My problem with Altra in the past is that most of the shoes I’ve tried were too firm and too stiff. The original Instinct and it’s sequel (Instinct 1.5) were good examples – I enjoyed both shoes for casual wear, but the full coverage rubber outsole, firm midsole, and lack of flex grooves made the sole feel like a slab under my foot. I felt similarly about the Torin even though it was softer, and never ran much in it. Of all of the Altra shoes I’ve tried, I got along best with the Superior, mainly because it flexed better than most of the others.

Altra has stirred up a bit of controversy in recent months with a move toward more cushioning in their footwear. They beefed up and softened the Instinct in version 2.0 (have not run in them, but saw a pair last week and they are very soft), they introduced the maximally cushioned Altra Olympus trail shoe, and are soon to release the maximal Altra Paradigm road shoe. Shoes like the ultraminimal Samson and Adam are no longer in production. In perhaps the biggest change, the Altra The One has been totally redesigned from a low-profile, racing flat-style shoe to a Saucony Virrata/Kinvara-style lightweight trainer.

I’ve seen a lot of commentary from Altra fans complaining about the move to greater cushioning. I’ve seen others excited about the change. Personally, I’d like to see both ends of the spectrum stay in play, but I also understand that the economics of the footwear business mean that tough decisions have to be made. Shoes that aren’t selling either need to be dropped or redesigned, and this is particularly true for a small company like Altra. The founders of Altra believe in minimal footwear (though they are quick to say they are not a minimal company, and I agree), and if a market exists for such shoes they will be players (I’ve even heard they may have a new minimal shoe in the works). Altra’s philosophy is that if people want cushioned shoes, let’s at least give them the option of zero drop and a wide toebox – these are the features that Altra has stayed true to from the very beginning.

I purchased a pair of the original Altra The One a few months ago (they were on sale at Amazon), but never wound up running in them. The fit was a bit off, and I’d heard reports about them turning people’s socks and feet green. I wound up selling them on Ebay since I’d heard rumors they were going to be replaced and putting time into a review thus made little sense.

The original Altra The One

Two weeks ago I got an email from Golden Harper, one of the founders of Altra, asking if I had any interest in trying out a near-production sample of the Altra The One² (the shoe comes out in May). I’d seen images of the shoe, and it was clear that it was going to be very different from the original. I agreed, and he sent me a pair – they arrived at my doorstep last week. My understanding is that the pair I have is not a production pair – some modifications will be made to the upper, which I’ll try to explain below.

My first impression of the shoe upon taking them out of the box was very positive. Altra has come a long way in terms of aesthetics, though based on photos I’ve posted on Instagram and Facebook the response to the One² seems to be either A) beautiful! or B) they look like bowling shoes. I fall on the side of thinking that they look great.

As mentioned, the pair sent to me is slightly different than the production pair. Running Warehouse recently published a blog post about the One², and in it they have photos of what I assume will be the shoe with the production upper:

The main differences from my pair seem to be the smaller Altra logo, and the addition of an overlay around the back of the heel. The sole appears to be identical to the shoe I have, so the difference is apparently mostly cosmetic.

I’ve now run in the One² three times for a total of 21 miles – a 5 miler, a 6 miler and a 10 miler, all on asphalt. The 10 mile run was my longest since last summer, so a good test for me. Based on these runs, I’d say this is probably the first Altra shoe I’ve worn that I’d be comfortable wearing for a marathon. Very impressed.

Let’s dig into the details.

Upper

I’m going to assume based on what Golden told me that the upper will be structurally similar in the production model (seems to be the case based on the above images). It’s a minimal upper, very few overlays, and relatively thin in construction. The material is very soft and pliable, not that plasticy material that a lot of brands are using these days (and that seems to often tear at flex points near the forefoot).

The One² has a very thin heel counter – it’s not hard plastic, but there’s just enough there to give the back of the shoe some structure. This is definitely one that I’ll be adding to my list of shoes to recommend to people with pump-bumps (Haglund’s deformity).

The internal lining of the upper is very soft, almost sock-like. There is a thin insole with just the slightest hint of arch support. The upper overall is extremely comfortable.

Sole

First the specs – my pair weighed in at 7.5 oz (size 10.5), and I measured a stack height of 23mm (18mm sole thickness, 5mm insole thickness). This is a zero drop shoe.

When I first put the One²’s on my feet my reaction was “Wow, this is an Altra???” They felt downright cushy compared to other Altras I’ve tried, and for me this is a good thing. The feel underfoot is very comparable to the Saucony Virrata, maybe even the original Saucony Kinvara. And the reason why this is good for me is because those two shoes have been on my feet in my last three marathons (not at the same time!). The One² is like a Virrata with a super wide toebox and a less structured upper, and less of a lug-like feeling under the forefoot.

I was a bit worried at first that the One² would feel mushy on the run. They don’t, they actually feel pleasantly springy, but not in a racing-flat kind of way. More like adidas Boost, Skechers Resalyte (midsole material for the GoRun), or maybe a Brooks DNA-BioMogo blend midsole. They feel softer when walking than when running. The midsole is composed of a blend of EVA and Altra A-Bound (latter is the stuff from the sole of the Altra Instinct), and I’m wondering if this combo is what gives the shoe it’s cushy yet somewhat springy feel.

The deep flex grooves in the sole of the One² make for an enjoyable ride for me. The shoe is both longitudinally and torsionally flexible, and gone is the slab-like feel of many of the other Altra shoes I have tried. One drawback of the flex grooves is that they will trap rocks – I’ve pulled several out of my pair, but do not notice them while running.

With the change in sole comes a change in purpose for this shoe. The original Altra The One was more a firm racing flat, whereas the One² is more of a lightweight trainer/distance racer. This isn’t a shoe I’d choose for my next 5K, but it’s a shoe I’d definitely consider for a marathon. I did do a few sprints in them at the end of one of my runs, and they were fine, but top speed is not what this shoe is built for.

