distance runs. I’m still due to write a full review of this shoe.

Zero Drop Trail Shoes

1. Merrell Trail Glove

The Merrell Trail Glove, along with the original New Balance Minimus Trail, has probably spent the most time on my feet this year. Lightweight, minimally cushioned, and super flexible, the Trail Glove is one of my personal favorites among barefoot-style shoes. You can read my full review of the Merrell Trail Glove here.

2. New Balance Minimus Trail MT00

Another shoe that will not be released until next year, the Minimus Trail Zero is amazingly light and incredibly flexible. Like the MT10, it also excels as a multiuse/hybrid shoe as it works well on both roads and non-technical trails. The lack of a rock plate is a concern on tougher terrain, but I foresee this shoe getting a lot of use in the coming year.

Casual-Work Shoes

1. Vivobarefoot Aqua

I’ve come to believe that what you wear on your feet for the majority of the day is probably more important than what you wear on a half-hour run. Given this, wearing a zero-drop, roomy shoe to work has become a priority for me, and the Vivobarefoot Aqua runs away with the award for “most comfortable shoe” in my collection. In fact, it is quite possibly my single favorite shoe of any type as evidenced by the fact that it has spent more time on my feet this year than any other by wide margin. It may not be the most attractive shoe that I own, but it’s supremely durable and it keeps my feet happy over the course of an 8-9 hour workday (and on some occasions considerably longer than that…). If you’re looking for a zero drop casual shoe, I can’t recommend Vivobarefoot enough. You can read my full review of the Vivobarefoot Aqua here, and it can be purchased with Free Shipping at Revolution Natural Running (cheaper than buying direct from Vivobarefoot, where shipping costs are high).

Warm Weather Shoes

1. Vivobarefoot Ultra

The Vivobarefoot Ultra is feather-light, incredibly comfortable, and quite versatile. It finds it’s way onto my feet quite often in the summer, and can be used as a water shoe, for running, and as a no-frills kick-around shoe. Sizing is tricky as the liner and external shoe cannot be fitted well to the same sized foot (I don’t use my liner as it is too small and constricting), but the Ultra is a pretty solid little shoe. Like the Vivobarefoot Aqua, the Ultra can be purchased with Free Shipping at Revolution Natural Running.

Honorable Mentions

I’ll finish by including two shoes that are innovative, and with a few tweaks could vault themselves to the top in 2012.

1. Altra Instinct

Altra is a small company that hit the market with its first shoes in 2011. The Altra Instinct was their first offering, and it’s a pretty solid shoe. Zero drop and with the widest toebox of any running shoe in my collection, it definitely occupies a unique niche. With improved flexibility, a more minimal upper, and a bit more attention to aesthetic design, the Instinct could join the New Balance Minimus and Merrell Bare Access as favorite zero drop road shoes. Check out my full review of the Altra Instinct here.

2. Skechers GORun

The Skechers Go Run was the surprise of the year for me. I expected to not like the shoe, and until I was actually about a half mile into my first run in them my opinion wasn’t very positive. But, once I was into the flow of the run, the shoes started to feel good, and continued to get better. The Go Run has one of the nicest uppers of any shoe I have worn, and with a few small tweaks to the sole (to reduce/eliminate the rockered geometry) this could become one of the top shoes in my collection. You can read my full review of the Skechers GORun here.

Saucony Kinvara 3: Photos of Spring 2012 Update Posted on Competitor.com

noreply@blogger.com (Pete Larson) — Thu, 29 Dec 2011 20:58:00 +0000

Competitor.com just posted two photos of the Saucony Kinvara 3. The third iteration of the popular Kinvara, which is set to be released in Spring 2012, looks to be a bit more of an update to the original than the Saucony Kinvara 2, which mostly saw just a few tweaks to the upper. My contact at Saucony informed me that these photos are not necessarily the final production shoe, and that some changes might still be made. In any event, given the popularity of this shoe and my own very positive personal history with it, I thought I’d share the photos here.

As the photos below show (Saucony Kinvara 2 above, Saucony Kinvara 3 below), the upper looks to have undergone a more significant update, with what appear to be welded overlays extending in a striped pattern down the length of the shoe. It also looks as if the sole under the back of the heel has been sculpted a bit so that it does not extend as far back behind the heel counter. The 4mm heel-forefoot sole differential has been retained, though the geometry of the “lugs” under the forefoot looks to be a bit different.

Saucony Kinvara 2

Saucony Kinvara 3 – photo by Mario Fraioli of Competitor.com

The next two photos highlight the difference in outsole construction between the Kinvara 2 (top) and Kinvara 3 (bottom). As you can see, Saucony reduced the amount of rubber outsole on the medial side of the heel, and also reduced the number of triangular outsole lugs under the forefoot. It does not look like any rubber has been added under the lateral margin of the forefoot, which will be a disappointment to those who tend to chew up this region (I personally have not had a problem with durability in this area). That’s about the extent of what I can tell just from comparing photos, but I’ll hopefully be able to post more once I get my hands on a review pair, which hopefully will not be in the too distant future!

