Unbiased Running Shoe Reviews?

missouri runner wrote:

Is there any place that has an unbiased or accurate review of running shoes, my past couple pair of running shoes have been Asics 2110s and I'm looking at for new pair but I'm thinking about going to Brooks, Saucony, Puma, or just sticking with a new style of Asics. I am also a college student so I am also concerned about how much I spend.

This place is about as good as you'll find--plenty of shoe people post here, so feel free to ask questions.

Too bad about 1 % have a clue of what they are talking about.

Feel free to ask, then feel fre to come here and diagnose your injuries.

Has anyone had any experience with any of these shoes? Thanks

Brooks Men's Glycerin 4

ASICS® Men's Gel 1130

Brooks Men's Burn 3

Saucony Men's 3D Grid Triumph 3

glycerin and triumph are both more upscale neutral cushion shoes. the brooks will run a bit more tapered while the saucony will have a bit wide of a toes box and a narrow heel.

The burn is also neutral but more of a lightweight performance trainer so you may not get as much bang for your buck in lifespan.

the asics has a small amount of stability and is the cheapest shoe of those you listed.

I work with shoes 35 hours a week at a running store so I know a little. Glycerin is a very good shoe, asics and brooks hasnt had great reviews from customers but if they feel good, get them. Saucony is a good shoe with alot of stability, i may also recommend the Saucony omni 6. I hope I helped a little

seriously, you work 35hrs a week in a running store and think the triumph is a good shoe with alot of stability?

If you need anything resembling a neutral to light stability shoe do not listen to shoesellsman.

The Omni offers a moderate amount of stability but much more than the 4 shoes you listed in the thread opener.

you may want to try road runner sports as they have reviews for all shoes sold on their site.

May want to try something like the Nike Air Structure or the Air Zoom Vomero or the current Pegasus.

They are all Nike+ ready, and besides, the Black Cactus, the Gouchers, Lagat, Ritz, Teg, and the winning teams in the NCAA D-1 cross country championships all wear one of those models! :-)

all solid choices to the original post despite being nike. may have a hard time find the vomero though do to low quantities made/shipped.

best advice is to go to a reputable tech store and try on the best choices for YOUR type of foot structure.

There's a uk site www.shoeguide.co.uk you could look on. The shoes are all UK models but I doubt they're different.

Adidas Supernova Cushion 6 should also be considered. Fantastic shoe.

For balance, and indisputably low price, look here:

http://www.barefoot.org/

Otherwise, I got a lot of shoe info at runnersworld:

US link:

http://www.runnersworld.com/

UK link:

http://www.runnersworld.co.uk/

Once you take enough care to get the right kind of shoe for your foot, the most important thing becomes if the shoe fits well.

Good luck,

If you've been running in the 2100 series, it would be safe to say that you need some semblance of medial stability in your shoes.

In Brooks, the Adrenaline would qualify, but feels beefier underneath the heel. The fit is snugger through the midfoot, but not by much. Overall a relatively smooth shoe, heel to toe. Should last a bit longer than the 2130.

The Axiom is the lighter weight version of the Adrenaline--sort of--and has a great, fast feel underneath, very similar fit to the Adrenaline, though the medial arch is a bit more noticeable. If stability isn't a real issue, the Axiom would probably be preferred. Durabiltiy will not be as high as the Adrenaline.

In the Saucony lne, the Trigon Guide is the comparable shoe. The traditional Saucony fit applies: Snug heel and midfoot, roomier toebox. Durability is good, somewhere between the Adrenaline and 2130. Solid feeling shoe underneath.

In Asics, if you've been in the 2100 series but don't like to spend the jack, drop down to the 1100 series, save a few bucks. Not the exact same shoes, but close enough that you might not mind.

When all is said and done, the most important things to think about are fit and feel. The shoe should feel like part of your foot, secure and responsive. Everything else--all the bells and whistles, all the "technology", despite what the brands tell you--makes very little difference.

