Are the Adidas Boston good for forefoot runners?

Scripted_Connection wrote:

AhWhatTheCheese wrote:

The 2 feels more like a normal level of cushion for a daily trainer, but then one has more of a lightweight trainer level of cushion like the Boston. I think you will like it. It isn't very soft. The 1 is firmer. I don't find it very soft, but I am like 123 pounds so that could be a weight thing.

That sounds drool-worthy. What about the sizing compared to the 2? Too bad the running store near me doesn't have them.

I would also consider just training in the Skechers Razor 3 Hyper if I were you.

Marathon last Summer wrote:

I got a pair of the Boston 6 to use for tempo stuff. They seemed ok for that purpose, but not as good as the Adios. I then signed up for a marathon, and the Boston we're the best choice I had for what was in my rotation. I did all of my long and MP work in them. By 17 into the marathon however, my feet were beginning to feel beat up in the forefoot. They were wrecked by the end. Those shoes have ~500 miles on them now, and the boost in the heel is like brand new. There's still quite a bit of tread left on the shoes as well. As a forefoot striker though, I think the EVA midsole in the forefoot gets pretty shot by 250-300miles.

I had gotten a pair of Boston 6 when I got back into running a year and a half ago, after a 6 month layoff from blunt trauma to my right achilles. The shoe felt pretty good at the beginning when I wasn’t running much, but when I began doing longer runs (above 13km or so, hilly), the balls of my feet felt bruised. I couldn’t stand the pain anymore, and got a pair of Nike Elite 9s. MUCH better shoe for me: a bit lighter, still responsive, and way more cushioned. I did all kinds of runs with them, and was fine even above 22-24km. Managed ~730km from that pair, mainly due to outsole wear from the hot dry summer.

Scripted_Connection wrote:

As the title says I am a forefoot striker who is looking for a durable shoe. The Boston seems to be the one I am looking for. But I've heard the boost is mainly in the rearfoot. Is the forefoot cushioned and durable enough?

I've worn out 5 pairs of the last 3 versions and have had trouble with the forefoot going flat. Mile 18 of a full you will want a fresh pair if you are heavy forefoot striker. I've given in to the heavier Solar Glide for my next marathon.

gubyenletsrun wrote:

Scripted_Connection wrote:

As the title says I am a forefoot striker who is looking for a durable shoe. The Boston seems to be the one I am looking for. But I've heard the boost is mainly in the rearfoot. Is the forefoot cushioned and durable enough?

I've worn out 5 pairs of the last 3 versions and have had trouble with the forefoot going flat. Mile 18 of a full you will want a fresh pair if you are heavy forefoot striker. I've given in to the heavier Solar Glide for my next marathon.

Heel striking FTW.

Saywhat2 wrote:

I'm a forefoot runner. Aside from the upper being super durable. I didn't find them to be anything special. I put 175 miles on mine before the continental rubber wore down to the boost foam.

Pretty disappointed in that (you'd think a tire brand rubber would be more durable) but I'm an extreme supinators if that matters.

Im only 5'6 and 135lbs so not overly heavy either.

They were meh. Not bad and nothing to write home about. But at the time with boost foam it was a big deal and just locked in a fan base from that. But in 2019 there are better options.

You're either trolling or run on sanding paper.

Kidding aside, my Boston 6 have 150 miles at least, 90% of them on road, and the outsole barely shows any wear, just the edges of the lugs are a bit softened under the ball of the foot. Oh, and I'm 176 pounds.

Might be your supination, but I'd imagine that'd be the same in other shoes.

My favorite thing about the Bostons is the feel under the forefoot, especially how thin in feels under the toes. Different strokes for different folks.

Common theme. They're putting less TPU in boost shoes?

Less TPU than the original? wrote:

Common theme. They're putting less TPU in boost shoes?

Not really. Look at any of the non-Adizero line and there is PLENTY of boost. The Boston has plenty in the heel too, but the forefoot is pretty thin when it comes to Boost. The other Adidas shoes have tons of boost and are all heavy. They are missing a boost shoe that is light, but doesn't feel thin in the forefoot for daily training.

The solution is the Reebok Forever Floatride Energy. A 10mm drop, full length all TPU shoe that is like the same weight as the Boston. The TPU is not thin in the forefoot and firmer than Boost so it isn't out of control. It is a very versatile shoe.

