By Brian Metzler

Is it possible to run in minimalist shoes on the trails? Yes, for sure, but it depends on the types of trails you run most often, how nimble of a runner you are and how much you really want to feel every rock, root, pebble and stick under your feet. It also depends on how you’ll be running, fast or slow, long or short. And, of course, it depends on what type of minimalist shoe you choose from your quiver — or your shoe closet or garage, whichever it may be.

After years of having just a few agile, lightweight trail running shoes to choose from, the move to more minimally designed shoes has created a plethora of light, low-profile models for 2012. Runners who spend most of their time on roads, bike paths and highly manicured trails and only occasionally dabble on semi-technical routes will love a lot of these models. Still, while all of the shoes listed below get high marks for being light, flexible and agile, some offer very little protection against the various obstacles you might encounter on the trails. There’s definitely a performance vs. comfort/protection trade-off running on the trails. (You might find yourself tip-toeing every single rock, watching the ground too much or just slowing down if you wear very minimally designed shoes on semi-technical trails.) Instead of running in the most minimally designed shoes available, it might be smart to choose the shoes that enhance your running on the trails you run. Your feet will know what feels best.

Most of the new spring models hit stores this month, but a few won’t be available until late spring or summer. The next Running Times technical trail shoe review will be published in our June issue. (The next technical review of minimally designed road running shoes will be in our April issue, which comes out in early March.) In the meantime, here’s a quick rundown of some of best new models you’ll see at running stores soon. This overview includes shoes that have been test-run on trails as well as previews of models viewed at the recent Outdoor Retailer trade show. (All weights listed are for men’s size 9.0.)

ASICS Fuji Racer

ASICS Fuji Racer — This kind of lightweight, minimally cushioned trail shoe has been missing in ASICS’ arsenal for a few years, especially as the Trail Attack has become bulkier and more cushioned. The Fuji Racer ($110, 8.7 oz.) is built with a 10mm heel-to-toe drop, has up a snug fit from heel to toe and has holes for water drainage. It’s a light and fast shoe, but it offers only a little protection against sharp, jagged obstacles on the trails.

Brooks Pure Grit

Brooks Pure Grit — As one of the first four shoes in the Pure Project line, the Pure Grit ($100, 8.9 oz.) is designed to let a nimble runner feel the trail. It has a 4mm heel-toe offset, and a meshy but still supportive upper and a unique concave outsole low, widely spaced lugs that absorbs the trail in all directions. The advent of the Pure Grit means the popular Cascadia 6 gets rightfully bumped back to the stability/protection mantle, given that it was never that light or agile in the first place. The Pure Grit doesn’t offer much protection, but it has enough midsole foam to keep most underfoot stingers at bay.

GoLite TR63

GoLite TR63 — GoLite footwear has gone through some changes in recent years, including a new ownership group. The brand has re-established itself with several quality casual models before re-entering the trail running shoe sector. The TR63 is lightweight ($130, 8.7 oz.) with minimalist undertones (a 2mm heel-toe drop) and a unique beveled foot platform that takes the place of traditional medial posting. (It slopes down to the lateral side, creating a 3mm higher midsole height under the medial side of the foot.) As with previous GoLite shoes, the TR63 (due out in July) is customizable with three forefoot inserts that increase or decrease the volume of the shoe.

Hoka Stinson Evo Trail

Hoka Stinson Evo Trail — Hoka’s “oversized technology” — essentially a lot more foam and a much wider outsole — is spearheading the maximalism movement, a trend which utilizes tenets of natural running and good form in a different way than the minimalist movement. (Think of the sweet spot of an oversized tennis racket, the floatation of powder ski or snowboard or those newfangled widebody mountain bike tires.) The thick, soft foam of the Stinson Evo ($170, 11.0 oz.) absorbs impact and any protuberances, while the rockered geometry of the undercarriage and outsole (8mm heel-toe drop) seems to encourage forward momentum. Yes, it is completely different than anything you’ve ever run in and takes some getting used to and, no, it isn’t for everybody. But it’s very much a performance-oriented concept and not a gimmick.

La Sportiva Vertical K

LaSportiva Vertical K — LaSportiva has been making great short-distance trail racers for technical trails for many years. The Vertical K ($115, 6.9 oz.) follows that format, with a lighter, softer and more flexible shoe more conducive to both short- and long-distance running. It has a 4mm heel-toe drop and, true to the brand’s heritage, a sticky rubber outsole. The ride is semi-soft but reliably grippy, given the climbing rubber under foot.