Saucony Kinvara 2 Sole

Saucony Kinvara 3 Sole – photo by Mario Fraioli of Competitor.com

Merrell Mix Master Lightweight Trail Running Shoe: Preview and First Impressions

noreply@blogger.com (Pete Larson) — Wed, 28 Dec 2011 02:39:00 +0000

Merrell made quite a splash in 2011 at the minimal end of the running shoe spectrum with its Merrell Barefoot lineup. The Merrell Trail Glove is a fantastic shoe, and remains one of my personal favorites, and they have a selection of zero drop shoes more suitable for road running coming out in the next few months (the barefoot-style Road Glove and the zero drop but cushioned Bare Access). Merrell has now begun to diversify a bit into the lightweight trail running category with its introduction of the Merrell Mix Master, a 4mm drop, cushioned trail shoe.

To be clear at the outset, the Mix Master is not part of the Merrell Barefoot lineup. It is intended as a lightweight trail running shoe to compete with the likes of the Saucony Peregrine, Brooks Pure Grit, and the forthcoming New Balance MT110. I received a pair of the Mix Master from Merrell last week (disclosure: these shoes are a review pair provided free of charge from the manufacturer), and thought I’d share my first impressions after spending a day in them and taking them out on a 5 mile trail run.

My first impression upon putting the Mix Master on was that it felt a bit narrower than the Trail Glove. However, after spending a day in them, I’ve concluded that though the fit is slightly different, they are at least as roomy on my feet as the Trail Gloves. Measuring across the forefoot puts them in the same league as the New Balance MT101 and Minimus Trail MT10 – thus, there should be plenty of space up front for most people.

As mentioned above, the Mix Master is a 4mm drop shoe, and I measure a sole thickness of 18mm in the heel and 14mm in the forefoot (with the insole removed). The insole of the Mix Master is a bit thicker in the heel, and adds 2mm to the drop, making this a 6mm drop shoe with the insole in. Insoles are easy to swap out, so this is not too big a deal, and the foot bed under the insole consists of a thin layer of orange foam, so it should be possible to run without the insole to increase shoe volume if more space is needed. Arch support is definitely noticeable with the insole in place, but much less so when the insole is removed.

Although reasonably well cushioned (though not as soft as the Saucony Peregrine, with which it shares the most similarity among trail shoes that I have worn), the sole of the Mix Master is surprisingly flexible. The outsole is studded with oval shaped lugs, and there is a rock plate in the forefoot (you can see it in orange in the photo above). Because the lugs are flat and do not protrude too much, this shoe can be used on the road, though I would not recommend it as a full-time road shoe. On my five mile run I hit quite a bit of varied terrain, including a rocky spillway, gravel, a bit of asphalt, and quite a long stretch of trail covered by a thin layer of ice and snow. Traction was sufficient on most surfaces, but might not be as good in mud or on very slick surfaces. Protection from rocks was excellent.

The upper of the Mix Master is a bit more substantial than that on a shoe like the Trail Glove, particularly in the rear part of the shoe. There is a stiff heel counter, and the collar around the ankle is cushioned (I prefer the cushioning here as the ankle collar on the Trail Glove digs into the skin over my Achilles if I run sockless in them). The upper of the rest of the shoe is more minimal - it consists of an internal layer of open mesh and an outer layer of thin, highly breathable monofilament mesh. This combination is actually very similar to that of the original Saucony Kinvara, though the outer layer of mesh is more similar to that found on the Kinvara 2.

In terms of weight, my pair come in at 9.3oz in size 10, though removing the insole knocks that down to 8.6. This places the Mix Master at the upper end of the lightweight trail shoe spectrum.

Summary and Thoughts

This review is obviously very preliminary as I have only had the chance to run in this shoe once, so I’ll update as needed as I get more miles in. I see the Mix Master as Merrell’s first attempt to venture beyond their Barefoot collection into lightweight trail running shoes. This makes sense from a business standpoint as lightweight running shoes are selling like crazy these days, and they can serve as gateway shoes for those interested in dropping further down the minimal scale. I personally still use a shoe with a bit more substance for long runs and races (not that I’ve done many lately!), so a shoe like the Mix Master has a definite place in my rotation.

The Mix Master has some stiff competition in the lightweight, 4mm drop trail shoe niche, with competitors like the Saucony Peregrine, Brooks Pure Grit, La Sportiva X-Country, Salomon Fellcross, and soon-to-arrive New Balance MT110. Of those just mentioned, I have only run in the Peregrine and the MT110, so my ability to compare is limited. However, I would say that the Mix Master is a bit roomier, more flexible, and not quite as soft as the Peregrine, and I have had some issues with the sole of the MT110. Regarding the latter, I’ll address the issue in more detail when I write up my review of the MT110, but in short my pair is thicker laterally than medially, and a 10 mile trail run in them triggered a mild case of posterior tibial tendonitis – trying to find out more about whether this is a design element or if I just got a lemon. Regardless, the Mix Master should compete well with both of these shoes, and with a bit more time I should have a better feel for how I would rank them – stay tuned!

The Merrell Mix Master is currently available at Revolution Natural Running, and should soon be available at Running Warehouse.

Movie Trailer: Iten – The Town of Red Dust

noreply@blogger.com (Pete Larson) — Thu, 22 Dec 2011 16:34:00 +0000

Just came across this trailer for a new movie that’s coming out about running in Kenya – looks fantastic! Definitely on my must watch list.

