Most Disappointing Running Shoes of 2014–nike roshe run

As a shoe reviewer,nike free womens I try to be as objective as possible when I write my reviews. If a shoe is great,roshe run kids I say so. If there are problems,kids nike free I point them out. If a shoe is a total bust,kids roshe I won’t hold back.

As I work through the list of shoes I’ve run in this year in preparation for writing my Best of 2014 post,nike free 1.0 I thought it might be interesting as a counterpoint to put together a short list of shoes that disappointed me this year. The shoes included here are all shoes that I have run in,nike free run sale or at least purchased and returned after trying them on and finding them unacceptable (and I have written about all of them).

I realize people sometimes get sensitive when a favorite shoe is criticized,nike free 7.0 so please view this as my experience with the shoes given my anatomy and running style. You might love some of them,roshe flyknit you might hate some shoes that I really like. That’s what makes this fun – we all have different experiences when it comes to shoes. Being passionate is OK!

Here goes:

1. Nike Free 5.0 2014

 

I’m a big fan of the Nike Free line,nike free 5.0 v2 and a member of this collection will be on my Best of 2014 list,nike free running 5.0 but the Free 5.0 2015 was a total no-go for me. I tried them on in-store and noticed a tightness over the base of the lace-row (area circled in red above). There was a band of material digging into my foot and it had no give. I wanted to try them so much that I bought a pair in a half size larger than usual,nike free pink but after wearing them at home for a bit I realized there was no way they were going to work and running in them meant I couldn’t return them. They went back to the store. Several commenters on my post about the shoe mentioned having the same problem,roshe run flyknit and it seems the shoe would simply not accommodate my higher volume foot. It probably worked fine for those with lower volume feet,nike free womens shoes but it was a bust for me.

2. Saucony Mirage 4

The Saucony Mirage 4 was a huge disappointment for me because it was one of the best looking,nike free sale yet worst riding shoes I tried this year (my review here). Quite honestly,nike free boys the sole felt like a brick strapped to the bottom of my foot. Extremely firm with little give-back, the ride was jarring, stiff, and uncomfortable. Those who like a firm shoe probably loved it, but it didn’t work at all for me. The shoe also suffered cosmetic damage to the beautiful upper due to rapid fraying of some of the stringy elements in the mesh. Pair this upper (minus the fraying issue) with the sole of the Saucony Kinvara and I’d be more than pleased!

3. New Balance Fresh Foam 980

This shoe was more perplexing than disappointing (my review here). The Fresh Foam 980 was marketed using the tagline “Experience the Science of Soft,” yet the shoe was anything but soft. I was expecting a squishy ride, but wound up with a shoe that was firm, responsive, and smooth. I actually quite enjoyed the ride, but was shocked at how poorly they had been marketed. The biggest problem I had with the 980 was that the toe box was too pointy and mashed my toes together (I even went a half size up, did not help) – this gave me blisters between the toes after one long run and pretty much relegated them to the shoe rack after I wrote my review. Fortunately New Balance seems to have recognized the toe box issue, and the recently released Fresh Foam Zante offers a much better fit with a similarly smooth ride. Hopefully the update to the 980 will follow suit.

Honorable Mention: The Merrell AllOut Rush was a bust for me as a running shoe – too firm and poorly balanced with a very heavy sole. I would have included it in the list but I like them a lot as a casual shoe and for light hiking.

I’d love to hear your most disappointing shoes of the year – leave a comment. I suspect I know a few that will show up that I did not get to try myself!

As a shoe reviewer, nike free womens I try to be as objective as possible when I write my reviews. If a shoe is great, roshe run kids I say so. If there are problems, kids nike free I point them out. If a shoe is a total bust, kids roshe I won’t hold back.

As I work through the list of shoes I’ve run in this year in preparation for writing my Best of 2014 post, nike free 1.0 I thought it might be interesting as a counterpoint to put together a short list of shoes that disappointed me this year. The shoes included here are all shoes that I have run innike free run 5, nike free run sale or at least purchased and returned after trying them on and finding them unacceptable (and I have written about all of them).

I realize people sometimes get sensitive when a favorite shoe is criticized, nike free 7.0 so please view this as my experience with the shoes given my anatomy and running style. You might love some of them, roshe flyknit you might hate some shoes that I really like. That’s what makes this fun – we all have different experiences when it comes to shoes. Being passionate is OK!

Here goes:

1. Nike Free 5.0 2014

 

I’m a big fan of the Nike Free line, nike free 5.0 v2 and a member of this collection will be on my Best of 2014 list, nike free running 5.0 but the Free 5.0 2015 was a total no-go for me. I tried them on in-store and noticed a tightness over the base of the lace-row (area circled in red above). There was a band of material digging into my foot and it had no give. I wanted to try them so much that I bought a pair in a half size larger than usual, nike free pink but after wearing them at home for a bit I realized there was no way they were going to work and running in them meant I couldn’t return them. They went back to the store. Several commenters on my post about the shoe mentioned having the same problemnike free woman, roshe run flyknit and it seems the shoe would simply not accommodate my higher volume foot. It probably worked fine for those with lower volume feet, nike free womens shoes but it was a bust for me.

2. Saucony Mirage 4

The Saucony Mirage 4 was a huge disappointment for me because it was one of the best looking, nike free sale yet worst riding shoes I tried this year (my review here). Quite honestlynike free run cheap, nike free boys the sole felt like a brick strapped to the bottom of my foot. Extremely firm with little give-back, the ride was jarring, stiff, and uncomfortable. Those who like a firm shoe probably loved it, but it didn’t work at all for me. The shoe also suffered cosmetic damage to the beautiful upper due to rapid fraying of some of the stringy elements in the mesh. Pair this upper (minus the fraying issue) with the sole of the Saucony Kinvara and I’d be more than pleased!

3. New Balance Fresh Foam 980

This shoe was more perplexing than disappointing (my review here). The Fresh Foam 980 was marketed using the tagline “Experience the Science of Soft, ” yet the shoe was anything but soft. I was expecting a squishy ridecheap flyknit roshe, but wound up with a shoe that was firm, responsive, and smooth. I actually quite enjoyed the ride, but was shocked at how poorly they had been marketed. The biggest problem I had with the 980 was that the toe box was too pointy and mashed my toes together (I even went a half size up, did not help) – this gave me blisters between the toes after one long run and pretty much relegated them to the shoe rack after I wrote my review. Fortunately New Balance seems to have recognized the toe box issue,

Runblogger’s Top Running Shoes of 2014–nike roshe run herren

Putting together a list of top running shoes can be a challenge. Each year I run in a lot of great shoes,nike free running shoes but few are 100% perfect. Furthermore,nike free sale a shoe that I didn’t like might be an ideal shoe for someone else,roshe kids and a shoe that I loved might have been a bust for someone with a different stride,nike free run shoes smaller/larger feet,flyknit free 5.0 etc. So what I do is simply pick the shoes that worked best for me among the many that I have tried during the year.

This year I thought it might be helpful to put my list into context by explaining at the outset the general characteristics that work well for me in running shoes. I’m not going to break my list up into categories this year since I didn’t try many trail shoes,cheap nike roshe run so I’ll address my preferences for training shoes,womens nike free run racing flats,roshe run release dates and trail at the outset.

My Preferred Characteristics in Running Shoes

1. First of all,nike free run 2 women I’ll point out that my feet are of average width (I always by D width shoes),nike free blue but are fairly high volume (thick from top to bottom). As such,nike free 5.0 running shoes certain shoes can present depth problems in the forefoot (e.g.,free run Nike Free 5.0). I generally like shoes that don’t constrict my toes or squish them together,cheap nike free and that allow a bit of vertical volume for my forefoot.

