Tag: Running Shoes

Hoka is currently one of the fastest growing brands in run specialty. Their radical approach of maximum cushioned shoes has and continues to win over countless runners, walkers, and those just simply looking for a comfortable shoe. With plenty of models in both road and trail running, Hoka have long since proved their popularity; they are no longer just a niche brand. Originating in 2009, during the minimalist/ barefoot running trend, Hoka was polar opposite in their philosophy, their shoes providing generous stacked cushion accompanied with a meta rocker. In keeping an open mind to the “maximalist” trend, I recently acquired the Hoka Torrent trail shoe, a new trail racer for the brand.

Specs

The Torrent is a cushioned trail racing shoe with a heel to toe drop of 5mm, and a stack height of 26mm at the heel, and 21mm at the forefoot. The shoe does not have a rock plate, given this thickness and firmness of the midsole. The shoe is very lightweight, with each shoe weighing at 7.5oz for a woman’s size 8B (which I own). The outsole features multidirectional lugs to provide traction on technical terrain.

The midsole is comprised of Hoka’s PROFLY midsole to provide energy return and shock absorption. The upper is engineered mesh to provide breathability, while rubber overlays on the toe box provide additional protection and durability. As with the majority of trail running shoes, the Torrent is a neutral shoe (it does not address pronation.)

Running Location: Bear Creek Lake Park, Morrison, CO

Starting at 8am, I ran an out and back route on a section of the Mt. Carbon Loop, a simple single-track trail. I started from Soda Lakes parking lot just outside Morrison, then made my way east along the sidewalk and under the C-470 underpass, then hopped onto the trail. It was a brisk but sunny day, with the trail still covered in snow. As it was early in the day, the snow had not yet thawed, and was still firm: no sloppiness or mud. Overall elevation averages 5,568 ft.

First Impression

Immediately upon trying these, the cushion is noticeably firmer than the uber popular Speedgoat trail shoe, which I own as well. I always describe the Speedgoat as a pillow beneath my foot, with the midsole having a stack height of 32mm at the heel, and 28mm at the forefoot; the shoe is very plush. The Torrent on the other hand lacks this plushness, and has a stack height several centimeters lower. For those who prefer a firmer shoe, or are intimidated by the amount of cushion and stack height in the Speedgoat and Stinson models, this new model can be an option when considering Hoka trail shoes. And whereas the Speedgoat has a true meta rocker that provides a smoother heel to toe transition, I didn’t feel much of one while running in the Torrent. I do like the feel of the rocker whenever I wear my Speedgoats, but it is not necessarily something I always want to have while running; hence, the Torrent is a nice way to vary things up.

Size wise, I find the Torrent runs long. Normally I wear 8.5B, but for this shoe I went with 8B, and I still have plenty of room. With trail shoes especially extra room is ideal, to avoid jamming the toes when running downhill, and to accommodate for swelling. But to be honest, even wearing my thickest wool socks, the 8B still fits just a tad bit big. But personal preference always plays a huge role in selecting and trying on shoes, so if you really like a roomy fit, Torrent fits this bill. As with most Hokas I have tried, the width of this shoe is a little wider. If you found Hoka Challenger too narrow or Hoka Stinson too wide for your liking, Torrent is a good option. Wearing the Torrent and Speedgoat side by side, I find the width to be about the same.

I ran about five miles total, the snow underfoot a crunchy, dry consistency. The lugs provided great traction and I had zero issues with sliding; I felt secure the whole run. I felt snappy in these shoes and can see how they are trail racers, with their lightness and superior grip along the ground. Regarding route technicality, the section I ran is very flat, with a small rise of a few hundred feet or so. This incline posed no trouble for the shoes as I scrambled up to take in Bear Creek Reservoir. Running back down the lugs still did their job of offering great control.

Regarding comfort, I like the softness of the Speedgoat but like how the stack height is lower in the Torrent. Hoka shoes are about muting the feeling of the ground underneath; a rock plate is not necessary for these shoes at all with the PROFLY midsole providing plenty of protection underfoot. I ran in the Torrent with no orthotics, and as I have higher arches, I can see myself using my Currex insoles with the shoes to further customize the fit. The Torrent’s mesh upper sits a little higher above the foot, giving a some wiggle room for the feet, while the Speedgoat upper hugs the foot more. I did not experience any heel slipping.

