What shoes you wearing now and what next?

BobMac104

BeepBeep67 wrote: »

Looking forward to taking these for a trot ]

Nice. What kinda specs have they?

BeepBeep67

BobMac104 wrote: »

Nice. What kinda specs have they?

233gms as per the name, 6mm heel to toe drop - so nice intermediate step, dynamic facia band which you can see through the sole, very comfortable fit although a more snug fit than their trail shoes. I wear a sz. 9.5 in the f lite 230 and mudroc, I need a 10 in these.
Will report back after I've had them on a few runs.

mr.wiggle

mr.wiggle wrote: »

4 months of long runs, and I'll be glad to see the back of the , pegasus's ( try saying that with your tongue stuck to your pallet:pac:).
Never really fell in love with them unlike the earlier cumulus12's.
Was going to try brooks ghost , but will probably go for the cumulus13's now.

*cough*
What an eye opener a mid marathon , runner change, is ! For reasons I won't give out here ( cause i'd be embarressed:o), I changed out of the nike pegasus 28 i'd been training in for the Cork City Marathon, at mile 16. And slipped on my loving cumulus 12's for the long run to the finish line. Felt like i'd gone from slippers to concrete boots. So, no, I won't be going for cumulus 13's, in fact was tempted by a cheap pair of nike vomeros and they feel great after a couple of small runs. I'm after another different type for my tempo runs, still lookin.

Mr.W.

thirstywork2

mr.wiggle wrote: »

*cough*
What an eye opener a mid marathon , runner change, is ! For reasons I won't give out here ( cause i'd be embarressed:o), I changed out of the nike pegasus 28 i'd been training in for the Cork City Marathon, at mile 16. And slipped on my loving cumulus 12's for the long run to the finish line. Felt like i'd gone from slippers to concrete boots. So, no, I won't be going for cumulus 13's, in fact was tempted by a cheap pair of nike vomeros and they feel great after a couple of small runs. I'm after another different type for my tempo runs, still lookin.

Mr.W.

Cumulus 14 out now :eek:

spurscormac

BeepBeep67 wrote: »

233gms as per the name, 6mm heel to toe drop - so nice intermediate step, dynamic facia band which you can see through the sole, very comfortable fit although a more snug fit than their trail shoes. I wear a sz. 9.5 in the f lite 230 and mudroc, I need a 10 in these.
Will report back after I've had them on a few runs.

That's my next pair - hoping to get them later this week.
I've been using the 255s since December and looking to move down to the 233s as I progress through the range towards zero differential.

Considering getting either the 155s or the new 180s to use as a track shoe, the 233s as general training & the 255s for long runs.
I might eventually edge towards the flatter shoe for races, but I think it'll be the 233s for a while first.

BobMac104

BobMac104 wrote: »

Ah a few fellow mr00 users. Have them a month or so and like em. Have switched to them full time since the cork marathon. Longest I've done in them has been a ten mile with no issues. Hope to do Dublin in them but we'll see how it goes. I wear socks with them purely for smell prevention. The toe box is large which gives them a slight clown shoe feel for the first few runs but I've gotten used to them now and fine them very comfortable.

have worn these a few times and although I've been wearing low-drop shoes for about 1/2 my running over the last 6-8 months I do certainly experience calf tightness after using these- transition not to be underestimated! don't see myself using these full-time for a fair while yet! Lovely shoe overall tho. Amazing fit design with the integrated tongue.

how have others found them?

PaulieC

glasso wrote: »

have worn these a few times and although I've been wearing low-drop shoes for about 1/2 my running over the last 6-8 months I do certainly experience calf tightness after using these- transition not to be underestimated! don't see myself using these full-time for a fair while yet! Lovely shoe overall tho. Amazing fit design with the integrated tongue.

how have others found them?

I've worn mine twice now, both time for approx. 5 mile runs. Last Tuesday I ran sockless in them and get a couple of blisters. Calves were a bit tight afterwards too. Then I wore them with socks on Thursday, but ended up running in the lashing rain. The drainage is quite good in them at least . Calves were again tight, probably up until after 8 miles on Sunday. Fine now though, but I'd say I'll rotate them with my Green Silence for midweek tempo runs, just to get used to them a bit more slowly

BeepBeep67

Liked the X-233's so much my good friends in AK sorted me out with a pair of X-255's for longer stuff, great price also.

spurscormac

spurscormac wrote: »

That's my next pair - hoping to get them later this week.
I've been using the 255s since December and looking to move down to the 233s as I progress through the range towards zero differential.