2. For slower or longer miles I prefer shoes that have a softish heel and a firmer forefoot. I am a light heel striker who loads mostly from midfoot forward. A hard heel above a certain stack height (not sure exactly what it is) can torque my ankle a bit and makes for a harsher ride (e.g.,nike free run 5 original Mizuno Sayonara). I don’t like too much squish in the forefoot as it makes me fell like I have to work too hard (e.g.,nike free run 4.0 Hoka Clifton, Skechers GoRun Ultra). I’ve become more tolerant of shoes varying in heel-forefoot drop, but generally prefer less than 8mm offset.

3. For racing flats and speed workouts I like shoes that are lightweight, low stack height, low drop, and firm. I also like a bit of extra stiffness to make a flat more responsive.

4. I don’t run trails too often, and those that I do run tend not to be very technical. I generally like a trail shoe that can handle mixed road and trail routes, and big lugs aren’t necessary for most of what I run. I also tend to use trail shoes often in the winter when conditions warrant (e.g., crusty ice and snow), so grip is helpful. I like a firmish midsole on trails, but not so firm that a shoe feels harsh on stretches of road.

Let’s move on to the top shoes! The list below is in no particular order, it just includes the shoes that I had the best experiences with in 2014. None are 100% perfect, and in each summary I point out pros and cons where warranted.

1. Saucony Kinvara 5

I have been a Kinvara fan since v1, but version 4 was a bust due to a poor fit in the forefoot. Saucony remedied the issue in version 5 and my old favorite was back in top form (my Kinvara 5 review here). I love the Kinvara because it’s affordable, light, and provides a softish ride that is a great match for my stride. It’s not a shoe I’d choose for speed, but for me it’s the perfect shoe for long or easy miles. The only issue I had with the K5 was a hot spot under my big toe on the first few runs, but that seemed to alleviate with further use. Great shoe, and glad to see it return to my top shoe list! Purchase at Running Warehouse or Wiggle (UK).

2. Asics Hyper Speed 6

I’d call the Asics Hyper Speed 6 the best buy of the year (my review here). At an MSRP of $85 it’s quite a bargain, and can be found on-line much cheaper at a variety of retailers (I like inexpensive shoes!). In my Hyper Speed 6 review I ranked it right up there with the New Balance 1400v2 and adidas adios Boost, and I think those are both reasonable comparisons. The Hyperspeed has a softish heel, firm forefoot, and weighs in at under 6oz – great shoe for speedy runs where you want a bit more cushion than a typical flat will provide. The Hyper Speed would be ideal as a half-marathon racer for me, and might even work for a full. I also love the upper of the shoe, and it offers a roomy forefoot fit for a racing shoe. If I was pressed to choose my all-around top road shoe of the year, this might be it. Purchase at Running Warehouse or Wiggle (UK).

3. Skechers GoRun 4

Given that the GoRun 4 is a pretty significant update from top to bottom (my review here), I was worried that Skechers might ruin a shoe that I loved. Instead, they produced what is in my opinion the best version of the shoe to date, and I fell in love with the GoRun 4 on my first run in it. Softish sole, good flexibility, and a perfect fit for my foot – pretty much ticked all of my boxes. I could do without the Quick-Fit portal on the heel tab, and the upper mesh isn’t the most breathable, but in all other respects the GR4 is a great match for me. And like the Kinvara and Hyperspeed above, the GR4 is affordable at an MSRP of $100 (notice a trend here?). Purchase at Running Warehouse or Shoebuy.

4. Nike Free 4.0 Flyknit

The Nike Free 4.0 Flyknit might be the best Nike Free shoe I have worn (my review here). The Flyknit upper is extremely comfortable, sole flexibilty is fantastic (as with all Free shoes), the forefoot is nice and wide, and the ride is nicely cushioned. My only real problem with the shoe is that I get a bit of pressure on top of my foot with extended wear (my high volume foot acting up again!). It’s generally not a problem while running, moreso when I wear them all day casually (which I do quite often). Great shoe for easy runs. Purchase at Running Warehouse or Wiggle (UK).

5. adidas adios Boost 2

This one is all about the sole (my adios Boost 2 review here). I found the upper/fit of the adios Boost 2 (top shoe in image above) to be a step back from the original (bottom shoe in image above) – tighter fit up front and a not as comfortable. However, the adios Boost 2 retains one of the best soles on the market. The Boost midsole material shines under the heel by providing a forgiving ride, and the forefoot is firm enough to provide more than enough responsiveness. I used the adios Boost 2 for everything from track workouts to long runs, and it may be one of the more versatile shoes in my arsenal. Improve the upper and reduce the price a bit and this might be one of the best shoes on the market. Purchase at Running Warehouse or Wiggle (UK).

6. Pearl Izumi EM Road N0

The Pearl Izumi EM Road N0 is a no-frills racing flat that impressed me quite a bit (my review here). I love the simplicity of the shoe, the ride is firm and responsive, and it fits my foot like a glove. It’s unfortunately named as I think some people expected N0 to imply that it’s zero drop – it’s not (I measured 6mm drop). I also think the shoe looks great. An all-around good choice if you’re in the market for a shoe for racing or speedwork. Purchase at Running Warehouse.

7. Salomon Sense Pro

I only tried a few trail shoes this year (see David Henry’s roundup of the best trail shoes of 2014 for more), and the Sense Pro was my favorite (view my Sense Pro review here). At first I thought the fit was too narrow, but they broke in well and I grew to really like the performance-like fit. They feel kind of like a racing flat for the trails. Lugs are not huge so they also handle bits of road adequately. I also like the Sense Ultra, but given the price difference I’d opt for the Pro between the two since the shoes are pretty similar. Purchase at Running Warehouse.

Honorable Mention

Altra The One 2 – This was the first Altra shoe I have tried that offered a sufficiently forgiving and flexible ride for longer miles on roads. I enjoyed the pairing of a softer sole with the wide Altra toe box, but I’m still not sure how crazy I am about the bowling-shoe style upper (I go back and forth on it, can’t decide!). Very comfy shoe! Read my review here.

Newton Kismet/Fate – I lump the Kismet and Fate together because they are basically the same shoe, with the Kismet having just a bit more girth in the sole at the midfoot for added “stability” (not sure it does much of anything). I like the 5-lug platform that Newton now uses – it makes for less medial-lateral roll than the old 4-lug platform. I don’t see much reason to spend $50 more for the top-line Newton shoes like the Gravity/Motion when the Kismet/Fate run so similarly at a lower price point. Read my Newton Kismet review here (I never reviewed the Fate because they are so similar).

I should have a reader survey of favorite shoes posted soon, but if you’d like to share your personal favorites in a comment please feel free to do so!

Disclosure: Purchases made from retailer websites linked in this post provide a small commission to Runblogger. Thanks for your support!

Putting together a list of top running shoes can be a challenge. Each year I run in a lot of great shoesnike free run 5.0nike free 3.0, nike free running shoes but few are 100% perfect. Furthermore, nike free sale a shoe that I didn’t like might be an ideal shoe for someone else, roshe kids and a shoe that I loved might have been a bust for someone with a different stride, nike free run shoes smaller/larger feet, flyknit free 5.0 etc. So what I do is simply pick the shoes that worked best for me among the many that I have tried during the year.

This year I thought it might be helpful to put my list into context by explaining at the outset the general characteristics that work well for me in running shoes. I’m not going to break my list up into categories this year since I didn’t try many trail shoes, cheap nike roshe run so I’ll address my preferences for training shoes, womens nike free run racing flats, roshe run release dates and trail at the outset.

My Preferred Characteristics in Running Shoes

1. First of all, nike free run 2 women I’ll point out that my feet are of average width (I always by D width shoes), nike free blue but are fairly high volume (thick from top to bottom). As such, nike free 5.0 running shoes certain shoes can present depth problems in the forefoot (e.g., free run Nike Free 5.0). I generally like shoes that don’t constrict my toes or squish them together, cheap nike free and that allow a bit of vertical volume for my forefoot.