One attribute of the outsole that might concern some is the lack of rubber under the lateral forefoot. There are patches at the back of the heel and under the big toe, but forefoot strikers may wind up eating the exposed EVA up along the lateral forefoot. There’s a balance between feel and durability though, and I tend to really like running in shoes with lots of exposed midsole(e.g., Skechers). That might be why the sole of the original Kinvara was one of my all-time favorites, and Saucony told me that they were hesitant to add rubber to that area for fear of altering the ride. I’m a mild heel striker most of the time, so I can’t comment on forefoot durability, though I’m sure Thomas over at Believe in The Run will touch on this if/when he reviews this shoe (he destroyed the original Kinvara in this area).

One point of concern about the sole – I noticed this morning that the white paint along the upper portion of the sole was flaking off. Purely cosmetic, and hopefully Altra can get this under control in production:

Conclusion

Some are going to hate what Altra has done to The One, but I for one really like the One². It’s the first Altra shoe that I’d truly consider for a marathon distance race, and it combines softness and flexibility in a way that I have yet to see in any other Altra (I haven’t yet tried the Instinct 2.0).

I personally think Altra would have been wiser to release this shoe as a new model and retain The One as a speed shoe/racing flat – I’m not sure of the reason behind their thinking with going the update route instead (Update: just got an email from Golden Harper about this, I think the idea is that the 3-Sum will continue to be the racing flat and will become less a Tri-specific shoe; it is on the same sole as the original The One). It’s surely a shoe that will appeal to a broader audience than the original The One, and I think the hope is that if it and the other new shoes/updates in the Altra lineup sell well, they can start adding back in more niche shoes at the more minimal end.

I’d recommend the One² to anyone looking for a zero drop, cushy shoe for long miles. And if you tried the Saucony Virrata and found it too narrow, the One² with its Altra foot-shaped last might be worth a shot.

The Altra The One² will be available in May at an MSRP of $94.99.

Side note – if you’re a huge fan of the older Altra shoes, lots of them are available on clearance for $50-$60 at The Clymb.

I’m curious – are you excited or upset by the direction Altra is taking with this shoe (or with the direction the brand has gone as a whole)?

I received a review pair of the Mizuno Ferus from Runningshoes.com about a month ago (Disclosure: these were provided free of charge for review purposes). Given that I had previously worn a size 10 in the Mizuno Cursoris, I asked Runningshoes.com to send me the same size. I figured that the same size should work for another shoe in the Mizuno Evo collection. I was wrong. The first pair of Ferus that I received fit huge! There was no way I was going to attempt running in them. So, they were sent back in exchange for a 9.5. I can’t remember ever having dropped down to a 9.5 in any shoe (I more often size up to 10.5), but the new pair fit great and off I went.

For my first run in the Ferus I decided to head out on a hilly route to my daughter’s school. I was wary of the memory foam sockliner, but the route was all on asphalt road so I though a bit of softness might be warranted – I opted to leave them in. It was also an unseasonably hot day, and since the shoes felt good walking around sockless, I decided to run the 5.5 miles sans socks. Big mistake. There was blood, much blood:

On the plus side, the shoes performed great. My initial concern over the sockliner was unwarranted – it turns out that a thin memory foam sockliner paired with a thin, firm, zero drop sole (14mm heel, 14mm forefoot) makes for a great ride on the road. Just enough softness to take the edge off. And, if you want a firmer ride with good ground feel you can just take the insole out or swap it with something thinner and firmer.

Now, I should point out the obvious – the Mizuno Ferus is a trail shoe. However, though it has a luggy sole, the lugs are low and flat and this shoe works perfectly well on asphalt and cement surfaces. In fact, most of the 30 or so miles I have put on them so far were on roads, with only 2-3 miles total running on trail and crushed rock. I did also hike up and down Mt. Pisgah in VT in them, and so far traction and rock protection has been fine.

Since I’m mostly a road runner with the occasional mile stretch of trail included on some of my frequent routes, I value a shoe that can handle multiple surfaces well. The Mizuno Ferus fits that bill perfectly. In fact, I’d go so far as to say that I think this shoe might be a better choice than the Mizuno Cursoris for road running given durability concerns about the sole of the latter. The Ferus sole is more amply covered by rubber, and wear on my pair is minimal so far despite the road miles.

The upper of the Ferus is a soft, breathable mesh – very comfortable against the foot. The mesh has a bit of stretchiness to it, though not as much as the forefoot mesh of the Cursoris, and extensive welded overlays on the Ferus hold the foot well. I also like that there is a welded overlay along the margin between the sole and the upper given how prone this area is to blowing out in trail shoes. The uppers on my pair are holding up well so far.

I’ve enjoyed the Ferus so much that I’ve actually been wearing it regularly as a casual shoe. It has a very roomy, paddle-shaped toebox and this combined with the low-profile sole make it super comfortable for all day wear.

If I had to compare the Mizuno Ferus to another shoe on the market, the closest competitors would probably be the Merrell Ascend Glove and the Inov-8 Trailroc 235. All three are lightweight (Ferus is 7.9oz in men’s size 9), zero drop, have roomy toexboxes, provide decent protection despite relatively thin soles, and all are fun to run in. I have some concerns about upper durability of the Trailroc 235, so I’d probably rank that one 3rd among the three shoes. Comparing the Ascend Glove and the Ferus, I’d say that the Ferus offers a slightly cushier ride (thanks largely to the insole) and is more comfortable on the road. The Ascend Glove forefoot has a less paddle-like appearance. Both are great shoes.

All in all I have to say that the Mizuno Ferus has been quite a pleasant surprise. If you’re in the market for a low-profile, zero drop road-to-trail shoe it’s definitely worth a look!

Oh, and about the blood – socks solved that problem on subsequent runs :)

Big thanks to Runningshoes.com for providing the sample reviewed here – you can purchase the Mizuno Ferus over at their website.

As a recent convert to Vibram Five Fingers and numerous racing flats (it’s been two years since I ditched my traditional stability shoes), I had been longing for just “a little more shoe” between me and the road. It has been ridiculously wet all summer in the Carolinas and so I have had to shift many runs back to the pavement owing to the trail conditions – hence, I wanted to treat myself to a bit more cushioning in a zero-drop shoe.