Montrail Rogue Fly

Montrail Rogue Fly — Although the heel-toe drop of this shoe (10mm) is fairly traditional, it feels a like it’s a lot less than that — or at least it doesn’t get in the way. Lighter and lower to the ground than last year’s Rogue Racer, the Rogue Fly ($105, 7.7 oz.) is a lightweight racer designed for smooth to mild trails, although an agile runner might still enjoy it on more technical routes, too. It has a low-profile set of lugs that can handle smooth trails and rocky roots.

Montrail Bajada

Montrail Bajada — This is the more technical complement to the Rogue Racer, or perhaps just a better version of a neutral, cushioned shoe geared for a wide variety of surfaces in the mountains. Like the Rogue Fly, the Bajada ($110, 10.3 oz.) is also built with a 10mm heel-toe drop, but, like the Rogue Fly, you don’t feel the heel when you’re running over rocks, roots and other debris. (However, the thick heel is more noticeable on smooth trails or roads.) It’s not nearly as light as the Rogue Fly, but it has a much more substantial construction that is conducive to running ultra-distance mountain races.

New Balance Minimus MT 00

New Balance Minimus MT 00 — New Balance continues to evolve its Minimus line this spring, with 0mm heel-toe drop road and trail version. The Minimus “Zero Trail” ($110, 4.4 oz.) is a featherweight model made from surprisingly durable materials, including smartly placed pods of Virbam outsole rubber and a unique paper-thin rip-stop mesh upper that is puncture resistant but also very breathable. This is definitely a “barely-there” shoe, one geared for nimble runners who are very light on their feet.

Salomon S-Lab Fellcross

Salomon S-Lab Fellcross — This is somewhat akin to an updated version of the SpeedCross 3 in that it has a knobby outsole inspired by felling running shoe and it’s fairly light, agile and snug-fitting. Because of all of those things, the Fellcross ($170, 10 oz.) runs nimbly and securely on a variety of terrain types — wet grass, gravel, loose dirt, rocks, etc. — but still has ample cushioning and protection. (Like a lot of Salomon shoes, it has a fairly chunky heel, but the heel-forefoot offset is lower at only 9.5mm.) It has a hydrophobic upper, which is helpful in cold, wet weather but it tends to run hot in mild and warmer weather.

Salomon S-Lab Sense

Salomon S-Lab Sense — (Not yet trail tested.) This is essentially the Kilian Jornet pro model. It’s the shoe he won the Western States 100 and Ultra-Trail du Mont-Blanc in last year, among other races. It’s lightweight and much lower to the ground (plus only a 4mm heel-toe offset) than most Salomon shoes and is built for running on a variety of surfaces. The S-Lab Sense ($200, 6.9 oz.) will have limited distribution in the U.S., but that’s partly because not every store is going to carry a shoe with that kind of price tag. (Available later this spring.)

Saucony Kinvara TR

Saucony Kinvara TR — (Not yet trail tested.) You knew this one was coming, right? Saucony’s success with the Kinvara and Kinvara 2 road shoes has lead to a similar model for the trails. The Peregrine was Saucony’s initial trail shoe with minimalist stylings, but the Kinvara Trail ($100, 8.5 oz.) takes things one step further with a 4mm drop (14mm in the heel, 10mm in the forefoot), a TPU protection plate and a flat-lugged outsole with bits of high traction rubber. (Available in late spring.)

Scarpa Spark

Scarpa Spark — Scarpa, like a few other trail shoe brands, has a heritage in hard-core mountaineering and ski mountaineering. As a result, most of its initial trail running models have been built with a burly demeanor. But the Spark ($115, 9.5 oz.) is a departure of sorts; it’s a fairly lightweight mountain runner with good traction, flexibility and enough protection without being overbuilt. (It has a 6mm heel-toe offset.) It’s not quite as light as some of the others here, but it offers durability and protection for technical trails without sacrificing runability.

Skechers GoTrail

Skechers GoTrail — (Not yet trail tested.) Skechers surprised everyone last year with the launch of its lightweight, rocker-profiled GoRun. Among the next real running models this mega brand is bringing to market in August is the GoTrail ($80, 7.8 oz.), a similarly styled shoe (4mm heel-toe drop) with a gusseted tongue, slightly more rubber on the heel of the outsole for downhill braking and slightly more room in the toe box. It appears to be best for less technical trails, but it does have a reinforce toe box and durable materials.

The North Face Single-Track Hayasa

The North Face Single-Track Hayasa — The Hayasa ($110, 8.9 oz.) has somewhat of a personality — it that runs as well on mountain trails as it does on paved roads. It’s a lightweight trainer with a low-to-the-ground feel (and a 10mm heel-toe-drop, but it doesn’t skimp on protection or support, either. The Hayasa has a stabilizing, cushioned heel and protective midfoot plate to keep sharp objects at bay, yet it has the flexibility for speed and the agility to conquer technical terrain.