2. For slower or longer miles I prefer shoes that have a softish heel and a firmer forefoot. I am a light heel striker who loads mostly from midfoot forward. A hard heel above a certain stack height (not sure exactly what it is) can torque my ankle a bit and makes for a harsher ride (e.g., nike free run 5 original Mizuno Sayonara). I don’t like too much squish in the forefoot as it makes me fell like I have to work too hard (e.g., nike free run 4.0 Hoka Clifton, Skechers GoRun Ultra). I’ve become more tolerant of shoes varying in heel-forefoot drop, but generally prefer less than 8mm offset.

3. For racing flats and speed workouts I like shoes that are lightweight, low stack height, low drop, and firm. I also like a bit of extra stiffness to make a flat more responsive.

4. I don’t run trails too often, and those that I do run tend not to be very technical. I generally like a trail shoe that can handle mixed road and trail routes, and big lugs aren’t necessary for most of what I run. I also tend to use trail shoes often in the winter when conditions warrant (e.g., crusty ice and snow), so grip is helpful. I like a firmish midsole on trails, but not so firm that a shoe feels harsh on stretches of road.

Let’s move on to the top shoes! The list below is in no particular order, it just includes the shoes that I had the best experiences with in 2014. None are 100% perfect, and in each summary I point out pros and cons where warranted.

1. Saucony Kinvara 5

I have been a Kinvara fan since v1, but version 4 was a bust due to a poor fit in the forefoot. Saucony remedied the issue in version 5 and my old favorite was back in top form (my Kinvara 5 review here). I love the Kinvara because it’s affordable, light, and provides a softish ride that is a great match for my stride. It’s not a shoe I’d choose for speednike free woman, but for me it’s the perfect shoe for long or easy miles. The only issue I had with the K5 was a hot spot under my big toe on the first few runs, but that seemed to alleviate with further use. Great shoe, and glad to see it return to my top shoe list! Purchase at Running Warehouse or Wiggle (UK).

2. Asics Hyper Speed 6

I’d call the Asics Hyper Speed 6 the best buy of the year (my review here). At an MSRP of $85 it’s quite a bargain, and can be found on-line much cheaper at a variety of retailers (I like inexpensive shoes!). In my Hyper Speed 6 review I ranked it right up there with the New Balance 1400v2 and adidas adios Boost, and I think those are both reasonable comparisons. The Hyperspeed has a softish heel, firm forefoot, and weighs in at under 6oz – great shoe for speedy runs where you want a bit more cushion than a typical flat will provide. The Hyper Speed would be ideal as a half-marathon racer for me, and might even work for a full. I also love the upper of the shoe, and it offers a roomy forefoot fit for a racing shoe. If I was pressed to choose my all-around top road shoe of the year, this might be it. Purchase at Running Warehouse or Wiggle (UK).

3. Skechers GoRun 4

Given that the GoRun 4 is a pretty significant update from top to bottom (my review here), I was worried that Skechers might ruin a shoe that I loved. Instead, they produced what is in my opinion the best version of the shoe to date, and I fell in love with the GoRun 4 on my first run in it. Softish sole, good flexibility, and a perfect fit for my foot – pretty much ticked all of my boxes. I could do without the Quick-Fit portal on the heel tabnike roshe run flyknit, and the upper mesh isn’t the most breathable, but in all other respects the GR4 is a great match for me. And like the Kinvara and Hyperspeed above, the GR4 is affordable at an MSRP of $100 (notice a trend here?). Purchase at Running Warehouse or Shoebuy.

4. Nike Free 4.0 Flyknit

The Nike Free 4.0 Flyknit might be the best Nike Free shoe I have worn (my review here). The Flyknit upper is extremely comfortable, sole flexibilty is fantastic (as with all Free shoes), the forefoot is nice and wide, and the ride is nicely cushioned. My only real problem with the shoe is that I get a bit of pressure on top of my foot with extended wear (my high volume foot acting up again!). It’s generally not a problem while running, moreso when I wear them all day casually (which I do quite often). Great shoe for easy runs. Purchase at Running Warehouse or Wiggle (UK).

5. adidas adios Boost 2

This one is all about the sole (my adios Boost 2 review here). I found the upper/fit of the adios Boost 2 (top shoe in image above) to be a step back from the original (bottom shoe in image above) – tighter fit up front and a not as comfortable. However, the adios Boost 2 retains one of the best soles on the market. The Boost midsole material shines under the heel by providing a forgiving ride, and the forefoot is firm enough to provide more than enough responsiveness. I used the adios Boost 2 for everything from track workouts to long runs, and it may be one of the more versatile shoes in my arsenal. Improve the upper and reduce the price a bit and this might be one of the best shoes on the market. Purchase at Running Warehouse or Wiggle (UK).

6. Pearl Izumi EM Road N0

The Pearl Izumi EM Road N0 is a no-frills racing flat that impressed me quite a bit (my review here). I love the simplicity of the shoe, the ride is firm and responsive, and it fits my foot like a glove. It’s unfortunately named as I think some people expected N0 to imply that it’s zero drop – it’s not (I measured 6mm drop). I also think the shoe looks great. An all-around good choice if you’re in the market for a shoe for racing or speedwork. Purchase at Running Warehouse.

7. Salomon Sense Pro

I only tried a few trail shoes this year (see David Henry’s roundup of the best trail shoes of 2014 for more), and the Sense Pro was my favorite (view my Sense Pro review here). At first I thought the fit was too narrow, but they broke in well and I grew to really like the performance-like fit. They feel kind of like a racing flat for the trails. Lugs are not huge so they also handle bits of road adequately. I also like the Sense Ultra, but given the price difference I’d opt for the Pro between the two since the shoes are pretty similar. Purchase at Running Warehouse.

Honorable Mention

Altra The One 2 – This was the first Altra shoe I have tried that offered a sufficiently forgiving and flexible ride for longer miles on roads. I enjoyed the pairing of a softer sole with the wide Altra toe box, but I’m still not sure how crazy I am about the bowling-shoe style upper (I go back and forth on it, can’t decide!). Very comfy shoe! Read my review here.

Newton Kismet/Fate – I lump the Kismet and Fate together because they are basically the same shoe, with the Kismet having just a bit more girth in the sole at the midfoot for added “stability” (not sure it does much of anything). I like the 5-lug platform that Newton now uses – it makes for less medial-lateral roll than the old 4-lug platform. I don’t see much reason to spend $50 more for the top-line Newton shoes like the Gravity/Motion when the Kismet/Fate run so similarly at a lower price point. Read my Newton Kismet review here (I never reviewed the Fate because they are so similar).

I should have a reader survey of favorite shoes posted soon,

Runblogger Reader Survey: Top Running Shoes of 2014–nike free

Last year I posted two surveys in which Runblogger readers could vote for their top 3 road and trail shoes of the year. I received over 500 responses,cheap roshe shoes and the results were quite interesting. I thought I’d do the same again this year (you can view my top choices here).

All you need to do to participate is fill out one or both of the forms below – one for road shoes,nike air free the other for trail. No need to rank them in any particular order,cheap 2015 nike free 3.0 flyknit I’m just going to tally the votes by total number rather than weighting them by ranking. One set of votes per person for each category please!

I’ll leave these up for a week or two and then post the results in early January. Have fun!

Loading…

Loading…

Last year I posted two surveys in which Runblogger readers could vote for their top 3 road and trail shoes of the year. I received over 500 responsesfree 5.0 cheap 2015 womens nike free 5.0, cheap roshe shoes and the results were quite interesting. I thought I’d do the same again this year (you can view my top choices here).

