.
TrafficRevenue

adidas Adizero Adios 2 Running Shoe Review

IMG_3375

“Kenyan runners race in low-support shoes, but they mostly train in big, chunky, cushioned sneakers, just like your average, plodding Western jogger. Oddly, though, and contrary to Lee’s (Saxby) theories, these big shoes don’t force the Kenyans to run heel first. They virtually all run in a lovely, smooth forefoot-first style – what Lee would term “barefoot style.” The shoes, it seems, make no difference.

-Adharanand Finn, Running With the Kenyans

Several months ago I was contacted by a rep from Adidas inquiring if I’d be interested in reviewing a few pairs of shoes from their Adizero line. At the time, I suggested that the adidas Hagio seemed to be my kind of shoe (and it has turned out to be just that – see adidas Hagio review here), but they offered to send along a pair of the Adios 2 as well (disclosure: this shoe was a review sample provided free of charge by the manufacturer). I was really hesitant to agree to trying the Adios as it has a higher heel-forefoot differential than I typically run in (9mm drop – 24mm heel, 15mm forefoot according to Running Warehouse), but I was persuaded by the folks at adidas to give it a go. After all, it is the racing shoe worn by many of the elite African marathoners, so it couldn’t hurt to at least try the shoe worn by major marathon winners and World Record setters.

I really didn’t anticipate putting a lot of miles on the Adios. I suspected I’d wear it a few times, decide that I didn’t like it, and write a review saying as much. However, I’ve wound up running in the shoe quite a bit more than I expected(probably around 50 miles now), and am rather surprised by how it has performed.

Adidas Adios 2 SideAdidas Adios 2 Medial

Adidas Adios 2 Sole

I opened this review with a quote from the soon-to-be-released book Running With the Kenyans by Anharanand Finn. I’m only about 100 pages into the book (it’s fantastic so far – you can pre-order it from Amazon if you are interested), and he writes a bit about running form and footwear (Finn made a transition to barefoot-style form just prior to moving to Iten, Kenya for six months with his family). One of the things that surprised him is that despite stories of Kenyans running barefoot, most of the high level adult runners train in big, cushy footwear. Yet, he observes, they retain barefoot-style form (presumably learned through significant barefoot running in childhood).

How the heck does this anecdote about Kenyan runners and their shoes relate to a review of the adidas Adios? Well, I’m now about 1.5 years into my own transition to barefoot-style running form, and at this point I’ve come to find that I can run in just about anything and retain this style. I may heel strike a bit from time to time, more-so with some shoes than others, but my cadence stays high and I don’t tend to overstride regardless of the shoes on my feet. I can’t even force myself to do the heel mashing, 45 degree angle between the sole and ground that is so common in recreational runners wearing big shoes. Running in zero drop shoes now rarely causes me calf soreness. My new form seems to be ingrained, and it now just feels normal. The wear pattern on the Adios seems to support this – there is zero wear on the most posterolateral heel (see photo below), and the wear along the lateral edge extends from the anterior heel to the posterior forefoot. This suggests to me a midfoot strike to a mild heel strike in the Adios. Nothing like the days when I was running in heavy stability shoes with a 12mm lift – I used to trash the heels of shoes like that.

CIMG5184

My runs in the Adios have for the most part been quite enjoyable. The shoe is fairly lightweight (just over 8oz in size 10), extremely firm, and it feels very responsive. It’s also a rather stiff shoe, more suited to racing than use as an everyday training shoe, but I can understand why this is a racing shoe of choice for many elite marathoners. It’s a shoe made for fast running. I can even see the 9mm heel differential as being useful for offloading the calf muscles a bit in a long race, particularly for those not used to running in flatter shoes. That being said, given a choice I would personally opt for less heel than what the Adios offers, particularly for training and any race shorter than a marathon (I used the Adidas Hagio for a 5K a few weeks ago and it worked out great – the Hagio is currently my favorite racing flat).

Adidas Adios 2 Top

The Adios is not without its downsides however. The interior is scratchy and not suitable for sockless running, which is not a deal breaker, but given some of the great uppers out there nowadays I find it surprising when a shoe pays seemingly little attention to interior feel. My bigger issue with the Adios is that the toebox is too tapered at the front. The width is fine at the ball of my forefoot, but from that point forward the shoe tapers to a very distinct point, which causes considerable toe scrunching, particularly the little toe. Going up a half size might help with this, but I much prefer the forefoot shape of the Hagio to that of the Adios (I do feel like the Adios runs about a half size smaller than the Hagio, which might be part of the problem). If there is one single factor that would keep the Adios out of my regular rotation, the tapered toebox would be it (a bit surprising to me as I thought the heel would be the problem).

Adidas Adios 2 HeelOne thing that I do like about the heel of the Adios is that the posterolateral heel is sculpted upward just a bit (see photo at left – the region under the black portion of the midsole). That is, the lateral portion of the heel does not rest flush with the ground when the shoe is placed on a flat surface, and this may help to avoid premature contact of the heel with the ground on the run.

Perhaps what I have enjoyed most about the Adios is simply that, as discussed above, it has helped me to confirm that my running form has indeed changed. The fact that I can run in a shoe like this one and not tear apart the heel like I used to is somewhat gratifying.

