End of the first day at the Fat Dog 120 mile. Enjoying a high alpine section on a perfect evening before what would be my biggest struggle of the year through the night resulting in my only DNF for the year.

Yes, unfortunately it is now February and a best of 2016 post is old news, but better late than never. While things were a little lighter on the blogging front for me, I still had a full year of running, racing, and got to try out tons of new shoes and gear in the process.  I ran the Carlsbad Road Marathon in January, Gorge Waterfalls 100k in April, Quad Rock 50 mile in May, Bighorn 100 mile in June, Fat Dog 120 (DNF at mile 80, 25 hrs in) in August, and the North Face 50 mile in San Francisco in December.  All in all, it was a good year of improvement and continuing to learn more about my self as a person and runner. Some big goals on tap for this year and hoping to start things off well at the LA Marathon in March (despite a recent injury setback last week, my first in 3 years).

I’ve done a “Best of the Year” post every year and thought I’d put together another one with the addition of some great gear that I’ve used a ton as well.  Hopefully this won’t be too long and some will find it useful!

Best Shoes of 2016

-Road Shoes

From Bottom to Top: Skechers GORun Forza, adidas adizero Boston 6, and Salming Miles.

1. Skechers GORun Forza – The Forza didn’t blow me away when I first tried it in February last year, but it has really hung on in my line-up and is on the short list of road shoes I turn to for most road runs other than really fast days.  The shoe holds up super well, fits and feels like a lighter shoe and offers great structure without ever getting in the way.  Such a great shoe from Skechers and foreshadowing of some big improvements that are just now coming with their 2017 lineup (See GORun 5, GOMeb Razor and GOMeb Speed 4 all of which are fantastic!).
2. adidas adizero Boston 6 – It took me a long time to get around to trying the Boston 6 despite my affinity for v5 on dry trails.  While the Boston 6 is still great on trails, adidas really improved it’s feel on the road with a softer feeling forefoot due to a new outsole which is softer and yet still very durable; great stuff from Continental.  The new seam-free toebox is a great change as well.  The Boston 6 is one of the best all around shoes out there that will literally almost do anything well.
3. Salming Miles – Salming was a big surprise for me last year and ended up with my road shoe of the year in the Distance 3.  They didn’t really revamp their mainline models much in 2016 other than some new midsole material on them, but did launch a new road shoe in the Miles.  All of my complaints about durability in the Distance and Speed have been completely abolished with the Miles.  It is probably one of the more durable shoes I’ve ever used and feels completely natural riding in Salming’s usual style and feel.  Great high mileage (likely a 750+ Mile shoe) trainer particularly if you don’t want a higher drop training shoe.

Honorable mentions: adidas adios 1 Haile (great re-issue of the adios 1 and super versatile shoe…can’t find it anymore so hopefully they re-issue the re-issue :) ), adidas adios 3 (incremental update, but still a great shoe) and Nike Pegasus 33 (light and versatile; great on trails),

-Trail Shoes

From Bottom to Top: My modified Nike Zoom Wildhorse 3, Skechers GOTrail Ultra 3, and New Balance Fresh Foam Gobi.

1. Nike Zoom Wildhorse 3 – Yes, I know this shoe was out in 2015 even (hard to believe) but I really didn’t begin to use it till this last year and actually ended up using it in most of my races this year at some point or another.  The biggest reason it took me so long was that it took modifying the midsole profile to narrow the shoe up, which transformed the shoe and quickly made it much more nimble and it made a world of difference in the overall feel.  The upper on the Wildhorse 3 is also second to none on the market it my view.  It is light, breathes well and dries out quickly while allowing me to run very long in them sock less with zero issues.  One of the best, well rounded trails shoes ever made.  Version 4 is on the way in April and very much looking forward to that update as well as the Kiger 4.  Take a look here from a preview pic of both of them from Kaci Lickteig’s twitter.
   

   Unmodified Wildhorse 3 on top, modified on bottom. Basically I’ve shaved the midsole down to a narrower more nimble profile and really like the results.

   

   Doesn’t affect the shoe in any negative way and really tightens up the ride while being an ounce lighter. Win, win.

2. Skechers GOTrail Ultra 3 – The Ultra 3 was a real surprise for me and after logging quite a few miles in it (in a couple different versions: standard, Climate All-Weather and a custom version with the GOTrail rock plate in it which is amazing).  It has become a very nice tool to reach for in my rotation and the just released GOTrail Ultra 4 is even better with an improved upper in nearly every aspect as well as a bit firmer midsole which is also nice.  If you haven’t tried the Ultra 3 or 4 grab a pair, I don’t think you’ll be disappointed and it offers a very unique ride that isn’t really similar to much else in the market.
3. New Balance Fresh Foam Gobi – I waited till November to try the Gobi and that was too bad.  After feeling that the Zante was loosing some of its initial luster for me due to some subpar (in my view) foam that breaks down way too early.  The Zante also had an upper that isn’t quite as supportive as I’d like to see.  Well the good news for me was the Gobi has a great upper with much more support in addition to the added lugs to the outsole which really improve the feel of the ride in my view.  The foam still breaks down too soon, but really at the price they go for (under $100) there isn’t much to fault in them.

Honorable Mentions: Hoka One One Speed Instinct (best Hoka to date for me; well cushioned yet still enough pop to run fast and the best fit by far in any Hoka for my foot…like a Nike Kiger with more plush feel), Topo MT-2/Hyrdroventure (great light minimal-esque shoes and fantastic update to original MT…there is a new version of the MT-2 with an updated upper material that just came out) , Skechers GOTrail (good new entry for Skechers that runs well in a variety of conditions with a faster/lighter feel than the Ultra 3, but similar fit and finish), Montrail Caldorado (solid all-around new shoe from Montrail…really looking forward to the Caldorado 2 upper update which could address biggest issues with first version), Montrail Trans Alps (super burly, durable and surprisingly runnable beast of a shoe; also looking forward to upper update)

-Mountain Shoes

From Bottom to Top: Scarp Atom, Scarpa Neutron, and Salming Elements.

1. Scarpa Atom – Scarpa really nailed their 2016 launches and overall came out with the best technical mountain footwear of the year in my view.  Other than some overly wide heel profiles which, while not a deal breaker, could be narrower in my view, the shoes are remarkably well made with sticky Vibram Megagrip, low drops and secure uppers.  The Atom, being the most minimal of the lineup fits snug but comfortable and creates a mountain slipper like feel in both the upper and ride.  Such a fun shoe to run technical terrain in.  I do think it could be improved with a forefoot rock plate to help with the occasional sharp rock and extend the length of outings it could handle, but even so it is still very good and one of my top 3 mountain shoes of all time….I rarely buy 2nd pairs of shoes these days and I’ll be buying another pair of Atoms.
2. Scarpa Neutron – The Neutron is a burlier and more luggy option from Scarpa and despite needing just a bit narrower midsole profile in the heel, it is a really sweet mountain option with tons of protection, a decent ride, secure upper and great traction.  Check Scarpa out if you frequent some technical or mountain terrain and keep a look out for the forthcoming Scarpa Spin that aims to strike a balance between the Atom and the Neutron and has tons of potential.
3. Salming Elements – Salming’s first entry into the mountain running scene and they got a lot of things right.  The upper needs just a bit of work in cleaning it up from stitchingand making it a touch more secure and the shoe could use a forefoot rockplate with its relatively low forefoot stack height, but the grip is quite nice in mud and loose terrain and it is one of the best non-UK designed (i.e. inov-8 or Walsh) fell running shoes I’ve come across.  Hopefully, Salming doesn’t give up on the shoe and makes a few tweaks in the direction they appear to be going with their forthcoming Trail 5 and Snowrace with improved uppers and Vibram outsoles.

Descending near of the top of Mt. Olympus outside of Salt Lake City in August.

Best Gear of 2016

-Hydration Gear

From Top to Bottom: Ultimate Direction Mono and Stereo (Hi-Fi fronts on both), Salomon Sense Set and Sense Ultra Set and Ultimate Direction AK Mountain Vest 3.0.