By Brian Metzler

Running shoes are a unique commodity. They can make anyone a runner.

Wearing a pair of running shoes means a person cares about their fitness and is quite possibly training for a race, even if “fitness” and “training” are very relative terms. Running shoes immediately identify a person as a runner, no matter if that person is training hard to run a 2:20 marathon or hardly training just to finish a 4:40 (or 5:50) marathon. Running shoes have never had the “cool” pop culture buzz that basketball shoes have had — mostly because the masses don’t find running to be cool, or at least not as cool as basketball — which is why hip-hop rappers don’t wear running shoes in their videos.

Even though a gazillion running shoes are sold every year, the big running shoe brands rarely advertise their new kicks on TV. I presume it’s mostly because TV ads are expensive and, well, because, I would assume, there are more overweight couch potatoes watching TV than fit runners. (Just a hunch.) Not only that, but if you think about, it’s only serious runners who truly identify themselves as runners when their not actually running or wearing running shoes.

When everyone else sits down to watch TV, they become hardcore football fans, reality TV aficionados, random interpreters of pop culture and mostly lethargic, uninspired people who veg out in front of the boob tube. In other words, typical Americans. OK, that’s harsh, but you get the point. Why would a running shoe brand want to advertise to those people when they don’t really want to be known as runners or joggers or whatever it is they are when they’re elbow-deep in a bag of Doritos. The point is that running shoe brands know there are other ways to reach those runner/jogger types when they want to be reached.

Anyway, the idea about running shoe brands not advertising on TV will become a moot point this weekend when adidas launches its new campaign for its new adizero Rush, a flashy 7.5-ounce model geared for quick turnover and moderate to high-mileage running.

adidas adizero Rush

Here’s the thing, though, adidas and its agency smartly didn’t use the message of traditional distance running in its new 30-second spot. At first glance, it didn’t seem to be about endurance training, fitness, road running or racing at all. Nor does it talk about buzzwords like minimalist design or heel-toe drop or stability. Instead, it celebrated the energy of high school sports and depicted a  bunch of high school cheerleaders, marching band members, middle-aged coaches and even TV reporters giving chase to three super-fit athletes out in front of the pack as they head to what looks like a high school football stadium.

But if you watch the spot again and again — something you can do with the modern conveniences of YouTube if you’re a real running shoe geek and want to get a good look at the shoe — you realize the message in the ad for the adizero Rush is all about lightweight, minimalist design, endurance training, and even road running and racing. Several scenes actually look like a 5K or 10K road race, especially in the segments when the camera is behind the runners and you don’t notice the costumes, and the three runner athletes out front appear to be finishing a workout. (The Rush is a lightweight trainer but not quite as minimalist as the adizero Rocket or even the adizero Adios 2, especially because it has some newfangled stability measures built into the mix. But remember, minimalist doesn’t always mean a zero-drop shoe. In this case, it means featherweight design with a good feel for the ground in the forefoot, which is really all that needs to be communicated to most runners.)

In the commercial, everyone is running to a stadium, but the stadium is empty and there isn’t a football game being played. Upon watching it a couple of times, you’ll see the spot depicts running as part of the fabric of sports and even of everyday life. And it makes running appear “cool,” even if running isn’t the main theme of the spot.

There are many more metaphors aimed at inspiring non-hardcore runners to buy these running shoes, some blatant, some a little more subtle. The ad, which was created by an agency called 180 Los Angeles, is pure genius on several fronts. First, it makes the point that everyone can be a runner or an athlete if they train. Secondly, it speaks to a variety of potential user groups — specifically the runner/jogger types who aren’t always identified as runners, but also to the hardcore runners who can’t helped be intrigued by the shoe and the running imagery on the screen. (Athlete or otherwise, anyone can connect with someone in the cross-section of life wearing the shoes while running through the streets in this ad.)

Lastly, the ad helps adidas speak about a new generation of lightweight, low-profile and minimally built running shoes without having to beat novices, beginners and joggers over the head with the technospeak of the running shoe revolution we’ve all been talking about since 2009 or so. By watching this ad, a potential customer doesn’t need to know about midfoot gait strikes, recent studies about foot strikes and running economy, heel-toe drops or any of the hyperbole in “Born to Run.” They just have to associate with things like running, training, being fit, being competitive and being light on your feet enough to think, “I need to buy a pair of those.”