All you need to do to participate is fill out one or both of the forms below – one for road shoesnike roshe onenike free run 2015, nike air free the other for trail. No need to rank them in any particular order,

New Balance Boracay Review: Small Changes Make a Better Shoe–nike free run 2

New Balance Fresh Foam BoracaySometimes all it takes is a few small changes to improve a shoe. This was the case with the Hoka Clifton 2,nike roshe flyknit which I reviewed earlier this week. Hoka added a bit of padding to the tongue,cheap nike roshe run kids an additional lace eyelet,nike roshe run and a new insole,free run but kept just about everything else on the shoe the same. Fix what’s broken,nike roshe print don’t change what people like – that’s how it should be done.

Last year I reviewed the New Balance Fresh Foam 980 and found that although I liked the shoe,cheap 2015 nike free 3.0 it suffered from a fatal flaw that made it unwearable for me on longer runs. The problem was the toebox – it was too pointy up front and squeezed my toes together. The result was blistering between my toes on long runs,cheap 2015 nike free run and going up a half size did not solve the problem.

The other problem I had with the Fresh Foam 980 wasn’t so much a problem with the shoe per se,womens nike free but rather with how it was marketed. Ads for the 980 kept using the word “soft,nike freerun” but the shoe was anything but cushy. Rather,cheap nike roshe run it was quite firm and responsive. This isn’t a bad thing if that is how you like a shoe to ride,roshe kids but it’s not what people might have expected given the marketing message.

I’d heard rumors that New Balance was going to address the fit issue with the 980 in an update to the shoe. Renamed the Fresh Foam Boracay,roshes run I received a pair of the updated model about a month ago and have run about 40 miles in them so far (Disclosure: these shoes were media samples provided free of charge by the manufacturer). Keep on reading to find out what has changed (and what hasn’t).

New Balance Fresh Foam Boracay Side

Specs

Per Running Warehouse,nike free 5.0 men the New Balance Fresh Foam Boracay weighs in at 9 oz in men’s size 9 and has stack heights of 22mm heel,flyknit roshe 18mm forefoot (4mm drop). As I did with the 980,nike free 3 I went up a half size in the Boracay and fit is perfect.

New Balance Fresh Foam Boracay Medial

Review

I’m happy to report that New Balance has indeed addressed the fit issue I had with the FF 980. Though the change is pretty subtle, there does seem to be just a bit more room up front, and I have less of a sensation of toe squeezing in the Boracay. More importantly, in runs as long as 10 miles I have not experienced any toe blistering. However, this is still not a particularly roomy shoe, so if you prefer a spacious toebox you may want to look elsewhere.

New Balance Fresh Foam Boracay Top

To be honest, the fit change is the only one that was particularly noticeable to me. The upper is new, but remains a breathable mesh with welded overlays. It appears that New Balance removed a bit of padding around the ankle collar, but I did not notice this until I compared the shoes side by side just now. The midsole has a new pattern of hexagons along the sides, but the ride is similarly firm compared to the original. The full coverage outsole also gets a new pattern, but functionally feels the same.

New Balance Fresh Foam Boracay Sole

One thing that I don’t like about the Boracay, though it is a rather minor annoyance, is that the edges of the tongue tend to curl under when putting the shoe on. This necessitates sticking you finger into the shoe to flatten it out. In their review, Sole Review noticed the same thing. Seems like it should be an easy fix next time around.

A quick note on durability – I have not experienced any issues with durability in the Boracay so far, but I have seen reports of the upper tearing where it meets the sole on the inner side of the shoe. I’m not sure how widespread this issue is, but it’s something to consider, and this may not be the best shoe to use off-road or in conditions that stress the upper attachment.

Conclusion

So what do you get in the Fresh Foam Boracay? Basically, this is a light weight, well-cushioned but firm shoe suitable for long miles. I found the ride to be smooth and I enjoyed running in them more than I typically do with firmish shoes. They are snappy enough to pick up the pace, but provide enough comfort and protection for double digit mileage.

One challenge that the Boracay faces is that in my opinion it has been eclipsed by it’s new sibling the Fresh Foam Zante. The Zante is one of my top shoes of 2015 so far, and it beats the Boracay in terms of fit, ride, and comfort. New Balance is pitching the Zante as the choice for more uptempo running, but its stack height is only 1mm lower in the heel and forefoot, and the heel feels softer to me which better fits my preference. If you haven’t yet tried the Zante, I highly recommend it. If you prefer a firmer ride and want to try a Fresh Foam, go for the Boracay.

Thanks for reading! For an additional take on the New Balance Boracay, see this review by Sam Winebaum.

Purchasing Options

The New Balance Fresh Foam Boracay is available for sale in the US at Running Warehouse, Zappos, and Amazon.com. Outside of the US, the Boracay is available at Running Warehouse EU. Purchases made via these links provide a small commission to Runblogger and help to support the production of reviews like this one – thanks!

New Balance Fresh Foam BoracaySometimes all it takes is a few small changes to improve a shoe. This was the case with the Hoka Clifton 2, nike roshe flyknit which I reviewed earlier this week. Hoka added a bit of padding to the tongue, cheap nike roshe run kids an additional lace eyelet, nike roshe run and a new insole, free run but kept just about everything else on the shoe the same. Fix what’s broken, nike roshe print don’t change what people like – that’s how it should be done.

Last year I reviewed the New Balance Fresh Foam 980 and found that although I liked the shoe, cheap 2015 nike free 3.0 it suffered from a fatal flaw that made it unwearable for me on longer runs. The problem was the toebox – it was too pointy up front and squeezed my toes together. The result was blistering between my toes on long runs, cheap 2015 nike free run and going up a half size did not solve the problem.

The other problem I had with the Fresh Foam 980 wasn’t so much a problem with the shoe per se, womens nike free but rather with how it was marketed. Ads for the 980 kept using the word “softnike free 2.0 cheap 2015 , nike freerun” but the shoe was anything but cushy. Rather, cheap nike roshe run it was quite firm and responsive. This isn’t a bad thing if that is how you like a shoe to ride, roshe kids but it’s not what people might have expected given the marketing message.

I’d heard rumors that New Balance was going to address the fit issue with the 980 in an update to the shoe. Renamed the Fresh Foam Boracay, roshes run I received a pair of the updated model about a month ago and have run about 40 miles in them so far (Disclosure: these shoes were media samples provided free of charge by the manufacturer). Keep on reading to find out what has changed (and what hasn’t).

New Balance Fresh Foam Boracay Side

Specs

Per Running Warehouse, nike free 5.0 men the New Balance Fresh Foam Boracay weighs in at 9 oz in men’s size 9 and has stack heights of 22mm heel, flyknit roshe 18mm forefoot (4mm drop). As I did with the 980, nike free 3 I went up a half size in the Boracay and fit is perfect.

New Balance Fresh Foam Boracay Medial

Review

I’m happy to report that New Balance has indeed addressed the fit issue I had with the FF 980. Though the change is pretty subtle, there does seem to be just a bit more room up frontnike run free, and I have less of a sensation of toe squeezing in the Boracay. More importantly, in runs as long as 10 miles I have not experienced any toe blistering. However, this is still not a particularly roomy shoe, so if you prefer a spacious toebox you may want to look elsewhere.

New Balance Fresh Foam Boracay Top

To be honest, the fit change is the only one that was particularly noticeable to me. The upper is new, but remains a breathable mesh with welded overlays. It appears that New Balance removed a bit of padding around the ankle collar, but I did not notice this until I compared the shoes side by side just now. The midsole has a new pattern of hexagons along the sides, but the ride is similarly firm compared to the original. The full coverage outsole also gets a new pattern, but functionally feels the same.

New Balance Fresh Foam Boracay Sole

One thing that I don’t like about the Boracay, though it is a rather minor annoyance, is that the edges of the tongue tend to curl under when putting the shoe on. This necessitates sticking you finger into the shoe to flatten it out. In their review, Sole Review noticed the same thing. Seems like it should be an easy fix next time around.