The adidas Adios is not a shoe that I would recommend to someone looking for good ground feel, and it’s not a shoe that will do much to promote form change in those who are looking for some help from a more minimal pair of shoes. That being said, it might be a good first step for someone looking to transition slowly downward if they can handle the tapered toebox. It’s also a decent choice as a racing shoe for people who do all of their miles in more traditional 12mm drop shoes – it’s not as big a deviation from what they are used to as a flat with a lower differential. For minimalists, there’s not a lot in this shoe that will appeal, but that’s not really the target audience for a shoe like this. For me, the adidas Hagio meets my needs and fits me better than the Adios, so this is probably not a shoe that will see a lot of action on my feet going forward. That being said, I’m glad that I accepted the offer to try this one out.

For an alternative take on this shoe, check out the adidas Adios 2 review by Brian Martin at Running Technique Tips.

The adidas Adizero Adios 2 is available for purchase at Running Warehouse.

adidas Adizero Adios 2 Running Shoe Review

IMG_3375

“Kenyan runners race in low-support shoes, but they mostly train in big, chunky, cushioned sneakers, just like your average, plodding Western jogger. Oddly, though, and contrary to Lee’s (Saxby) theories, these big shoes don’t force the Kenyans to run heel first. They virtually all run in a lovely, smooth forefoot-first style – what Lee would term “barefoot style.” The shoes, it seems, make no difference.

-Adharanand Finn, Running With the Kenyans

Several months ago I was contacted by a rep from Adidas inquiring if I’d be interested in reviewing a few pairs of shoes from their Adizero line. At the time, I suggested that the adidas Hagio seemed to be my kind of shoe (and it has turned out to be just that – see adidas Hagio review here), but they offered to send along a pair of the Adios 2 as well (disclosure: this shoe was a review sample provided free of charge by the manufacturer). I was really hesitant to agree to trying the Adios as it has a higher heel-forefoot differential than I typically run in (9mm drop – 24mm heel, 15mm forefoot according to Running Warehouse), but I was persuaded by the folks at adidas to give it a go. After all, it is the racing shoe worn by many of the elite African marathoners, so it couldn’t hurt to at least try the shoe worn by major marathon winners and World Record setters.

I really didn’t anticipate putting a lot of miles on the Adios. I suspected I’d wear it a few times, decide that I didn’t like it, and write a review saying as much. However, I’ve wound up running in the shoe quite a bit more than I expected(probably around 50 miles now), and am rather surprised by how it has performed.

Adidas Adios 2 SideAdidas Adios 2 Medial

Adidas Adios 2 Sole

I opened this review with a quote from the soon-to-be-released book Running With the Kenyans by Anharanand Finn. I’m only about 100 pages into the book (it’s fantastic so far – you can pre-order it from Amazon if you are interested), and he writes a bit about running form and footwear (Finn made a transition to barefoot-style form just prior to moving to Iten, Kenya for six months with his family). One of the things that surprised him is that despite stories of Kenyans running barefoot, most of the high level adult runners train in big, cushy footwear. Yet, he observes, they retain barefoot-style form (presumably learned through significant barefoot running in childhood).

How the heck does this anecdote about Kenyan runners and their shoes relate to a review of the adidas Adios? Well, I’m now about 1.5 years into my own transition to barefoot-style running form, and at this point I’ve come to find that I can run in just about anything and retain this style. I may heel strike a bit from time to time, more-so with some shoes than others, but my cadence stays high and I don’t tend to overstride regardless of the shoes on my feet. I can’t even force myself to do the heel mashing, 45 degree angle between the sole and ground that is so common in recreational runners wearing big shoes. Running in zero drop shoes now rarely causes me calf soreness. My new form seems to be ingrained, and it now just feels normal. The wear pattern on the Adios seems to support this – there is zero wear on the most posterolateral heel (see photo below), and the wear along the lateral edge extends from the anterior heel to the posterior forefoot. This suggests to me a midfoot strike to a mild heel strike in the Adios. Nothing like the days when I was running in heavy stability shoes with a 12mm lift – I used to trash the heels of shoes like that.

CIMG5184

My runs in the Adios have for the most part been quite enjoyable. The shoe is fairly lightweight (just over 8oz in size 10), extremely firm, and it feels very responsive. It’s also a rather stiff shoe, more suited to racing than use as an everyday training shoe, but I can understand why this is a racing shoe of choice for many elite marathoners. It’s a shoe made for fast running. I can even see the 9mm heel differential as being useful for offloading the calf muscles a bit in a long race, particularly for those not used to running in flatter shoes. That being said, given a choice I would personally opt for less heel than what the Adios offers, particularly for training and any race shorter than a marathon (I used the Adidas Hagio for a 5K a few weeks ago and it worked out great – the Hagio is currently my favorite racing flat).

Adidas Adios 2 Top

The Adios is not without its downsides however. The interior is scratchy and not suitable for sockless running, which is not a deal breaker, but given some of the great uppers out there nowadays I find it surprising when a shoe pays seemingly little attention to interior feel. My bigger issue with the Adios is that the toebox is too tapered at the front. The width is fine at the ball of my forefoot, but from that point forward the shoe tapers to a very distinct point, which causes considerable toe scrunching, particularly the little toe. Going up a half size might help with this, but I much prefer the forefoot shape of the Hagio to that of the Adios (I do feel like the Adios runs about a half size smaller than the Hagio, which might be part of the problem). If there is one single factor that would keep the Adios out of my regular rotation, the tapered toebox would be it (a bit surprising to me as I thought the heel would be the problem).