However, whether or not the average viewer actually buys a pair and starts training like an athlete or even a just-finish-it jogger is an entirely different story. And it’s quite possibly a story with which adidas doesn’t need to be concerned in the short term — although if they do make that sale, in the long-term view, adidas has loads of other gear and apparel to sell them, too. But this ad would seem to be geared at one-time sales to people (high school kids or adults) who want to improve their fitness, not necessarily converting impressionable couch potatoes to lifelong runners. And that’s just fine. It’s a great ad with loads of energy.

Running shoes are a unique commodity, but ultimately, they can’t make just anyone a runner.

Brian Metzler is a senior editor and web editor of Running Times.

By Brian Metzler

If you live in a snowy climate, getting your daily fix on the roads or the trails can be a challenge. A lack of traction means you’re often reduced to a survival shuffle. That’s great for maintaining your aerobic base, but it doesn’t help if you really need to run faster.

For running primarily on icy, snow-packed roads (and smooth to moderately technical trails), you can spend $20-$45 on temporary after-market cleats like ICEtrekkers, Kahtoola MicroSpikes, Stabilicers or Yaktrax Pro to your regular running shoes. Or you can retrofit a pair of trainers by inserting screws (3/8” hexagonal-headed #4 or #6 sheet metal screws work best because they offer many sharp edges) into the perimeter of the outsole. Use 10–12 screws per shoe (price: about $3-$5), depending on shoe size. Start by poking or drilling a tiny hole into the rubber and then

IceSpikes

twisting the screws into the sole. For $25, you can invest in a set of IceSpikes, which includes 32 hardened steel screws with specifically designed jagged heads for running on snowy roads, plus a hex-head driver.

Each option can work quite well, with the do-it-yourself screws, Stabilicers Sport, ICEtrekkers Spikes, Yaktrax Pro and IceSpikes interfering least with the natural flex of your shoe. ICEtrekkers Diamond Grip, Kahtoola MicroSpikes and Yaktrak XTR Extreme tend to work better in deeper snow and on trails.

By Brian Metzler

In case you haven’t noticed, there are a lot of new running shoe brands making waves these days. You’ve probably seen some on the shoe wall at your favorite running store. Others you’ve seen in glossy magazine ads, and a few you’ve actually seen on the feet of fellow runners.

Altra, Ecco, Hoka, Keen, Kigo, K-Swiss, Newton, Oboz, ON Running, Scott, Skora, Soft Star, Somnio, Terra Plana, Under Armour, Vibram and Zem are just a few of the brands that have burst on the running shoe scene in recent years. Heck, even Skechers — one of the arbiters of teenage cool in the footwear world — has a new line of real running shoes this year. In all, there are more than 50 shoe brands competing for your business.

Skechers GOrun

(The new Skechers GOrun shoes are quite good, with a smooth-riding, low-to-the-ground, minimally cushioned feel. They weigh in at just 6.9 oz. for a men’s size 9 and have a scant 4mm heel-toe drop. And after Sunday’s NYC Marathon, where new poster boy Meb Keflezighi ran a PR 2:09:13, you’ve gotta believe those shoes will be selling like hotcakes this week.)

Some of the new brands have made compelling scientific claims, while others have talked about avoiding injuries. (Yes, a few have made some rather perplexing claims, too.) Fortunately, some of these new brands have smartly reminded us that, first and foremost, running should be fun, and have thankfully left the techno jargon and trendy fads behind. (We don’t lace up the shoes every day because we’re expressionless monks, do we?)

However, the notion of new running brands popping up isn’t a new trend. If you’re a lifelong runner, you’ve gotten used to brands like ASICS, New Balance, Nike, adidas, Brooks, Saucony and Mizuno dominating the entire running bandwidth — from top international athletes to the shoe wall at your local running store.

But if you’re a lifelong runner, you also remember the names of Etonic, Diadora, Pony, Converse and LA Gear, just to name a few, that have gone the way of mail-in race registrations and, not ironically, the 13-ounce training shoe. (I remember running about 1,000 miles in a pair of 13-ounce Converse trainers during the summer of 1988.) And you know that many brands were once prominent players, only to vanish for a while before making a comeback. (Puma recently stormed back into the fray, while Etonic is in the midst of yet another comeback.)

What’s the point? The running shoe industry — even though generally built on the long-term fitness goals of healthy, dedicated individuals — can be horribly prone to gimmicks, extravagant marketing campaigns and fashion, and as a result, also very fickle. You do remember shoes with “The Pump,” don’t you?

As much as running is a lifelong passion for most of us, for better or for worse, it’s also a recreational activity that attracts Johnny Come Latelys, both in people (if you hear, “just want to finish” or “need to lose some weight,” then you know what that’s all about) and shoe companies. And, as a result, running shoes — a disposable commodity that are purchased at 2-3 times per year by most runners — are prone to vast marketing and advertising campaigns trying to attract new customers, born-agains (runners, that is) and, yes, even us lifelongers.
 