A quick note on durability – I have not experienced any issues with durability in the Boracay so far, but I have seen reports of the upper tearing where it meets the sole on the inner side of the shoe. I’m not sure how widespread this issue is, but it’s something to considernike roshe run herren, and this may not be the best shoe to use off-road or in conditions that stress the upper attachment.

Conclusion

So what do you get in the Fresh Foam Boracay? Basically, this is a light weight, well-cushioned but firm shoe suitable for long miles. I found the ride to be smooth and I enjoyed running in them more than I typically do with firmish shoes. They are snappy enough to pick up the paceroshe flyknit, but provide enough comfort and protection for double digit mileage.

One challenge that the Boracay faces is that in my opinion it has been eclipsed by it’s new sibling the Fresh Foam Zante. The Zante is one of my top shoes of 2015 so far, and it beats the Boracay in terms of fit, ride, and comfort. New Balance is pitching the Zante as the choice for more uptempo running, but its stack height is only 1mm lower in the heel and forefoot, and the heel feels softer to me which better fits my preference. If you haven’t yet tried the Zante, I highly recommend it. If you prefer a firmer ride and want to try a Fresh Foam, go for the Boracay.

Thanks for reading! For an additional take on the New Balance Boracay, see this review by Sam Winebaum.

Purchasing Options

The New Balance Fresh Foam Boracay is available for sale in the US at Running Warehouse, Zappos, and Amazon.com. Outside of the US,

What is the single best thing we can do for our health?–nike flyknit roshe run

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.”

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.”

nike free run 4.0nike frees cheap 2015 pink nike free runwomen nike free run,

Salming T1 Review: A Nice Trail/Mountain Hybrid Shoe–free run

Salming T1by David Henry

I hadn’t heard much about the Swedish shoe brand Salming before Pete asked me if I’d be willing to try their debut trail shoe,roshe run release dates the T1,nike free womens for review. After looking at some of the specs on their website,nike womens free run I saw that many of the features were what I like to see in a trail shoe: 5mm drop,nike roshes full coverage outsole,nike free 3.0 womens and a randed upper. What I couldn’t see was how well the shoe would ride once I started to run in it. Read on to see my thoughts,roshe run kids as well as a modification I did to the upper.

Specs

Via Salming’s website: the Salming T1 weighs 10 oz and has a 5mm drop. $140 MSRP

Salming T1 Side

Nice upper design overall. Overbuilt for a trail shoe,nike id roshe run with heavy ripstop type material and full rand,cheap 2015 nike free but this also gives it much more mountain readiness.

Upper and Fit

The upper on the Salming T1 is pretty much an all-out mountain shoe upper composed of a heavy,free 4.0 flyknit and super durable ripstop type nylon material as the base with plentiful welded overlays,nike free run blue and the addition of a stitched on rand. Translation: this upper is going to last a long time. The downside of this type of upper for a pure trail shoe is that it gets hot,nike roshe trainers is heavier than it needs to be for trails,nike free run pink and is slightly stiffer. At first I really felt like the upper was a glaring design error. Now,nike free 5.0 ladies running shoe after more miles in the shoe,nike free run women including some genuine mountain outings with,nike free 6.0 rocks, mud, snow and everything in between, I’m not so sure it’s a bad thing. Suitability of the upper will depend on how one will use the shoe, especially given its mash-up of a road racing shoe geometry in the midsole with a fairly robustly lugged outsole. More on that later.

One issue I had with the fit right out of the box was that there was way too much volume for my foot, to the point that I couldn’t even cinch the lacing down as much as I needed to *see photo below). The ride felt really good jogging around the house, so I decided to get my leather punch and scissors out and fix the lacing issue, which was actually pretty painless. All I had to do was give the shoe some eyelets, and cut of the lace loops, and instantly the fit was not only doable, but actually pretty secure.

Salming T1 Feet

Modification to lacing setup. Stock setup on left, with my new setup on right. Took maybe 5 min and changed the fit and feel of the shoe entirely for me. One thing of note is that I felt the most toe-ward overlay is not necessary and squeezed on the ball of my foot so I started lacing a little further up shoe in line with 2nd overlay.

The shoe does run about a 1/4 size long, and it’s medium in width with a slightly pointed toebox (probably the only issue with the last that I’d try to change is toebox shape, making it a little more rounded). However, with the extra 1/4 size length, the toebox pointedness worked out just fine in my normal size 13, so no major issues for me with the fit. The shoe has been comfortable sock-less on all my runs, including a recent 2.5 hr mountain outing. I’d have no problem running an ultra in these shoes.

Ride

Salming T1 Medial

Medial midsole view. Even says 5mm drop on side of shoe.

The ride of the Salming T1 is really what makes the shoe for me. That it occurs in a shoe with a mountain shoe style upper and fairly lugged outsole makes it even more interesting since this is a pretty rare combo. The shoe runs pretty firm overall, but not harshly so. It sits somewhere between the rides of the inov-8 Race Ultra 270/Trailroc 245 and the Pearl Izumi N1. It doesn’t have any noticeable rocker, but it does have more road shoe like roll to it than most trail shoes that I’ve tried. It rides like a solid road racing flat, but with denser foam, and it is quite protective with the full outsole. Very comfortable and natural ride on smooth trail, something many shoes with lots of lug really struggle with, and yet it still is sharp enough to edge well and handle loose and technical terrain.

Outsole

Salming T1 Sole

Full coverage outsole, medium stickiness, and lugs that run in the forward direction all the way back to heel…this makes a difference on hardpack

The outsole of the T1 is quite good. They keep it simple and full coverage, which I like to see, and the compound holds a good middle ground of being sticky enough to inspire confidence while stepping on rocks and descending in technical conditions, but has also held up really well. I would bet the outsole will be durable for many miles, just like the upper.

One interesting feature is that they chose to keep the lateral and medial heel lug/bars facing in the same direction as the forefoot where they taper towards the rear, keeping the sharp edge also rearward facing. This is not what most companies do with their lugged shoes. I think the thought is to reverse the lugs in the heel order to provide good downhill traction. Generally, however, I think that unless it’s a pure off-trail/mountain only shoe, what you get is too much of a braking effect on normal trail, and this is often why lugged shoes don’t run great on smooth surfaces. Since the T1 doesn’t follow the norm, there is much more float (or sliding) while running downhill on hardpack trail which makes them run much better on smoother trails, yet I haven’t noticed a loss of traction on looser terrain (having the circular lugs in the middle provides some of this more non-directional traction).

Conclusion

Overall the Salming T1 is a great first offering from Salming, and they are now on my radar for future models. I do think a more trail specific model (as opposed to the more mountain/hybrid design of the T1) would be nice to see – maybe a shoe that has reduced lug (yet still full rubber outsole) and a light, seamless and breathable upper more like their Race R1 on the same midsole geometry. As it is, the T1 is a little heavy and lacks some breathability to stand out as a pure trail shoe, but given its nice ride mixed with its mountain shoe upper and hybrid outsole, it makes a really nice mixed terrain shoe that works great to get from the bottom to the top of a mountain without feeling wanting in any type of terrain. They also mark the first pair of review shoes I’ve received that I’ll continue to keep in my rotation.

The Salming T1 is available for purchase at .

Disclosure: These shoes were provided for review free of charge from the manufacturer.

Salming T1by David Henry

I hadn’t heard much about the Swedish shoe brand Salming before Pete asked me if I’d be willing to try their debut trail shoe, roshe run release dates the T1, nike free womens for review. After looking at some of the specs on their website, nike womens free run I saw that many of the features were what I like to see in a trail shoe: 5mm drop, nike roshes full coverage outsole, nike free 3.0 womens and a randed upper. What I couldn’t see was how well the shoe would ride once I started to run in it. Read on to see my thoughts, roshe run kids as well as a modification I did to the upper.