1. Ultimate Direction Mono and Stereo waistbelts – I would have never thought waist belts would make a post of any sorts let alone top my list of hydration products but UD blew me away and totally revived the waist belt as a useful running tool.  I used the Stereo which holds two 500 ml soft flasks (the Mono holds 1 500 ml flask) at the Bighorn 100 in the heat and it was incredible to have my torso clear to vent heat and yet still carry enough water comfortably.  The Mono is something I use multiple times a week in training and literally you can’t even feel it on. I can carry a phone and multiple gels (with Hi-Fi front pouch, which comes with Stereo…they are interchangeable) in the front and 500 ml of fluid in the back without even noticing (used this setup at the North Face 50 and it was flawless).
2. Salomon Sense Set and Ultra Set – What UD did for waist belts Salomon did for hydration vests…I’d almost not call these vests but hydration shirts or apparel they fit so close to the body.  Great versatility and can carry a fair bit without any encumbrance.  When I needed more gear than the UD belts could carry I used one of the Sense vests (i.e. nighttime at Bighorn or other races or training outings where jackets and lights were necessary).  Salomon is revamping the line this year with new bottles with wider caps/opening (yes!) that should go back into the vest easier and upping the capacity from 1 and 3 to 2 and 5 for these vests in addition to adding a new 8 L model (see new line here).
3. Ultimate Direction AK Mountain Vest 3.0 – The AK vest moved from the most minimal of UD’s vests to a more robust 10L capacity and includes extra pockets and features like ice axe loops for more ambitious outings.  I used the vest at the Fat Dog 120 mile in Canada which had a pretty large mandatory gear list and it was great for that heavier load which would have been too much for the Sense Ultra.  Great for adventures and more involved races and offers a nice blend of capacity and streamlined design.

-Other things I Liked this last Year

Altra Casual shoes, Buff and Dynafit running hats and GU Hydration and Nutrition products.

1. Altra Casual Shoes – Altra released the Tokala and Desert boot and they really hit a nice balance of lightweight design and comfort, while still looking like a normal shoe and feeling like a running shoe.  They’ve been great especially going to work after runs where they have plenty of room for feet to spread, relax and recover.
2. Light running caps from Buff and Dynafit – the Buff Cap Pro and Dynafit React Cap have been awesome this last year.  They are super light, very packable and both allow the bill to be flipped up when you are climbing steeper trails or otherwise want more visibility.  Great design, particularly in more mountain environments.
3. GU Energy  – I used to not be that picky about energy and hydration products in the past and felt that sugar was sugar, but after making some effort to dial in my nutrition for 100 milers (after some issues with hydration at Western States in 2015), I needed to deal with sodium levels better as well as have a wide variety of gels and chews to keep things interesting for calories.  The GU Hydration (formerly GU Brew) product had become a go to for electrolyte replacement for long outings and it also contains 70 cals per serving so there is some added sugar there too.  The big difference for me is that the GU Hydration doesn’t have a super sweet taste or aftertaste that many others do for me and this is huge when going through lots of volume of liquid.  GU Roctane drinks are also great for workouts in training where I want to simplify my calories and hydration into one drink.  GU gels, which are now offered in bulk with a GU designed soft flask (yes!) have a wide variety of flavors with many being very palatable for me (some favorited are Salted Chocolate Roctane, Cucumber Mint, Root Beer, Salted Watermelon and Salted Caramel but many other good flavors). I still will use Clif Shot Bloks, Clif gels and Honey Stinger Gels to mix up the type of sugars here and there, but I’ll use GU the most and their drink is by far the best in my view (Clif’s Hydration drink mix is also decent).

Another shot near the bottom of the Mt. Olympus trail.

Hope you all found something of interest with this post and hang in there with the site as we try to figure out how to balance everything out with our busy family lives and careers.  Doesn’t mean we aren’t getting out running and trying new things still!  I’d love to read any comments you may have on any of the shoes or gear I mentioned and always on the lookout for new things that work well for folks.  I like good design of all sorts and always curious for new innovations and ideas that work well.  Happy running in 2017!

Good luck in 2017 everyone! Pic of some of my recent single digit F marathon training conditions….not exactly ideal for a SoCal marathon, but that’s part of the challenge!

The original Zante was one of my favorite shoes – soft sole, comfortable fit, and a smooth ride that offered plenty of cushion for longer runs. To be honest, not much has changed in v2 – the Zante remains a personal favorite, and it’s a shoe that I highly recommend. It retains a soft, 6mm drop sole (though lately as it has broken in I’m almost feeling it’s too soft), and the bump I felt under the midfoot of v1 seems toned down a bit in v2. New Balance did change the pattern on the sidewalls of the midsole, but I can detect no noticeable effect of this.

The upper of the Zante 2 is minimalistic – it’s composed of a stretchy, double-layered mesh with welded overlays, and the heel counter is very flexible. Fit is reasonably roomy on my foot (though not overly spacious – I did go up a half size). Put simply, it’s a no frills upper that just works.

The outsole of the Zante 2 is also relatively unchanged. It is a smoothish, full length outsole composed of flat rubber hexagons (see picture down below). Great for the road, but not great on trails, and very little traction (would not use it in winter!). Durability for me has been excellent.

To be honest, my only real complaint about the Zante 2 is the fact that it can at times feel overly soft. It almost feels like the sole may bottom out. I’ve only noticed this recently, so it could either be an effect of running on hot summer asphalt, or breakdown of the midsole cushion with use. In either case, I would not recommend the Zante 2 if you like a firmer shoe.

All in all, the New Balance Zante 2 is a great shoe for those who like a smooth, soft ride. It offers a lot of cushion in a lightweight package (8.7 oz in men’s size 9), and could easily serve as a marathon shoe for me. And an even bigger plus is the price – at $100 MSRP it’s quite affordable in the current market. I highly recommend giving the Zante 2 a try!

The New Balance Zante 2 is available for purchase at Running Warehouse and Amazon.com.

With my return to teaching, I’ve realized that time constraints necessitate making a change to how I write reviews (or they’ll never get done!). I’m going to try a more streamlined approach that I hope will allow me to churn through a backlog of reviews that have been accumulating since the beginning of the year. Here goes…

With their latest iteration of the PureProject, Brooks has trimmed down the collection by eliminating the PureConnect. The PureCadence (support), PureFlow (neutral), and PureGrit (trail) move on to v5. I’ve run in both the PureCadence 5 and PureFlow 5, and this review focuses on the former. I do feel obligated to once again point out that although the PureCadence is marketed as the support/stability shoe in the PureProject lineup, I think that this categorization is pretty artificial. Quite frankly, it feels pretty darned similar to the PureFlow, so don’t let it’s categorization scare you off if you’re interested in giving it a try.

Perhaps the most exciting change in v5 of the PureCadence is the fact that the silly NavBand has been eliminated, as has the non-functional split-toe sole. I’m a fan of eliminating marketing-driven nonsense, and I don’t feel that either of those PureProject “features” accomplished much of anything for the shoe. Thank you Brooks for letting go.

Here are my thoughts after probably 75 or so miles in the PureCadence 5:

1. Specs: 9.6 oz, 22mm heel, 18mm forefoot.

2. Sizing: I stayed true to size with a 10 – fit was good, no need to size up for me.

3. Ride: The PureCadence 5 feels very similar to previous iterations of the shoe – reasonably well cushioned, smooth transition, comfortable over longer distances. The shoe retains the undercut heel design, and as a midfoot to mild heel striker this makes me happy. Solid all around!

4. Fit: On the narrow side of middle-of-the-road. The toebox is not overly spacious, but not uncomfortably constricting. Midfoot and heel hold the foot well.

4. Upper: The mesh is not particularly stretchy, so not a lot of give. However, depth of the toebox is sufficient so there is room for the toes to move. Interior lining is plush and might be suitable for sockless wear (have not tried it yet myself).

5. Sole: I’m fond of the Brooks BioMoGo-DNA compound used in the midsole, and have been since the initial iterations of the PureProject shoes. It provides a fairly springy ride, and is a good match for my stride. Brooks touts that their Omega Flex Grooves optimize flexibility – I have no idea what an Omega Flex Groove is, but the sole is reasonably flexible, no complaints there. As mentioned, this doesn’t really feel like a stability shoe. In fact, I’ve gotten some abrasion on the side of the ball behind my big toe. This typically only happens in shoes with a soft medial forefoot, so I may be getting more late stage pronation than in most other shoes despite this being billed as a support model.