But that doesn’t mean all new brands are just flash-in-the-pan fluff. Yes, some of the newfangled design ideas are definitely gimmicks, but some actually push industry-wide innovation. And after 25 years of making shoes heavier and larger, most of the big brands needed a swift kick in the ass.

So are the new shoe brands credible? Are the new models worth a try? Just as with the range of models offered from the big brands, some of them are, some of them aren’t. Finding a shoe that works for you comes down to personal fit and performance, regardless of the brand. Whether you’re willing to trying something new depends on a lot of factors, including whether or not you happen to find them at your local running shop.

The challenge for both the new shoe companies and the runners who might be customers is that the new, smallish brands are often hard to find. Often those new brands just can’t get enough shelf space at running stores to make a go of it, even if their shoes are pretty good. END and Li Ning are two start-up brands that recently folded despite having some decent initial models.

While more than a dozen new brands popped up this year alone, there’s a good chance many of the new manufacturers mentioned above won’t be around in a few years. Despite continued growth in running participation numbers and running shoe sales, consolidation is inevitable, if for the simple fact that running shops and big box retailers can’t afford to overpopulate their shoe wall with brands that don’t sell as well as others. The best brands will survive, but by best, I don’t necessarily mean the brands with the shoes that run the best, unfortunately. The brands that survive will be the ones that produce good shoes, do a good job of marketing their products, support the retailers with on-time deliveries and well-made shoes, maintain at least modest market share, and perhaps, get a little lucky, too.

That’s a tall order, one that clearly favors the established manufacturers. But given the impact and innovation a few of the new brands have already made, a few certainly will stick around.

by Katie Wolpert

Purchasing running pants online, or even trying to compare different brands from store to store is kind of like trying to pick the best watermelon. They all look the same. In this case, black. In this brief guide we give you more of the details that you need to pick the pair that’s best for you and your needs.

Mizuno Breath Thermal Pant:
$84.99

What I’m talking about when I’m talking about running pants. They are made of lightweight fabric that still manages to provide some protection from the wind. The inner facing has a soft, cloth-like feel. Drawstring, zipper pockets, ankle zippers: everything you need, nothing you don’t and breathability. A perfect, all-purpose winter running pant. Mizuno’s breath thermal technology claims to wick away the moisture from your sweat while maintaining the heat that you’ve produced so that your pants actively keep you warm, rather than just preventing you from getting cold.

Sugoi Mobil Pant:
$80

Thinner fabric, unlined. They feel more like a simple warm-up pant and for a runner who lives in a mild climate, would be perfectly adequate as a winter running pant. Pants are wider at the bottom, so no ankle zipper is necessary but you can still take them on or off over a pair of running shoes.

Moving Comfort No Chill Pant:
$75

A yoga-style running pant with a wider, hip fitting waistband and wider at the ankles than the knees. The pant legs are a single layer of fabric, but with a thicker weave than a t-shirt and soft, brushed interior that makes them appropriate for colder weather or warming back up after a chilly run. Moving Comfort obviously puts more attention into style and fit than some of the other brands.

Sporthill:

All Sporthill pants come in short/petite and long lengths.

Voyage Pant:
$68

The Classic Running Pant. Ever since there was such thing as a pair of running pants (as opposed to a pair of pants used for running), it seems Sporthill has had a say. Their Voyage pant is an unlined, slightly tapered-leg, pocketed version of their standard running pant. Purely and fully functional, a lot of runners have run a lot of miles in pants such as these. Sporthill rates them as good for 25-65 degree weather, but my experience has shown them perfect for good, hard running in weather down towards the single digits. The loose fit is perfect for layering with a pair of tights on colder days.

Nova Pant:
$80

The women’s Nova pant veers slightly toward the fashion side of the spectrum from Sporthill’s normal location on the purely functional side of things. These pants feature a flat, lower rise waistband, straight-leg fit and stretchier material. The only pocket is in the middle of the back, on the waistband. Fabric is a bit thinner than the Voyage pant, on par with the Moving Comfort pants.

The men’s version is similar — wider waistband, straight-leg cut, same fabric — but with three pockets and an ankle zipper.

XC Pant:
$110

The heaviest pair of pants in this review, Sporthill’s XC Pant is officially rated for their “Zone 3″ which is 0-40 degree Farenheit temps. The 3SP fabric used for these pants is windproof up to 35 mph, water resistant and fast-drying. These would be a great single-layer solution for all but the very harshest winter weather.

