Is the Saucony kinvara the most overrated shoe??

+ 1, especially when you consider the weight (8.6 oz.). Only complaint I have is that I'm not confident the sole will last more than 200 miles (kind of like the old Elixir). Great shoe though. 4mm heel drop.

^^^^ referring to the Mirage

I personally love the Kinvara's. I've gone through 4 pairs putting about 700 miles on each and haven't gotten hurt. You also can get them for 75 bucks. Great shoe.

Shin splints are not caused by landing with a heel strike. Shin splints can be caused by a variety of factors, most likely too much stress on the shins from the impact. If it was only from heel strike, why would tennis players, basketball players, and other sports suffer from shin splints? In tennis the players are more apt to have their weight on the balls of their feet, not their heels.

Anyway, to disprove your sitting down theory--sit down and then try this. Place your mid-foot and forefoot on the ground. Place your weight on the outside of your foot, and then roll inward in an overpronated movement. You will feel similar contraction of the muscles that you stated from the heel to toe movement.

Regardless, the tendons and muscles running along your shin bone run north to south, and thus the movement of north to south of those muscles is a more natural movement than moving the muscles east to west. Those muscles want to move vertically, not horizontally.

So many people like them because they're a helpful transition to more minimalistic running. More cushioned than other "barefoot" shoes, but not extremely heavy. They allow you to land on your forefoot.

well. wrote:

I personally love the Kinvara's. I've gone through 4 pairs putting about 700 miles on each and haven't gotten hurt. You also can get them for 75 bucks. Great shoe.

Agreed. I'm on my fifth pair, but I stop around 550-600 miles. Only one pair had a tear in the upper.

I love them. I'm not much of a minimalist, but that's worked out well for me. I bought them to race longer races in, but they felt so good breaking them in, I wear them 3-5 days a week. I've done 20mi runs in them on concrete without any knee pain and I have a history of knee problems. I think that actually some good cushion without too much bulk which make them more comfortable than other light weight trainers or racers. They also have a well fit upper. I guess it all depends on your personal mechanics.

I've logged a couple hundred miles on them and haven't noticed any squeaking or other issues.

i've been running in them for the past 6 months or so now, and i love them. you mention that you don't like the feel of them on faster runs. i would probably have to agree with you, which is why i wear a pair of adizero rockets for my fast days. i find that the kinvaras have the same amount of forefoot cushioning as any other regular trainer, but with a more level platform and a lighter upper, which is why i love them so much. it's like a running shoe without the bullshit that efficient runners don't need. i also haven't had any injury problems with them which is what is most essential. if you get hurt while wearing them, then switch to a different shoe. find what works for you.

I think people who are complaining about shin splints don't have the correct foot strike for minimalist shoes. Either you have a pronation problem and need a more supportive shoe, or you haven't given yourself enough time to adjust to the shoes. I slowly built up the time I spend in them. First week I ran maybe 10mi. I slowly added miles alternating with my Saucony Rides and I'm up to about 40mpw in them after a couple months. I think if you're getting shin splints with the Kinvaras you'll probably get them with any light weight trainer/racer.

i forgot to mention one thing though. the shoe does tend to wear out very quickly. i have to replace them every 3 months or so. still, the benefits i receive from wearing them are totally worth it.

and someone mentioned the nike frees. now THOSE are the most overrated shoes ever. they're straight shit.

duckfast wrote:

and someone mentioned the nike frees. now THOSE are the most overrated shoes ever. they're straight shit.

LOL! Nice one Duckfast! Dangerous Nike Free gimmicks: too firm, too flexible, zero grip! Nike are definitely the most overrated brand. Their shoes are: Ugly, garish, heavy, weak, overpriced, ill-conceived, and linked to funding dog torture. I boycotted them for life when they re-signed Vick The Prick. #BoycottNike, I suggest you do the same.

However, the Kinvara 1/2/3:

Yeah. AVOID! Even the Saucony website's fan reviews highlight terrible durabilty, or lack of. My Saucony Outlaw uppers failed after 50 miles! The soles on the 'Kinvara 2' were bad too. According to their fans even, the '2' would only last, "200-250 miles"! When you consider they corruptly banned my truthful Outlaw review, due to being "against their guidelines" (lies!), you can imagine the other secret horror stories.

At $100, for the Kinvara 3, they are a con. In England they are £95 = $150! For a shoe which only lasts 6 months!? The Kinvara 3 (still 7.7oz in a size US9) has actually REMOVED a layer from the cloth upper and replaced it with sticky tape! LOL!

They're too floppy to spring off the toe for me, a la Oscar Pistorius's artificial leg springs. A cheaper, better lasting, faster, lighter, prettier option is the Adidas AdiZero range.

I went with the lightest (6.7oz in a size US9.5), spring-loaded, AdiZero 'Feather' (NOT the tennis version, the Adidas idiots used the same name!), for £50. But the 'Feather 2' is now out, but without the bargain price (Avoid the identical 'Rush' model - it has the toe protector layer tapering up into a point right where the toes bend and will probably cause the material to fail and tear!).

Similar, but less extreme, is the AdiZero 'Adios' (7.4oz US9, and Marathon World Record holder) or Adios 2 (7.8oz, but with increased stiffness, but still not as stiff/springloaded as the 'Feather'). If Available, the 'Hagio' is like the Adios too, perhaps a bit lighter (check the runblogger's review:

). I wouldn't bother with the AdiZero 'Boston' or 'F50' runners, unless you're really fat and heavy, or do many many miles, because they're both over 9oz and, therefore, a bit 'heavy'.

If you're on a budget, the Adidas Climacool 'Chili' is a light shoe (8.5oz?), yet looks quite robust, but is very pretty too!

I work at a running store and sell both Kinvara and Mirage. Very similar, but Mirage has a bit of a pronation control in the midfoot--thus is slightly heavier. Both are definitely transitional between traditional and minimalist footwear. I personally do all my training in the Green Silence and can't get enough of it. Kinvara is slightly narrower (compared to the GS), especially in the toe box. However, it stretches well and seems to be pretty durable. Both the Mirage and the Kinvara sell well and we get mostly positive responses from customers who we fit them in to and purchase them. No shoe is going to please every person. I wouldn't say the Kinvara is overrated or underrated, it's just a very good, serviceable shoe that works well for some bodies and not well for others. But that's how most running shoes seem to work--well for some, not well for others.

too spongy

rockyrococo wrote:

Any opinions on the Mirage? Has anyone here worn them? What are they like?

They are very good. 9.0 oz but the upper feels like a racing flat.

I unfortunately bought these having read all the great reviews.

Very disappointed found them to be too spongy.

I suppose all reviews should have a disclaimer stating that these are subjective and do not apply to all runners.

The spongy feel goes away after a while. I find they hit their sweet spot around 500 miles.

I've been in pretty firm, minimalist racing flats for a long time and decided to try the new Kinvara 3s to see if they'd be a good, beefier marathon shoe. I don't think they're overly "spongy" and soft like everyone proclaims. From reading the reviews, it sounds like they made the 3s a bit firmer. The upper is fantastic (pliable), forefoot is wide, and fits well around the heel. I always thought they'd be too much shoe and too soft for me, but after trying them I think they're excellent. I'm still trying to decide if they have the right racer feel-- the more I wear them the more I like them. I think they kinda feel like the old Puma Road Racers, but a tad softer.

Don't think they're overrated at all-- good, all-purpose shoe.

I don't think they are overrated at all.. but I do only use them for tempos, fartleks and repeats. I use Asics 2170s for easy/long runs and everything else.