Adidas Adios 2 HeelOne thing that I do like about the heel of the Adios is that the posterolateral heel is sculpted upward just a bit (see photo at left – the region under the black portion of the midsole). That is, the lateral portion of the heel does not rest flush with the ground when the shoe is placed on a flat surface, and this may help to avoid premature contact of the heel with the ground on the run.

Perhaps what I have enjoyed most about the Adios is simply that, as discussed above, it has helped me to confirm that my running form has indeed changed. The fact that I can run in a shoe like this one and not tear apart the heel like I used to is somewhat gratifying.

The adidas Adios is not a shoe that I would recommend to someone looking for good ground feel, and it’s not a shoe that will do much to promote form change in those who are looking for some help from a more minimal pair of shoes. That being said, it might be a good first step for someone looking to transition slowly downward if they can handle the tapered toebox. It’s also a decent choice as a racing shoe for people who do all of their miles in more traditional 12mm drop shoes – it’s not as big a deviation from what they are used to as a flat with a lower differential. For minimalists, there’s not a lot in this shoe that will appeal, but that’s not really the target audience for a shoe like this. For me, the adidas Hagio meets my needs and fits me better than the Adios, so this is probably not a shoe that will see a lot of action on my feet going forward. That being said, I’m glad that I accepted the offer to try this one out.

For an alternative take on this shoe, check out the adidas Adios 2 review by Brian Martin at Running Technique Tips.

The adidas Adizero Adios 2 is available for purchase at Running Warehouse.

Nike Free 3.0 v4: Initial Thoughts

Nike Free 3.0 v4I have a long history with the Nike Free 3.0 line. Back in early 2009, the original Free 3.0 was my first foray away from stability shoes, and it was the shoe that convinced me that I did not need a lot of support and structure in a running shoe. I fell in love with that shoe from the moment I put it on my feet, and I still have a soft spot for it.

I next used the Free 3.0 v2 a bit as a work shoe (bought a pair in black), but it somehow lacked some of the elegance of the original, and the narrowness of the 3.0 started to bother me a bit. I subsequently passed on the v3 as it represented only a minor update from the v2. The Free 3.0 v4, just released a few weeks ago, is a completely re-designed shoe from bottom to top. I thought I’d write up a few preliminary thoughts about them now that I’ve had them for about a week.

Nike Free 3.0 v4 Side

First and foremost, be warned that the 3.0 v4 is a low-volume, relatively narrow running shoe. I initially ordered my usual size 10 from Running Warehouse, but the shoe was incredibly tight and there was no way it was going to work for me. However, it looked great and seemed like my kind of shoe in all other respects (lightweight, flexible, 4mm drop, etc.), so I decided to exchange for a 10.5 and see if that would work. The 10.5 felt a bit better, but was still tighter than I typically like. I found that removing the insole improved the fit quite a bit – it’s one of those awful memory foam (aka, sensation-robbing) style insoles that I have come to despise. I swapped in the very thin insole from a pair of Skechers Go Bionics, and the fit was improved enough that I opted to keep the shoes and give them a go on a run.

Nike Free 3.0 v4 Top

The Free 3.0 v4 is a very nicely made shoe. The interior is soft and quite suitable for sockless running, and the upper is very minimal yet seems like it will be plenty durable. There is no tongue, and the shoe has the sock-like construction of early versions of the Free Run+. The pair that I bought were a vivid orange color – probably the brightest shoes that I own! My one big concern about the upper is that it is not very breathable. I wore them around town one day and my feet definitely stayed quite moist inside the shoes – the shoe needs more open mesh regions and less of the solid overlay material. I think the rather snug fit contributes to the lack of air-flow through the shoe.

Nike Free 3.0 v4 Sole

One the run the sole of the Free 3.0 retains the fantastic flexibility and soft feel of it’s predecessors in the 3.0 line (maybe a tad firmer?). The sole is 4mm drop (21mm heel, 17mm forefoot), and shoe weight is just a bit over 7oz with the insole removed. Gaps in the sole are much narrower than in previous versions which should help to prevent rock and stick collection in the gaps. I felt like the shoe stretched a bit as I ran in it, which gives me hope that a break-in period will continue to improve the fit.

I plan to put more miles on this shoe in the coming weeks, but if I had to summarize the initial pros and cons they would be as follows:

Pros – well-made, sole feels great underfoot, retains the excellent flexibility of previous versions, nice looking shoe

Cons – not very breathable, low interior volume, and narrow through the forefoot

The Nike Free 3.0 is available in a variety of colors at Running Warehouse.

Nike Free 3.0 v4: Initial Thoughts

Nike Free 3.0 v4I have a long history with the Nike Free 3.0 line. Back in early 2009, the original Free 3.0 was my first foray away from stability shoes, and it was the shoe that convinced me that I did not need a lot of support and structure in a running shoe. I fell in love with that shoe from the moment I put it on my feet, and I still have a soft spot for it.

I next used the Free 3.0 v2 a bit as a work shoe (bought a pair in black), but it somehow lacked some of the elegance of the original, and the narrowness of the 3.0 started to bother me a bit. I subsequently passed on the v3 as it represented only a minor update from the v2. The Free 3.0 v4, just released a few weeks ago, is a completely re-designed shoe from bottom to top. I thought I’d write up a few preliminary thoughts about them now that I’ve had them for about a week.