I just came back from an easy 5-miler in a pair of 2012 Pearl Izumi Kissaki, a lightweight trainer/racer that looks and feels like a new derivation of the successful Peak and Streak models. The Kissaki won’t be in stores until February, but here are brief teasers for five light and fast models you might groove on this fall. Look for some of these reviews in our December 2011 issue, which hits newsstands in early November.

1. New Balance MT 110 — This is yet another quality close-to-earth, flexy, lightweight trail dancing slipper that delivers surprising traction and decent protection for a barefoot-style shoe.
What stands out most was the snug yet comfortable fit of the sleek upper.

2. Newton MV2 — Newton has a lot of interesting technology built into each shoe (with protruding forefoot lugs that compress into the midsole of the shoe upon impact with the ground) but the first thing you’ll notice about the MV2 is that it’s crazy light and it has a snug race-ready feel to it.

Nike LunarSpider R2

3. Nike LunarSpider R2 — This shoe had somewhat of a stealth release this past summer summer. It’s the second edition of a lightweight racer that debuted in the Japanese market last year. It has a low-to-the-ground feel and a lightweight upper with welded reinforcements (not the slightly heavier and more bulky overlays that need to be stitched).

4. adidas adiZero Rocket — This shoe is a mix between a classic old-school racing flat with all of the modern trappings (design features, strong but lightweight materials) of the current running shoe revolution. It’s low-to-the-ground and wants to go fast. No frills or fancy marketing lingo, just light and fast.

5. Brooks PureConnect — I already gushed about this shoe quite a bit two weeks ago, but it’s definitely one of the best new shoes out this fall. (Go back to the previous reference of the RT Gear Blog to find it.)

By Brian Metzler

In 100 years, when anthropologists look back on the great running shoe revolution of 2010-2011, I wouldn’t be surprised if the Brooks PureConnect is looked at as the poster child of the new era.

Since the release of Saucony’s Kinvara in April 2010, companies have been scrambling to create top-tier products that fit the minimalist/natural sector of the market. Without giving in to hyperbole, there is a wave of amazing performance-oriented running shoes on the way and the PureConnect is one of the best. Some of the new shoes are at stores now (and in our Fall Shoe Guide) and more are arriving soon, but a few you’ll have to wait for until late winter or early spring. The PureConnect, one of the first shoes of Brooks’ new PureProject line, hit stores last weekend.

It’s interesting how slow the shoe industry was to react to Nike’s Free shoes (circa 2004) and some of the pre-2010 design innovations of Newton or Vibram. It took a groundswell of buzz on the Internet, the popularity of “Born to Run” and several misinterpretations of Daniel Liberman’s findings about barefoot running to start the ball rolling. Still, many brands scoffed at it, some completely ignored it initially and others just couldn’t react fast enough. No brand wanted to undermine the models in its existing lineup of shoes — not to mention the years it invested in creating,  morphing and marketing of those shoes — even if they knew the relatively small population of performance-oriented runners had been demanding better low-profile lightweight trainers for years. Yet, every brand was working on it, some more quietly than others.

Brooks avoided a knee-jerk reaction but took considerably longer than most to develop a shoe in the minimalist/natural category. (Although, to be fair, the Green Silence racing flat pretty much fit the bill without the need for trendy branding.) The company went so far as to put out a white paper on its stance toward minimalism and the barefoot movement in early 2010, signed by CEO Jim Weber. While it was conservative in its approach and really just an attempt at reassuring its dealers the brand wasn’t lost in the shuffle, the paper had its merits. But it also threatened to be a 500-pound gorilla of a monolith standing in the way of its modern shoe design.

Brooks has been a rising brand for the past several years, and it wasn’t like Weber and his and his band of merry pranksters to make such a misstep. Certainly they had something up their sleeve in their Bothell, Wash., headquarters, right?

Last Friday, the cat — and by cat, I mean the shoes in the Brooks Pure Project line — was finally let out of the bag.

Brooks PureConnect

The PureConnect, one of the first shoes in that line, is, in my opinion, a winner. Like a lot of the new shoes that I’d call “moderate minimalists,” the Pure Connect is lightweight (7.7 oz. for men’s size 9) and low to the ground (a foot sits just 14mm off the ground in the heel and 12mm in the forefoot). Thankfully, it’s not a barefoot shoe. (It’s not surprising at all that there are a rash of injuries resulting from people wearing barely-there ultra-minimalist shoes who really shouldn’t be.) The PureConnect does just enough to cushion and protect your feet without getting in the way. There’s no ill-guided attempt at guiding or stabilizing your feet. With just a few thin layers of rubber and foam between your feet and the road, your feet are free to move how you want them to. You can feel the ground enough to interact with it but not enough to get hurt from it. Personally, that’s exactly what I want from a running shoe.

