Anyone where nike Lunarglides? Experience with them?

Hey ya. I've worked in running specialty retail for 5+ years, and have rotated through most of the "popular" stability shoes on the market at some point in time throughout my college career. Ran the majority of my mileage in college in the Ravenna, Adrenaline, Guide, etc.

Hopped into a pair of Lunarglides recently, and I'm pretty impressed with the new model. I haven't worn them for anything over 6-7 or so, but they are soft enough for easy runs. Usually not a huge fan of Nike shoes due to a general lack of structure, but the more rigid heel cup on the Lunarglides makes up for the flexibility.

I don't know where they are, but I wore some and had good luck. I haven't worn them in a while.

I remember wearing the fifth and sixth edition for high school cross country. They fit well and were on the softer side. I could go pound the pavement, hit rocky trails, and run in them for long runs. But now the padding is simplified to some free run like pattern. I doubt they provide any structure since they look so soft. My two cents is Nike wants to convert it to a lifestyle shoe.

I really loved the 1,2,3,4,5,7.

Never tried to run in the 6 and didn't like it when I put it on.

The 8 I liked but wasn't super impressed.

I loved the Lunarglide 6. But, they seemed to wear fast. I went through a couple pair of them. But they were a good shoe for my flat feet since I'm a neutral runner and were a good choice when I started running.

I like the 8s, but got annoyed with the tread because they picked up a lot of tiny rocks. It seems to be a common complaint.

I had them for about 20 minutes (ordered them because I found a great deal online), and immediately drove them to the closest store I could find to return them.

They hurt my arches pretty bad when I walked or jogged in them.

They are so bulky, too, compared to the Pegs or a more neutral shoe - but I guess that's to be expected.

setyourselffree wrote:

They hurt my arches pretty bad when I walked or jogged in them.

They are so bulky, too, compared to the Pegs or a more neutral shoe - but I guess that's to be expected.

Sorry dude but just what have you been smoking? Have you actually ran in both these because that's just an absurd comment to make, e.g:-

Vs

The pegs are, and have been about 20/30 grams heavier consistently over the past 2 or 3 iterations of these models so how can the Lunarglides possibly be "so bulky" in comparison?

The comment about the arches is equally stupid since they both have very similar uppers, lightweight and both using flywires so I'd just love to know how your arches are working out ok in the pegs! Lol...

Total Garbage wrote:

setyourselffree wrote:

They hurt my arches pretty bad when I walked or jogged in them.

They are so bulky, too, compared to the Pegs or a more neutral shoe - but I guess that's to be expected.

Sorry dude but just what have you been smoking? Have you actually ran in both these because that's just an absurd comment to make, e.g:-

https://www.runningshoesguru.com/2017/08/nike-lunarglide-9-review/

Vs

https://www.runningshoesguru.com/2017/06/nike-air-zoom-pegasus-34-review/

The pegs are, and have been about 20/30 grams heavier consistently over the past 2 or 3 iterations of these models so how can the Lunarglides possibly be "so bulky" in comparison?

The comment about the arches is equally stupid since they both have very similar uppers, lightweight and both using flywires so I'd just love to know how your arches are working out ok in the pegs! Lol...

Do you even know the difference in neutral vs. stability shows? Obviously not.

There is a WORLD of difference in the arch support in the Lunarglides vs the Pegs. The Pegs have noticeably less structure/support.

Also, have you considered that there might be MORE material used for the Lunarglide, even if it is lighter material? The outsoles are very, very different and much larger on the Lunarglides.

I’ve run in them both.

Maybe before referencing an online review you can try them both on, run in them, and get back to me.

setyourselffree wrote:

I’ve run in them both.

Maybe before referencing an online review you can try them both on, run in them, and get back to me.

Really?

"I had them for about 20 minutes (ordered them because I found a great deal online), and immediately drove them to the closest store I could find to return them."

More Total Garbage. You had them for 20 mins and you're qualified to comment on both? Do me a favour... I've had the 7/8/9s, the 33s & 34s and run hundreds of miles in all of them.

Still you can't really, or need to, argue with such genius as a 20 min review man nor a guy claiming "so bulky" in comparison means more, lighter materials ? LOL. What an uninformed chump.

Total Garbage wrote:

setyourselffree wrote:

I’ve run in them both.

Maybe before referencing an online review you can try them both on, run in them, and get back to me.