I am quite impressed with the Hoka Torrent. I appreciate the lower stack height and the firmer cushion is a nice break from higher cushioned Hokas. The tread performed wonderfully in the snow, so I can only assume that on dry conditions the lugs would be just as efficient on dirt and technical terrain. The sizing I find a little big, but then again that may be due to preference. If you are wanting to try a Hoka trail shoe but don’t want to commit to a greater stack height or higher cushioning level, drop by your local running store to give these shoes a try! They are ideal not just for running but can easily be used for hiking as well. The Torrent is available in various color options for both men and women, and retails at $120.

~LMC

*Disclaimer: I am in no way sponsored, paid by, or affiliated with the brands/ items mentioned in this post. I write simply to inform other runners like myself of products that may interest them.

The Adrenaline GTS is THE #1 running shoe, and has been for a long time. In fact, GTS stands for “go to shoe.” Any running aficionado or running shoe nerd is familiar with the GTS. A staple for countless runners, Brooks Adrenaline is a stability shoe, or that it is structured to help correct pronation (inward rolling of the ankles).

I am a prime candidate for a stability shoe, as I overpronate quite a bit, especially off my left ankle. Just recently I ran for the first time in the latest version of Adrenaline GTS 19. Here are the specs and my thoughts.

Modifications/ Specs

All Adrenaline up until the GTS 19 have always had a medial post, or posting. A post is a denser piece of foam on the medial, or inside corner of the shoe, just under the arch. Most stability running shoes will have a post, which is usually visible. Feel along the midsole cushioning, and if you feel a firmer block of foam along the arch, you have located the post.

For GTS 19, Brooks eliminated the post; instead the stability structure are GuideRails, or extra foam along the foot bed frame of the shoe. In fact, the medial GuideRail is clearly labeled on the shoes, with a smaller GuideRail on the outside heel:

The idea behind GuideRails is more about guiding, not correcting, one’s stride. Think of corralling the ankle, and going along with natural biomechanics, as most folks pronate to some degree. Essentially, Brooks is emphasizing the idea of dynamic or holistic support, in shifting the focus from “beyond the feet, to the most injury-prone part of a runner’s body: the knees. GuideRails keep you moving comfortably by keeping excess movement in check,” as the official Brooks website describes GTS 19.

Plus, I suspect Brooks removed the post to further lighten the shoe. As a general rule of thumb, stability shoes are heavier than neutral, or non-structured shoes. Anytime a shoe has denser materials, it is bound to be heavier—even clunky, depending on how structured the shoe is. By eliminating the post and opting for GuideRails, GTS 19 feels more light weight, at 9.6oz per shoe. The midsole drop, or difference in height from heel to toe, remains the same at 12mm.

This shoe contains BioMoGo DNA and DNA LOFT cushioning, which the Brooks website describes as providing a “just right softness underfoot without losing responsiveness and durability.” The shoe indeed feels especially plush and cushioned for being a support shoe.

First Impression/ Thoughts

I ran in GTS 19 for the first time while doing a group speed workout. Running outside on a concrete path, we warmed up by jogging for several minutes. Right away I noticed how light weight the shoes are; if I didn’t know any better I’d say I was running in a neutral, or unstructured, shoe. Having run in posted shoes plenty of times before, I could tell right away there were no posts under my arches. Fit wise, Brooks tend to be roomier, and wider across the toe box. Brooks can run long in their sizing, at least for my feet, so opted to go down a half size to a women’s US 8.

Size and fit wise, size 8 was perfect for me. My toes still had some wiggle room, with no “sloppiness.” After warm up, we divided the group into three teams for a relay of several meters. I’ve never considered myself a sprinter, but when it was my turn, I felt super fast in GTS 19.

“Snappy” is the word I like to apply to these shoes. Running all out several times, the shoes hugged my feet like a glove. The cushioning felt very responsive, without too much give. GTS 19 are not clunky relics from the past; they are light weight, well cushioned, and very comfortable. From my first run in them, I am well impressed. Granted, this was a short workout for me, at 3 miles; most of my runs average 7-8 miles, and I’m not running sprints. I can, and have, experienced ankle pain if I do not have enough support for longer runs. My left ankle rolls in pretty badly…But would I use GTS 19 for short runs and speed workouts? Absolutely. Longtime fans of Brooks Adrenaline will appreciate the cushioning, sleek design, and “snappiness” of the shoe. For those wanting to break away from a posted shoe, GTS 19 is a great option. If you’re concerned that GuideRails are not sufficient support, I would strongly suggest putting an orthotic or insert in the shoes for added stability. That way, you still get to enjoy the cushion and energy response from this shoe.