Nike Free 3.0 v4 Side

First and foremost, be warned that the 3.0 v4 is a low-volume, relatively narrow running shoe. I initially ordered my usual size 10 from Running Warehouse, but the shoe was incredibly tight and there was no way it was going to work for me. However, it looked great and seemed like my kind of shoe in all other respects (lightweight, flexible, 4mm drop, etc.), so I decided to exchange for a 10.5 and see if that would work. The 10.5 felt a bit better, but was still tighter than I typically like. I found that removing the insole improved the fit quite a bit – it’s one of those awful memory foam (aka, sensation-robbing) style insoles that I have come to despise. I swapped in the very thin insole from a pair of Skechers Go Bionics, and the fit was improved enough that I opted to keep the shoes and give them a go on a run.

Nike Free 3.0 v4 Top

The Free 3.0 v4 is a very nicely made shoe. The interior is soft and quite suitable for sockless running, and the upper is very minimal yet seems like it will be plenty durable. There is no tongue, and the shoe has the sock-like construction of early versions of the Free Run+. The pair that I bought were a vivid orange color – probably the brightest shoes that I own! My one big concern about the upper is that it is not very breathable. I wore them around town one day and my feet definitely stayed quite moist inside the shoes – the shoe needs more open mesh regions and less of the solid overlay material. I think the rather snug fit contributes to the lack of air-flow through the shoe.

Nike Free 3.0 v4 Sole

One the run the sole of the Free 3.0 retains the fantastic flexibility and soft feel of it’s predecessors in the 3.0 line (maybe a tad firmer?). The sole is 4mm drop (21mm heel, 17mm forefoot), and shoe weight is just a bit over 7oz with the insole removed. Gaps in the sole are much narrower than in previous versions which should help to prevent rock and stick collection in the gaps. I felt like the shoe stretched a bit as I ran in it, which gives me hope that a break-in period will continue to improve the fit.

I plan to put more miles on this shoe in the coming weeks, but if I had to summarize the initial pros and cons they would be as follows:

Pros – well-made, sole feels great underfoot, retains the excellent flexibility of previous versions, nice looking shoe

Cons – not very breathable, low interior volume, and narrow through the forefoot

The Nike Free 3.0 is available in a variety of colors at Running Warehouse.

Effect of Step Rate on Lower Limb Loading in Runners

Vertical GRF HeelJust over a week ago Amby Burfoot wrote a post about a new study from Japan that provides additional evidence supporting the benefits of a shorter stride for reducing loading of the lower limbs. The study by Hobara et al. is titled Step Frequency and Lower Extremity Loading During Running and was published in Orthopedics and Biomechanics. I thought I’d follow up with a few thoughts of my own.

In the study, Hobara et al. wanted to determine how increasing or decreasing step rate would influence vertical impact force and vertical impact loading rate during foot strike (see first peak on the image above or read this post for a detailed discussion of these variables). Vertical loading rate has been linked to some types of running injuries (e.g., stress fractures), and the idea was to determine whether altering stride rate could lead to alteration of loading, and thus possibly reduce injury risk.

The study itself was fairly simple. They had 10 subjects run on an instrumented treadmill at 2.5 m/s (about a 10:45 min/mile pace) at five different step rates: freely chosen step rate, and –30%, –15%, +15%, and +30% of the freely chosen step rate. Modifying step rate at a constant pace results in a change in stride length, so increased step rates lead to a shorter stride, and decreased step rates lead to a longer stride. The researchers monitored peak impact force, instantaneous vertical loading rate (VILR; this is the peak loading rate observed during impact), and average vertical loading rate (VALR) as each runner ran on the treadmill.

Results are pretty well summarized in the following figure adapted from Hobara et al. 2012 (any errors in reproduction are my own – I recreated it to avoid copyright issues):

Hobara Figure

The stars in the above figure indicate values that are significantly different from that observed at the –30% step frequency. This implies that running with a really slow step rate/long stride significantly increases impact force and the rate at which that force is applied. Though there appear to not be significant differences among the other stride frequencies, a quadratic regression analysis found that impact peak, VILR, and VALR were all minimized at a step rate of roughly 17-18% higher than the freely chosen step rate (i.e., this is the low point of the black curved lines fit to the sample data for each step frequency). Data for individuals were unfortunately not provided.

This is not the first study to suggest that a shorter, quicker stride might be beneficial when it comes to reducing loading of the lower limb. Others have found similar results (e.g., read this post on stride length and leg joint loading), and the topic has received a lot of attention of late. In fact, I wrote an entire chapter on the topic in my forthcoming book that summarizes historical advice on stride length as well as what modern science has to say about the topic. I’ve come to the conclusion that stride length is likely one of the more important form characteristics to consider when it comes to reducing injury risk. Though there is a great deal of debate about proper foot strike, most people seem to agree that overstriding is bad, and there appears to be some solid science backing this up.

Limitations of this study are that it’s difficult to say whether the results are generalizable to runners across a range of paces (all ran at a 10:45 min/mile pace here). It’s also difficult to know whether treadmill-derived results are applicable to overground running. Nonetheless, the fact that these results are consistent with previous research on the topic adds further support for the use of stride length modification as one potential tool in the prevention and treatment of running injuries.