ITEN - The Town of RED Dust Teaser Trailer from Erik O'Neill on Vimeo.

Saucony Cortana Running Shoe Review

noreply@blogger.com (Pete Larson) — Thu, 22 Dec 2011 02:16:00 +0000

Saucony has done an excellent job diversifying their shoe offerings over the past year, filling out both the zero drop and 4mm drop niches. I’ve previously reviewed the Hattori, Kinvara, Mirage, Fastwitch 5, and Peregrine – that leaves the Saucony Cortana as the lone shoe among Saucony’s mainstream, low-drop running offerings that I have yet to review. Truth be told, I’ve had the Cortana’s for quite some time, so this review is long overdue. The main reason, and I’ll openly admit this at the outset, is that the Cortana is simply a bit too much shoe for my taste. As always, recognize that this is simply my opinion based on my own personal running tastes, and that’s not to say that this shoe might not work for you (*disclosure: this shoe was a media sample provided to me free of charge by the manufacturer).

Saucony describes the Cortana as a shoe that “isn‘t much for tradeoffs between soft and responsive….Built with just a touch of guidance, full-length PowerGrid™ technology of the Cortana provides superior cushioning and the 4mm heel-to-toe offset provides a super-responsive, close-to-the-road ride.” When reading this description, the two words that in my opinion best describe the Cortana are “soft” and “cushioning.” I’m normally not one to complain about a shoe being a bit on the soft side – after all, I’m a long-time fan of the Saucony Kinvara and have run my two most recent marathons in that shoe. However, the Cortana feels just a bit too plush for me.

Some of the sense of cushiness that comes with this shoe can be attributed to the memory foam insole – I am not a fan at all of a mushy insole like this. It may make the shoe feel amazingly comfortable for a try-on test in a shoe store, but it robs my feet of any sense of ground feel out on the road. Granted, it’s easy enough to just rip out the insole and replace it with one from another shoe, but since I’m reviewing the shoe as it’s sold, it’s worth noting my feelings about this. Actually, it’s quite possible to even just run in the shoe without any insole as there is a thin, soft layer of foam just below it. The memory foam insole on top of another layer of foam is just too much cushion for me.

On the positive side, with a stack height of 23mm in the heel and 19mm in the forefoot, the Cortana is middle-of-the road in terms of sole thickness, and the 4mm differential between heel and forefoot thickness falls right in my preferred zone for longer runs. Furthermore, the ample outsole should make this shoe plenty durable for folks who tend to grind up the sole of a shoe like the Kinvara quickly. Truth be told, the sole itself is actually pretty nice, and would work well for someone needing a high-mileage trainer.

My other main issue with the Cortana is the substantial upper. Again, it’s not that the upper is poorly designed or problematic, it’s just that I tend to like shoe uppers to only provide what is absolutely necessary – mainly to just keep my foot attached to the sole and to keep junk out. The upper of the Cortana is much more structured than most of my other shoes, particularly in the rear portion around the heel. There is a fairly stiff heel counter on the rear of the shoe, and plastic overlays cover the sides below the ankle. All of this material ads weight to the shoe, and at just under 11oz in a size 10 they are among the heaviest shoes I have run in in quite some time.

In terms of fit, I have no major complaints. The fit is typical Saucony, very similar to the Kinvara, Mirage and so on. It’s by no means roomy, but there is enough space for my foot that the fit has never bothered me on the run.

On a final note, the MSRP for the Saucony Cortana is $145, though it can be found for less than that at some on-line retailers. This is a pretty hefty price tag when the Kinvara can often be found for half that price. The question would be whether the Cortana offers double the durability of the Kinvara, which seems like a realistic possibility given the more extensive outsole on the Cortana. Nonetheless, $145 is a pretty steep price to pay for a running shoe unless you’re really sure that it’s the right shoe for you.

Summary

The Saucony Cortana is clearly a shoe designed to appeal to the runner who likes all of the cushy bells and whistles in a running shoe, and is willing to pay for it. For me, the cush is a bit too much, and I’d rather pay less for less shoe (e.g., the Mirage or the Kinvara among Saucony’s offerings). Granted, the Cortana may turn out to be a bit more durable than the Kinvara, but I don’t suspect it will be that much of an improvement over the Mirage – the latter has an MSRP of $100 so it’s still considerably cheaper. If you like a plush shoe with a fairly substantial and supportive upper, then the Cortana would probably serve you just fine, it’s just not the right shoe for me.

The Saucony Cortana is available for sale at Running Warehouse.

Rudolph Injured, Flown to the University of Virginia Gait Clinic

noreply@blogger.com (Pete Larson) — Wed, 21 Dec 2011 13:06:00 +0000

With only a few short days left before Christmas Eve, Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer was suffering an acute case of Achilles tendinopathy. Thankfully, physical therapist Jay Dicharry of the University of Virginia was on the case and it looks like he just might have managed to save Christmas. Read all about it here:

Athlete Visits UVA SPEED Clinic from the North Pole

Happy Holidays to all!

adidas adizero Hagio Running Shoe Review: A Roomy Road Flat Built for Speed

noreply@blogger.com (Pete Larson) — Wed, 21 Dec 2011 02:21:00 +0000

Over the past 2+ years I’ve probably run in 50 or more different shoes, but until recently none of them were made by Adidas. I was recently asked if there was a particular reason why I was avoiding the brand, and the honest answer was that there was no reason, I’d just never had the opportunity to try them. I don’t know if it’s that Adidas running shoes seem to be more popular overseas than they are here in the US, but Adidas has never been a brand that I tend to think of when it comes to running shoes.

