How bad is EVA cushioned shoes, really?

FreshFoam is EVA,

Boost is TPU,

RunningWarehouse sells shoes with every variant of foam. They sell a lot of Hoka's which are EVA

EVA & TPU can both be formulated to achieve a wide range of properties. I don't consider either to be newer/better technology. Its all in the implementation.

NB uses Nitrogen to process EVA to make their FuelCell which is a very nice midsole.

Sketchers uses CO2 to process EVA to make their Hyperburst which is a very nice midsole.

Just run in Skechers Hyperburst and get it over with.

This is Jim Kiler wrote:

Just run in Skechers Hyperburst and get it over with.

I must say Skechers does make a very nice feeling midsole. Hyperburst doesn’t harden up like a rock in the cold either. The jury is out on durability however.

Go find a pair of pre-2018 Asics hyperspeeds and it will change your mind about what EVA can do.

All my PRs were set in hyperspeeds, now I can't get them for any price. the new models are nothing like the old just name only, and skechers hyperburst is nothing like the hyperspeed.

Lots of elites like Kastor and Hall set records/PRs in hyperspeeds, you'd think Asics would have kept them untouched but nope.

They may be faster than boost tpu just more harsh by the end of a half/marathon.

How bad is EVA? It's still the best combination of cushion/compression set/weight and resiliency in the footwear industry. It's also still what makes up 90% of the athletic footwear market.

Nothing wrong with EVA, and Scheel's is a good store that sells top-model name-brand running shoes.

i am not an expert for the latest and greatest shoe technologies. i have always used eva or phylon cushioned shoes with pleasure. all i need is a pretty light shoe in the low price segment (nike downshifter). i see no reason to judge eva as bad.

I've used variations of Nike Air models for years as they don't seem to have the same problems that foam shoes do ie compression after 100-200 miles. For me, they wear better and I am much less prone to injury.

Firmer EVA has less durability issues, softer/plush EVA compresses more.

I personally see absolutely no point in buying regular EVA based shoes when you can have a TPU/TPU-EVA mix midsole for the same or almost the same price and it will last 2 to 3 times longer. It's hard to beat Bostons or Reebok FFE on sale (and they are always on sale).

shoo smoo wrote:

Go find a pair of pre-2018 Asics hyperspeeds and it will change your mind about what EVA can do.

All my PRs were set in hyperspeeds, now I can't get them for any price. the new models are nothing like the old just name only, and skechers hyperburst is nothing like the hyperspeed.

Lots of elites like Kastor and Hall set records/PRs in hyperspeeds, you'd think Asics would have kept them untouched but nope.

They may be faster than boost tpu just more harsh by the end of a half/marathon.

Agreed, I came on to say just this.

I preferred running in them to running in my vaporflys, even if was a touch slower.

For racing PR's or world class times there are better materials than EVA but for day to day training I do not agonize over the type of midsole material used provided it offers up enough cushioning. It is not as simple as "EVA old & bad"

stan the corgi wrote:

I've used variations of Nike Air models for years as they don't seem to have the same problems that foam shoes do ie compression after 100-200 miles. For me, they wear better and I am much less prone to injury.

Did you ever wear them in 20 degree temps ? It like running on a brick ;-)

Asking how bad is EVA is the equivalent of asking how bad chocolate cake is.

It's impossible to answer as there is hundreds of formulations leading to different characteristics.

EVA is a generic term for the polymer (Ethylene-Vynil-Acetate).

You can change the final properties of your midsole foam by varying the parameters used to produce the compound.

So when you see EVA in 10 different shoes, there is a big chance they all have slightly different characteristics and you need to ask more about these to the retail associate.

Most running brands are looking for the same performance attributes in one given product category so it might just be enough to test the end-feel on the shoes to find out the difference and what you prefer.

But if you see EVA on racing shoe and on a big stability shoe for example, there is big chances that the 2 foams have completely different characteristics.

They just share the same type of foam. That's it.

I miss my hyper speeds!! I've never run so fast in anything else!

Depends on the EVA, DNA Flash is great, then you have the cheap stuff that bottoms out in a month. It all depends

snarkatinesid1 wrote:

stan the corgi wrote:

I've used variations of Nike Air models for years as they don't seem to have the same problems that foam shoes do ie compression after 100-200 miles. For me, they wear better and I am much less prone to injury.

Did you ever wear them in 20 degree temps ? It like running on a brick ;-)

I wear mostly Nike shoes. This week has been cold, -31c with windchill here in Winnipeg. I keep my shoes in a warm place in my house which saves them for at least 45 minutes of the run.

I used to keep them near my door and they were as hard as bricks for sure. Not a nice feeling.

Just run in Skechers Hyperburst and get it over with