Effect of Step Rate on Lower Limb Loading in Runners

Vertical GRF HeelJust over a week ago Amby Burfoot wrote a post about a new study from Japan that provides additional evidence supporting the benefits of a shorter stride for reducing loading of the lower limbs. The study by Hobara et al. is titled Step Frequency and Lower Extremity Loading During Running and was published in Orthopedics and Biomechanics. I thought I’d follow up with a few thoughts of my own.

In the study, Hobara et al. wanted to determine how increasing or decreasing step rate would influence vertical impact force and vertical impact loading rate during foot strike (see first peak on the image above or read this post for a detailed discussion of these variables). Vertical loading rate has been linked to some types of running injuries (e.g., stress fractures), and the idea was to determine whether altering stride rate could lead to alteration of loading, and thus possibly reduce injury risk.

The study itself was fairly simple. They had 10 subjects run on an instrumented treadmill at 2.5 m/s (about a 10:45 min/mile pace) at five different step rates: freely chosen step rate, and –30%, –15%, +15%, and +30% of the freely chosen step rate. Modifying step rate at a constant pace results in a change in stride length, so increased step rates lead to a shorter stride, and decreased step rates lead to a longer stride. The researchers monitored peak impact force, instantaneous vertical loading rate (VILR; this is the peak loading rate observed during impact), and average vertical loading rate (VALR) as each runner ran on the treadmill.

Results are pretty well summarized in the following figure adapted from Hobara et al. 2012 (any errors in reproduction are my own – I recreated it to avoid copyright issues):

Hobara Figure

The stars in the above figure indicate values that are significantly different from that observed at the –30% step frequency. This implies that running with a really slow step rate/long stride significantly increases impact force and the rate at which that force is applied. Though there appear to not be significant differences among the other stride frequencies, a quadratic regression analysis found that impact peak, VILR, and VALR were all minimized at a step rate of roughly 17-18% higher than the freely chosen step rate (i.e., this is the low point of the black curved lines fit to the sample data for each step frequency). Data for individuals were unfortunately not provided.

This is not the first study to suggest that a shorter, quicker stride might be beneficial when it comes to reducing loading of the lower limb. Others have found similar results (e.g., read this post on stride length and leg joint loading), and the topic has received a lot of attention of late. In fact, I wrote an entire chapter on the topic in my forthcoming book that summarizes historical advice on stride length as well as what modern science has to say about the topic. I’ve come to the conclusion that stride length is likely one of the more important form characteristics to consider when it comes to reducing injury risk. Though there is a great deal of debate about proper foot strike, most people seem to agree that overstriding is bad, and there appears to be some solid science backing this up.

Limitations of this study are that it’s difficult to say whether the results are generalizable to runners across a range of paces (all ran at a 10:45 min/mile pace here). It’s also difficult to know whether treadmill-derived results are applicable to overground running. Nonetheless, the fact that these results are consistent with previous research on the topic adds further support for the use of stride length modification as one potential tool in the prevention and treatment of running injuries.

Introducing My Book: Tread Lightly: Form, Footwear and the Quest for Injury-Free Running

Tread Lightly Front CoverAbout 16 months ago I received an email from a guy named Bill Katovsky asking me if I had any interest in writing a book. I didn’t know him at the time, but I had at least given thought to the idea of writing something more than another blog post. We spoke on the phone a few times, and found that we had a mutual interest in writing about running and exercise (he founded Tri-Athlete Magazine many years ago, co-authored a book titled “Bike for Life,” and more recently authored a book titled “Return to Fitness: Getting Back in Shape after Injury, Illness, or Prolonged Inactivity.” Bill is also a co-founder and editorial director of the Natural Running Center website).

Bill’s initial idea was for me to write the book and he would serve as editor and agent (which he has done for several books by Phil Maffetone), but in our conversations we came up with a concept that was going to be more than I could handle on my own given time constraints associated with my day job and being a father of three little kids. So, we agreed to co-author a book and divided up the topics that we wanted to hit upon. After a sometimes grueling process (as I hear any book-writing experience can be), Bill and I finally finished our book last month (which involved a marathon editing session while I was on vacation with my family in Disney World!).

The end product of our labors is a book titled Tread Lightly: Form, Footwear and the Quest for Injury-Free Running. The content will not come as a surprise to readers of this blog (or Bill’s Zero Drop blog). We basically address the question of why modern runners so often get hurt. We don’t pretend to provide an answer that will “cure” running injuries, but we do take what we feel is a fairly balanced look at topic as it relates to form, footwear, and food (and much more). This is by no means a barefoot running book (far from it!), or even necessarily a minimalist running book. Rather, it is a book that attempts to look at how modern humans differ from our running ancestors, what both history and modern science tell us about form, footwear, and injuries, and how this knowledge might be applied to reduce your chances of getting hurt. A lot of the questions we address still have incomplete answers, but our hope is that our writing will stimulate continued thought, research, experimentation and discussion.

Over the coming weeks you will hear more about this book, and I’ll likely post a few excerpts leading up to the official release date (June 1 according to Amazon, but could be a few weeks earlier if the current schedule holds. For now, I’ll provide the chapter titles to give you a feel for the breadth of topics that we cover:

Introduction - Pete’s Story and Bill’s Story

Chapter 1 - The Evolution of Running in Humans

Chapter 2 - Running Injuries: Why They Happen

Chapter 3 - Barefoot and Running

Chapter 4 - The Running Shoe

Chapter 5 - The Recreational Runner

Chapter 6 - Pronate Nation

Chapter 7 - Foot Strike

Chapter 8 - The Running Stride

Chapter 9 - Turning the Clock Back on Nutrition

If you are interested in pre-ordering a copy of Tread Lightly, you can do so on Amazon.com. I don’t have official confirmation that a Kindle version will be released, but I assume that this will happen (I read most books on the Kindle app on the Iphone these days, so I plan to push for it). If you’d like to help this process along, you can go to the Amazon page for Tread Lightly and click on the “Tell the Publisher: I’d like to read this book on Kindle” link just below the cover photo.