A few months ago I was independently contacted by two different representatives from Adidas, one a shoe designer and the other a category manager. They offered to ship me out several pairs of shoes, the first of which I’m reviewing here in this post (the others were the Adidas Adios 2 and the ultraminimal Adipure Adapt – disclosure: all three shoes were media samples provided free of charge for review purposes).

I first read about the Adidas Hagio on the Running Warehouse blog several months ago, and my first thought after connecting with the folks at the company was that this shoe would be the one most likely to suit my running style. I was right – this is one impressive shoe. Let’s jump right into the review…

First off, if you are familiar with my taste in shoes, you’ll immediately know that this one is right up my alley. It’s a great looking shoe, and quite possibly the brightest shoe in my collection. This is one shoe that will stick out in any crowd – it makes the bright yellow coloring of the Newton Distance Racer or Skechers Go Run look almost drab in comparison. The upper detailing is very nice, and the overlays are a shiny synthetic material that makes them really stand out from the surrounding mesh. As for the mesh, there is plenty of it, and the shoe is extremely well ventilated, particularly around the toebox.

Internally, fit and feel are excellent, though my one attempt at running sockless in them ended with several bleeding raw spots on my feet. Strangely, they didn’t seem to develop while I was running, but rather while I was walking home with my kids at the end of my run. The issues are the margins between the mesh and the cloth underlays inside the shoe (the edges of the light yellow strips visible on the toebox in the photo below) – they rubbed the tops of my big and little toes and the inside of the front of my arches the point of breaking the skin. Thankfully, wearing thin socks has alleviated this problem completely. The insole is thin, flat, and removable, so you could easily take it out if you wanted a little bit more interior volume.

One of my biggest concerns with traditional road flats is that they tend to be rather narrow. I’ve never had much luck with Nike flats, and though the Saucony Grid Type A4 had potential the fit was off for me, and it has caused me foot and ankle trouble on a few occasions. The one exception has been the Mizuno Universe, which in my opinion is one of the nicest shoes on the market (I now have the MWU4 and will be reviewing it soon). The Mizuno Universe is super light and has a generously roomy toebox for a road flat. I think I’m prepared to say that Mizuno now has a solid competitor in the roomy road flat category – the Hagio has more than enough room in the toebox for my feet. It feels roomier than the Saucony Kinvara to me, and is quite comparable to the Mizuno Universe in fit.

As for the sole, the Hagio midsole is very firm and fairly stiff. Usually that’s a combination that turns me off, but for some reason in this shoe the combination just seems to work perfectly. The manufacturer specs for stack heights are 23mm heel, 17mm forefoot (midsole only = 16mm heel, 9mm forefoot), but the shoe honestly feels flatter than that to me, and the shoe never seems to get in the way on the run. Because of the firmness of the sole, ground feel is quite good, and the grippy outsole pattern under the forefoot works great out on the roads.

In terms of weight, the Hagio comes in at just over 6oz, so definitely in the lightweight category, though not quite as feather-like as the sub-4oz Mizuno Universe. This is definitely a shoe built for running fast, but my early experience with them leads me to believe that they might hold up for longer distance races as well. My longest run in them so far is 8.5 miles, and I felt no unusual fatigue or soreness. I could easily see running a half marathon in these shoes, and might even consider a marathon with a proper amount of acclimation.

Summary

I must admit to being a bit smitten with the adidas Hagio. It’s lightweight, brightly colored, and plenty roomy for a road racing flat. I’ve found myself choosing to lace it up frequently on my recent runs, and it has more than earned a spot in my regular rotation. I don’t intend to banish it from my closet door shoe rack anytime soon (that’s the limbo where my old shoes that I’m not prepared to give away get put to rest…).

As I’ve mentioned a few times, the most comparable shoe on the market to the Hagio is the Mizuno Universe. The latter is lighter, slightly more flexible, and rides a bit closer to the ground. However, the Universe is priced $30 higher than the Hagio (MSRP = $90 for the Hagio), and the Hagio has a bit more outsole so durability might be a tad better. Both are excellent shoes, so a decision between them comes down mainly to personal preference. In any event, my first experience with an adidas shoe was overwhelmingly positive, and I can give the Hagio a big stamp of approval.

The adidas Hagio is available for pre-order at Running Warehouse – it should be in stock before the end of this month.

What’s Been on My Feet Lately? – Preview of Three Minimalist Road Shoes From New Balance, Merrell, and Adidas

noreply@blogger.com (Pete Larson) — Thu, 15 Dec 2011 03:23:00 +0000

I’ve been fortunate enough to have had the chance to test drive a few new shoe models set to be released next year, and though I’m not prepared to write full reviews yet, I wanted to share a few photos and thoughts on several ultra-light, mildly cushioned road shoes that I’m really liking so far:

New Balance Minimus Road MT00 - zero drop with some cushion

Merrell Bare Access – zero drop with some cushion

Adidas Hagio - ~5mm drop racing flat, but feels like less

What I like about all three of these shoes is that all have just a bit of cushion underfoot, but no more than is necessary for most of my running needs. Second, all three are plenty roomy in the forefoot (the NB and Merrell slight more than the Adidas Hagio, but the latter is quite roomy for a racing flat). Third, all three are very light – 6.2 oz for the NB Minimus Road Zero and Merrell Bare Access, 6.5 oz for the Adidas Hagio.