Specs

Via Salming’s website: the Salming T1 weighs 10 oz and has a 5mm drop. $140 MSRP

Salming T1 Side

Nice upper design overall. Overbuilt for a trail shoe, nike id roshe run with heavy ripstop type material and full rand, cheap 2015 nike free but this also gives it much more mountain readiness.

Upper and Fit

The upper on the Salming T1 is pretty much an all-out mountain shoe upper composed of a heavy, free 4.0 flyknit and super durable ripstop type nylon material as the base with plentiful welded overlays, nike free run blue and the addition of a stitched on rand. Translation: this upper is going to last a long time. The downside of this type of upper for a pure trail shoe is that it gets hot, nike roshe trainers is heavier than it needs to be for trails, nike free run pink and is slightly stiffer. At first I really felt like the upper was a glaring design error. Now, nike free 5.0 ladies running shoe after more miles in the shoe, nike free run women including some genuine mountain outings with, nike free 6.0 rocks, mud, snow and everything in between, I’m not so sure it’s a bad thing. Suitability of the upper will depend on how one will use the shoe, especially given its mash-up of a road racing shoe geometry in the midsole with a fairly robustly lugged outsole. More on that later.

One issue I had with the fit right out of the box was that there was way too much volume for my foot, to the point that I couldn’t even cinch the lacing down as much as I needed to *see photo below). The ride felt really good jogging around the house, so I decided to get my leather punch and scissors out and fix the lacing issue, which was actually pretty painless. All I had to do was give the shoe some eyeletsnike free 5.0 running shoes, and cut of the lace loops, and instantly the fit was not only doable, but actually pretty secure.

Salming T1 Feet

Modification to lacing setup. Stock setup on leftcheap nike free runs, with my new setup on right. Took maybe 5 min and changed the fit and feel of the shoe entirely for me. One thing of note is that I felt the most toe-ward overlay is not necessary and squeezed on the ball of my foot so I started lacing a little further up shoe in line with 2nd overlay.

The shoe does run about a 1/4 size long, and it’s medium in width with a slightly pointed toebox (probably the only issue with the last that I’d try to change is toebox shape, making it a little more rounded). Howevernike free 3.0 women, with the extra 1/4 size length, the toebox pointedness worked out just fine in my normal size 13cheap nike free, so no major issues for me with the fit. The shoe has been comfortable sock-less on all my runs, including a recent 2.5 hr mountain outing. I’d have no problem running an ultra in these shoes.

Ride

Salming T1 Medial

Medial midsole view. Even says 5mm drop on side of shoe.

The ride of the Salming T1 is really what makes the shoe for me. That it occurs in a shoe with a mountain shoe style upper and fairly lugged outsole makes it even more interesting since this is a pretty rare combo. The shoe runs pretty firm overall, but not harshly so. It sits somewhere between the rides of the inov-8 Race Ultra 270/Trailroc 245 and the Pearl Izumi N1. It doesn’t have any noticeable rocker, but it does have more road shoe like roll to it than most trail shoes that I’ve tried. It rides like a solid road racing flat, but with denser foam, and it is quite protective with the full outsole. Very comfortable and natural ride on smooth trail, something many shoes with lots of lug really struggle with, and yet it still is sharp enough to edge well and handle loose and technical terrain.

Outsole

Salming T1 Sole

Full coverage outsole, medium stickiness, and lugs that run in the forward direction all the way back to heel…this makes a difference on hardpack

The outsole of the T1 is quite good. They keep it simple and full coverage, which I like to see, and the compound holds a good middle ground of being sticky enough to inspire confidence while stepping on rocks and descending in technical conditions, but has also held up really well. I would bet the outsole will be durable for many miles, just like the upper.

One interesting feature is that they chose to keep the lateral and medial heel lug/bars facing in the same direction as the forefoot where they taper towards the rear, keeping the sharp edge also rearward facing. This is not what most companies do with their lugged shoes. I think the thought is to reverse the lugs in the heel order to provide good downhill traction. Generally, however, I think that unless it’s a pure off-trail/mountain only shoe, what you get is too much of a braking effect on normal trail, and this is often why lugged shoes don’t run great on smooth surfaces. Since the T1 doesn’t follow the norm, there is much more float (or sliding) while running downhill on hardpack trail which makes them run much better on smoother trails, yet I haven’t noticed a loss of traction on looser terrain (having the circular lugs in the middle provides some of this more non-directional traction).

Conclusion

Overall the Salming T1 is a great first offering from Salming, and they are now on my radar for future models. I do think a more trail specific model (as opposed to the more mountain/hybrid design of the T1) would be nice to see – maybe a shoe that has reduced lug (yet still full rubber outsole) and a light, seamless and breathable upper more like their Race R1 on the same midsole geometry. As it is, the T1 is a little heavy and lacks some breathability to stand out as a pure trail shoe, but given its nice ride mixed with its mountain shoe upper and hybrid outsole,

What’s Been on My Feet Lately? – Preview of Three Minimalist Road Shoes From New Balance, Merrell, and Adidas–nike free run 5.0

I’ve been fortunate enough to have had the chance to test drive a few new shoe models set to be released next year,nike free run black and though I’m not prepared to write full reviews yet,nike womens free run I wanted to share a few photos and thoughts on several ultra-light,nike free run 5.0 women mildly cushioned road shoes that I’m really liking so far:

New Balance Minimus Road Zero MR00

New Balance Minimus Road MR00 – zero drop with some cushion

Merrell Bare Access

Merrell Bare Access – zero drop with some cushion

Adias Hagio

Adidas Hagio – ~5mm drop racing flat,cheap 2015 nike free run 2 but feels like less

What I like about all three of these shoes is that all have just a bit of cushion underfoot,cheap 2015 nike free 4.0 flyknit but no more than is necessary for most of my running needs. Second,cheap roshe flyknit all three are plenty roomy in the forefoot (the NB and Merrell slight more than the Adidas Hagio,nike free review but the latter is quite roomy for a racing flat). Third,nike free 5.0 feminino all three are very light – 6.2 oz for the NB Minimus Road Zero and Merrell Bare Access,nike free run 5.0 womens 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,nike free run womens 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,nike free shoes cushioned sole – I’ve been wearing the Bare Access to work all week,nike free run grey 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,nike freerun as well as a few other more “barefoot-style” shoes,roshe run shoes in the not too distant future. Let’s just say that minimalist runners are in for some treats in 2012!

I’ve been fortunate enough to have had the chance to test drive a few new shoe models set to be released next year, nike free run black and though I’m not prepared to write full reviews yetnike free 2.0, nike womens free run I wanted to share a few photos and thoughts on several ultra-light, nike free run 5.0 women mildly cushioned road shoes that I’m really liking so far:

New Balance Minimus Road Zero MR00

New Balance Minimus Road MR00 – zero drop with some cushion

Merrell Bare Access

Merrell Bare Access – zero drop with some cushion

Adias Hagio

Adidas Hagio – ~5mm drop racing flatnike freerun, cheap 2015 nike free run 2 but feels like less

What I like about all three of these shoes is that all have just a bit of cushion underfoot, cheap 2015 nike free 4.0 flyknit but no more than is necessary for most of my running needs. Secondnike free running, cheap roshe flyknit all three are plenty roomy in the forefoot (the NB and Merrell slight more than the Adidas Hagio, nike free review but the latter is quite roomy for a racing flat). Thirdwomens nike free 3.0, nike free 5.0 feminino all three are very light – 6.2 oz for the NB Minimus Road Zero and Merrell Bare Access, nike free run 5.0 womens 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, nike free run womens 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, nike free shoes cushioned sole – I’ve been wearing the Bare Access to work all week, nike free run grey 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, nike freerun as well as a few other more “barefoot-style” shoes,

adidas adizero Hagio Running Shoe Review: A Roomy Road Flat Built for Speed–nike free 5

adidas adizero HagioOver the past 2+ years I’ve probably run in 50 or more different shoes,cheap flyknit roshe 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,free run 5.0 cheap 2015 and the honest answer was that there was no reason,nike free run 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,cheap 2015 nike free trainer 5.0 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,cheap nike roshe run sale one a shoe designer and the other a category manager. They offered to ship me out several pairs of shoes,nike shoes roshe 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,nike flyknit roshe run 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…

adidas adizero Hagio Side

adidas adizero Hagio Medial

First off,cheap nike roshe run print if you are familiar with my taste in shoes,womens nike free you’ll immediately know that this one is right up my alley. It’s a great looking shoe,freerun nike 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,roshe running shoes and the overlays are a shiny synthetic material that makes them really stand out from the surrounding mesh. As for the mesh,cheap 2015 nike free 5.0 womens there is plenty of it,cheap 2015 nike free run womens and the shoe is extremely well ventilated,cheap nike free run particularly around the toebox.