6. Durability: Outstanding so far. Plenty of rubber on the sole, with minimal wear visible. Upper has held up extremely well. No tearing, abrasion, etc.

Conclusion

The Brooks PureCadence 5 is a solid mid- to long distance trainer for those who like a lower-drop, sub-10oz shoe. It’s not for the wide-footed, but should work for narrow to moderate width feet, and durability seems to be excellent. The price point at $120 is a bit higher than I’d like to see ($100-$110 seems more appropriate), but if the durability continues to be as good as I’ve seen so far, then then the $/mile ratio may be fine. And as I said at the outset, I don’t find this Cadence to be particularly controlling or stable, so don’t let that scare you off if (like me) you think the “neutral” PureFlow 5 is pretty ugly.

If you have any specific questions, leave a comment below!

The Brooks PureCadence 5 is available for purchase at Running Warehouse.

At the beginning of our seminar yesterday, our instructors showed a video about a unique Kindergarten in Japan. As someone who believes in the value of physical activity as a critical component of education for kids, I loved the video. And as a runner, I loved the bit at 7:48.

Enjoy – full video is below!

(Disclosure: these shoes were provided free-of-charge by Hoka for review purposes.)

After our first snowfall back at the beginning of winter (snow has been minimal this year up in NH), I decided to take a shot at running in them – it was the only trail shoe I had that I hadn’t already reviewed (David Henry handles most trail shoes for me these days), and I suppose every shoe deserves at least one run (I once ran in the Springblade!).

My first run was four miles on a rail trail, and though they were tight across the toes and forefoot, the run went pretty well, and the tightness didn’t bother me as much as I had anticipated. They handled well in the thin layer of snow, and the ride was somewhat reminiscent of the Hoka Huaka, a shoe that I liked quite a bit. They are a tad softer than the Huaka, have a slightly higher drop (Speedgoats are 35 mm heel – 30 mm forefoot per Running Warehouse), and the lugs are a bit deeper, but the two shoes compare favorably to one another.

Yes, indeed – pointy and narrow up front!

Despite my problems with the fit, for some reason I kept coming back to the Speedgoats. I used them frequently in the snow this winter, and they were the shoes on my feet when I was bit by a German Shepherd while running on the trails behind my house on Christmas Day (an incident that sidelined me for two weeks). I’ve probably put close to 50 miles on them at this point, which is a bit of a surprise given my initial reaction to the narrowness of the toebox. That being said, my longest run in them was 7 miles, and I was feeling some discomfort up front by the end of that run. I would not run much longer than 5 miles in these given the fit issues – I would not recommend them to ultrarunners for this reason.

The red midsole does a good job of camouflaging blood…

The upper of the Speedgoat is a breathable, fairly open mesh with welded overlays and a rand along the region of junction between the upper and midsole. I have no major complaints about the upper, though the mesh does seem like it might let trail grit in given the more open weave. I have not run through water in these, so can’t comment on whether the rand creates issues with drainage. I’m not particularly crazy about the way the tongue extends down and forward to make up the central portion of the upper of the forefoot, but this has not caused any real issues. Mostly just an aesthetic complaint I guess.

The sole of the Speedgoat is springy, and not as mushy as a shoe like the Hoka Clifton. I’d say it’s somewhere in between the Clifton and the Huaka from a responsiveness standpoint. I really like the feel, and that’s one of the reasons why I keep coming back to them. They feel great underfoot on both road and trail. Durability has so far been good – I’ve done a fair amount of running on asphalt in these shoes, and the Vibram rubber is holding up very well so far.

The outsole of the Speedgoat is a bit more aggressive than that of the Huaka, and traction has been solid on light snow. I haven’t put them to the test in wet or muddy conditions, but they are adequate for the type of trail running I do (mostly non-technical).

Conclusion

So the Speedgoat is a mix of good and bad. I really like the ride, and have enjoyed running in them from that standpoint, but the narrow fit is a real limitation for all but the most narrow-footed. If you can comfortably run in cross-country spikes, these are probably going to be fine for you (though I would recommend going up a half size if you buy them). If not, they may not be a great choice.

I like them for shorter runs on trails, but a shoe with a 30mm+ stack height isn’t really what I typically need for shorter, quicker runs. And I definitely would not pay $140 for a shoe with such a limited a range of uses. Hopefully Hoka will retool the fit if they come out with a v2 – the shoe has a lot of potential, but is really hobbled by the fit.

The Hoka Speedgoat is available for purchase at Running Warehouse.

Teaching

In August 2015 I returned to the classroom, this time as an intern at Bedford High School in New Hampshire. I had enrolled in the teacher certification program at the Upper Valley Educators Institute, and for the past 4+ months I have essentially been living the life of a high school biology teacher (and chauffeur to my children after school…).

After some initial apprehension about making this career change, I have come to love what I am doing. Being a teacher is my true calling – it’s what I loved about my old job as a college professor, and it’s what I want to do for the remainder of my career. Teaching fulfills me in a way that being a full time blogger did not, and it has been a very positive change.

I’ve also gained a great deal of respect for those who choose to pursue service in elementary/secondary education. Teaching is hard work, and I’ve come to realize that teaching high school is very different than teaching at the college level. My days are busy from beginning to end with planning and classroom instruction (vs. one or two lectures/labs per day as a college prof), classroom management has been a learning experience and is something that I am just starting to get the hang of, and approaches to instruction at the secondary level are very different (no 75 minute lectures to an audience of 100+ students). I’m glad I decided on the intern path rather than pursuing alternative certification as I don’t think teaching college kids is adequate preparation for all of the things you encounter in a high school (something I should write about at some point).

Next week I switch schools to gain experience in a different environment, and in a few months I’ll start applying for teaching jobs with a goal of being employed by a school in the Fall. It’s been a wild ride, but I’ve grown a lot in the process, and I’m really excited about the future.

Blogging

One of the positive aspects of my career change is that I’ve come to enjoy writing/blogging again. I no longer feel compelled to write simply to put stuff out there, and I no longer feel like a slave to my stats, clicks, earnings, etc. I write what I want, when I want, and if a week or two goes by without writing a post that’s fine (time is limited these days!). It feels great to be freed from the bondage of my analytics and my inbox (I’ve gotten really bad at responding to email, something I need to work on…).

I’m fortunate to have a great contributor in David Henry, and he’s been fantastic at filling in on the trail side of things. I credit him with helping me keep this site alive while I’m back in school (never thought I’d be a student again!). (On a side note, I’m always open to guest reviews/posts if you like to write, though I’ll admit to being a slow editor these days).

Heading into 2016, I have every intention of keeping this site going strong. I’ve received a bunch of shoes to review in the past few weeks (too many…), and as long as I have the time I’ll continue to write about running. I just need to avoid nasty dogs on the trail…

Running

I’ll use the mention of nasty dogs as a way to segue into my running.

In 2015 I re-developed a healthy relationship with my running. I stopped obsessing about mileage, pace, etc. (notice a theme here?), and just went out and ran however much I felt like running on a given day. I’ve gotten comfortable with ditching the GPS on occasion. I didn’t race much in 2015, but did a few 10-milers and had fun. My fitness wasn’t where it has been in previous years, but I’ve run enough to maintain a baseline that I should be able to ramp back up without too much trouble, and was in the process of doing just that when I was bitten by a German Shepard while on a run on Christmas day. Being sidelined for almost 2 weeks (had stitches in my leg) just as I was ramping my mileage back up was hard.

I’m now fully recovered from the dog bite – stitches are out, and I’m on track to log about 20 miles this week. I haven’t scheduled any solo races for 2016 yet, but I’m running Ragnar Cape Cod in May with a team from my kids’ school – volunteered to be the top mileage runner on the team with about 21 miles spread over the course of the relay. I’ve thought a bit about a return to the marathon, but I’ll need to see how much time I have to devote to training over the coming months as I finish up my certification and start applying for teaching jobs.

For now I just plan to slowly build up my running mileage, and work on shedding a few pounds that have accumulated over the past year. I’m excited about the challenge of building my fitness back up in 2016!

Pickled Feet 6 hr. Photo Tempus Photo Design

Although I had some bumps along the way in my running in 2015, I consider it a good year, and one in which I learned a lot and grew as a runner and person even though my race results don’t show too much.