The Minimus Road Zero and Merrell Bare Access will be duking it out with the Altra Instinct as top choices in the “zero drop with cushion” niche, whereas the Hagio compares favorably with the Mizuno Universe among road racing flats. I would also say that the NB Minimus Road Zero feels much like a zero drop version of the Mizuno Universe (a review of the Mizuno Universe 4 is also forthcoming). The Merrell Bare Access has the fit of the Merrell Trail Glove combined with a slightly different upper and a zero drop, cushioned sole - I’ve been wearing the Bare Access to work all week, and must say I am rather impressed by it.

I won’t say much more right now other than that you can expect full reviews of each of these, as well as a few other more “barefoot-style” shoes, in the not too distant future. Let’s just say that minimalist runners are in for some treats in 2012!

What is the single best thing we can do for our health?

noreply@blogger.com (Pete Larson) — Mon, 12 Dec 2011 18:21:00 +0000

Found this video via the British Journal of Sports Medicine blog the other day and thought I’d share here as well. Dr. Mike Evans provides a very creative answer to the following question: "What is the single best thing we can do for our health."

Application of the “Wet Test” and Static Arch Height for Assigning Running Shoes: Nails in the Coffin

noreply@blogger.com (Pete Larson) — Fri, 09 Dec 2011 17:14:00 +0000

If you wear running shoes, it’s fairly likely that you are familiar with the so-called “wet-test.” The basic procedure is that if you wet the sole of your bare foot and stand on an absorbent surface like dry concrete or a paper bag, the imprint of your foot will reveal something about your arch height (my wet-test result from last summer is shown in the image to the left).

Typically, the results of the wet test are interpreted as follows. If no distinct arch is visible, you have flat feet, probably overpronate, and thus need motion control. If there is a distinct dry area under the inner side of the arch region of your foot with a complete wet band adjacent to it on the outer side, you have normal arches, normal pronation, and would do fine with a mild stability or perhaps a neutral shoe. If the outer wet band is separated in the middle by a dry area, or if the wet band is very narrow, you have high arches, underpronate, and need a neutral cushioned shoe. This 2004 article from Runner’s World website provides a typical example (with diagrams) of how to interpret your “wet test” results.

Unfortunately, there’s a big, big problem with the wet test, and it’s due to the fact that the test is done when you are standing still. This is what’s known as a static measure of arch height/deformation/collapse, meaning we take it while we are not moving. Though we all might feel like we are standing still sometimes when we run, I can assure you that running involves movement of your legs and feet, and we don’t need a scientific study to prove that! When we run, forces generated are very different than when standing still, and the arch of the foot behaves differently. Why? Because the arch is not simply a passive structure. There are muscles that help to support the arch, such as the tibialis posterior and the flexor hallucis brevis, and it’s quite likely that they are going to be more active when you are running than when you are standing still.

Several scientific studies have shown that static measures of arch height yield significantly different results than those measured while walking or running (dynamic activities). In a study published in Clinical Biomechanics in 1989, Dr. Joseph Hamill and colleagues from the University of Massachusetts compared static and dynamic (walking) footprints using a measure called arch index. To determine arch index, they applied ink to the feet of their subjects, had them walk over sheets of paper, and compared the size of the ink imprint in the region of the midfoot relative to the overall area of the foot imprint (excluding the toes - the shaded region in the picture at left shows the midfoot area compared by Hamill et al., 1989).

Hamill and colleagues found that arch index (size of the shaded area) increased in seven subjects, decreased in 15 subjects, and did not change in two when they compared the walking footprints to the standing footprints. Though static and dynamic measures were strongly correlated in this case, they were found to be significantly different, with the arch tending to be higher when walking than when standing. They suggest that differing orientations of the lower leg, increased weight bearing, or increased activity of foot musculature could explain the differences observed. They also found little correlation between observed arch index and other dynamic aspects of gait, writing that “the lack of significant findings between the dynamic aspects of gait and arch index may discount the use of this measure in functional lower extremity evaluation.” Furthermore, they write that “Although a large contact area may be present, very little force may be exerted over much of the contact area. A person who has a very large arch index may actually demonstrate a pressure distribution pattern more closely resembling a person with a very high arched foot (small arch index).” Finally, the authors do indicate that “first ray mobility was particularly effective in predicting dynamic function, supporting its continued use as a measurement in lower extremity evaluation.” So, the take home message seems to be that footprint type isn’t all that useful when it comes to predicting walking gait, but mobility of the first metatarsal and big toe are very important.

Jay Dicharry and colleagues from the University of Virginia published a paper in 2009 in the Journal of Orthopaedic and Sports Physical Therapy in which they did a bit more elaborate assessment of static arch deformation vs. dynamic arch deformation during walking and running. They did this by comparing values obtained from a static functional navicular drop test (see image below for navicular location), a static subtalar navicular drop test, and measures obtained by 3-D video analysis of arch height during gait (using markers placed on the foot).