Considering getting either the 155s or the new 180s to use as a track shoe, the 233s as general training & the 255s for long runs.
I might eventually edge towards the flatter shoe for races, but I think it'll be the 233s for a while first.

just a point re transition. the progression down to 6mm 4mm, even 3mm is fine. It's the drop to 0 that is the biggest change by far.... most material says that you should actually start running on grass where it's safe (no glass etc.) in bare feet, to gradually extend this and then go to road etc in 0 drop shoes.

spurscormac

glasso wrote: »

just a point re transition. the progression down to 6mm 4mm, even 3mm is fine. It's the drop to 0 that is the biggest change by far.... most material says that you should actually start running on grass where it's safe (no glass etc.) in bare feet, to gradually extend this and then go to road etc in 0 drop shoes.

Yeah, I'd imagine it is alright. Its one thing to try on a pair of shoes, another to start doing a few miles in them.
Got out yesterday for a first run in my 233s and I did notice the difference alright. I could feel the extra stretch on the calves & achilles afterwards, so I'll have to gradually build the mileage in them.

Glad I switched to the 255s at the last minute for the Annaghdown 10k, after warming up in the new shoes.

Have to say, they seem very good for form, was on my forefoot all the time yesterday, and not slipping to the odd heelstrike that you can get away with in the 255s.

Will try to keep the transition steady as she goes to avoid any problems and not get carried away with myself.

spurscormac

spurscormac wrote: »

Yeah, I'd imagine it is alright. Its one thing to try on a pair of shoes, another to start doing a few miles in them.
Got out yesterday for a first run in my 233s and I did notice the difference alright. I could feel the extra stretch on the calves & achilles afterwards, so I'll have to gradually build the mileage in them.

Glad I switched to the 255s at the last minute for the Annaghdown 10k, after warming up in the new shoes.

Have to say, they seem very good for form, was on my forefoot all the time yesterday, and not slipping to the odd heelstrike that you can get away with in the 255s.

Will try to keep the transition steady as she goes to avoid any problems and not get carried away with myself.

yes the other thing besides the heel drop is the more barefoot you get the less cushioning too.

BeepBeep67

Quick report back on my new Inov-8 Road shoes, which I'm quickly becoming a fan of.
X-233: Used these in a recent 5k, took them straight out of the box and wore for the warm up, race and cool down. They're a very comfortable fit, however where the tongue is attached to the upper there is excess material on both sides, so you need to careful that it doesn't fold back. They have the feel of a traditional flat, although a little on the heavy side for 5k's at 233 grams for a size 8. They felt quick and responsive and although they no grips on the rubber sole, they do create good traction on tarmac and concrete. I do quite a bit of running in low profile shoes, so even after 8 miles in with a 6mm heel to toe drop I had no calf or achilles tightness. Would consider them for tempo sessions and maybe half marathon races, but would look for something lighter for races below that.
X-255: Had to travel last week so threw these in the suitcase and rattled up 16 miles over 3 runs. I'm already in love with this shoe, heavier than the X-255 by 20+ grams, but still have a nice light feel about them. The lacing set up allows for a nice snug fit and they are so comfortable, so comfortable that I took them back out of the case to wear home yesterday. The toe box is nice an wide and the 9mm heel to toe drop is a nice intermediate drop down for anyone considering going for lower profile shoes. Strangely enough the 255's tend to thrown you more towards the mid foot than the 233's and this combined with the extra cushioning give you the feeling you could run long distances in them. Wore them on an 8.8 miler today where it lashed rain and they had superb traction in the wet, much better than I was expecting. Also had 4 quicker paced miles in the run and the shoes performed well and felt quick and responsive. I'll be doing a lot of miles in these I'm a real convert.

Phoole

I've always been a New Balance fan, since my Dad's running days, especially the wide shoes they have and will probably stick with them for good. I'm wearing 846 absorbz now and will definitely look out for another pair over the coming weeks.

Name Changed

I've started to go to Amphibian King to get measured now for proper runners. I did the Chicago marathon in 2008 with very little training (I was coming off an acl op) but just jogged it. I was using a pair of Asics but I was left with basically a hole in my foot from a huge burst blister. I could barely walk for a week.

I then decided to go to Amphibian King. The first pair I got (Suacony) would give me massive blisters in the middle of the underside of my foot if I did any kind of decent distance. I found them very tight. I would usually wear size 10.5 but they had me in size 9.

The second pair I got were size 8.5! They'd give me blisters on my second toe all the time. I did the marathon in these and two of my nails basically broke off and still aren't right. I can't remember the make.

I went back again and got a pair of Brooks. I explained to the lad about the injuries I was getting. Finally a shoe that fitted! So far I have had no problems but I haven't done any serious distances yet, 7 miles being the most. I've a half of Saturday so I will find out.