Internally,nike free flyknit 4.0 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.

adidas adizero Hagio Toebox

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.

adidas adizero Hagio Sole

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

adidas adizero Hagio HeelI 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 purchase at Running Warehouse.

adidas adizero HagioOver the past 2+ years I’ve probably run in 50 or more different shoes, cheap flyknit roshe 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, free run 5.0 cheap 2015 and the honest answer was that there was no reason, nike free run 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, cheap 2015 nike free trainer 5.0 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 Adidasnike free 2.0, cheap nike roshe run sale one a shoe designer and the other a category manager. They offered to ship me out several pairs of shoes, nike shoes roshe 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, nike flyknit roshe run 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…

adidas adizero Hagio Side

adidas adizero Hagio Medial

First off, cheap nike roshe run print if you are familiar with my taste in shoes, womens nike free you’ll immediately know that this one is right up my alley. It’s a great looking shoe, freerun nike 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, roshe running shoes and the overlays are a shiny synthetic material that makes them really stand out from the surrounding mesh. As for the mesh, cheap 2015 nike free 5.0 womens there is plenty of it, cheap 2015 nike free run womens and the shoe is extremely well ventilated, cheap nike free run particularly around the toebox.

Internally, nike free flyknit 4.0 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.

adidas adizero Hagio Toebox

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 Universenike free run 4.0 flyknitblack nike free, 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.

adidas adizero Hagio Sole

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

adidas adizero Hagio HeelI 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 shoeskids roshes, so a decision between them comes down mainly to personal preference. In any event, my first experience with an adidas shoe was overwhelmingly positive,

Rudolph Injured, Flown to the University of Virginia Gait Clinic–nike roshe run mens

rudolph_the_rednosed_reindeerWith only a few short days left before Christmas Eve,nike free runs Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer was suffering an acute case of Achilles tendinopathy. Thankfully,nike free run 3.0 cheap 2015 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!

rudolph_the_rednosed_reindeerWith only a few short days left before Christmas Evefree run 5.0nike 5.0 free runcheap 2015 nike free run 2nike free 5.0 feminino, nike free runs Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer was suffering an acute case of Achilles tendinopathy. Thankfully,

Nike Wildhorse 3 Review: Beefed Up, But Still a Great Shoe–nike free flyknit

Nike Wildhorse 3Back in March I wrote a very positive review of the Nike Wildhorse 2. I’d put a bunch of miles on them over the winter,cheap nike roshe run women and was impressed by the combination of a lightweight,nike free womens shoes minimally structured upper and a well-cushioned,nike womens free run but reasonably thin sole. They also provided solid traction on the crusty ice and snow I deal with for 3-4 months per year up here in New Hampshire.

The only major problem I could see with the Wildhorse was that it was very similar to another shoe that has gotten rave reviews: the Nike Terra Kiger. I haven’t tried the Kiger myself,nike air roshe but the upper is supposedly softer and more comfortable,nike free 2015 and the added zoom air unit in the forefoot should provide a softer ride up front. The extensive overlap between the two shoes was a bit puzzling,nike free 5.0 trainer and apparently Nike agreed since version 3 of the Kiger and Wildhorse sees them start to diverge more significantly.

Nike Wildhorse 3 Side

Nike sent me a pair of the Wildhorse 3 a few months ago (Disclosure: these shoes were review samples provided free of charge by the manufacturer),flyknit free 4.0 and I’ve worn them extensively since. I’ve used them casually,nike free run 3.0 cheap 2015 for hikes in the Green Mountains of VT,womens nike free 3.0 Shenandoah National Park in VA,cheap roshe flyknit Mt. Major in NH,nike free fit and a few others. I’ve also put in running miles on local trails – nothing too technical,nike free run shoes but enough to get a sense of traction and comfort/protection.

Specs

Per Running Warehouse,nike roshe run mens the Nike Wildhorse 3 weighs in at 10.3 oz in men’s size 9,nike free woman and has a drop of 8mm (28mm heel,nike free 7.0 20mm forefoot). That’s a gain of about an ounce in weight over v2, and an addition of 6mm of stack height to the heel and 2mm to the forefoot (the Wildhorse 2 was 4mm drop with stacks of 22mm heel, 18mm forefoot).

Nike Wildhorse 3 Medial

The specs tell the tale with this update – the Wildhorse 3 is an all-around beefier shoe than v2. This might upset some fans of prior versions, but the reality is that Nike made this move to differentiate the Wildhorse and the Kiger, and the Kiger (now in v3 as well) still exists on a lighter-weight, 4mm drop platform for those who prefer less shoe. My take is that although I really liked v2 of the Wildhorse, v3 is a worthy successor and doesn’t destroy the essence of the shoe.

Upper

One of my areas of concern with v2 of the Wildhorse was durability of the upper, particularly in the area of the forefoot. I didn’t experience any tearing in my pair, but the material appeared to be pilling/fraying a bit at the surface and I don’t think they could handle hundreds of miles on the trail.

Nike Wildhorse 3 Toebox

Wildhorse 3 remedies this with a more substantial, double-layered mesh upper and a welded rand that extends from the outer midfoot to the region behind the big toe on the inner side of the shoe. The inner layer of the upper is super-soft and feels great against a bare foot – I’ve worn them sockless several times with no issue short of the development of a terrible stink (I’ve since ceased sockless usage to spare my family…).

In most other ways the Wildhorse 3 upper retains the minimally structured feel of v2, and overall I’m quite impressed with it. One issue I did have with the v2 was a bit of looseness in the heel, which caused a bit of rubbing and skin abrasion on the first few wears. WH 3 adds a slightly firmer, more substantial heel counter which helps to hold the foot in place for a better lockdown in the heel. I’ve had no issues with abrasion or blistering in v3.

Sole

As with the upper, the sole of the Wildhorse 3 is beefed up via the addition of about 6mm of midsole cushion in the heel and 2mm in the forefoot. The shoe retains a zoom air unit in the heel, and there is a rock plate in the forefoot. Overall, the ride is cushier than that of v2, though I can’t sense the bouncy presence of the zoom air unit as much in the new version. The added midsole height seems to have muted the feel a bit. Whereas I felt like the earlier versions of the Wildhorse were something like a Nike Free Trail (minus the flex), the Wildhorse 3 is probably more comparable to something like a Zoom Elite Trail.

Nike Wildhorse 2 v 3

Nike Wildhorse v3 (top) and v2 (bottom)

The outsole of the Wildhorse 3 also gets a makeover. The lugs are a bit larger/longer in the central region, and those surrounding the margin of the sole are much more prominent. Traction has been decent overall, but I’ve experienced some splippage on wet rocks. Protection is also very good, better than v2 (not a surprise given the more substantial construction of the update).