I started the year off with a 50k in January at the Wilson Creek 50k. I ran a good race, then transitioned to marathon training for the remainder of January and February in prep for the Richland Runfest in Richland, WA. I ended up with a 3:03:17, which was a 12 min PR for me (previous PR was from the Spokane Marathon just 4 months earlier; my only other marathon was a 3:38 in 2010 at the Portland marathon, which was 3 weeks after my first 50k and I ran it in Vibram FiveFinger KSOs :)).

I then ran 30 miles in 4:12 at the Pickled feet 6 hr in my first timed (rather than distance based) event (I ran it as a training run and stopped at 30 miles). Two weeks after that I ran the Peterson Ridge Rumble 40 miler in 5:36.  I was happy overall with that race as I had not tapered much for it, and felt pretty decent most of the way.  I chose the flatter terrain of these races to build up to what I though was a flatter and more runnable 100 miler at Western States.

If you’ve followed the blog, then you know that Western States didn’t turn out exactly as planned, and I had a DNF at mile 78 mostly because I was mentally unprepared to walk it in if need be (I indeed would have had to walk it in).  Needless to say that was a great learning experience, and I feel like I’m in a good place for tackling a few more 100s this year.  Because of some life circumstances and job changes I didn’t race again the rest of the year, and have had to find a new groove and routine.

The good news is that I think I’ve got my mojo back, and should be close to an 80 mile week this week, which will be a first since my peak week for Western States in June.  So far for 2016, I’ve signed up for the Carlsbad Marathon on January 17th, the Richland Runfest Marathon again on February 27th (hoping to get a sub 3hr run at Richland since my 3:03:17 wasn’t good enough to get me into Boston this year; they cut it at 3:02:32 this year), then the Gorge Waterfalls 100k on April 2nd, and I’m going back to the Bighorn 100 on June 17th.  I’m undecided after that, but eyeing the Fat Dog 120 mile or Cascade Crest 100, both in August. I’d also love to put together a decent training block and run the North Face 50 mile in San Francisco in December, but I have typically struggled to be super fit come that time of year.  I’ll probably throw in a few training races both on road and trail but also hope to do some bigger mountain adventures close to home as I train for the 100s.

Early on in the Peterson Ridge Rumble 40 Mile. Photo Paul Nelson.

2015 was also a great year for me in the shoe department, and as I look back to the variety and breadth of shoes that I had a chance to try, I feel very fortunate, and also have more shoes I enjoy running in than ever before. The big story for me this year was breaking out of the low drop arena to discover that I could tolerate shoes of a larger drop if other features like fit, flexibility, and stack height were still good.  This lead me to adidas early on in the year and Montrail later in the year, both brands that typically offer most of their shoes in 10mm drop, and that I’d avoided solely for that that reason.

A few shoes at my disposal.  Still a little more room on the shelf :).

Below are the top 3 Road, Trail, and Mountain running shoes that I tried in 2015:

Road

1. Salming Distance – A surprise and last minute addition to the road shoe category since I bought them in the middle of December. The main reason they are on the top is the sheer versatility of the shoe.  It weighs in the mid 8 oz range, has enough protection and cushion to run long in, yet is poppy and fast enough to run workouts in, and I’ll probably run it at the Carlsbad Marathon which is about 10 days away as I write this. The ride is very smooth and natural feeling, yet it’s fast like a racing shoe.  Great shoe from a brand that I’m beginning to pay more attention to.
2. adidas Takumi Ren 3 – While this shoe didn’t release in the US, that didn’t stop me from importing it from the UK :).  I initially wasn’t super keen on it (I had run in both the Takumi Sen 2 and 3 and Ren 2 before), but after a few great workouts, and even a long run in them, I ended up super impressed at the amount of shoe adidas was able to offer in a scant 6.5 oz .  If they could only flesh out the Takumi range a bit with a few models that have some actual rubber on them for more durability, and bring the price down just a hair, I think they’d be nearly impossible to compete with in the pure racing/performance scene.  As it is, the Takumi offers nearly all the protection and structure of the adios in a 6.5 oz shoe (granted not the softer ride of the full boost outsole in the adios, but its nearly 2 oz lighter!)
3. Skechers GOrun Ride 5 – Technically this shoe didn’t release till 1/1/16, but I’ve had a pair since November, and it is a really nice shoe that also is capable of a wide range of roles.  The upper is super comfortable and fits just right for an all around road shoe, and the midsole is cushioned yet responsive thanks to Skechers’ new 5-Gen resalyte material that really shines in their whole 2016 lineup.

Honorable Mentions worth looking at: adidas Takumi Sen 3 (super light and snappy), New Balance Zante (smooth, fast, widish toebox, trail worthy), adidas Supernova Glide 7 
(not flashy, but does everything from road to trail and super durable), Skechers GOrun Ultra Road (great cushion yet still responsive with a fantastic knit upper), and Salming Race 
(smooth and efficient Salming ride on a light platform and roomy/comfy upper for a racing shoe).

Trail

1. adidas adizero XT Boost (review) – You can read my review for more detail, but in the end the XT Boost comes away as my top trail shoe from 2015.  It offered a road shoe like ride (similar to the Takumi Ren) in a full featured trail package with a unique upper and fantastic outsole.  Not perfect, but very close to everything I’m looking for in a trail shoe.
2. adidas Response Trail Boost (review) – The Response Trail Boost was by far the biggest surprise for me in the sense that before I ran in them I thought they’d be horrible, and after I ran in them, they were easily one of the best shoes I’ve ever run in.  They looked like everything I don’t usually go for in that they were relatively heavy (11 oz), had deep lugs on a cushioned platform (usually not a good combo), and a funky upper.  In the end they end up running super smooth, feel well cushioned yet nimble and stable, handle a wide variety of terrain, and have a very comfortable fit for long runs.  After running in some other shoes (Montrails with Fluid Guide, adidas Terrex Boost) that similarly offer a stiffer, structured midfoot with softer heel and flexible forefoot, I’m convinced this is a helpful design feature to give a more stable and precise ride for shoes with higher protection or stack height.
3. Salming T1 (review) – Salming was surely the best new brand for me this year.  They really understand how to produce a natural feeling midsole that runs very smooth yet fast like your favorite road racing shoe.  This translates really well to a trail shoe that handles literally everything from pavement to off-trail.  If I was going into a trail race with no idea of the course, this would probably be the shoe on my feet since it runs super-well on almost any surface.  The shoe has even grown on me more since my review, and especially since running in the Distance which runs very similar in a lighter, road specific package.

Honorable Mentions worth looking at: Montrail Fluid Flex ST (so much better than Fluid Flex with great ride, and the upcoming Fluid Flex FKT could perfect it with a better looking upper on the same platform) and Altra Superior 2.0 (first Altra shoe I’ve enjoyed the ride on and fit wasn’t too wide in midfoot/heel).

Mountain

1. inov-8 Mudclaw 300  – The best all-around mountain shoe to date, and I’ve nearly tried them all.  The upper is near mountain shoe perfection, and the outsole is sticky, aggressive, yet still runs ok on harder terrain (and much better than inov-8’s x-talon and Terraclaw outsoles). The Mudclaw will have some stiff competition next year, but as it stands it is the most precise running, and best fitting, mountain shoe out there.
2. Dynafit Feline SL (review) – Dynafit was the best newcomer for me in the mountain shoe category, and their forthcoming Feline Vertical has loads of potential.  The Feline SL has a great fit, better midsole than most mountain shoes, and a more versatile outsole than most as well.  It feels light, precise, and has just enough protection for most mountain outings.  Only improvements I’d add are a rockplate and a better, seamless upper.  The upcoming Feline Vertical appears to address both of these and add Vibram Megagrip rubber, so you can understand my excitement!
3. The North Face Ultra MT – I wasn’t originally as taken with these shoes on the first run, but after a few good mountain outings in them, I really started to dig the mix of cushion, protection, precision and grip that they offered.  The ride is firm and precise, but has just enough give to handle fast downhills on hard terrain.  The rockplate is much welcomed (something not as common in mountain shoes as in trail shoes), and the Vibram Megagrip rubber is outstanding (the MT is still the only shoe I’ve used with Megagrip, but many new models coming in 2016 with it).

Honorable Mentions worth looking at: adidas Terrex Boost (absolutely awesome midsole/outsole platform, just the upper is not very forgiving; upcoming Agravic could put it all together) and La Sportiva Mutant (great, unique upper and fantastic outsole, but lack of rock plate is noticeable on rocky terrain, and general ride not very inspired).