Bony structure of the medial longitudinal arch of the foot – navicular bone is located near the apex of the arch - Photo from Gray’s Anatomy via Wikipedia

The functional navicular drop test sounds complex, but in reality is quite simple. The navicular is a bone in the midfoot near the apex of the medial arch, and the functional navicular drop test compares the height of the navicular during relaxed seated (non-weight bearing) vs. relaxed standing (weight bearing) positions. Higher values for functional navicular drop would thus indicate a greater degree of arch deformation/collapse, and thus a floppier, more mobile foot. Lower values for functional navicular drop indicate a more rigid arch that does not compress much. The second static test – the static subtalar navicular drop test - compares navicular height when the foot is placed in “neutral” position to when the foot is allowed to relax and compress the arch.

Results of Dicharry’s study (see below) showed that despite significant differences in arch collapse between the groups during static testing, arch collapse was identical in all three groups during walking, and the only difference observed during running was a small but significant difference between the hypermobile and hypomobile groups, neither of which were significantly different from people categorized as neutral (i.e., only the extremes were different, and the magnitude of the difference was far smaller than would be found using the static measures). Furthermore, despite increase in force magnitude during running, only the hypermobile group exhibited greater arch compression during running as compared to walking. They suggest that neuromuscular control during dynamic movement could explain these differences – basically, the brain activates appropriate musculature in the foot and legs to manage the forces and maintain the arch during walking and running, and this is not captured by measuring the arch when we stand still. The basic message is that even if you have flat feet and your arches collapse when you stand still, your arch may behave very much like the foot of a normal arched person when you are walking or running, likely due to muscular control.

This brings us to paper number three, which was just published on-line in Gait & Posture. The authors, led by Jesper Bencke from Copenhagen University Hospital in Denmark, compared measures of static navicular drop to both 2-D and 3-D measures of arch deformation during walking. They found only a moderate correlation between static measures of the arch and those obtained during walking (r² = 0.31 for you stats oriented folks), and conclude the following:

“Assuming the foot as a two-segment structure in the sagittal plane with a hinge joint placed at the navicular bone between the forefoot and the hindfoot, the increased plantarflexor moment during push-off would correlate to an external moment attempting to dorsiflex the forefoot with respect to the hindfoot. The lack of good correlation between static and dynamic measures could thus be a result of this extra load being counteracted differently between participants. This would further imply that a static test measuring the ND (navicular drop) might only have limited validity as predictor of MLAD (medial longitudinal arch deformation) during gait.”

And these are not the only three papers that have shown this – if you’d like to read the full text of one you can take a look at Deng et al., 2010, who found no relationship between navicular drop measurements and arch deformation measured during walking.

So what does all of this mean? Basically, it tells us that what the arch looks like and how it deforms when we are standing or sitting probably doesn’t tell us much about what the arch does when we are actually moving. Thus, applying the “wet footprint” test as a basis for determining foot type, and thus as a basis for choosing a running shoe makes very little sense. If you are in a shoe store and they suggest that you try this test or if they take a look at your arch while you are stationary, be very wary of any advice that you get (this probably applies to those fancy foot scanning machines as well). As Dicharry showed, only the extreme floppy and rigid feet differed in degree of arch deformation during running, and the difference was very small and of unknown clinical significance (and neither differed from so-called “neutral” feet). What’s more, we have several studies showing that assigning shoes based upon arch height provides no benefit in terms of injury outcomes when compared to simply assigning everybody a stability shoe regardless of foot type (see here and here for examples).

All of this does not mean that some individuals with extremely rigid or mobile feet might not benefit from some tailored shoe advice, as studies do suggest that individuals with extremely flat or rigid arches do seem to suffer different types of injuries. However, it does suggest that the wet-footprint test as a general tool for assigning shoes should be put to rest. At the very least, methods that provide clinically relevant measures of arch deformation dynamically and simply and without a requirement for expensive gait analysis equipment that is rarely found in a shoe store should be investigated (e.g., the 2-D method described by Bencke et al.).

Podcast: Physiotherapist Blaise Dubois on Running Injuries, Form, Footwear, and Barefoot Running

noreply@blogger.com (Pete Larson) — Tue, 06 Dec 2011 11:29:00 +0000

Back in August I traveled to Colorado to participate in a panel discussion at the Newton Running National Retailers Summit. The keynote speaker at the event was physiotherapist Blaise Dubois, who is an advocate for minimalist footwear. Blaise knows the scientific literature on running injuries as well as anybody I have met, and has treated runners ranging from Olympians to recreational runners for over ten years. He’s one of the few medical professionals that I know who actually writes prescriptions for racing flats for his patients!

I was fortunate enough to have recorded the audio of Blaise’s lecture, and he was kind enough to give me permission to post the audio as a podcast here on Runblogger. Below are links to the audio at Itunes, as well as a direct link to a downloadable MP3 file. Blaise is an informative, dynamic, and entertaining speaker, and I encourage you to give the lecture a listen.

Itunes link: click here

Direct MP3 link: click here

To learn more about Blaise and his work, you can visit his website at www.therunningclinic.ca. You can also sign up for his mailing list - he writes often on topics relating to form, footwear and injuries.