I chose the Altra “The One,” a newly released neutral performance trainer by the strong new contender to “The Big Seven” shoe companies.

Altra markets this shoe as being able to “handle any run on any occasion,” from track repeats to the marathon to a leisurely recovery run.

Sizing and first impressions

I had some initial issues with sizing – most of my running shoes are 12.5 US, yet this one felt a bit short on the 3 little toes in this size and overly roomy in a size 13 US. I recommend you research the fit for yourself in Shoefitr if you mail order this shoe, it can fit slightly tricky. Also, it tends to fit somewhat smaller than the “Instinct”. I settled for the 12.5 as the toe box was roomy enough for me and I felt more comfortable being “in touch” with the shoe. Altra customer service was courteous and quick in handling the exchange and did not charge for shipping. (Editor’s note from Pete: I just purchased The One myself and opted to go a half size up from what I wear in the Instinct 1.5)

The first no-sock run in the Altra in the rain confirmed what we already knew from Kermit The Frog: “It’s not easy being green”- I emerged from the shoes with bright green feet- the color washed off easily enough and did not irritate my skin, so this was really more of an amusement. Indeed, the shoes broke in very easily, I ended up running a 10K race in “The One” after an easy initial 3 mile recovery session. I appreciated the extra cushioning on the hilly road course (running downhill was pain-free when compared to my Vibrams), but was less impressed by how heavily soaked the shoes got in the pouring rain. The quick dry mesh on the upper and drainage holes in the soles were heavily challenged by these conditions.

Construction

I am very impressed by how Altra manages to give the runner a roomy feel in the forefoot without compromising control and while allowing anchoring of the big toe. I attribute this both to the comparatively low toebox and the “contour footbed” insole that molds to your toes and provides good grounding.

The heel fit is medium wide and the upper is not too bulky – the asymmetrical lacing gives you plenty of options for a more personal fit. The laces themselves are freakishly long, so I just cut and burnished the ends to prevent the threads from coming apart.

The mesh upper breathes well and feels durable. After 2 months and 150 miles in the shoes, there is no sign of tearing or excessive stretching of the material. Running without socks has given me no blisters or hot spots.

Similarly, while the blown rubber sole is starting to show a wear pattern (see below), I am confident that I will get at least 500 miles out of this pair. The sole provides decent traction even on wet roads and handles gravel and non-technical trails very well. Overall, I am very impressed with the build quality of this shoe – great workmanship and all materials used seem to be of a superior grade with an organic feel to them.

The shoes weigh in at around 8.5 ounces for my size and the stack height of 18mm provides a sound compromise in terms of ground feel, flexibility and cushioning.

Conclusion

I am very happy that I’ve been able to add a new shoe to my rotation for long runs and easy recovery runs. While it is not “The One” for me as I will continue to race in the likes of the New Balance Minimus Zeros (MR00) and do all my track work in Vibrams, this green performance shoe has filled an important void as a comfortable and reliable road trainer and I give kudos to Altra for real innovation and added value in today’s running shoe market.

The Altra The One is available for purchase at Running Warehouse, Zappos, and Amazon.com (20% off right now at Amazon with code NEWFALL2). Altra can also be shipped to locations outside the US if purchased from Optimal Run or Take it On the Run.

Earlier this year Mizuno released two zero-drop running shoes, the Cursoris and the Levitas. I published a guest review of the two shoes by my friend Frederic, and based on his comments I was really intrigued by the Cursoris and had to try it for myself. I’m glad that I did as I would rank it among the best shoes I have run in this year! (Disclosure: these shoes were provided free-of-charge for review purposes by a Mizuno rep with a lot of tattoos)

Basic Specs

The Mizuno Cursoris weighs in at just over 7oz in my size 10. It’s a zero drop shoe with a stack height of 18mm heel, 18mm forefoot. Though I have gone up to a 10.5 in many shoes, the Cursoris is roomy in even a size 10 on my feet, so they may even run a bit big.

Upper Construction and Fit

Simply stated, the fit of the Mizuno Cursoris is near perfect on my average width foot. It’s snug through the heel and midfoot (there is mild arch support), and opens up into an ample toebox. I’d go so far as to say that this is one of the best fitting shoes that I own – supremely comfortable. The toebox in particular really shines – the upper in the region of the forefoot is composed of a stretchy, open mesh that breathes incredibly well. It’s so open that debris can get in the shoe if you go off-road, but I’ll take that trade-off for a cool ride in the summer. I wish more shoes would take this approach with breathability – the closest comparison I can think of is the old Newton Distance.

The rest of the upper is very simple – no heel counter, smooth interior finish suitable for sockless running, and a removable insole (unfinished below). The upper hugs the foot well without being overly structured or obtrusive. I really can’t say enough positive things about it – I’d rank it up there alongside the Nike Free 3.0 v5 in terms of upper design.

Sole

When it comes to shoe soles, I like different feels for different purposes. For form work I like minimal cushion. For speed I like a firm, responsive sole. For casual and long running I prefer a softer sole. The Cursoris definitely fits in the latter category. I’ve seen the sole feel of the Mizuno Cursoris described as like running on a padded gym floor. This is a pretty accurate description – it feels soft yet the stack height is such that it’s not pillowy. For me it’s a near perfect shoe for long, easy runs or recovery runs. It’s also incredibly comfortable for just wearing out and about. This is a bit of a departure from other zero drop shoes which tend to be fairly firm (e.g., the Merrell Bare Access, Altra Instinct, New Balance MR00, etc.). If you want a zero drop shoe with a soft sole, the Cursoris should be among the top shoes on your list to try (along with the Saucony Virrata and Altra Torin).

Given that the sole is soft, I would not classify the Cursoris as being a responsive shoe. It’s not a shoe I would reach for to race a 5K on the road.

On concern I’ve heard about the Cursoris has to do with sole durability. the sole has rubber in all of the right spots – heel (the orange heel patch is rubber, not EVA), across the forefoot, and up through the big toe. However, some have had issues with the exposed areas of EVA breaking down quickly. I have noticed that abrasion of the EVA in the forefoot area tends to form little “tabs” in the forefoot that you can pick off. However, with 50 miles on my pair the wear is nothing I’m overly concerned about (see photo below). If you tend to chew up the forefoot on your shoes you may want to consider this before purchasing this shoe.