All in all 2015 was a great year for running shoes, with increasingly better upper materials and construction, better midsole materials (the year of Boost where it was in most adidas models including the first time in their trail shoes), and better outsole materials (Continental trail outsoles and Vibram Megagrip in particular).  2016 looks to continue all of these trends and I see them starting to converge more in single shoes, where in the past great features tended to exist more in isolation with certain parts of the shoe having sometimes glaring issues in tandem with innovative new features.  Take a look at the 2016 preview posts up on the blog (road racing, road, trail and mountain) and be sure to stay tuned for future reviews of those shoes and others!

Late race at Peterson Ridge. Hope to keep on running strong in 2016! Photo David Mitchell.

What follows is a list of deals that I was able to come up with. If you know of any others that I missed, feel free to share links in the comments, we can all benefit! Some are not active until Cyber Monday, and dates are noted where necessary.

In addition to online shopping, I would also encourage you to consider checking out your local running specialty store on Small Business Saturday! I’m sure many will have sales.

On to the deals!

Amazon.com

Amazon usually has a good selection of sale running shoes, and often has discount codes.

For Cyber Weekend this year, Amazon is offering 20% off select clothing and shoe purchases. Cyber Monday sale can be found via the banner below.

Running Warehouse

Running Warehouse Cyber Monday is now over. However, they always has lot of great shoes on sale – you can view the men’s sale shoes and women’s sale shoes here. Using the Runblogger code RUNBLOG10 should get you an additional 10% off on the sale shoes.

Shoes.com

Cyber Week Sale: Get 30% off orders $100 or more at Shoes.com! Use code: CYBER30. Offer valid 11/23-12/3.

Zappos

Zappos is offering free 1 business day shipping on all purchases for Cyber Weekend.

6pm.com

6pm.com is essentially the clearance site for Zappos (same parent company but run separately). The 6pm Black Friday Sale begins at 12:00 AM EST on 11/27/2015:

Shop 6PM: Celebrate Black Friday with 15% off your entire purchase using code: BLACKFRI15. (11/26-11/27) One use per 6pm account. Valid for the first 100,000 uses or until 11/27/15, 11:59pm PST!  

Shoebuy.com

Shoebuy has sales going on straight through Cyber Monday – check the dates on the links below for when they are active.

The sales are still here! 25% off your order plus free shipping with code TGWEEKEND. Expires on 11/29 at 11:59 PST.

CYBER MONDAY SALE! Save 30% on your order plus free shipping with code CYBERMONDAY15! Expires on 11/30 at 11:59 PST.

Clever Training

Clever Training has sales running on select TomTom GPS watches, Fitbit Trackers, Garmin VivofitVivosmart and selected Garmin GPS watches (FR10, FR15, 220, 620, 225, Fenix 3, Vivoactive), bike racks and accessories, and more! Click here to check out the sales at Clever Training.

The Clymb

Click here to view Black Friday/Cyber Monday sales at The Clymb.

Trivillage

In addition to cycling and swimming gear, Trivillage carries a good selection of running shoes, clothing, and accessories.

Black Friday/Cyber Monday Blowout Sale – 22% Savings Storewide use coupon code HOLIDAYS22. Coupon Code: HOLIDAYS22

Onlineshoes.com

Cyber Week Sale: Get 30% off orders $100 or more at OnlineShoes! Choose from thousands of men’s and women’s new winter arrivals. Don’t miss the best deals of the year! Use code: CYBER30. Offer valid 11/23-12/3.

Sierra Trading Post

Sierra Trading Post has sales going through Cyber Monday – check the dates below for the appropriate links depending on the day.

Black Friday Extended! Shop and Save up to 70%. Valid from 11/28/15 – 11/29/15.

Cyber Monday Savings: Take an Extra 25% off $100 + 50% off Shipping with code ACYBERMONDAY5. Valid November 30, 2015.

Cyber Monday Extended! Shop and Save up to 70%. Valid December 1, 2015.

Leftlane Sports

Leftlane Sports usually has a coupon code for Black Friday and Cyber Monday sales. Click here to view current promotions.

Athleta

20% Off Your Entire Purchase – Online & In Stores. Use code WORKIT at Athleta. Restrictions apply. Ends 11/29.

Backcountry.com

Black Friday Sale – Our Best Brands Up To 50% Off at Backcountry

Eastern Mountain Sports

Eastern Mountain Sports is running sales on products from many major outdoor brands, including Timbuk2, Nemo, Vibram, Oboz, Black Diamond, EMS, Exficio and many more.. Click link below to view sale.

Black Friday Sale – Get Up to 50% Off Top Brands PLUS Free Shipping at Eastern Mountain Sports! Shop ems.com Now!

Road Runner Sports

VIPs Enjoy 25% off EVERYTHING + FREE Shipping! Use offer code RUNFRIDAY25 at checkout. Some exclusions may apply, see site for details.

Enjoy 15% off EVERYTHING + FREE Shipping! Use offer code BF2015 at checkout. Some exclusions may apply, see site for details.

Adidas.com

Adidas Black Friday Sale: 50% off Outerwear, Tracksuits, Accessories, and Fleece

Adidas Cyber Monday sale is $15 off $75 / $25 off $100 / $40 off $150 – link will be live on 11/29.

New Balance.com

Black Friday Sale! Save 15% Off All Orders + Free Shipping Site Wide with no minimum (discount automatically applied at checkout) exclusively at New Balance! Offer valid 11/26-11/29.

Cyber Monday Sale! Save 20% Off All Orders + Free Ground Shipping Site Wide with no minimum (discount automatically applied at checkout) exclusively at New Balance! Offer valid 11/30 only.

Saucony.com

Saucony.com: EXTRA 30% OFF SALE STYLES WITH CODE SALE30

Merrell

Merrell Cyber Monday – Save Up to 50% Off Select Styles Today Only! Free Shipping & Free Returns.

Extra 20% Off Merrell Apparel with code SAVE20! Free Shipping & Free Returns.

Skechers.com

Black Friday Weekend Savings! Take $30 Off orders $150+ at SKECHERS! Code THANKS30. Ends 11/29/15. Shop now!

Black Friday Weekend Savings! Take $40 Off orders $200+ at SKECHERS! Code THANKS40. Ends 11/29/15. Shop now!

Skora

Black Friday Savings Starts NOW At SKORArunning.com! Save 25% Sitewide + Free Shipping On Orders Over $90.

Under Armour

25% Off UA Big Logo Hoodies, Armour® Fleece Pants & More – Cyber Weekend Only!

Montrail

Shop the 7 Day Sale and Get 25% Off Men’s Running Shoes at Montrail.com! Valid through 12/2.

Specs

Price: $110 MSRP

Stack Height:  24mm heel, 20 mm forefoot

Weight: 10.4 oz (294 g), men’s size 9 and 8.7 oz (246 g) women’s size 8

Stats via Running Warehouse

Insole shows the wide, oblique-shaped last on the shoe – it is by far the roomiest Saucony I’ve tried.

Upper and Fit

The fit of the Nomad TR is the big story for me, especially given Saucony’s generally more pointed last shape.  The Nomad departs from this shape dramatically with what they refer to as an oblique, toe-shaped last.  I found the fit to be wide in the toebox; maybe not quite Altra width, but very close.  The biggest difference for me from an Altra is the Nomad’s slightly closer fitting midfoot and much more secure heel.  I still wanted the midfoot volume of the upper to be lower in the Nomad, and the width of the outsole at the midfoot is a little wide I think, but overall the fit is relaxed without being overly sloppy.

Internal Pro-Lock support piece that ties into a lace eyelet. Works as advertised, though I found it to slightly irritate my naked foot on longer, hotter outings. Probably not an issue with socks.

The upper has a simple, one-piece design with no significant overlays to speak of other than an internal underlay that ties into a lace eyelet that Saucony calls Pro-Lock. The upper material is a a closed mesh that is very durable, but, like most closed mesh uppers, not that breathable. Other than a few exceptions, I find there is always this tradeoff with upper choices on trail shoes.  A closed mesh keeps out dirt, water, mud, snow, etc. and holds up better, but an open mesh is much more breathable and drains better at a cost to debris management and durability.  Given that I tested the Nomad mostly in 80+ F weather, I tended to notice how hot it felt. However, one upside was that on the very dry and dusty trails it really did keep out the fine dust which was great.  My guess is that the shoe will perform better overall in the cooler temps we are now heading into.