Thanks to all of you who read this blog and have offered your support over the past few years – I owe much of the thought process that led to the book’s evolution to discussions that I have had here!

Below are the front and back covers of Tread Lightly:

Tread Lightly Front CoverTread Lightly Back Cover

Introducing My Book: Tread Lightly: Form, Footwear and the Quest for Injury-Free Running

Tread Lightly Front CoverAbout 16 months ago I received an email from a guy named Bill Katovsky asking me if I had any interest in writing a book. I didn’t know him at the time, but I had at least given thought to the idea of writing something more than another blog post. We spoke on the phone a few times, and found that we had a mutual interest in writing about running and exercise (he founded Tri-Athlete Magazine many years ago, co-authored a book titled “Bike for Life,” and more recently authored a book titled “Return to Fitness: Getting Back in Shape after Injury, Illness, or Prolonged Inactivity.” Bill is also a co-founder and editorial director of the Natural Running Center website).

Bill’s initial idea was for me to write the book and he would serve as editor and agent (which he has done for several books by Phil Maffetone), but in our conversations we came up with a concept that was going to be more than I could handle on my own given time constraints associated with my day job and being a father of three little kids. So, we agreed to co-author a book and divided up the topics that we wanted to hit upon. After a sometimes grueling process (as I hear any book-writing experience can be), Bill and I finally finished our book last month (which involved a marathon editing session while I was on vacation with my family in Disney World!).

The end product of our labors is a book titled Tread Lightly: Form, Footwear and the Quest for Injury-Free Running. The content will not come as a surprise to readers of this blog (or Bill’s Zero Drop blog). We basically address the question of why modern runners so often get hurt. We don’t pretend to provide an answer that will “cure” running injuries, but we do take what we feel is a fairly balanced look at topic as it relates to form, footwear, and food (and much more). This is by no means a barefoot running book (far from it!), or even necessarily a minimalist running book. Rather, it is a book that attempts to look at how modern humans differ from our running ancestors, what both history and modern science tell us about form, footwear, and injuries, and how this knowledge might be applied to reduce your chances of getting hurt. A lot of the questions we address still have incomplete answers, but our hope is that our writing will stimulate continued thought, research, experimentation and discussion.

Over the coming weeks you will hear more about this book, and I’ll likely post a few excerpts leading up to the official release date (June 1 according to Amazon, but could be a few weeks earlier if the current schedule holds. For now, I’ll provide the chapter titles to give you a feel for the breadth of topics that we cover:

Introduction - Pete’s Story and Bill’s Story

Chapter 1 - The Evolution of Running in Humans

Chapter 2 - Running Injuries: Why They Happen

Chapter 3 - Barefoot and Running

Chapter 4 - The Running Shoe

Chapter 5 - The Recreational Runner

Chapter 6 - Pronate Nation

Chapter 7 - Foot Strike

Chapter 8 - The Running Stride

Chapter 9 - Turning the Clock Back on Nutrition

If you are interested in pre-ordering a copy of Tread Lightly, you can do so on Amazon.com. I don’t have official confirmation that a Kindle version will be released, but I assume that this will happen (I read most books on the Kindle app on the Iphone these days, so I plan to push for it). If you’d like to help this process along, you can go to the Amazon page for Tread Lightly and click on the “Tell the Publisher: I’d like to read this book on Kindle” link just below the cover photo.

Thanks to all of you who read this blog and have offered your support over the past few years – I owe much of the thought process that led to the book’s evolution to discussions that I have had here!

Below are the front and back covers of Tread Lightly:

Tread Lightly Front CoverTread Lightly Back Cover

Casual Minimalist Work Shoe Reviews: Merrell Tough Glove, Merrell Edge Glove, Vivobarefoot Aqua, Vivobarefoot Neo

Merrell Tough Glove PairI’ve spent a lot of time on this blog writing about minimalist running footwear. Much of this stems from my own personal journey from more traditional running shoes to more stripped down models. However, one of the things I have begun to notice over the past year or so is that I have a much wider tolerance for variation in running footwear than I do for casual, all-day shoes. While I don’t mind running in a shoe with a bit of heel lift, I now spend the vast majority of my shod, non-running time in zero drop shoes with a wide toebox. It’s what my feet have come to prefer, and I’d find it hard to ever go back.

One of the challenges to going zero-drop full time is that options are more limited among casual shoes, particularly shoes that are suitable to wear to work. Given that my dress code as a professor is a bit more casual than in, say, the business world, I’ve been able to manage without much trouble. I do get asked quite frequently about minimalist work and casual shoes, so I thought I’d write up a post about the current rotation of shoes that I wear to the office (and while lecturing in front of a crowd of 90+ students!).