Brooks Adrenaline GTS 19 is available in several colors in both men’s and women’s, and retails at $130.

~LMC

*Disclaimer: I am in no way sponsored, paid by, or affiliated with the brands/ items reviewed in this post. I write simply to inform other runners like myself of products that may interest them.

When you’re a running addict, you become more interested (read: obsessed) in finding the right shoe…or shoes, depending on the terrain and distance you run. The other morning I demoed the women’s Saucony Xodus ISO 3, a trail running shoe.

Road v. Trail Shoes

The main difference between road versus trail running shoes is that the latter have a more aggressive outsole, or tread. With lugs varying in shape, size, and placement, trail running shoes essentially provide better traction, durability and protection on dirt and rocky surfaces. Many, but not all, trail shoes have a rock plate, a carbon or plastic layer embedded in the midsole to provide additional protection for the feet. You can run in road shoes on a trail, granted that the terrain is not technical (ie, very rocky or slick), but you won’t have the same traction, or protection to keep your feet from being bruised by rocks. Plus, the shoe will wear faster than on a road surface. With these factors, this is where it is especially nice to break out a trail shoe.

Specs

The Xodus ISO 3 is a moderately cushioned trail running shoe with an aggressive outsole; the tread has what I call “bite,” with very visible lugs. The midsole is composed of EverRun, Saucony’s cushioning system. There is no rock plate in this shoe, as the overall 24.5 mm thickness of the midsole provides plenty of underfoot protection.The drop, or difference from heel to toe height is only 4 mm; this will certainly appeal to those looking for a more natural structured shoe. I find that the lower the drop, or less heel elevation, the less I heel strike. The weight of the Xodus as a pair is 11.5 oz, not a super light weight shoe being trail, but certainly lighter than my Salomon Speedcross 4 . My go to trail shoes, the Speedcross weigh in at 1 lb 2 oz., have extremely aggressive large lugs, and much less cushion.

The lacing system is the ISO fit, in that the eyelets are placed on a finger like design; refer to photos. According to Saucony’s website, the ISO lacing is a “revolutionary fit system that morphs to the foot for a custom feel.”

Demo Location

I took these shoes for a spin at Hildebrand Ranch Park, by the Dakota Hogback southwest of Denver. I did about 4 mile loop on the Two Brands Trail. Departing from the trail head parking lot, the route is mostly single track cutting through fields. Adjacent to the Trailmark neighborhood, parts of the trail turn into a wide, maintained dirt path. The trail then loops back to the single track. There are some slight hills, but no strenuous climbs. Overall elevation is about 6,000 ft.

First Impression

Upon putting on the shoes, I noted how there is no traditional split tongue. Rather, the shoe is like a glove in that it hugs, with no tongue to worry about moving or being displaced while running. When it comes to overall fit around the toe, I prefer a wider toe box, to allow room for swelling and toe splay. The Xodus ISO 3 fulfills this requirement nicely. Size wise, the shoe seems to fit true. I wore my normal size, women’s 8.5, and my toes did not feel cramped at all. Regarding the arch, I have higher arches, and would have liked a bit more support underneath. The heel cuff felt snug without being uncomfortable, and I did not experience any heel slip once running. As for the ISO lacing, the laces snugged up nicely and did not bunch up or crease the upper strangely.

Out on the trail, I had more than enough traction. Two Brands trail is not technical at all, as it mostly packed dirt. I could easily have ran with road shoes, to be honest. Still, I appreciated the extra grip, more so on the slight uphills. With the lower drop, I could feel myself running with more a midfoot strike, which is more much natural than heel striking.

The shoe felt cushioned without being overly plush. Trail shoes are neutral, or that they are unstructured; they will not provide true correction for overpronation, or ankles rolling inward. Given the nature of trail running, as you dodge and jump over obstacles, your ankles will be moving any which way. My ankles, particularly my left, roll in a lot, but I still felt this shoe provided a decent amount of support, even on my left foot. The midsole is firm enough to encourage my wayward ankles to stabilize somewhat.