Powergrid in the heel and a moderately responsive midsole that is forgiving; outsole likely contributes just as much to responsiveness.

Ride

I find the Nomad TR to perform on a nice balance between cushioned and responsive, especially given its more relaxed upper fit.  It runs firm enough so as not to feel unstable on semi-technical terrain, but also runs forgivingly on flatter, smooth terrain.  With a somewhat relaxed, road shoe-like ride, I think it generally works pretty well for drier and smoother trails and would be a great road-trail option too. Unfortunately, for me the shoe just rides a little heavy overall without really possessing the more protective elements that I would expect in a shoe of its weight.  Shoes like the Pearl Izumi Trail N2v2 and Nike Wildhorse, which are in a similar class and weight as the Nomad, both have rock plates and more traction with a similar ride.

Unique outsole design with thick PWRTRAC blown rubber that works well in many different conditions. Thickness helps with cushion, but contributes to heaviness.

Outsole

I initially thought the outsole on the Nomad was a bad design, mainly because it has a lot of rubber while really not providing much aggressive traction.  After more time in the shoe, however, the outsole may be the biggest reason why the ride is more responsive than it otherwise might be.  It uses Saucony’s PWRTRAC compound that (I believe) is a springy blown rubber that contributes to the cushioning of the shoe. Blown rubber is usually not that durable, which is its downside, but the Nomad outsole is holding up really well for me so far. I attribute this to the coffin-like lug shape which they created with few sharp edges and to the thickness of the lugs at the base as well; this outsole should last a long time.  The shoe has great traction on rock, yet also runs smoothly on hardpack trail without the breaking effect of some other trail shoes with too much lug.  The outsole also makes the shoe much more usable on the roads as well.

Overall Thoughts

I’m excited to see Saucony step out and try something new with the Nomad, and I think they generally succeeded in creating a unique fitting and capable trail shoe that will fit a variety of different runner’s needs.

The highlights of the shoe for me are the wide, comfortable fit, well cushioned and smooth ride, and a multi-purpose and durable outsole design. There is plenty of room for improvement, however.  Mainly, I think the shoe is too heavy for what it is/does. Like I mentioned above, shoes like the PI N2v2 and Nike Wildhorse 3 offer a similar ride with a more refined fit and more robust protection at the same weight. If Saucony could lighten the shoe up with a more stripped-back, open mesh upper, and snug up the fit a bit in the midfoot, along with potentially decreasing the lug thickness on the outsole, I think the shoe would feel much more nimble and still offer the nice comfortable ride/fit that the Nomad has at a lighter weight. This would give the Nomad TR the most potential to shine where its high points already lie: in its smooth, comfortable and multi-surface ride capabilities.

If you like the wide toebox of Altra or Topo shoes, the Nomad is worth a look as it is probably one of the few similarly wide trail shoes on the market (and the only one I can think of from a company with more significant road history).

Disclaimer: These shoes were provided free of charge for review from the manufacturer.  All opinions are of the author’s.

The Saucony Nomad is available for purchase at Running Warehouse US, Wiggle UK, and Running Warehouse Australia.

I’ve been using road racing shoes for trail running for quite some time now. Within this category, I typically look for shoes that feel fast and quick, are lightweight, and yet can still protect against the hazards of the trail. 

Recently, I spent some time trying to narrow down the shoe(s) I intended to use for the 2015 Western States 100 Mile Endurance Run, and I thought a road shoe might be the best option, especially in the latter half of the race. Based on this process, I thought a post on using road shoes for trail running might be helpful. Before I share some of the shoes I’ve had good luck with on trails, I’d like to highlight a few things that I look for in a road shoe that, for me, make it more trail worthy:

1. Stack height – Road shoes don’t ever come with rock plates, and usually don’t have thick outsoles. So, to protect against rocks and provide some cushion on longer trail outings, I like to look for road shoes with a decent stack height (usually, unless the midsole is really dense, this means 15 mm forefoot height up to maybe 18 or 19 mm).  This ends up leading me towards marathon or performance training type road shoes as most 5k-1/2 marathon shoes are pretty stripped back, thinner, and lack outsoles of much substance. Shoes like this won’t last very long on the trail (I’ve blown though a few to find this out the hard way :)).

2. Outsole rubber quantity and placement – For road shoes to hold up on trails they need to have some outsole rubber to provide durability and traction.  I actually don’t feel like there needs to be much lug per se, but rubber coverage, especially over the metatarsals and lateral forefoot, is a must. This is mainly to provide protection for your foot, and also to protect the midsole foam so it doesn’t get crushed by rocks; an outsole helps to disperse impact. The traction issue is honestly pretty secondary for me. Rather, one thing I like about road shoes on dry, hard-packed downhills is that they "float" on contact. This just means that they slide a bit when the foot lands, rather than catching and braking like a more heavily lugged trail shoe, and this helps reduce quad fatigue on longer downhills.

3. Midfoot shank – I  really prefer road shoes with a midfoot shank to give the shoe more structure and rigidity over the long haul.  Most of adidas’ road shoes feature what they call their "torsion system" which provides this function, but many other road shoes, especially marathon racing shoes, have a shank in the midfoot.

So on to some of the road shoes I’ve been enjoying on the trails lately starting from the lightest to heaviest:

New Balance RC1400 v3 – 6.3 oz mens 9; 23/13mm stack height via http://9nl.us/ddr2Running Warehouse

The New Balance 1400v3 is a great example of a company taking a shoe that works and slowly refining things until they end up with a fantastic all-around package. While the 3rd version of the 1400 is not substantially different than v2, the changes made in the upper really elevate the shoe overall in my mind.

With the same midsole and outsole setup as v2, which to me added protection and responsiveness over v1, as well as having better outsole coverage over the metatarsals, v3 adds a soft and light upper that is neither as thick and hot as v1, nor as stiff and scratchy as v2. This all adds up to a super-light shoe that is very comfortable and secure on the foot that I’d be willing to use for races up to 50k on trails.  No other sub-7 oz shoes I could say that about.

adidas adizero Rocket – 7.0 oz mens 9; 23/18mm stack height via Running Warehouse

Ok, I know the Rocket has been discontinued for a while (since 2012 I believe), but I recently found a pair on eBay (in size 13 no less!) and was reminded of how ridiculously good they are for trails. With a full length adiprene+ midsole and nearly full coverage outsole, the Rocket can handle nearly everything you can throw at it other than mud. The fit is very precise yet comfortable, and they are as durable as a 7 oz shoe can be.  If you find a pair snag them; you won’t regret it!  If anyone from adidas is reading this, bring back the Rocket!

Saucony Fastwitch 7 – 7.2 oz mens 9; 19/15mm stack height via Running Warehouse

The Fastwitch 7 was the first "stability" racing shoe that I gave a shot (have since run the New Balance 1500 and adidas adizero Mana 6 – see below) – I’m glad I did! I figured that at 4mm drop, and 7.2 oz in weight, the pronation control couldn’t be all that intrusive, and the rest of the shoe looked right up my alley.  Given the Fastwitch 7’s relatively firm midsole, I think it is actually better suited for dry trails than it is for road. The upper is comfortable, and the ride is light and efficient, yet still protective. Only issue I’ve had is that they aren’t great if there are puddles or mud on the trails – with the large drainage holes in the bottom and the mesh strobel, the water comes right on through :).

adidas adizero adios 2 – 7.8 oz mens 9; 24/15mm stack height via Running Warehouse

Another discontinued shoe, but much easier to find than the Rocket. While I definitely prefer the adios 1 and 2 Boost on the roads (and I do like the adios 2 Boost on smoother trails), the adiprene sole of the adios 2 can handle a much broader range of trails. It’s a pretty firm and stiff shoe which helps make it protective and supportive for longer efforts, especially with its fairly robust torsion system that goes nearly from heel to toe.  It provides a great, fast and efficient ride, and is enough shoe to handle legitimately long runs (e.g., Hal Koerner won the Hardrock 100 in 2012 in the adios 2). It also has a light, yet fairly comfortable upper that drains and dries out quickly (personally tested this on a 20 miler with multiple creek crossings).

adidas adizero Boston 5 – 8.5 oz mens 9; 26/16mm stack height via Running Warehouse

The Boston 5 is a shoe that I really didn’t expect to like as much as I now do. My first run with it was a 10 miler on the roads and I just wasn’t digging the fit, and after getting used to the adios boost it just feels slow in comparison. The saving grace was after I took it out on some trail and the shoe really turned around for me.