Running Shoe Review: Brooks Pure Flow

noreply@blogger.com (Pete Larson) — Sun, 04 Dec 2011 20:07:00 +0000

When Brooks first announced its Pure Project line of more minimalist footwear, I was initially most curious about the Connect, which was supposedly the most stripped down of the models in the Pure Project lineup. Unfortunately, I found the Connect to be both too narrow, and the contour of the sole underfoot was just a bit too much for my taste. So, the Connects were sent back and I headed over to my local mall and picked up a pair of the Brooks Pure Flow instead. A number of folks on Twitter had indicated to me that the Flow had a wider fit, and thus it would more likely meet my needs.

I’ve now had the Flows for over a month, and have run a decent number of miles in them, including several 10+ mile runs. For me, a shoe like the Flow is a long run shoe in a similar category to the Saucony Kinvara, which is probably its most direct competitor. It’s a well cushioned shoe, and though lightweight compared to most traditional running shoes, it’s at the upper end of my tolerance at 9.4 oz in size 10 (measure on my postal scale). Thus, it’s a bit more shoe than the Kinvara, and thus the more appropriate comparison might be to the Saucony Mirage (the latter is classified as a mild stability shoe, but I hardly notice) – both the Mirage and the Flow have more substantial uppers in comparison to the Kinvara.

In terms of appearance, bright, almost neon green is an atypical color for a running shoe, but I like bright colors in general, so this shoe appeals to me. The silvery sole pairs well with the upper to make for an overall fine looking shoe.

My biggest concern about this shoe was whether the fit would be wide enough. Thankfully, the forefoot is indeed wider than that of the Connect, and by a considerable amount – my foot doesn’t hang off the sole of the Flow on the sides. That being said, this is by no means a wide shoe, but it fits comfortably on my foot, and I don’t feel any oppressive squeezing of my metatarsals and toes as I did in the Connects. I’d compare the fit to that of the Kinvara – if you have wide feet this is not the shoe for you, but an average width foot should do just fine.

The interior of the Flow is well-finished and comfortable. I particularly like the inner liner of the heel region – soft and non-abrasive. There is noticeable arch support, which will turn a lot of more minimalist folks off, and the feel under the forefoot is on the soft side. This is most definitely a transitional shoe and not a barefoot-style shoe.

The sole of the Flow is rather unique. On my first run in them I immediately noticed that it had a very springy feel to it. It’s not firm, and it’s not overly mushy – rather, it almost has a bouncy feel. Others have commented on this to me as well, but have indicated that the bounciness tends to subside with increased mileage on the shoe. The sole is composed o a mix of Brooks’ DNA and Biomogo compounds, and the combination seems to work very well – I do feel like this sole gives a bit of return with each step. The heel-forefoot offset in the Flow is 4mm, which is right in my sweet spot for a long run shoe. One area that the Flow does have an advantage over a shoe like the Kinvara is in expected durability – it has a much more prominent rubber outsole, and should not wear down as fast as the exposed EVA foam on the Kinvara.

Brooks has incorporated 4 “technologies” into each of the shoes in the Pure Project lineup as part of their “do more with less” philosophy. My feeling is that most of these are gimmicky and basically non-functional. The nav-band that wraps over the midfoot seems redundant in a shoe with laces, and I can’t honestly say that I feel any benefit from it. My sense is that the split toe (see photo at left and above) is completely non-functional – the sole above it is rather rigid, and the split doe not extend nearly far enough back to allow any independence of the big toe (a more functional, though weird-looking, split toe can be found on the Vivobarefoot Achilles sandal). I can’t even independently flex the big toe piece with my hands, so not sure what the purpose is. The anatomical shape is not nearly as anatomical as shoes like the Altra, Merrell Barefoot, Vivobarefoot, or New Balance Minimus, but is wide enough for my feet. Finally, the one “technology” that I do like is the “ideal heel” (see rounded heel in photo below). I find that an undercut heel like that on the Brooks Flow, New Balance Minimus, and Skechers Go Run does allow for a more forward landing on the sole. So Brooks is batting only .250 on its so-called “technology” on my scorecard, but at least the one hit was a solid one.

In terms of performance, the Brooks Flow has served me well out on the road so far. I ran a sub-1:35 half-marathon in them (it was a training run, not a race), and my feet and legs felt great afterward. The springiness of the sole is quite pleasant, and I have yet to develop any hot spots from running in the shoe. I suspect that they would work well as a sockless running shoe, but I have yet to attempt this myself.

Conclusion

In summary, whereas Brooks failed in my opinion with the Connect, they have created a solid shoe in the Flow. This shoe is an excellent alternative for those running in the Saucony Mirage or Kinvara, though it is a bit more shoe than the latter which would probably lead me to still choose the Kinvara for a marathon length race. For me, the Flows are a training shoe for mid-distance to long runs, and they fill that niche quite nicely.

The Brooks Pure Flow is now available at Running Warehouse.

Video: The Barefoot Runner

noreply@blogger.com (Pete Larson) — Fri, 02 Dec 2011 15:54:00 +0000

Thanks to my buddy Tuck over at Yelling Stop for posting this – always good to not take ourselves to seriously!