Conclusions

I’ve run about 50 miles in the Mizuno Cursoris and have put in several double-digit mileage runs. I have had nothing but positive experiences with this shoe, and among zero drop cushioned shoes it’s one of my top picks. In fact, if I had to keep only two shoes in this category it would probably be the Cursoris and the Saucony Virrata. I think that highly of it!

The Mizuno Cursoris can be purchased at Running Warehouse (some colors currently on clearance at a great price) and Zappos (some on clearance here as well). Outside the US they can be purchased at Sportsshoes.com.

A short time ago I received this comment posted (anonymously) on my blog about which shoe I was going to use for the MMT100:

“Why is the Lone Peak 1.5 your “weapon of choice”?. The company’s customer service told me it’s not functionally different than the original, which you seemed to pretty much trash in your previous review”

I don’t think that I “pretty much trashed” the original Lone Peak, but it certainly was not a positive review.  I don’t think anybody is going to put any value to my reviews if all I ever write is glowing positive things about every shoe I try.  I posted what I liked (great fit, toebox, zero drop), and the things I didn’t (stiff, poor drainage).

So, back to the question.  If the 1.5 is a minor update, why is it now one of my absolute favorite trail shoes?

First, lets talk about what is unchanged.  The sole is basically the same as the original. Which I “trashed” for its incredible stiffness in my review.  But what I didn’t know when I wrote that review was that I had one of the very first pairs of production Lone Peaks.  Months after I wrote the review, Brian Beckstead of Altra confided in me that the very early batches had an overly stiff sole which they later modified for more flexibility.   Don’t get me wrong, this is not a super flexible sole.  But now I find that it moves just fine with my foot and has a much better feel. 

I have used these shoes in many different conditions, including wet slippery rocks, and have found the traction to be very good.  As with the originals, I cut off the “trail rudder” extension on the heel as I have found no benefit from it.  It hits my opposing leg when I run, so I’m not a huge fan of this feature.  It takes two seconds to just cut it off with a sharp pair of scissors and doesn’t affect how the shoe runs or grips at all.

The “minor” update to the upper is not minor in my opinion.  It is a complete transformation.  The shoe now is supple and super comfortable.  As expected, the toe box has a ton of room to splay your toes.  The big change is in the new material.  It is tighter woven, and much softer material than the original.   Everything is just softer and more supple. 

Putting the two side by side shows quite a few little changes in construction.  On the original there are support overlays that are heavily stitched and made of thick material.  The 1.5 shows a much more refined approach.  They also include a Velcro area to attach your gators, which is awesome.  It’s hard to believe that nobody has done this before and it’s a smart addition.

With the originals I had a hot spot that rubbed and blistered on the inside where the forward-most overlay is.  This was due to a seam that could be felt on the inside of the shoe.  There is also a noticeable seam in the toe cap that can be felt and sometimes grabbed by my toenails. The new design uses a completely different type of material (welded overlay) that doesn’t cause me any internal friction.   The new toe cap, which also incorporates 4 drainage holes, does not have any seams that can be felt inside the shoe.

Speaking of drainage…..this is my only complaint about this shoe.  The new drainage holes absolutely work.  If you submerge your feet you can actually watch water shoot out of the 4 holes in the front of the shoe when you are back on dry ground.  Unfortunately it’s not enough to dry the shoe out.  The new softer material seems to hold onto water, producing a wet soggy shoe that doesn’t dry out for quite some time.  Perhaps this is a result of the more tightly woven material that composes the upper.

That being said, it’s not enough of a negative to keep me out of these shoes.  I wore them for MMT, which was extremely rocky.  I only got to wear them for 20 miles, as I had pneumonia and had to drop out.  I recently wore them for a 10 hour, 30 mile Pemi Loop in the white mountains and had the most comfortable feet I’ve ever had for that run.

Weight for my pair of size 10.5 (they fit true to size) is a pretty substantial 11.9oz,  but they don’t feel heavy or clunky so I don’t really care. 

One thing I do need to mention is that around the 50 mile mark I started to see the white toe cap beginning to delaminate.  The above picture is how they look now, after 124 miles (and a very tough, 6.5 hour muddy swampy run in the VT mountains this weekend).  I can fix this easily with some barge cement, but since it is happening on both shoes it needs to be addressed (let us know if you have experienced this).

Even so, these are awesome shoes to use when you want to be protected from the elements.  Calling this version a minor update is a disservice.  These minor changes are a major improvement to this shoe.  Plus, the red color is bitchin’!!

The Altra Lone Peak can be purchased at Running Warehouse and Zappos. For those outside of the US, the Lone Peak is available at Optimal Run, which is based in the US but ships abroad.

Nate Sanel is an ultrarunner and author of the Dirty Runner column on Runblogger. You can find more of Nate’s writing on his personal blog, Biker Nate, or follow him on Twitter.

Fortunately, more and more options are popping up in the cushioned, zero drop trail running niche – below are my recommended shoes in this category. All of the shoes listed below work well on roads too and thus offer quite a bit of versatility. However, if you are looking for dedicated zero drop road shoes, you can also view my recommended zero drop, cushioned road shoes here.

NOTE: I’ve only included shoes that I personally have worn or that have been reviewed here on Runblogger.com. If you think there’s a shoe that should be here that’s not currently included, leave a comment and I’ll look at giving it a try!