With its more flexible forefoot, outstanding outsole for trails, and more cushioned yet still responsive and light weight ride, it just shines for me on trails (even on technical trail).  My only issue with the shoe at this point is that the upper is not the most comfortable, but has worked well even on a recent 5 hour, 30 mile training run w/7200 ft of climbing. I also chose the Boston 5 as one of my Western States shoes, but had to change out of them at mile 47 due to some tendon discomfort on the top of my foot. The women’s Boston 6 is getting a fantastic looking upper update here yet, inexplicably, the men’s version is not?!?  That seamless upper would solve nearly every issue I’ve had with the shoe.

Nike Zoom Elite 7 SS15 release – 9.0 oz mens 9; 25/18mm stack heights via Running Warehouse

I’m not sure whether Nike read my review of the Elite 7, but it sure appears that way.  That or, more than likely, I wasn’t the only one who had issues with the lack of medial heel rubber on it, because Nike quietly released a new colorway (linked via Running Warehouse link above) this Spring that rectifies the problem. What this means is that the Elite 7 is back in my rotation, and I really enjoy it for longer, smooth trail runs where I want a little bit softer ride than my go-to adidas usually give.  It also gives tons of protection over the metatarsals with a full patch of forefoot rubber and forefoot zoom air unit.  A great shoe, and I wore them from about mile 47 to mile 62 at Western States this year.

adidas adizero Mana 6 – ~9.1 oz mens 9; 25/16mm stack heights via Running Warehouse

I recently ran across the Mana 6 online at Start Fitness, and after looking them over and seeing that they were quite reasonably priced (I had a 15% off code and got them for $50 US), I decided to give them a go.  I’ve since received them and put a couple runs in them – I really like them, especially for how protective and substantial they feel compared to many of the other adidas shoes I own. However, they still retain the responsive feel that I like in the adidas adizero line. 

If the footbed is any indication, then the Mana is on the Boston last (there are last numbers on the bottom of most adidas footbeds), but it feels roomier than the Boston 5 and a 1/4 size longer (I think the Boston 5 runs a bit short so this is a good thing). The outsole coverage is generous and thick so this shoe will take some abuse. Additionally, I don’t believe the 9 mm reported drop; it feels drastically lower than the adios and more like a 4-6mm drop – it’s nice to be able to mix this up with the 10mm drop of most of the road shoes that I use. The Mana is good for long runs with a mix of road and trail.

Note: I also got in the Mana 7 from Start Fitness and while I haven’t run in it, it looks promising for shorter runs. It’s a much lighter shoe (~7.5 oz or so), and is on the adios last instead of the Boston last.  It’s a shame that it seems the Mana series has been dropped since they are a nice complement to the other adizero shoes.

adidas Supernova Glide 7 – 10.7 oz mens 9; 27/17mm stack heights via Running Warehouse

Earlier this spring I wrote an article that talked about some trail shoes that I was looking forward to in 2015. Number 5 on that list was the adidas Ultra Boost, which I thought would make a great late-ultra trail shoe. Turns out I should have put the Glide 7 in its place. After putting miles in both models, and originally feeling the Glide was too much shoe (it’s heavy, and yes I know it’s not a racing shoe :)), I’ve since come to really love its balanced, responsive (especially for the weight and protection it gives), and no nonsense ride that handles technical terrain much better than any other shoe with the same level of protection and cushion (I still haven’t come around to Hokas in that regard). I’d attribute this to the relatively low stack height for a shoe of its substance, but also to the inclusion of a healthy amount of Boost foam and thick Continental rubber; I’m a big fan of both. 

I used the Glide 7 late in the race at the Peterson Ridge Rumble 40 miler outside of Bend, Oregon in April, and also for about 15 miles at Western States. I was really happy with them in both races, and I regularly use them for easy/recovery runs. They’ll eat up the miles (I’d expect them to last 1000 miles no problem), run well on trails or road, and provide a lot of the foot protection and relief that a Hoka does in a much more focused and familiar ride for someone like myself who usually prefers lighter and more responsive shoes.

I know there are many other road shoes out there that you all enjoy on trails (for example., I like the New Balance Zante on flatter trails), and many coming out that I’m interested in trying on trails (Mizuno Sayonara 3, Hoka Clifton 2, New Balance Vazee Pace to just name a few) so how about adding in any recommendations in the comments below?

1. Barefoot running is different and no shoe perfectly replicates the barefoot condition. Running barefoot, particularly on a hard surface, increases the likelihood that a runner will adapt a midfoot or forefoot strike. Running barefoot will also generally result in an increased stride rate and decreased stride length.

2. Running in a shoe with no cushioning will simulate some aspects of barefoot running, but will not necessarily simulate the barefoot condition perfectly. This might in part be due to the ability of any type of sole, even one with no cushioning, to reduce friction between the foot and the ground and thus reduce plantar skin abrasion.

3. Running in a “minimal” shoe with a moderate amount of cushioning is unlikely to alter form very much, particularly foot strike. In other words, if cushioning is present, a heel striking runner is unlikely to move to a midfoot or forefoot strike.

A new study was just published on-line in the journal PLOS One that adds additional support to some of what I have written above (full text available here). Here’s the Abstract:

Comparison of Minimalist Footwear Strategies for Simulating Barefoot Running: A Randomized Crossover Study

Karsten Hollander, Andreas Argubi-Wollesen, Rüdiger Reer, Astrid Zech

Published: May 26, 2015, DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0125880

Abstract

Possible benefits of barefoot running have been widely discussed in recent years. Uncertainty exists about which footwear strategy adequately simulates barefoot running kinematics. The objective of this study was to investigate the effects of athletic footwear with different minimalist strategies on running kinematics. Thirty-five distance runners (22 males, 13 females, 27.9 ± 6.2 years, 179.2 ± 8.4 cm, 73.4 ± 12.1 kg, 24.9 ± 10.9 km.week^-1) performed a treadmill protocol at three running velocities (2.22, 2.78 and 3.33 m.s^-1) using four footwear conditions: barefoot, uncushioned minimalist shoes, cushioned minimalist shoes, and standard running shoes. 3D kinematic analysis was performed to determine ankle and knee angles at initial foot-ground contact, rate of rear-foot strikes, stride frequency and step length. Ankle angle at foot strike, step length and stride frequency were significantly influenced by footwear conditions (p<0.001) at all running velocities. Posthoc pairwise comparisons showed significant differences (p<0.001) between running barefoot and all shod situations as well as between the uncushioned minimalistic shoe and both cushioned shoe conditions. The rate of rear-foot strikes was lowest during barefoot running (58.6% at 3.33 m.s^-1), followed by running with uncushioned minimalist shoes (62.9%), cushioned minimalist (88.6%) and standard shoes (94.3%). Aside from showing the influence of shod conditions on running kinematics, this study helps to elucidate differences between footwear marked as minimalist shoes and their ability to mimic barefoot running adequately. These findings have implications on the use of footwear applied in future research debating the topic of barefoot or minimalist shoe running.

Methods

In a nutshell, the study authors recruited 35 runners and had them run trials at 3 speeds (12:04 min/mile, 9:38 min/mile, 8:03 min/mile if I did the math correctly) in each of four different footwear conditions. The footwear conditions (see image at top of post) were barefoot, shoe with no cushion (Leguano), shoe with moderate cushion (Nike Free 3.0), and standard running shoe (Asics 2160). They recorded the following biomechanical variables during each trial: ankle angle at footstrike, knee angle at footstrike, stride frequency, step length, frequency of rear-foot strikes.

Results

Barefoot running was significantly different from all other footwear conditions (including the shoe with zero cushion) for three of the five variables measured. When barefoot, runners exhibited reduced ankle dorsiflexion at contact (flatter foot strike), increased stride frequency, and reduced step length. Barefoot runners still exhibited a heel strike about 60% of the time, which was similar to the zero-cushion shoe condition. In cushioned shoes, heel striking was observed about 90% of the time.