Women and the Minimalist Running Movement: Merrell Wants Your Feedback

noreply@blogger.com (Pete Larson) — Thu, 01 Dec 2011 16:11:00 +0000

Back in September I traveled to New York City to attend a roundtable discussion hosted by Merrell Footwear. The group in attendance was diverse, and included bloggers, journalists, doctors, physical therapists, and a former Boston Marathon winner. Despite our differing backgrounds, one thing we had in common is that most of us had a Y chromosome – the group was dominated by men. Emily Snayd, the rep for Merrell who had organized the event (and a darned good runner!), indicated that despite her best efforts, she’d had a very hard time finding women to participate.

The gender bias within the minimalist movement became one of several focal points of discussion during the roundtable, and many theories were put forth as to why men seem to be more likely to ditch their traditional shoes than women. This bias was borne out the following day at the NYC Barefoot Run – though many barefoot women were present, there was clearly a decided bias toward the male side among the barefoot runners present.

In an effort to learn more about this gender bias, Emily at Merrell is going to be hosting a discussion on their Facebook page (http://www.facebook.com/merrell) this afternoon (December 1) from 1:00-2:00, and tonight from 7:00-8:00 PM. It’ll be interesting to see what comes out of this – if you can’t take part, feel free to share any thoughts on this topic in the comments below as well – I’ll pass them along and make sure they are heard.

For more information, you can check out Emily’s post over on the Merrell blog.

The Great Barefoot Running Debate: UKSEM Panel Summary by Ross Tucker from The Science of Sport Blog

noreply@blogger.com (Pete Larson) — Tue, 29 Nov 2011 17:31:00 +0000

I’ve been waiting anxiously for Ross Tucker over at the Science of Sport blog to post his summary of the barefoot running/footwear discussion that took place last week at the UKSEM conference in London. If you aren’t aware of this event, it was a panel discussion that included some of the most eminent figures involved in the ongoing debate about form and footwear.

Ross at Science of Sport describes the panelists as follows:

Prof Daniel Howell, an anatomy professor from Liberty (USA), known as the "barefoot professor"
Simon Barthold, who formerly worked as a podiatrist but who now works in biomechanics and is Asics global research consultant
Prof Benno Nigg, one of the world's leading biomechanists
Dr Mathias Marquard, a clinician and running coach (who would go on to become the voice of reason in many of the more hostile aspects of the debate, as I'll describe!)
Prof Daniel Lieberman, evolutionary biologist from Harvard, who as you may know, recently published the Nature studies looking at how habitually shod and barefoot runners differ, and who wrote a key paper on how humans are adapted (skeletally and physiologically) to run long distances

Quite a lineup!

I’m not going to comment on Ross’ post since I was not at the conference, nor have I heard the audio of the discussion (hoping UKSEM posts it – hint, hint!). Furthermore, I largely share Ross’ viewpoint on barefoot running, which he describes as follows:

“Buy barefoot running as a concept, try it out as a training modality, but keep the receipt so that you can return it if you don't find the "fit" right for you. At worst, you'll discover a new muscle activation pattern, a new and effective training method, and potentially, changes to running form that will help you run better, in shoes"

So, rather than continue to comment on an event that I did not witness, I’ll recommend that you head on over to the Science of Sport blog and read Ross’ summary.

Here’s the direct link: http://www.sportsscientists.com/2011/11/barefoot-running-round-table-discussion.html

Links to Shoe Reviews: Altra Lone Peak, Brooks Pure Grit, and Saucony Triumph 9

noreply@blogger.com (Pete Larson) — Wed, 23 Nov 2011 18:23:00 +0000

Since I have not had time to write a review of my own recently, I wanted to steer you to three shoe reviews written by people that I know and whose opinions I respect. All are of shoes that I do not own myself and so no review of my own is forthcoming at this point (not to say that won’t change down the line!). Enjoy!

First, head on over to Zak Branginan’s blog and check out his review of the Altra Lone Peak. The Lone Peak is a rugged, zero drop trail shoe with a very roomy toe box, and might appeal to those looking for a flat trail shoe with a decent amount of protection.

Here’s the direct link to Zak’s review: http://averageguyhitstheroad.blogspot.com/2011/11/altra-lone-peak-review-first.html

Next, for another new trail shoe offering that falls in the transitional range, head over to my ultrarunning friend Nate Sanel’s review of the Brooks Pure Grit. Nate completed three 100 mile races this summer and runs more miles on trails than just about anyone I know, and he also happens to be a shoe junkie. We trade thoughts on shoes often, and his review of the Brooks Grit is both detailed and well balanced in considering the pros and cons.

Here’s the direct link to Nate’s review: http://bikernate.blogspot.com/2011/11/brooks-pure-grit-shoe-review.html

Finally, my buddy Thomas Neuberger over at Believe in the Run just posted a review of the Saucony Triumph 9. This shoe is one of the three models that Saucony is migrating down from a 12mm heel-forefoot drop to an 8mm drop - the others are the Guide 5 (which I have and have put about 10 miles on so far) and Hurricane 13. The Triumph is a neutral shoe, and Thomas, who mixes minimalist and more traditional shoes in his training, was fairly well impressed.

Here’s the direct link to Thomas’ review: http://www.believeintherun.com/index.php/2011/11/22/saucony-powergrid-triumph-9-shoe-review/