Here are the four shoes in my current work rotation:


Merrell Tough Glove

Merrell Tough Glove TopMerrell Tough Glove sole

Merrell Tough Glove

From an appearance standpoint, the Merrell Tough Glove is my favorite of the four shoes reviewed here – it’s a really nice looking shoe. They are made of full-grain leather and are nice enough that I can wear them with a sport coat, and have done so at admissions events where I have to present to large groups of prospective students and parents. The fit is great – they hug my feet like gloves through the heel and midfoot, and widen nicely in the forefoot (though not as much as the Vivobarefoot Aquas – see below). Flexibility is excellent.

My one complaint about the Merrell Tough Glove is the sole. It’s the exact same sole as that found on the Merrell Trail Glove, and while the sole feels great on soft surfaces, it’s not as comfortable on hard ground. The heel is slightly rounded and is composed of firm rubber so it tends to concentrate pressure under the center of my calcaneus when I walk. It’s not painful, but I’d prefer a flatter, slightly softer heel in a shoe meant for walking. (Update 10/2012: The sole does seem to soften a bit with continued use – they have been my go to work shoe so far this school year.)

The Merrell Tough Glove has been discontinued, but stock is still available at Zappos. Get a pair before they’re gone forever!

 


Merrell Edge Glove

Merrell Edge Glove TopMerrell Edge Glove sole

Merrell Edge Glove

The Merrell Edge Glove is a relatively new offering in the Merrell Barefoot collection. Made of suede leather, the Edge Glove is a bit more casual than the Tough Glove. Like the Tough Glove, it is both zero drop and flexible, and offers a very roomy fit. It feels a bit roomier through the midfoot – while the Tough Glove is clearly a close cousin of the Trail Glove, I would compare the Edge Glove to the Merrell Road Glove in terms of fit and feel. Like the Road Glove, the Edge has a flatter, wider sole (particularly in the heel), and is thus more comfortable for walking on hard surfaces. However, also like the Road Glove it has a bit more support under the arch. This does not bother me, and I find the Edge Glove quite comfortable for all day wear.

If Merrell took the sole of the Edge Glove and combined it with the upper and fit of the Tough Glove you would have one fantastic shoe. As they are, both are great choices, and personal preference will largely dictate whether aspects like the heel of the Tough Glove or arch of the Edge Glove will be a problem for you.

The Merrell Edge Glove is available at Zappos.


Vivobarefoot Aqua

Vivobarefoot Aqua

The Vivobarefoot Aqua is hands down the most comfortable of all of the zero drop shoes that I wear to work. The sole is ultraflexible, the toebox is expansive, and they honestly feel like a broken-in pair of slippers. They aren’t necessarily the best looking pair of shoes, but when it comes to pure comfort they are tough to beat. I have also found them to be remarkably durable – after over a year of use there is barely any wear visible on the sole, and this despite using them almost exclusively last Spring semester and most of the Fall semester. Fantastic shoe. I have posted a full review of the Vivobarefoot Aquas here.

The Vivobarefoot Aqua is available at Planet Shoes.

The Aquas are probably not nice enough to wear with a suit, so for a shoe with a similar build you might check out the Vivobarefoot Ra. Although I have not tried them myself, I known a few people who wear the Vivobarefoot Ra with a business suit.


Vivobarefoot Neo AirmeshVivobarefoot Neo Sole

Vivobarefoot Neo

As I mentioned above, one of the benefits of my job is that I can get away with fairly casual attire and footwear. Last summer Vivobarefoot sent me a pair of black and yellow Neos to try out. I’ve worn the shoes a few times on runs, but although they give great ground feel and have a wide toebox, I’ve always felt that they looked more like a casual shoe than a running shoe (a problem with many Vivobarefoot shoes…). Furthermore, the black/yellow color combo didn’t appeal to me very much.

Several months ago Vivobarefoot released an airmesh version of the Neo, and I purchased a pair in the olive color shown above. This is definitely a casual shoe and not one you would wear on a dressier occasion, but it works fine for my work environment where I am often hanging out in a lab filled with dead animals. The Neo is a great fitting shoe like the Aqua, though the sole is a bit different – it has those hexagonal lugs seen in the photo above and is made of a firmer rubber. Despite this, it’s a super comfortable shoe for walking around, and I could use it as an ultraminimal running shoe with great ground feel should I desire to do so. Unfortunately, it appears that Vivobarefoot may have discontinued the olive colorway that I have (I really like the look of it), but a few other airmesh colorways are available at Zappos


Well, those are the four shoes I wear most often to work these days. On occasion I can go a bit further toward the casual side and be spotted in lab wearing Inov-8 Bare-X 180's(my personal favorite out-and-about shoe right now - simply awesome!), but for a laid back work environment that does not require a suit, any of these shoes would be a good choice.

If you have any other suggestions that have not been mentioned here, please share in the comments. And if you have any suggestions for minimal shoes that work with a suit (since I’ve only worn a suit only about twice in my life!) please share as well.

Casual Minimalist Work Shoe Reviews: Merrell Tough Glove, Merrell Edge Glove, Vivobarefoot Aqua, Vivobarefoot Neo

Merrell Tough Glove PairI’ve spent a lot of time on this blog writing about minimalist running footwear. Much of this stems from my own personal journey from more traditional running shoes to more stripped down models. However, one of the things I have begun to notice over the past year or so is that I have a much wider tolerance for variation in running footwear than I do for casual, all-day shoes. While I don’t mind running in a shoe with a bit of heel lift, I now spend the vast majority of my shod, non-running time in zero drop shoes with a wide toebox. It’s what my feet have come to prefer, and I’d find it hard to ever go back.