When subjects ran in the shoe with zero cushion (Leguano) they exhibited reduced ankle dorsiflexion at contact, increased stride frequency, reduced step length, and lower frequency of heel striking relative to both cushioned shoe conditions.

The cushioned minimal shoe (Nike Free 3.0) differed from the standard shoe (Asics 2160) in that the runners exhibited increased stride rate and reduced step length. Ankle angle and frequency of heel striking did not differ between the two cushioned shoes.

Knee angle at foot strike did not differ between any of the footwear conditions (barefoot included).

Commentary

The results of this study suggest a gradation of effect of running footwear on form. None of the shoes mimicked the barefoot condition perfectly, even the minimal shoe with no cushion. When barefoot, the runners had the smallest amount of ankle dorsiflexion, a higher cadence, and a shorter stride. The zero cushion shoe yielded similar results to barefoot for foot strike, and had intermediate values for ankle angle. Stride rate decreased incrementally from the zero cushion shoe to the standard shoe, and step length increased incrementally from the zero cushion to the standard shoe.

This study by Bonacci et al. found a similar reduction in stride length and increase in stride rate in the Nike Free relative to a traditionally cushioned shoe, so it does appear that a moderately cushioned shoe may induce some amount of form change in the direction of barefoot running. That being said, retention of a heel striking gait in such shoes can lead to increases in impact forces over traditional footwear.  Although the importance of impact forces to injury risk remains a source of debate, it seems prudent to suggest that care should be taken when migrating toward shoes with moderate cushion.

One of the disadvantages of this study is that it looked at immediate change in runners who were not familiar with running in minimal footwear, so we can’t know for sure if changes from the standard shoe might become more apparent with time and additional adaptation to such shoes.

In my own research I have found that barefoot runners on asphalt are more likely to midfoot or forefoot strike compared to runners in the minimally cushioned Vibram Fivefingers. Combined with results from the study discussed here (and others), these findings support my belief that barefoot running is different from running in any kind of shoe, and that although a zero or minimally cushioned shoe can alter form in the direction of barefoot running, it may never perfectly simulate what happens when you take your shoes off. At the same time, running in a minimal shoe is different than running in a more traditional shoe, but it might take removal of most or all of the cushioning to elicit major changes in running form (at least in the short term).

I had some previous experience with the adidas XT 3 and 4, but both of those shoes were much more substantial with deep lugged outsoles. They were also quite heavy (10+ oz.). With the XT 5, adidas stripped the shoe back (315 g in my size 13 which is usually around 8.5-9 oz in a size 9) and created a shoe that is essentially a trail version of the old pre-Boost adios 2 with a few key differences.  Read on to find out if this is a good thing (hint: yep it is!).

Fit looking down (XT 5 on right). Notice that I moved the entire lacing up one lace hole.  It felt a bit snug at the ball of the foot, and when I compared it to some of my other shoes that fit comfortably I noticed that the lacing on nearly all of my adidas went down towards the toes an extra lace hole; moved the laces up and fit is much better with no loss in security.  I do this to nearly all of my adidas shoes now.

Upper and Fit

If you’ve run in any shoes in the adidas adizero line you probably have a good idea of how the XT 5 fits.  It has a single layer mesh upper with the three stripes logo doubling as midfoot overlays. Of note as well is that the XT 5 is on the same last as the adios road racing shoe and fits quite similar, although I would say just a hair narrower throughout the shoe.  I think the biggest reason for this is that it has an extended toe bumper that doubles as a rand (a good idea for a trail shoe and it sharpens the edging when side-hilling). It is very much a racing shoe fit and if you haven’t had good luck with an adios, Boston, Hagio or Takumi Sen then you probably won’t like the fit of the XT 5.

I will say that the upper construction could use some work (which I feel is somewhat true for many of adidas’ shoes); mainly in the area of decreasing stitching and using a slightly “softer” feeling mesh. That being said, the upside of their upper construction is that it is simple, breathable and likely keeps the cost down ($100 retail for this shoe which is great).

Modification to medial midfoot to reduce the midsole pushing into my arch.  Probably could do it cleaner next time.

I did have one small issue with the fit that dealt with the midsole on the arch area coming up too high and poking into my arch. This was especially noticeable while side-hilling and it caused some abrasion on my arch on a couple of runs.  I was able to pretty easily eliminate that with a razor blade by cutting away a bit of the midsole below the arch (see picture above).  I have a somewhat low arch so those with higher arches may not have any issues.

Great ride on this shoe with a very similar geometry to the adios.  Notice also the extended toe bumper that acts as a small rand all the way to the 3 stripes overlays…good design and really all the extra modification needed to a racing shoe upper to make it trail worthy.

Ride

This is where the adizero XT 5 shines, especially in the trail shoe category.  It takes a marathon racing shoe geometry (adios) and uses that as the blueprint for the midsole design.  It is, as far as I can tell, full length adiprene+ which is one of the most responsive midsole compounds I’ve come across. As a bonus, it’s protective from rocks as well (something Boost isn’t as good at).

The only change from the adios ride that is made on the XT 5 is that it is a little lower stack height and more flexible in the forefoot since the torsion system in the XT 5 doesn’t extend as far forward as the adios. The torsion system it is still there though, which is great for providing some structure to the shoe, protecting the midfoot from rocks, and preventing foot fatigue on longer runs.

All of this translates to a shoe that handles the more technical demands of trail and even mountain running because it is more flexible and deals with uneven terrain better than the adios 2 (which I also use on trails, both Boost and adiprene versions), but also runs like a road shoe when the trail smooths out. Not a lot of trail shoes can strike this balance very well! The ride is, by far, the biggest selling point of the shoe and is what sets it apart from many other lightweight trail shoes on the market.

XT 5 outsole; great overall design with low profile but effective lugs makes it pretty versatile, even handling some more mountain oriented terrain.

Outsole

Besides being a fan of adidas’ midsole compounds, I also generally like their outsole designs and compounds. The XT 5 has three different compounds with their proprietary Traxion on the lateral and medial forefoot (outer forefoot “ring”), adiwear on the heel (heel “ring”), and Continental rubber (which is fantastic) on the ball and middle of heel. The latter is great for traction on rocks, even when wet.

The biggest change adidas made to the XT 5 outsole from v4 was that they significantly reduced the lug depth for v5. I think this was a good call as it makes the shoe run much closer to its road counterparts than the older XT models.  It has sufficient traction for technical terrain, but it handles hardpack great and even runs ok on the road.

Overall Conclusions

Aside from a little refinement in the upper design and the midsole arch, the adizero XT 5 is really the type of trail shoe I’m looking for, would love to see more of, and I don’t understand why more companies don’t put out shoes like it. Take a marathon racing shoe geometry, add a very small amount of increased upper security (very small…too many overbuilt uppers), especially on the lateral forefoot, and put a full coverage, but low profile black rubber outsole on it.  For 80% of my trail running this is the type of shoe I want and suggest to most of the brands and shoe designers I’ve talked with.

I’d recommend the XT 5 to anyone looking for a performance trail running shoe, and especially to those trail runners that have run in shoes like the NB MT101/110 (the XT 5 is essentially the type of shoe I wish NB made with the 100 series) or Nike Kiger. Additionally, if you run in adidas shoes on the road, you’ll feel right at home with the XT 5 on the trail. The only thing I don’t understand is why adidas doesn’t take this approach with their other trail shoes (which are usually pretty chunky and more like hiking shoes, like the new Terrex Boost for example). If the XT 5 = adios trail, I’d love to see a Takumi/RC Trail (lower drop/lighter profile trail shoe for shorter races similar to the old adizero Rocket with just a slightly more trail specific outsole) and Boston Trail (a little more relaxed upper with a just a hair more cushion than XT 5).  A guy can dream right :)?  That said, adidas is making a push to put out some new trail shoes this summer, some of which made my preview post: Trail Running Shoes To Keep An Eye On in 2015.

When I personally bought the XT 5 it was only available on adidas.com.  It has since also become available on Zappos and Amazon as well as REI.com. It still is interesting to note that the distribution seems to be limited and it is carried under adidas’ outdoor line rather than their running line. I think this is a shame since it is a fantastic running shoe and should be marketed as such.  Trail running and “outdoor” are not synonymous  :)