Really?

"I had them for about 20 minutes (ordered them because I found a great deal online), and immediately drove them to the closest store I could find to return them."

More Total Garbage. You had them for 20 mins and you're qualified to comment on both? Do me a favour... I've had the 7/8/9s, the 33s & 34s and run hundreds of miles in all of them.

Still you can't really, or need to, argue with such genius as a 20 min review man nor a guy claiming "so bulky" in comparison means more, lighter materials ? LOL. What an uninformed chump.

Uninformed? I put them on. I ran. I held them.

Why are you the defender of all things Lunarglide?

It’s a much different shoe than the Pegasus, and for good reason - different people need different things.

I don’t need the support that the Lunarglide offers.

If it was ‘so similar’ to the Pegs, why the hell would they even make it?

The Lunarglide is a more substantial shoe - period, as is often the case when you’re comparing a stability shoe to a neutral one. I didn’t say it was a brick. I made a one to one comparison, nothing more, nothing less.

Get over yourself, bro. I answered the OP’s question.

The OP can take it or leave it. Maybe you should learn to do the same.

Like I said previously I can't argue with someone making 20 min opinions. And I'm not a defender of anything - actually READ my comments, I run in and love both of them. THAT'S the only reason I replied to your comment because, as someone who does, what you said is utter Garbage.

Yeah the Lunarglide is ostensibly a support shoe (I can only imagine the outer rear heel being, what, about 1cm wider being your "so bulky" mindset) but it's about 30 grams lighter - this isn't like a Saucony Hurricane shoe or suchlike at all - and the uppers are practically identical!

Your comments come across like someone who's read a support vs neutral article and then started spouting nonsense, rather than someone who has ran in both (which as you point out you haven't).

That's the only reason I replied. Plus I've no idea why you even mentioned the Pegasus since the OP didn't...

I agree with the above poster. I haven't ran in Pegasus or Lunarglides but the OP asked about them in relation to Saucony Omnis which I have ran in. These are fairly built up support shoes with a high degree of arch support. Just reading the stats suggests the Lunarglides would be about 50 grams lighter with lesser support so these are going to feel like slippers and certainly not bulky in comparison.

My question though is that surely these can't be any good as a support shoe being so lightweight? Especially on longer runs they must give bigger guys like myself (used to Omnis & GT-2000s) real trouble on the knees.

I really enjoyed the 1's and 2's. Some of the best shoes I've ever ran in.

I tried the Lunarglide 7's and they were one of the worst shoes I've ever purchased. Hard, zero response, too much crap around the heel.

Are the newest models softer than the 7's? If so, I will look into buying them again. Currently running in Vomero's and they work well.

Black On Blonde wrote:

Ha ha, I'm laughing at you idiot hobbyjoggers arguing the toss over stability shoes which have been dismissed as total bull.

Er, don't know why you singled me out here but you've missed the point saying this - I run in BOTH so I'm not particularly arsed about a stability v neutral debate. In fact I was pointing out that other guy was talking total garbage because he'd obviously never had both shoes. If you hold them side by side / sole to sole whatever you can see the width of the soles matches at the front and the uppers are practically identical, the arch support in the Lunarglides very much on the minimal side. The only notable "stability" feature is the puffed out heel but this happens BELOW where the heel sits in the upper so there is absolutely no way these could feel "so bulky" by comparison...

The difference for me is the sole materials - the Lunarlon is much softer than the Zoom in the pegs so the Lunarglides are great for recovery runs...

setyourselffree wrote:

Total Garbage wrote:

Really?

"I had them for about 20 minutes (ordered them because I found a great deal online), and immediately drove them to the closest store I could find to return them."

More Total Garbage. You had them for 20 mins and you're qualified to comment on both? Do me a favour... I've had the 7/8/9s, the 33s & 34s and run hundreds of miles in all of them.

Still you can't really, or need to, argue with such genius as a 20 min review man nor a guy claiming "so bulky" in comparison means more, lighter materials ? LOL. What an uninformed chump.

Uninformed? I put them on. I ran.

For a grand total of 20 minutes. Was that your weekly mileage?

Black On Blonde wrote:

Ha ha, I'm laughing at you idiot hobbyjoggers arguing the toss over stability shoes which have been dismissed as total bull.

Shalene Flanagan uses Lunarglide for some of her easy runs, idiot.