Zero Drop, Cushioned Trail Shoes

Merrell Ascend Glove Stack Height: 10.5mm, 10.5mm Weight: 8.5oz (size 10) Quick Take: firm cushion, forefoot and heel rock plate, wide forefoot, drains well, decent traction My Full Review (click to read) Buy at Running Warehouse Buy at Zappos Buy at Optimal Run (ships internationally)	Altra Superior Stack Height: 12mm, 12mm Weight: 10.3oz Quick Take: removable rock plate, very flexible, super-wide toebox, runs 1/2 size small, very versatile shoe  My Brief Review Buy at Running Warehouse Buy at Zappos Buy at Optimal Run (ships internationally)
Inov-8 Trailroc 235 Stack Height: 13mm, 13mm Weight: 8.3oz Quick Take: roomy fit, no rock plate but protective outsole, firm ride, decent traction, some have had upper durability issues My Full Review (click to read) Buy at Running Warehouse Buy at Zappos Buy at Sportsshoes.com (outside US) Buy at Wiggle (outside US)	Skechers GoBionic Trail Stack Height: 12mm, 12mm without insole, 18mm 14mm with insole Weight: 8.8oz Quick Take: soft cushioning, rock plate, good traction, removable footbed allows switching between 0mm and 4mm drop Read a Full Review by Caleb Masland (my coach; my review soon) Buy at Zappos Buy at Skechers.com (use code AAA20 for 20% off)

Other zero drop, cushioned trail shoes that I have not yet run in include the Altra Lone Peak, Inov-8 F-Lite 232, and the soon to arrive Mizuno Ferus.

Note: I’ve only included shoes that I personally have worn or that have been reviewed here on Runblogger.com. If you think there’s a shoe that should be here that’s not currently included, leave a comment and I’ll look at giving it a try!

Zero Drop, Cushioned Road Shoes

Saucony Virrata Stack Height: 17mm, 17mm Weight: 6.7oz Quick Take: great forefoot cushion, narrower fit, my marathon shoe My Full Review (click to read) Buy at Running Warehouse Buy at Zappos Buy at Sportsshoes.com (outside US)	Mizuno Wave EVO Cursoris Stack Height: 18mm, 18mm Weight: 6.8oz Quick Take: wide forefoot, great breathability, soft feel underfoot My Full Review (click to read) Buy at Running Warehouse Buy at Zappos Buy at Sportsshoes.com (outside US)
Merrell Bare Access 2 Stack Height: 14mm, 14mm Weight: 6.2oz Quick Take: wide forefoot, firm ride, reasonably priced My Full Review (click to read) Buy at Running Warehouse Buy at Zappos Buy at Sportsshoes.com (outside US)	Altra Instinct 1.5 Stack Height: 16mm, 16mm Weight: 9.7oz Quick Take: super wide forefoot, firm ride  My Full Review (click to read) Buy at Running Warehouse Buy at Zappos Buy at Optimal Run (ships internationally)
Skechers GoBionic Stack Height: 11.5mm, 11.5mm  Weight: 6.0oz Quick Take: super flexible, sockless upper, roomy forefoot, low price My Full Review (click to read) Buy at Zappos Buy at 6pm.com (as low as $45) Buy at Skechers.com (use code AAA20 for 20% off) Buy from Skechers UK	Altra Torin Stack Height: 28mm, 28mm Weight: 9.0oz Quick Take: super wide forefoot, max cushioning in a zero drop shoe Nate’s Review (click to read) Buy at Running Warehouse Buy at Zappos Buy at Optimal Run (ships internationally)
New Balance MR00 Stack Height: 12mm, 12mm Weight: 6.1oz Quick Take: firm ride, good ground feel, but narrow through the midfoot My Full Review (click to read) Buy at Running Warehouse Buy at Zappos Buy at Sportsshoes.com (outside US)	Brooks PureDrift Stack Height: 12mm, 12mm Weight: 6.1oz Quick Take: wide forefoot, firm ride, very flexible My Full Review (click to read) Buy at Running Warehouse Buy at Zappos Buy at Sportsshoes.com (outside US)

At each meeting Merrell typically provides attendees with a pair of one of their new shoes, and this year each of us received a pair of the Merrell Ascend Glove to try out. I’ve now put in about 25 miles on the shoes, mostly on trails, and am ready to render my verdict.

To allay any fears of bias that may taint my review given my relationship with Merrell, I will say that I have not been crazy about some of their recent offerings. I think the Road Glove 2 is a step back from the original, and the Proterra Sport is a nice shoe, but the sole is too stiff for me and as a result my heels got torn up on a hike in the shoes. I like the Bare Access 2, but it’s too firm for me to use it for long distances on the road. In contrast, the Ascend Glove hit a sweep spot for me, and I’ve been absolutely loving it so far.

I’ve seen the Ascend Glove described as the Trail Glove with more cushion and a luggier sole, or as the Bare Access with a rock plate and tread. Both are reasonably accurate descriptions – think of it as a hybrid of the two shoes.

Merrell Ascend Glove (Gore-Tex version is picture here)

Upper, Fit, and Feel

The fit of the Ascend Glove is classic Merrell – wide in the forefoot, glove-like through the midfoot and heel. Of note is the fact that though there is arch support, it does not feel as intrusive to me as in some of the other Merrell Barefoot shoes. The interior is suitable for sockless running, though as is typical for me with Merrell Barefoot shoes the lack of cushion around the ankle collar means that I get skin-ripping abrasion near my Achilles insertion. Thin socks solve this problem.

The upper is composed of a double-layer of synthetic mesh – the inner layer has a tighter weave to keep debris out, and the outer layer is more open. The result is a shoe that is highly breathable and that sheds water really well. I did 5 miles on trails with my friend Nate a bit over a week ago and he took me through quite a bit of mud and water. The Ascends let the water flow in, but it flows right back out without issue. Some silt got into the shoes through the weave, but mostly very fine stuff and I didn’t have any issues or discomfort.

The lacing system on the Ascend Gloves uses traditional eyelets rather than the Omni-Fit system featured on the Trail Glove. This will disappoint some, but works fine for me.

One final comment about the Ascend Glove upper has nothing to do with function or performance, but the shoe looks fantastic, probably my favorite Merrell shoe in terms of appearance since the original Trail Glove.

Sole

The sole of the Ascend Glove is zero drop with a stack-height of 10.5mm (6mm midsole cushion, the rest is the Vibram rubber outsole). This is slightly less midsole than the Bare Access 2, and as a result the Ascend Glove feels more flexible to me.