Perhaps the best feature about the PureConnect shoes is the rounded and rather narrow design of the outsole and undercarriage that allows your feet to land and move in a completely uninhibited manner. (The lightweight upper is amazing, too.) Snug but not tight-fitting, they feel like they’re a part of your feet — almost like a “second skin,” two of our testers said — and create a sensation as if you’re rolling over the terrain with a seamless transition from touch-down to lift-off, no matter if you’re on pavement, concrete, dirt, gravel, grass or wood chips. (The PureConnect is included in the shoe guide in our forthcoming December issue, but suffice to say the Running Times shoe-testing crew loved it, too.)

How did Brooks hit the nail on the head so squarely? One of the big reasons is that didn’t rely only on internal design cues or trend analysis. Instead, it went outside the box and talked to runners directly. And not just runners in a chummy wear-test group that might be skewed by getting free shoes. Real runners with no allegiances. With the help of an outside agency, Brooks conducted focus groups in Chicago last year to get the nitty-gritty details of what all of us — the shoe-buying public — wanted from shoes. Then it had its design team incorporate a lot of those “learnings” into the development of the new shoes.

I don’t need to belabor the details hear, but it eventually came up with a float vs. feel concept, which eventually led to the Pure Project. The initial line has four shoes, two of which are performance-oriented and two of which are cushion/comfort-oriented. That’s indicative of how the shoe industry has changed recently after years of the design initiative being a one-way street from manufacturers to runners. And it’s not just Brooks, it’s virtually every brand. Finally, they’re listening! And the result will be an amazing new range of shoes. (The New Balance 110, Newton MV2 and the North Face Single-Track Hayasa, are three more of my other current favorites, while the K-Swiss Blade Kwik, Montrail Rogue Fly and ASICS Fuji Racer are just a few of those I’m looking forward to testing.)

Oh yeah, the PureConnect only costs $90. Go figure. For years, we’ve been told that top-quality shoes must cost $120-$170, partially because of the increased costs of engineering, materials and shipping from China. Blah, blah, blah … Not when you follow a less-is-more design edict like Brooks has done with the Pure Connect.

If you haven’t run in a pair of Brooks PureConnect shoes yet, run down to your local running store, ditch the shoes you’re wearing and check them out. In my humble opinion — based on testing a gazillion running shoes in the past dozen years — they’re that good.

By Brian Metzler

An old-school runner friend of mine recently asked me in an email why there are so many brightly colored running shoes at running shops now. It’s not that he’s that old — he’s only 39, in fact — but he’s kind of curmudgeon who sticks to the old days of the late 1980s. If he could still wear the original adidas Oregons or Nike Air Edges like he did back then, he would. (He was one of those guys who would stockpile several pairs of a model he liked, but I’m quite sure he depleted his Reagan-era stash long ago.)

“Everything is bright red or blue or orange,” he said. “There’s even a men’s shoe with fluorescent yellow and pink highlights. What’s up with that?”

New Balance 1400

He was referring to the New Balance 1400, which has a color palette my old-school friend would certainly refer to as “feminine colors.” Still, it hardly has the DayGlo color motif of Body Glove gear of the late 1980s. (That kind of praise is more appropriate for the women’s version of Salomon SpeedCross 3.)

OK, so the dude’s got some issues and insecurities, none of which need to be played out here. (I have another friend who, for some unknown reason, only wears black shoes, black socks, black shorts, a black singlet and a black headband on race day.)

Salomon SpeedCross 3

It’s not exactly a new trend. Brightly colored running shoes have been around for a while, but there are decidedly more wild patterns and combinations than ever before (like the Asics Gel-Noosa pictured below), and that’s really a factor of consumer trends in greater society. (But all bets are off, given that you can design your own shoes at NikeID.com and miadidas.com.) Personally, I’m glad running shoes aren’t only sold in the drab colors anymore — mostly white or some kind of dark blue for men. What’s wrong with adding a little spice to your gear? It’s not the color of your shoes — or your neon-yellow arm warmers — make you train harder or run faster. I reminded him that his Air Edges from 1986 had one blue swoosh and one red swoosh, but it was the sleek, lightweight design that made them a fast shoe not the colored swooshes.

And really who cares if some of your buds in your morning running group are wearing flashy kicks? Color trends be damned — the most important thing about the shoes we’ve tested for our October 2011 and December 2011 issues is that there’s a new breed of lightweight, low-to-the-ground trainers and racers aimed at performance running with good form.

Asics Gel-Noosa Tri 6

Love ’em or hate ’em, the brightly colored shoes are here to stay. At least for a while. Some people are annoyed by ‘em, others could care less. As much as the act of running can sometimes seem like a mundane daily ritual, we don’t have to run in a gray and beige world.