If your last few pairs have been 2110's and you have had no troubles than why change? It's not sexy, but it is smart. That being said, anything in the light stability category should work for you--saucony trigon guide, asics 2120/30, nb 767, brooks adrenaline (this shoe has a bit more support than the others. If you are concerned about price, each one of these models has been or will be updated (they are all on a one year schedule) so finding "last years" model at a bit of a discount should be no problem. None of the models you asked about fall into the "stability" category that you have had success with in the past. Therefore, the best advice i can give if you really want to change shoes is to go to your local specialty running store and have a them fit you properly.

I own a store and have been doing this for well over a decade. I would back up what giancarlo said.

In general, I find all shoe "reviews" to be useless. They'll tell you a bit about the features of each shoe, and how they differ from their respective predecessor, but ultimately whether a shoe is "good" or not comes down to fit and feel (and sometimes price and aesthetics, unfortunately) for your specific foot/body/running mechanics.

Your best bet is to bring your shoes and your feet into a reputable specialty store and have them do you up. Try a bunch of shoes on and make sure they let you run outside a bit with them. Tell them you run for a team so they give you a discount.

The Asics 1120/1130 would probably be a good regular price option. You could probably also find the gt-2120 (the update to your 2110) on sale right now as the new 2130 just hit the stores. You might find the 1120 on sale, too.

there are none

Buy Loco.

Here are some shoes you could try that would be comprable to the 2100 series:

Mizuno Wave Inspire

Brooks Adrenaline

Brooks Axiom (lightweight trainer)

Mizuno Wave Elixir (lightweight trainer)

And the more expensive stablility shoes, generally having some extra cushion and forefoot padding:

Asics Gel Kayano

Mizuno Wave Nirvana

Saucony ProGrid Hurricane

Ever since Asics switched to Solyte their shoes suck. I was a 2xxx/ Ds trainer fan till the 2120 and DS 12's with the solyte. Afetr fiddling with equivelents such as Nike zoom elite's, Nike structure traix, New balance 767, NB 902's, I have come to really like the Brooks Adrenaline 7's. Feels similar to old school Asics speeva. These shoes are the bomb I hope they don't change them. They are light enough to fit the bill for tempo runs and marathon racing yet supportive enough for all my training. It's a two for one deal. I'm impressed with this shoe.

the adrenaline 6's were sweet, but when they switched the shoe to mogo for the 7's, it sucked. the fit went to hell, and that is what it was reknown for. the 8's are much better, even though they are still mogo, brooks re-did the fit of the shoe to make it comparable to the 6 with the softness of the 7.

the axiom is probably my favourite shoe right now. it has a little bit of medial posting, but I am a neutral runner and I can get away with running in it. it is lighter than the adrenaline, and feels a little softer. unfortunately, it doesnt hug the foot quite as well.

i have always found the 2000 series to be kinda blah. the fit is always ok, other than the new solyte (which they are changing due to complaints... making it heavier but softer) the shoes were never super soft, but never super hard. they always seemed like middle of the road. you wouldnt go wrong but they were never anything special...especially for the price point. also, the kayano I have always found to be considerably overpriced. it's a slightly better fit than the 2000 series, and has way more gel in it, but is certainly NOT worth the extra money (and it is quite a bit more)

i have always been a fan of mizuno's, as long as you can handle them. a heavier person would wear through mizuno's pretty quick, and more than any other brand, mizuno's are affected by the cold weather, due to the plastic wave plate. otherwise, they tend to have a snug fit, and usually are relatively lightweight. the inspire is no exception. the new elixir coming out in the fall weighs in about a full ounce lighter than previous models, and is almost a heavier racing flat (~9oz)

nike structure triax is a pretty good shoe, with a surprisingly good fit. i didnt realize it would be as cushy as it was. i had always thought of nike shoes to be crap, but the new stucture really made me change my mind. its average weight, but felt soft and relatively snug.

a poster above was pretty bang on with saucony. ever since switching to their pro grid, the shoes have been pretty good too. the fit is a little more sloppy than sauconys of old were, but the heel fit is still relatively snug, with a roomier forefoot. the trigon guides have a nice midfoot cradle, and if you need a little more support the omnis are pretty nice too. the only complaint i have heard about the new sauconys is that they can be too soft. the hurricanes have a higher degree of density in the medial posting than the omnis, and it is built on a different last, but otherwise, it isn't that different from the omni.

hope that helps.