One of the challenges to going zero-drop full time is that options are more limited among casual shoes, particularly shoes that are suitable to wear to work. Given that my dress code as a professor is a bit more casual than in, say, the business world, I’ve been able to manage without much trouble. I do get asked quite frequently about minimalist work and casual shoes, so I thought I’d write up a post about the current rotation of shoes that I wear to the office (and while lecturing in front of a crowd of 90+ students!).

Here are the four shoes in my current work rotation:


Merrell Tough Glove

Merrell Tough Glove TopMerrell Tough Glove sole

Merrell Tough Glove

From an appearance standpoint, the Merrell Tough Glove is my favorite of the four shoes reviewed here – it’s a really nice looking shoe. They are made of full-grain leather and are nice enough that I can wear them with a sport coat, and have done so at admissions events where I have to present to large groups of prospective students and parents. The fit is great – they hug my feet like gloves through the heel and midfoot, and widen nicely in the forefoot (though not as much as the Vivobarefoot Aquas – see below). Flexibility is excellent.

My one complaint about the Merrell Tough Glove is the sole. It’s the exact same sole as that found on the Merrell Trail Glove, and while the sole feels great on soft surfaces, it’s not as comfortable on hard ground. The heel is slightly rounded and is composed of firm rubber so it tends to concentrate pressure under the center of my calcaneus when I walk. It’s not painful, but I’d prefer a flatter, slightly softer heel in a shoe meant for walking. (Update 10/2012: The sole does seem to soften a bit with continued use – they have been my go to work shoe so far this school year.)

The Merrell Tough Glove has been discontinued, but stock is still available at Zappos. Get a pair before they’re gone forever!

 


Merrell Edge Glove

Merrell Edge Glove TopMerrell Edge Glove sole

Merrell Edge Glove

The Merrell Edge Glove is a relatively new offering in the Merrell Barefoot collection. Made of suede leather, the Edge Glove is a bit more casual than the Tough Glove. Like the Tough Glove, it is both zero drop and flexible, and offers a very roomy fit. It feels a bit roomier through the midfoot – while the Tough Glove is clearly a close cousin of the Trail Glove, I would compare the Edge Glove to the Merrell Road Glove in terms of fit and feel. Like the Road Glove, the Edge has a flatter, wider sole (particularly in the heel), and is thus more comfortable for walking on hard surfaces. However, also like the Road Glove it has a bit more support under the arch. This does not bother me, and I find the Edge Glove quite comfortable for all day wear.

If Merrell took the sole of the Edge Glove and combined it with the upper and fit of the Tough Glove you would have one fantastic shoe. As they are, both are great choices, and personal preference will largely dictate whether aspects like the heel of the Tough Glove or arch of the Edge Glove will be a problem for you.

The Merrell Edge Glove is available at Zappos.


Vivobarefoot Aqua

Vivobarefoot Aqua

The Vivobarefoot Aqua is hands down the most comfortable of all of the zero drop shoes that I wear to work. The sole is ultraflexible, the toebox is expansive, and they honestly feel like a broken-in pair of slippers. They aren’t necessarily the best looking pair of shoes, but when it comes to pure comfort they are tough to beat. I have also found them to be remarkably durable – after over a year of use there is barely any wear visible on the sole, and this despite using them almost exclusively last Spring semester and most of the Fall semester. Fantastic shoe. I have posted a full review of the Vivobarefoot Aquas here.

The Vivobarefoot Aqua is available at Planet Shoes.

The Aquas are probably not nice enough to wear with a suit, so for a shoe with a similar build you might check out the Vivobarefoot Ra. Although I have not tried them myself, I known a few people who wear the Vivobarefoot Ra with a business suit.


Vivobarefoot Neo AirmeshVivobarefoot Neo Sole

Vivobarefoot Neo

As I mentioned above, one of the benefits of my job is that I can get away with fairly casual attire and footwear. Last summer Vivobarefoot sent me a pair of black and yellow Neos to try out. I’ve worn the shoes a few times on runs, but although they give great ground feel and have a wide toebox, I’ve always felt that they looked more like a casual shoe than a running shoe (a problem with many Vivobarefoot shoes…). Furthermore, the black/yellow color combo didn’t appeal to me very much.

Several months ago Vivobarefoot released an airmesh version of the Neo, and I purchased a pair in the olive color shown above. This is definitely a casual shoe and not one you would wear on a dressier occasion, but it works fine for my work environment where I am often hanging out in a lab filled with dead animals. The Neo is a great fitting shoe like the Aqua, though the sole is a bit different – it has those hexagonal lugs seen in the photo above and is made of a firmer rubber. Despite this, it’s a super comfortable shoe for walking around, and I could use it as an ultraminimal running shoe with great ground feel should I desire to do so. Unfortunately, it appears that Vivobarefoot may have discontinued the olive colorway that I have (I really like the look of it), but a few other airmesh colorways are available at Zappos


Well, those are the four shoes I wear most often to work these days. On occasion I can go a bit further toward the casual side and be spotted in lab wearing Inov-8 Bare-X 180's(my personal favorite out-and-about shoe right now - simply awesome!), but for a laid back work environment that does not require a suit, any of these shoes would be a good choice.

If you have any other suggestions that have not been mentioned here, please share in the comments. And if you have any suggestions for minimal shoes that work with a suit (since I’ve only worn a suit only about twice in my life!) please share as well.