Anyway, Brooks for me although I'm considering trying the 5 fingered "shoes".

event

picked up my first pair of Kinvara 3's today.
i dont do long distance anyway, only 10k so transition shouldnt be too bad.

fast.punx

How are those Kinvara 3s working?

wrstan

Picked up a pair of Brooks ST5's a couple of days ago from AK Bray, haven't yet taken them out yet, but am looking forward to it. Other than a pair of Nike Zoom Elites that I picked up cheap I the US earlier this year it's my first experience with a flatter minimalist shoe so will be interested to see how it goes. At €75, they seemed like good value too.

It was a toss up between the Brooks and the Kinvara, but ultimately the ST5s just felt a bit more comfortable.

wrstan

Incidentally was in that shop Snow + Rock in Dundrum today and was surprised to see that they have a good range of decent runners, including the Mizuna Musha which had a very good review in Running Times recently. I would have given them serious consideration had I not just picked up the ST5's.

BeepBeep67

How are the ST5's, I loved the 4's, but was thinking of holding out for the 6's

event

fast.punx wrote: »

How are those Kinvara 3s working?

Only been out in em twice due to work.
Thursday did a 6k as was advised to start slow.
Found em ok. strange at the start but after a k or two was grand. calves were sore though.
Got 10k yesterday, again the same but i noticed the soles of my feet were killing me last night while walking/standing.
i was probably a heel striker, haven't noticed any pain in my heel or anything.

Im happy so far. they just feel "better" can't explain it. ( that could be my head convincing me as they were €110 )

wrstan

event wrote: »

Im happy so far. they just feel "better" can't explain it.

A little off topic, but Matt Fitzgerald in his book Run quotes a biomechanics study from Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise (2001) that says:
"runners are less likely to suffer injuries when they choose running shoes that feel most comfortable"

fast.punx

rom wrote: »

2 pairs of GT2170's near EOL, moved into 2nd pair of Mizuno Wave 8 which I really like and Asics DC Trainers which I am not mad about.

Thats awesome! I'd really check out the Mizuno Wave Elixir 7s next time. It's closer the those DS TRainers, but still going to give you that Mizuno fit and responsive feel. Much better than the GT2170 IMO...

I'm on my 4th pair of Elixirs already, and have been getting about 450 miles outta em

fast.punx

wrstan wrote: »

the Mizuna Musha which had a very good review in Running Times recently. I would have given them serious consideration had I not just picked up the ST5's.

I've tested a pair of ST5's... and they felt ok, but comparing them to the Mizuno Musha, the Musha feels more like a "go fast" shoe, vs. the ST5, which felt a bit clunky too me.

thirstywork2

Trying the Adidas Gazelle from their adipure range.
One run so far!!!
Got a pair of Adidas Adapt but not sure about them.

RacoonQueen

thirstywork2 wrote: »

Got a pair of Adidas Adapt but not sure about them.

They're very ugly.

christmas2012

I love love..my adidas gazelle in blue suede,they are just a dream to walk in,would buy a pair of them again..

thirstywork2

christmas2012 wrote: »

I love love..my adidas gazelle in blue suede,they are just a dream to walk in,would buy a pair of them again..

ye I have the same colour.Agree RQ the adapt are seriously ugly but I didn't pay for them

wrstan

BeepBeep67 wrote: »

How are the ST5's, I loved the 4's, but was thinking of holding out for the 6's

Sorry for taking so long to reply, I picked up a head cold last week which quickly went down to my chest, so I took a few rest days.

I have worn the ST5's for 2 runs, the first an easy 12k with some progression and then last night on the track for a session of 400's. I have to say I am really happy with them, they feel light, comfortable and responsive. Mostly they seem to be a very good fit for me, and for both runs almost instantly I was unaware of them at all (if that makes sense!) other than to notice the reduction in weight from my trusty Nimbus. I would definitely put them into a "they just feel good" category.

seanmacc

Just back from my 1st run in my new pair of Brooks Adrenaline and can't recommend them enough. I'd been wearing Brooks Ravenna 2 for the past year and I thought they couldn't be bettered. There's that slight bit of extra cushioning in the Adrenaline which makes all the difference, I've returned from a 15k run (5k more than I usually do) with a lot less aches than usual. I'm fearing however that after a couple of months the effect will wear off.

My Ravenna 2 are still as good as the day I bought them and I'll probably pull them out for my ext road race.

wrstan

wrstan wrote: »

A little off topic, but Matt Fitzgerald in his book Run quotes a biomechanics study from Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise (2001) that says:
"runners are less likely to suffer injuries when they choose running shoes that feel most comfortable"

FYI, the author of that article, Prof Benno Nigg is to appear on that Panorama programme tonight on the lack of evidence that sports products work.
See this thread: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056705667