The sole incorporates a rock plate in both the forefoot and heel. I’ve run over quite a bit of pointy crushed rock in these shoes and will say that they provide better protection than a thinner-soled minimal shoe, but you will feel rocks if you take a direct hit. That being said, I have not experienced any discomfort running on crushed rock sections of trail. They provide better protection than a shoe like the New Balance MT10, and comparable protection to the Inov-8 Trailroc 235 or Altra Superior.

Merrell Ascend Glove Sole (yes, I have dogs!)

One of the things I like about the sole is that it is full-contact – no cutout under the arch as in some other Merrell Barefoot shoes. This makes for a very smooth ride. The outsole is luggier than the the Trail Glove, but only slightly so. This is not a mud shoe like an Inov-8 X-Talon, but I have not had traction issues on any of the trails I have run (though admittedly I have not tackled thick mud). The benefit of the flat lug design is that the shoe handles well on roads as well as trails, making it a solid hybrid shoe. The ride on roads is firm, and feels great on softer surfaces.

Performance

As I mentioned at the outset I’ve put in about 25 miles in the Ascend Gloves. They are similar enough to other Merrell shoes that I feel this is sufficient to get a good handle on them, and the experience so far has been very positive. My first run in them was a quick 3-mile trail run out in Oregon, and my immediate reaction was that they were a lot of fun to run in, especially downhill. Very reminiscent of the Inov-8 Trailroc 235. I’ve put in another 10-15 trail miles back in NH, along with 5-10 on the road, and the shoes have handled just about everything well. I even took them along on a camping trip last week and wore them almost exclusively out and about, including a full day at Santa’s Village. They are super comfortable as a casual shoe, and I love their versatility.

Conclusion

If you’re looking for a zero-drop trail shoe with a rock-plate and a wide toebox, the Merrell Ascend Glove is definitely a shoe to consider. As mentioned a few times, closest competitors would be the Inov-8 Trailroc 235 and Altra Superior, and maybe the New Balance MT10 (though it lacks a rock plate). The Ascend Glove holds is own with all of these, and in my opinion is the best looking of the bunch (because we all know that’s the reason most people choose a shoe!).

The Merrell Ascend Glove can be purchased at Amazon and Zappos.

Merrell Ascend Glove 6-Pair Giveaway

The folks at Merrell were kind enough to offer up six pairs of Ascend Gloves for a giveaway – 3 for the guys and 3 for the ladies. To enter, simply follow the instructions in the Rafflecopter widget below:

Yesterday I got a message from a Facebook friend (thanks Calvin!) with a link to a preview video of the new Puma Faas 100 R. It’s a 16mm stack, zero drop shoe that weighs in under 6oz. Seems to have a very minimal, highly breathable upper. Looks like an interesting addition to the growing crop of zero drop cushioned running shoes (e.g., Saucony Virrata, Brooks Drift, Skechers GoBionic, Altra Instinct, Mizuno Cursoris, etc.)!

Here’s the video:

And here’s a preview with Mario Fraioli of Competitor.com

This is a guest review by John Shepard (@runsheprun on Twitter). John is the owner of Take it on the Run, a boutique running store that he runs out of his home. John is an Altra vendor, and over the past few months has been trying out the recently released 3-SUM Tri shoe. I asked if he’d be willing to write a guest review since I’m not a triathlete, and he gladly agreed. Here’s what he has to say:

Altra 3-SUM Review

I started dabbling in Triathlons last summer. Why? I have no clue, but I got my hands on a free bike (think “American Flyers” starring Kevin Costner era bike) and I had a neighborhood pool to swim in. So, I went with it…

After I was finished with my first Tri, I was immediately thinking of ways to get faster… just like I do after every other race that I’ve ever finished. One area for improvement in the race was in the 2nd transition area where I literally sat there and laced up my shoes (coincidently Altra Instinct 1.5s). It felt like it took me 3 hours to tie the shoes. I needed to change what was on my feet if I was going to banish the “What if…” voices from my head.

Enter the Altra 3-SUM. Even if I wasn’t in the business of selling shoes, I’m a shoe geek, and I get pretty excited about new shoe releases. I was beyond my normal level of excitement however when Altra came out with the 3-SUM. It was going to fill some voids in my shoe arsenal. 1) I needed a racing flat. Racing flats are tough for me to fit in because of my size 14, extra wide foot. 2) I am planning on doing more and more Tri’s. 3) They are a big departure from the aesthetics of Altra’s original shoes. Color Poppin’!

Ok, so let’s get down to the nitty gritty of the shoe itself. I have put some good miles on them in the last 2 months and here’s my opinion. They are a great racing flat. Altra does one thing better than any brand of shoe that I have tried on: consistency. They keep the fit of their shoes the same. I can go across the brand and know that my foot will fit exactly the same in each make. I know many people have had issues with their sizing (trust me, I sell them and have had a lot of returns), but once your Altra sizing dialed in, expect the same fit across the brand.

Characteristic Altra Foot-Shaped Last

One differentiator from the rest of the Altra line is that the 3-SUM is lower profile (18mm) than, say, the Instinct 1.5 or Provision. This gives them great ground feel. As someone who isn’t used to low profile shoes on pavement, my feet were barking at me after competing in the River to River Relay where I ran three 5k’s in them in one day. You will feel the pavement for sure. However, this is characteristic of just about any racing flat.

Another characteristic of a racing flat is that they tend to be lightweight. Altra delivered here, with the 3-SUM topping the scales at only 6.7 oz! When I first slipped these on, I was immediately impressed by how light they were. Funny how just a couple of ounces less on your feet can make you feel faster. Not sure if it was a mental thing or the shoes, but I PR’d my 5K time in the first leg of that relay race.

Altra 3-SUM Sole – note the full rubber outsole and the drain holes

Ok, so with every good comes some bad, and I have only a few concerns about the 3-SUM. First off let me make sure that I state this clearly… THESE ARE DESIGNED TO BE A TRI SHOE. Yes, I know it’s obvious, but if you want just a racing flat and don’t plan to compete in triathlons, buy The ONE from Altra.