Comfort wise, this shoe was a enjoyable ride. It wasn’t a super long run to really test out whether there would be chafing or pressure point issues, but for the four miles I never experienced any discomfort. I do wish this shoe hugged just a tad bit more in the midfoot, like my narrower fitting Speedcross do, to provide a feeling of additional security and custom fit. To fix the lack of arch support in the Xodus, one could easily place an insert that better matches the arches.

Final Thoughts

Saucony Xodus ISO 3 is a great shoe for those looking for a middle cushion trail running shoe with aggressive tread. If you have a wider foot or just prefer a roomier fit, try this shoe! I can easily see this shoe being used as a hiking shoe (I use trail shoes all the time for hiking). With the grippy outsole, these shoes can certainly tackle rocky and wet terrain. And for those looking for a minimal drop without having to commit to zero drop, this shoe is a good start.

So, the final questions are: would I run in these again and recommend them to a friend? Yes  and yes! Plus, looks wise, I love the color of the women’s Xodus! Such a stunning teal color. The other color available is a dark silver with yellow accents. The men’s version is available in olive green, and also in black with yellow accents. This shoe retails at $150, which for the comfort, cushion, toe box room, and tread, is worth it.

~LMC

*Disclaimer: I am in no way sponsored, paid by, or affiliated with the brands/ items reviewed in this post. I write simply to inform other runners like myself of products that may interest them. 🙂

As an avid runner, having the right shoe is paramount. Comfort is key. It blows my mind that I used to run in my actual tennis shoes, which are like bricks: they’re sturdy and have no flexibility or cushion whatsoever. Great for stabilization on the court, for explosive moment and cutting type maneuvers…but for running, not so much.

As I increased my mileage in college during my junior and senior years, I knew I wanted, needed, a true running shoe. I had zero knowledge about actual running shoes, but I knew I needed something much lighter and flexible. As my senior year approached, my answer for running shoes was solved…via my grandma! I was visiting my grandparents for a few days in August 2013, two weeks before classes started. On the second to last day, my awesoma Grama Brenda came into my room holding a shoe box.

“Leah, darling,” she said with her beautiful English accent, “your Grandfather gave these to me for my birthday, but they don’t fit me. Would like to have these if they fit you?” Whereupon she proffered me the box.

Inside was a pair New Balance shoes, of a medium gray color with blue laces and trim. I’d never worn New Balance shoes before, but recognized the brand’s distinct “N” emblazoned on the sides. I quickly laced them on.

Right away I felt the difference: these shoes were flexible, comfy, and best of all, light weight. I knew I’d found an actual shoe for running.

“They’re a perfect fit! Thank you, Grandma,” I exclaimed with a hug. She stepped back and took in the sight of my new shoes. “They look wonderful on you, my dear. Glad to know they’ll be put to use!”

****

And were they ever. With my 2014 resolution to just, well, run more, I wore my New Balance 401s EVERY SINGLE DAY. With them, I practically flew. The difference between them and my tennis shoes was night and day; no longer was I clomping by. As I exponentially increased my mileage and frequency that year (I ran 6-7 days a week, 7-8 miles per run on average), those shoes practically became attached to me. In addition to running, they served as my gym/ strength conditioning shoes. I wore them to class and for walking. Unless I was dressed in my other outfit of t-shirt, jeans, and cowboy boots (Ariat or Justin), you were hard pressed to find me wearing other shoes.

In May 2014, I went to study abroad for a month in Spain, and you guessed it, those shoes came with me. Running along the streets of Barcelona, these shoes provided comfort on the often cobbled pathways and roads. Once back home for the summer, those NB traversed plenty of local trails, as well.

There’s no doubt I wore those shoes waaay past their lifetime. One day in late 2014, they just felt…flat. My feet felt like they were slapping the pavement. The cushion was long gone. I stopped, looked at the underside of one shoe. The tread under the ball of the foot and toes was worn smooth. Setting my foot back on the cement, I noted how my toes, particularly the right foot, had poked holes in the upper mesh of either shoe. They were so bad you could tell what color my socks were. I sighed. “Time for new shoes, I guess,” I muttered, before resuming the rest of my run, my feet noticeably whining, as I brainstormed the where and what for a new shoe…

~LMC