Lunar Trainer vs. Lunar Racer

I've got a pair of racers and liked the ride but the toe-box was small and there's no give in the upper plastic material. In terms of being responsive, they're fine for road racing. At 4 oz, they feel pretty good. The platform is narrower than Trainers.

Can Lunar Trainers be used as the daily trainer, consistently doing 70 MPW, without risk of injury?

why or why not?

If yes, then how do you recommend transitioning from big heeled trainers into Lunars?

Moon Man wrote:

Can Lunar Trainers be used as the daily trainer, consistently doing 70 MPW, without risk of injury?

At 6"2/162lbs/2:30marathon I do it and like it.

Best shoe ever.

There was not transition for me into the LT. They felt great and I have no idea what the above poster is talking about when he says he has to "work harder based on his heart rate."

Put on the f****** shoes and run dude. They are the best shoe I have ever worn and I use them for everything. Too bad they'll be gone in a month. Unless of course your into spending $120 on nike id shoes.

thanks for the feedback. here's a second question: do minimalist shoes need to be replaced less often (if at all)?

here's why i ask: common wisdom says that running shoes need to be replaced every 350-500 miles because the cushioning has broken down. however, one of the tenants of minimalist shoes says that a less cushioned shoe actually decreases knee impact on concrete because the foot has "learned" to land softer. therefore, since minimalist shoes are not used for their cushioning, "cushion depletion" is no longer a valid reason to buy new shoes. the reason to buy new shoes will likely be caused by fabric breakdowns, tears, etc.

side note: i remember years back a man who ran 1000's of injury-free miles on a single old, raggedy pair of shoes. i was amazed that his crappy shoes didn't injure him. teammates and i encouraged him to buy new shoes to avoid injury, but i bet his adaptation to those raggedy shoes corrected his stride to be injury free. what a coincidence.

Too bad they'll be gone in a month. Unless of course your into spending $120 on nike id shoes.

Really? Where did you hear that?

If so, what will the successor be like?

These are my initial impressions after 2 runs in the Lunar Trainer:

1)The fit was better than I expected, though I can totally see why that heel cup could be a problem. I taped my achilles and wore a slightly thicker sock than usual as a safeguard and I was fine, but with occasional missteps I felt that tale-tell cutting sensation in my heel. The footbed is just shallow enough so I escaped it with my taping. I am curious to see how it is when I go down to a thinner sock and no tape. The forefoot upper is like a thin envelope - reminds me of the old sock racer.

2)Cushioning is just outstanding - My legs felt better than they have in forever. I also think they have a good road feel and are quite flexible and smooth.

The wide platform is just bizarre - I swear the outsole is centimeters wider than a normal shoe - the outsole is much wider than the upper. But this gives it alot of stability for a "neutral" shoe.

4)I don't think it is a "fast" shoe, either because of the wide platform (increased "rolling resistance") or because the cushioning doesn't rebound alot, I am not sure which. I feel like I have to work a bit harder at a given pace than a regular shoe, but that downside is more than offset by how good they feel. This doesn't matter to me for the same reason I don't avoid running offroad just because it is slower. No matter, they feel great.

Two runs in a row I both subjectively felt like I was running a bit harder than my pace would imply and my HR was 4 BPM higher at a given pace in the Lunar Trainers. At some point, widening the platform is going to make the shoe slower, obviously, and perhaps for my footstrike, the Lunar Trainer has hit that point. This isn't an issue for me, though, it is just a trainer. I run on grass and offroad when I can as well despite it slowing me down a bit since I am more concerned about decreasing the abuse my legs take than nitpicking about easy day pace.

After two runs, I plan to train full-time in the Lunar Trainer, but I will hold off final judgement for a few weeks to see how they wear. If my impressions stay positive through July 1st, i am going to see about stocking up before they are gone.

I wonder if the cushioning holds up in very cold weather - anyone have any experience with them below 10 degrees?

nikefan wrote:

Too bad they'll be gone in a month. Unless of course your into spending $120 on nike id shoes.

Really? Where did you hear that?

If so, what will the successor be like?

The Lunar Glide is the update and they have a preview at Running Warehouse. I think it is going to have a more traditional upper and platform and be a bit heavier.

Go to the Runner's World shoe forum. There is a Nike rep who posts on there and he gave a very long explanation of the new lunar glide that is replacing the trainer. I'll try the new shoe as the wear tester said it's better.

I can't say I have run too many runs under 10 degrees in them but any show feels "harder" in cold. The LT doesn't feel any worse than any other shoe I've worn in cold weather.

As for wear my rule is 300 miles and then I use them for trail or play. The bounce doesn't go but the tread wears like all shoes and I don't like to risk injury. I seem to find the shoe for between $65-75. I don't believe saying one gets 1000 miles out of a pair of shoes is anything to brag about. It reminds me of the jerks on my team who used to race the whole season without washing their uniform.

I've run in them in the winter here in Boston so I think I did at least one run around 10 degrees, but regardless even at temperatures higher than that say 20s I notice in a difference in the cushioning. I found the trainer to be much stiffer in cold temperatures than in warmer and even a little clunky.

Lunarglides.

I would stock up on cheap LTs.

1500 wrote:

Go to the Runner's World shoe forum. There is a Nike rep who posts on there and he gave a very long explanation of the new lunar glide that is replacing the trainer. I'll try the new shoe as the wear tester said it's better.

Sorry, thought you were taling about the Racer.

Thanks

1500 wrote:

I seem to find the shoe for between $65-75. I don't believe saying one gets 1000 miles out of a pair of shoes is anything to brag about. It reminds me of the jerks on my team who used to race the whole season without washing their uniform.

Shoes are expensive. I would rather invest in something worthwhile that have to buy overpriced shoes...For example:

If you run 2000miles per year, and shoes cost $100/pair...

400 miles/pair = 5 pairs/year = $500

1000 miles/pair = 2 pairs/year = $200.

$500 - $200 = $300 savings/year.

20 years of running @ $300/year = $6,000.

What would you do with an extra $6,000 laying around?

[quoteWhat would you do with an extra $6,000 laying around?[/quote]

I never felt a correlation between price and mileage.

HEY, I share the same attitude. I only eat every other meal and I've saved over $5,000 over the past 6 years! I'm going to use the money to get bariatric surgery.

I spend the $6,000 on shoes and I'm happy and healthy and full of energy. You spend it at the doctor. Although I somehow get the feeling that someone who doesn't buy shoes also doesn't go to the doctor if injured.

I'm not knocking you; what ever gets you off. I run 75-100 miles a week and it's worth the cost to me. I also don't pay $100 a shoe so go back and reread my post.

1500 wrote:

I spend the $6,000...and it's worth the cost to me.

I invite you to re-read my post:

Moon Man:

one of the tenants of minimalist shoes says that a less cushioned shoe actually decreases knee impact on concrete because the foot has "learned" to land softer. therefore, since minimalist shoes are not used for their cushioning, "cushion depletion" is no longer a valid reason to buy new shoes.

The point is that minimalist running neither relies on, nor needs, shoe cushioning. And injuries are nill. I suggest your $6,000 shoe purchasing is a waste of money and the burden is on you to prove the facts of my argument wrong.

Nothing personal, just the facts.

Your on the wrong post my friend. I'm not a minimalist and the LT is not a minimalist shoe. The LT is a light weight CUSHIONED shoe.

And although "cushion depletion" is not a valid reason for you to buy new shoes when the tread has worn on my shoes and they don't feel good on my feet it is a good reason for me to buy new shoes.