Nike Wildhorse 2 v 3 Sole

Nike Wildhorse v2 (left) and v3 (right)

The ride of the Wildhorse 3 is comfortable, but the shoe isn’t quite as nimble as v2. I can feel the added weight and structure, but that combo also makes me feel a bit more protected on the trail. It’s a typical tradeoff that you deal with in trail shoes – lighter and nimbler vs. sturdier and more protective. As with the previous version, the Wildhorse 3 is capable of handling roads as well, though with a full coverage, lugged outsole it’s definitely more at home on softer ground.

Nike Wildhorse 3 Heel Lugs

Fit

I’ll finish with my favorite aspect of the Wildhorse 3. The shoe fits me incredibly well, and fit is much improved over v2. I found the forefoot of the v2 to be a bit shallow, and v3 adds a bit of volume up front. It’s hard to say, but it also feels like the forefoot might be a tad wider, and viewing them side-by-side from the top it appears that v3 is a tad longer and slightly more tapered at the toe, but his doesn’t make it constrictive up front. The great fit has made me choose the Wildhorse 3 for several long hikes (I prefer to hike in trail running shoes – haven’t worn a hiking boot in years) and they provide great all-day comfort.

Nike Wildhorse 3 Trail

Conclusion

If you are a fan of the fit and feel of earlier versions of the Wildhorse or Terra Kiger but feel the need for a bit more protection, the Wildhorse 3 is a great choice. If you want to stick with less shoe, the Terra Kiger 3 stays at 4mm drop and has less midsole stack. I think the move to differentiate the two shoes was a wise one, and allows for more customization of shoe to specific trail needs. I’ll hopefully have a review of the Terra Kiger 3 up sometime this summer, stay tuned!

The Nike Wildhorse 3 is currently available on-line at Nike.com and Road Runner Sports. Purchases made via these links help to support this site – thanks!

Nike Wildhorse 3Back in March I wrote a very positive review of the Nike Wildhorse 2. I’d put a bunch of miles on them over the winter, cheap nike roshe run women and was impressed by the combination of a lightweight, nike free womens shoes minimally structured upper and a well-cushioned, nike womens free run but reasonably thin sole. They also provided solid traction on the crusty ice and snow I deal with for 3-4 months per year up here in New Hampshire.

The only major problem I could see with the Wildhorse was that it was very similar to another shoe that has gotten rave reviews: the Nike Terra Kiger. I haven’t tried the Kiger myself, nike air roshe but the upper is supposedly softer and more comfortablecheap 2015 nike free, nike free 2015 and the added zoom air unit in the forefoot should provide a softer ride up front. The extensive overlap between the two shoes was a bit puzzling, nike free 5.0 trainer and apparently Nike agreed since version 3 of the Kiger and Wildhorse sees them start to diverge more significantly.

Nike Wildhorse 3 Side

Nike sent me a pair of the Wildhorse 3 a few months ago (Disclosure: these shoes were review samples provided free of charge by the manufacturer), flyknit free 4.0 and I’ve worn them extensively since. I’ve used them casually, nike free run 3.0 cheap 2015 for hikes in the Green Mountains of VT, womens nike free 3.0 Shenandoah National Park in VA, cheap roshe flyknit Mt. Major in NH, nike free fit and a few others. I’ve also put in running miles on local trails – nothing too technical, nike free run shoes but enough to get a sense of traction and comfort/protection.

Specs

Per Running Warehouse, nike roshe run mens the Nike Wildhorse 3 weighs in at 10.3 oz in men’s size 9nike free run black, nike free woman and has a drop of 8mm (28mm heel, nike free 7.0 20mm forefoot). That’s a gain of about an ounce in weight over v2, and an addition of 6mm of stack height to the heel and 2mm to the forefoot (the Wildhorse 2 was 4mm drop with stacks of 22mm heel, 18mm forefoot).

Nike Wildhorse 3 Medial

The specs tell the tale with this update – the Wildhorse 3 is an all-around beefier shoe than v2. This might upset some fans of prior versions, but the reality is that Nike made this move to differentiate the Wildhorse and the Kiger, and the Kiger (now in v3 as well) still exists on a lighter-weight, 4mm drop platform for those who prefer less shoe. My take is that although I really liked v2 of the Wildhorse, v3 is a worthy successor and doesn’t destroy the essence of the shoe.

Upper

One of my areas of concern with v2 of the Wildhorse was durability of the upper, particularly in the area of the forefoot. I didn’t experience any tearing in my pair, but the material appeared to be pilling/fraying a bit at the surface and I don’t think they could handle hundreds of miles on the trail.

Nike Wildhorse 3 Toebox

Wildhorse 3 remedies this with a more substantial, double-layered mesh upper and a welded rand that extends from the outer midfoot to the region behind the big toe on the inner side of the shoe. The inner layer of the upper is super-soft and feels great against a bare foot – I’ve worn them sockless several times with no issue short of the development of a terrible stink (I’ve since ceased sockless usage to spare my family…).

In most other ways the Wildhorse 3 upper retains the minimally structured feel of v2, and overall I’m quite impressed with it. One issue I did have with the v2 was a bit of looseness in the heel, which caused a bit of rubbing and skin abrasion on the first few wears. WH 3 adds a slightly firmer, more substantial heel counter which helps to hold the foot in place for a better lockdown in the heel. I’ve had no issues with abrasion or blistering in v3.

Sole

As with the upper, the sole of the Wildhorse 3 is beefed up via the addition of about 6mm of midsole cushion in the heel and 2mm in the forefoot. The shoe retains a zoom air unit in the heel, and there is a rock plate in the forefoot. Overall, the ride is cushier than that of v2, though I can’t sense the bouncy presence of the zoom air unit as much in the new version. The added midsole height seems to have muted the feel a bit. Whereas I felt like the earlier versions of the Wildhorse were something like a Nike Free Trail (minus the flex), the Wildhorse 3 is probably more comparable to something like a Zoom Elite Trail.

Nike Wildhorse 2 v 3

Nike Wildhorse v3 (top) and v2 (bottom)

The outsole of the Wildhorse 3 also gets a makeover. The lugs are a bit larger/longer in the central region, and those surrounding the margin of the sole are much more prominent. Traction has been decent overall, but I’ve experienced some splippage on wet rocks. Protection is also very good, better than v2 (not a surprise given the more substantial construction of the update).

Nike Wildhorse 2 v 3 Sole

Nike Wildhorse v2 (left) and v3 (right)

The ride of the Wildhorse 3 is comfortableroshes nikenike roshe run print, but the shoe isn’t quite as nimble as v2. I can feel the added weight and structure, but that combo also makes me feel a bit more protected on the trail. It’s a typical tradeoff that you deal with in trail shoes – lighter and nimbler vs. sturdier and more protective. As with the previous version, the Wildhorse 3 is capable of handling roads as well, though with a full coverage, lugged outsole it’s definitely more at home on softer ground.

Nike Wildhorse 3 Heel Lugs

Fit

I’ll finish with my favorite aspect of the Wildhorse 3. The shoe fits me incredibly well, and fit is much improved over v2. I found the forefoot of the v2 to be a bit shallow, and v3 adds a bit of volume up front. It’s hard to say, but it also feels like the forefoot might be a tad wider, and viewing them side-by-side from the top it appears that v3 is a tad longer and slightly more tapered at the toe, but his doesn’t make it constrictive up front. The great fit has made me choose the Wildhorse 3 for several long hikes (I prefer to hike in trail running shoes – haven’t worn a hiking boot in years) and they provide great all-day comfort.

Nike Wildhorse 3 Trail

Conclusion

If you are a fan of the fit and feel of earlier versions of the Wildhorse or Terra Kiger but feel the need for a bit more protection, the Wildhorse 3 is a great choice. If you want to stick with less shoe, the Terra Kiger 3 stays at 4mm drop and has less midsole stack. I think the move to differentiate the two shoes was a wise one, and allows for more customization of shoe to specific trail needs. I’ll hopefully have a review of the Terra Kiger 3 up sometime this summer,