Sure, the bright colors draw more attention to your feet, but as a runner, what’s wrong with that? Some will argue that it’s just vanity, and that’s OK. So is wearing a pair of split shorts without a shirt (or with a brightly colored sports bra) as you run through town on a hot day. Does vanity make you run faster? Maybe. You don’t want to be caught running slow times in bright orange racing flats, do you?

by Katie Wolpert

With the Terrain model, Mountain Buggy has created a winner of a baby jogger. This buggy covers all the bases — it is stable enough for walking, has an easily adjustable handlebar, slim profile, handbrake and is easy to collapse. It appears to be extremely comfortable for the rider (Oscar loves it above all the others) and runner (it’s lightweight, rolls easily and covers rough terrain with ease). Plenty of storage space is available in the zippered bottom basket for “running” errands and the sunshade does a great job of living up to it’s name.

The 5-point harness unclips in two locations so you can completely release your child without having to thread arms through loops, or you can leave the shoulder straps clipped in so the child who is excited to ride in the Terrain can be strapped up in one smooth step.

The biggest technological leap in this model is that when the wheel is in the fixed position for running, it still has a very slight amount of give to it. This small change means that while it is “fixed” and safe for running, you have some amount of steering ability, without having to lift the front wheel off the ground. This fine-tune control allows you to easily avoid potholes, rocks, bumps and go around slight turns with one hand on the handlebar and without even really thinking about it. Brilliant.

We’d say that Adam and Kara Goucher chose well when they picked this Mountain Buggy as their jogging stroller after the birth of their son.

By Brian Metzler

Why do athletes hold up their gear after they win a race? It might seem like a blatant act of vanity, but it’s really to acknowledge their sponsors, of course. (However, in Jenny Barringer Simpson’s case, after winning the world championships 1500m, it might have just been a reaction of pure unadulterated joy.) Either way, why should the rest of us care, though, when we most likely can’t buy those same custom-tweaked products or might never really have a need for featherweight track spikes that weigh 4 oz. per shoe?

Because somewhere down the road, we might benefit, too.

We all know that shoe companies sponsor elite runners because fast runners are the most visible advertisements for the shoes, apparel and accessories sold at running shops, big box stores and online shopping sites.

But not all athlete endorsement relationships are the same. Some shoe brands sponsor elite training groups and utilize athlete input in developing products, while others just slap the athletes’ bios and accomplishments on their web site, into the pages of their dealer catalogs and onto retail hang tags. Some brands go out of their way to make custom gear for their top athletes and use those changes as cues for future innovations.

New Balance, for example, made custom MD 800 distance spikes for Simpson, Billy Nelson and Maggie Vessey (and other NB athletes from other countries) before they ran in the recent world championships in Daegu, South Korea. The New Balance development team scrutinized every detail of the typical, off-the-shelf version of the $100 shoe, says NB’s running product line manager Claire Wood, looking for ways to make them even better. They also spiced them up with some flashy colors that would stick out and even personalized the shoes with “Daegu” emblazoned on the sockliner and the athlete’s name printed on the “N” logo. Sure, some of that stuff was just for aesthtics and flashiness, but the performance-oriented details matter most.

“We used a different mesh on that version of the 800,” Wood says. “It’s incredibly light, silky and seamless, but with very little stretch to retain the integrity of the fit.”

Furthermore, New Balance developer Stephen Brown worked hard to fit the MD800 upper onto various plates (the middle-distance spike plate as well as the long-distance spike plate) in such a way that it gave the most reliable and energetic race-day fit possible.

“It allowed for insane lightness but also had that tight-fitting wrap these world-class runners desire in their spikes,” Wood says. “Stephen worked hard at ensuring these were engineered with all the nuances a world-class spike must have.”
That’s great for Jenny, Billy and Maggie, but why should the rest of us care? Often when companies make small but significant peformance-oriented improvements to the gear their elite athletes use in competition, those innovations are eventually passed down the line to the racing flats and training shoes (and apparel and accessories) the rest of us buy at running shops.

It’s best when improvements in sports equipment for the masses — for any sport from running to skiing to soccer to golf — come from the top down and not the other way around because they’re almost always performance-based. But you might be surprised to learn that not all companies operate under that premise. (There’s much more money to be made spending time working on a gimmicky product that might explode as a retail trend than there is tweaking spikes only a small number of people might buy.)

That Vessey placed sixth in the 800m and Simpson won the 1500m was icing the cake for New Balance, especially when Simpson held up her spikes with the American flag.

“Jenny made it even more special for us,” Wood says. “We didn’t ask Jenny to whip them off. It was so cool she did it on her own!”