Here’s why:

The lacing. Altra teamed up with Yankz to provide their drawstrings as laces on these shoes. I totally get it. You won’t be that moron sitting there tying your shoes in a race (i.e., me – see above). However, what I’ve noticed is that it takes a bit of practice with the lacing to figure out the right fit. And no matter how much you think you have tightened each shoe the same, you haven’t. Each foot requires its own combination of tightening and loosening. Furthermore, if you lace your shoes any special way, it’s near impossible to do so with the Yankz. I know this seems like more of a problem with Yankz, but they’re the laces you get with the shoe.

The other big problem – blisters! Tri shoes are typically meant to be worn sockless. It’s a time game, and putting on socks adds time to the transition. This is why most of the elites don’t wear socks. I took the 3-SUMs out sockless for the first time for just a mile and got a blister on the top of my foot. This could have been due to the issue above with the Yankz, but I can’t be certain. Either way, blisters are no bueno. I did remedy this by putting on socks. By no stretch of the imagination do I see myself winning any races in my career, so I don’t care about putting socks on in transition. But, if you aim to shave every nanosecond from your transition, this is a consideration.

Finally, the name. I am just kind of shocked that a name like that could get through. Maybe my head is eternally in the gutter or something. “Having shoe issues? Try a 3-SUM.” Anyway, I just think there are other names to use that reference 3 than that.

So, if you are in the market for a great zero drop Tri shoe, and you don’t mind wearing socks, the 3-SUM is the way to go.

To learn more about John’s approach to selling shoes, or to buy a pair from him, visit Take it on the Run (disclosure: I do not have an affiliate relationship with John, just helping out a friend and fellow shoe junkie!).

I arrived at Saucony HQ just before the official release of their new zero drop shoe, the Saucony Virrata. Given my past success with Saucony shoes (Kinvara, A5, etc.), I was really excited about the Virrata and was looking forward to getting ahold of a pair. When I arrived I was told that I’d be able to run in their gait lab in the Virrata, and take a pair home with me – for a guy with my interests, this is like a kid walking into a candy store and being given the biggest lolliop in sight!

I have a lot more to say about my experience that day (lots of data and videos from the lab), but what I’m going to focus on here is a review of the Virrata. I’ve now put over 50 miles on them, and they’ve quickly become one of my favorite shoes.

The Virrata is not Saucony’s first foray into the zero drop niche. They released the Hattori a few years back, but it never really caught on in a big way, and based on my conversations with the Saucony team its future in their lineup is in limbo (personally, I like the Hattori, but some aspects of its design prevent me from running in it beyond a few miles). With the Virrata, Saucony was hoping to create what essentially amounts to a zero drop shoe built in the mold of the popular Kinvara. In other words, they weren’t trying to make a “barefoot-style” shoe here. Rather, the intent was for the Virrata to serve as a well cushioned shoe for those who don’t like any heel lift.

Before getting into the nitty-gritty details of how the shoe performs, I wanted to address a bit of a controversy about the Virrata. When Runner’s World reviewed the shoe they reported it to be a 4mm drop shoe (24.6mm heel, 20.6mm forefoot to be exact). I’ve heard a few other people comment that it doesn’t feel zero drop. I asked Saucony about this and they were rather perplexed by how those Runner’s World measurements were obtained, and assured me that the shoe is in fact zero drop (I’m hoping to get a photo of a sliced shoe from them as proof Saucony provided me with a photo of a longitudinal sole section showing that the sole is level from the heel to the region of the metatarsal heads). Running Warehouse reports the Virrata as being 17mm heel, 17mm forefoot. I used my trusty C-calipers and also measured it as 17mm heel, 17mm forefoot (insole included). Given this, I’m confident that the shoe is in fact zero drop, and I’m also now a bit confused about the measurements reported by Runner’s World (Update: In talking with Runner’s World the discrepancy seems to be due to differences in the locations where sole thickness measurements are taken).

As I mentioned above, I’ve now put a bit over 50 miles on the Virrata. I’ve used it for easy runs and speed, and have run as long as 13 miles in one go in them. It has performed well in all situations. Below are my more detailed thoughts:

Upper

The upper of the Virrata is very reminiscent of that on the Kinvara v2. It’s composed of an outer layer of monofilament-style mesh, and an innner layer of soft fabric. When I first saw the shoe I was a little worried that the outer mesh might be prone to tearing as has been reported in the Kinvara v2, but Saucony told me that it’s not the same material and that it should hold up better. I have not had any issues with the upper on my pair yet.

In terms of fit, the Virrata initially felt snugger in the forefoot to me compared to the Kinvara. After wearing the first pair I was given around for a few days, I came to the conclusion that the shoe fit just a tad short, and that going up a half size might make for a better fit. I gave my size 10’s away and asked Saucony if they could replace them with a pair of 10.5s. It made all the difference in the world! I now feel like the fit is pretty similar to the Kinvara in a half size smaller, and I don’t feel like the Virrata is overly constrictive. I haven’t tried running sockless in the Virrata yet, but the interior feels like it might be suitable for sockless running.

Sole

Sizing up in the Virrata had an unexpected consequence with regard to the feel of the sole underfoot. When I first put my original pair on I felt like the sole of the forefoot thinned out rather abruptly up front, almost making me feel like I wanted to roll forward in the shoes. Part of me wonders if this is why some people say it doesn’t feel zero drop. However, after sizing up that feeling is gone. I think the issue has to do with the podded design of the sole cushioning.

If you look at the photo above, you’ll notice the distinct bands of triangular cushioning pods that cross the sole. The band directly across the center of the forefoot is the same thickness as the heel (17mm), and should sit right under your metatarsal heads. I think in the size 10 my met heads were a bit more toward the front of this band, which accentuated the feeling of the sole thinning out up front (and maybe why some say it doesn’t feel zero drop). When I went up to the size 10.5, I could feel that the pod row was now in a better place, and the forefoot cushioning felt much better. In fact, with the fit correct I might go so far as to say that the Virrata has the best forefoot cushioning of any shoe I have worn.

The sole of the Virrata is pretty soft, so those who like a firm shoe should look elsewhere. But, if you like the Kinvara and you want a zero drop alternative, or if you’re just looking for a well-cushioned zero drop shoe, the Virrata is definitely worth a look.