If you want a Boston that is better for forefoot strikers, go with the Freedom Iso.

If you want a 10mm drop shoe with all TPU and without the thin forefoot, go with the Reebok Forever Floatride Energy.

If you want a shoe that is good for forefoot strikers, 3oz lighter than the Freedom Iso, and a little better for daily running, get the Skechers Razor 3 Hyper.

You can't compare the Boston and the Freedom ISO. The Boston is way more stable during toe off, and just in general. The midfoot in the Boston is stiffer (good) than the Freedom, which is actually too flexible. At faster paces the Freedom feels good enough, but for daily training, if you land primarily in the forefoot, which I do, it's a bit too wobbly and unstable in the front. Also, it makes no sense to have such an abrupt toe spring in a shoe that flexible.

The ride of the Boston is more balanced and dialed. I like my Freedoms, they are durable and comfortable and I got one pair for 80€ and another for 60€, while they retail for 180€ here, so both good deals. But, performance-wise, there's no comparison with the Boston. And, in truth, my forefoot ends more beat up in the Freedom than in the Boston.

The toe spring in the Freedom Iso 1 is an odd thing. It is fine at first, but the toe spring becomes very aggressive after a lot of miles. The shoe is durable, but that does change the ride quite a bit after hundreds of miles.

Not trolling it was a common theme with all of my shoes. I was a Saucony apologist but I couldn't get past them saying shoes were neutral or for supinators yet leaving areas where we land exposed with Eva.

So I gave the Boston a shot. It lasted longer but not like the masses said. Its a decent shoe I don't not recommend it but just felt it was just another shoe.

Gotta find what works for you though. I finally found shoes I can get 300 miles out of before feeling broken down or maximal wear.

I tried the Freedom ISO. They're sitting in my garage with 20 miles on them. I absolutely hated them. One of the worst shoes I've tried. The Boston boost is a much better shoe. The Freedom ISO has 0 energy return. It's like running on quicksand.

If you’re a forefoot striker you should not need cushion, try takumi sen or even better a new balance XC spike

May I know what shoe it is?

Bageltoast wrote:

If you’re a forefoot striker you should not need cushion, try takumi sen or even better a new balance XC spike

Canvas shoes beat them by a mile!

Are they durable? I have heard that durability is always an issue with Nike.

Oops, I should use some work on my reading comprehension . Damn, you got me interested, never a fan of Nike even though.

gubyenletsrun wrote:

Scripted_Connection wrote:

As the title says I am a forefoot striker who is looking for a durable shoe. The Boston seems to be the one I am looking for. But I've heard the boost is mainly in the rearfoot. Is the forefoot cushioned and durable enough?

I've worn out 5 pairs of the last 3 versions and have had trouble with the forefoot going flat. Mile 18 of a full you will want a fresh pair if you are heavy forefoot striker. I've given in to the heavier Solar Glide for my next marathon.

I had a lot of problems with the Tempo forefoot area going flat. It would sort of scoop out, but that seems like it was the insole doing that and the shoe was otherwise fine.

So far the Bostons have been a lot better in that respect, but they are still somewhat too new to tell. It has not been an issue for me otherwise in other shoes. Otherwise they do really last a long time.

George213 wrote:

Saywhat2 wrote:

Not trolling it was a common theme with all of my shoes. I was a Saucony apologist but I couldn't get past them saying shoes were neutral or for supinators yet leaving areas where we land exposed with Eva.

So I gave the Boston a shot. It lasted longer but not like the masses said. Its a decent shoe I don't not recommend it but just felt it was just another shoe.

Gotta find what works for you though. I finally found shoes I can get 300 miles out of before feeling broken down or maximal wear.

May I know what shoe it is?

Pegasus 35/Epic React.

Only 2 shoes I never busted out of the sides on or worn down the outsole on.

Dont take me as a nike fanboy either. The zoom streak/LT shoes I rip the uppers in less than a 100 miles.

The Continental rubber is softer in the Bostons than the really tough stuff in older Adios or supernovas. Its comparable to the Adios 3/4 but to go through the rubber after only 150 miles is insanely low.

I haven't gone through the rubber outsole completely after a whole year of 40 mpw.