Another benefit of the podded sole design is that the forefoot of the Virrata is quite flexible – I’d say it’s a bit more flexible than the Kinvara. A drawback of the pods is that I suspect durability will be a problem for some runners, particularly those who chew up the lateral forefoot of the Kinvara. Because the pods extend down from the sole, I suspect they might wear down faster than a more uniformly flat sole design.

Saucony chose to use rubber very sparingly on the sole of the Virrata (likely to spare weight – the Virrata is listed at only 6.7oz in a size 9) – there is a patch on the heel, and a bit under the big toe and tip of the forefoot. The rest of the sole is exposed EVA, so again a cause for concern if you have a history of accelerated sole wear on your shoes. I will say that after 50-60 miles my sole wear is pretty minimal, but I tend to not destroy soles badly.

Conclusion

I’ve really enjoyed running in the Saucony Virrata over the past few months. As a fan of the Kinvara, this shoe feels like a close, zero drop cousin with better cushioning under the forefoot. All good things. Perhaps the most complimentary thing I can say is that the Virrata remains in contention to be my Spring marathon shoe – it’s probably a close second to the Skechers GoRun 2 for that honor with two months to go.

At an MSRP of $89.99, the Virrata is actually a pretty reasonably priced shoe, though cost per miles run (i.e., durability) will vary highly depending on how your mechanics work with the sole of this shoe. Given the current condition of my shoes, I’d say that they should be comparable to the Kinvara in terms of durability.

If you’re in the market for a well cushioned, zero drop shoe that is not overly roomy up front, the Virrata is the shoe for you. If you want all of those things and a wide forefoot, look to the Altra Torin. Both are great options in the cushioned, zero drop niche!

Outside of the US, the Saucony Virrata can be purchased at Wiggle.

In the US, you can purchase the Saucony Virrata in several color combinations (see below)at Running Warehouse.

So let’s start with my problem. The Brooks PureDrift is designed to be a variable drop shoe. If you run without the included insole it is zero drop (i.e.,flat), and if you put the insole in it is supposed to increase the drop to 4mm (note: I measure the insole differential as only 3mm, not a big deal but I try to be precise). On my first run in the Drifts I left the insole in and had an overall positive impression, but could feel a hot spot developing on the side of the ball behind my right big toe. On my second run I took the insole out to try it as a zero drop shoe and the hot spot turned into a massive blister. It seems there is a ridge where the integrated footbed is stitched down, and that combined with an upward curl of the sole in this area causes the shoe to rub my foot badly on one side. I have seen others complain of this as well.

I thought this hotspot/blister issue would be a deal-breaker for me with the Drift. The damage to my foot was pretty significant, but I decided to see if a thicker insole might alleviate the rubbing. I grabbed the insole out of a pair of Brooks PureCadence 2’s, stuck them in, and they worked like a charm. No more hotspot. I’ve now run almost 50 miles in the Drifts, and they have become a personal favorite.

Although I was only able to run once in the shoes without the insole, I did not have an overly favorable opinion of the Drift in its zero drop incarnation. With a stack height of 12mm, the midsole is thin enough that it feels very firm, and the pod-like design of the sole gives it a bit of a lumpy feel underfoot. I’d describe the ride as “harsh.” The Skechers GoBionic has a similar sole design and it is implemented much better in my opinion. As such, I would not recommend the Drift if your goal is to use it as a zero-drop shoe out of the box.

Addition of the PureCadence 2 insole changes the shoe dramatically for the better, and what’s cool is that it remains a zero drop shoe. Unlike the Drift insole, the PureCadence insole measures 5mm thick in both the heel and forefoot, so there is no drop added when you use it (the included Drift insole is 5mm heel, 2mm forefoot). Plus, the bit of added cushion it provides in the forefoot totally changes the ride and removes the hard, lumpy feeling that occurs when no insole is used. Brooks should either include this insole as an option in future versions, or sell it separately for a few bucks on their website.

Where the PureDrift really shines is in the fit of the last. The heel and midfoot are snug, and the shape of the forefoot is fantastic – wide and plenty of room for the foot to spread out. It looks unusual in photos like the one above, but does not look as paddle-like in person. I find it incredibly comfortable for both casual wear and running (I have worn it to work on more than one occasion). I have not tried running sockless in them yet (too cold up here!), but my sense is that the interior is well finished and should work well for that purpose. Upper durability looks to be good so far in my pair.

One note about the upper is that some people have had issues with indentations forming in the upper near the front of the toebox where the splits in the sole are located. I have not experienced this. The burrito-style upper does also tend to bunch if you cinch the laces too tight near the forefoot, but I find a bit of adjustment fixes this. The non-functional (in my opinion) nav-band is present.

I’ve already said most of what needs to be said about the sole. The podded design makes it ultra-flexible, but feels lumpy, perhaps because some pods have protruding rubber outsole (black patches above) and others do not. A drawback of the podded design is that the shoe seeps water through the sole – this has led to some unpleasant experiences on a few of my wet winter runs recently. I see very little sole wear after 50 miles of use.

I’ve mostly used the Drift for easy runs of 3-8 miles, and they are great for that purpose (with the swapped insole). I also used them last Friday for an interval workout and though they don’t have the pop of a racing flat, they sufficed. I’d classify the Drift as an easy run shoe that could be used for long runs as well if you are acclimated to low drop, minimally cushioned footwear. For speed I’d go with something more designed for the task.

In conclusion, Brooks has a shoe with a great deal of potential in the PureDrift. The first incarnation has some shortcomings that I was able to remedy with an insole swap, but I think only some minor tweaks would be required to take this shoe to another level in future incarnations. I’d redesign the integrated footbed to remove seams along the margins, soften the sole just a tad, or include a slightly beefier insole (like the current PureCadence 2 insole). With the tweak I made, I foresee this shoe remaining on my active rack for quite awhile!

For more viewpoints on this shoe, view the Brooks Pure Drift thread on the Runblogger Forum.

The Brooks PureDrift can be purchased at BrooksRunning.com

Disclosure: The shoes reviewed here were provided by the manufacturer.