I started using this shoe about three weeks ago. I also run in the Brooks Beast because I need a MC shoe for my very low arches, and the Beast is the only shoe that minimized the painful shinsplints I am wont to suffer. My height is 5'10" and I weigh in at 165 lbs.
I'll attempt to give you a sober, objective appraisal of this shoe:
(1) It feels quite strange when walking in it the first time, like no other shoe I've tried, and, in fact, walking in it is no accurate indicator of its effectiveness.
(2) It has a deep heal cup, plenty of forefoot room for the toes and something that feels like a "knot" (I suppose its the varus wedge) toward the front of my arch). Very light weight, significantly lighter than the Beast, noticeably lighter than the Adrenaline.
(3) The cushion is medium, not too soft or hard, which I think is just fine for me. I think it improper to gauge the effectiveness of a shoe on its cushion alone - perhaps that is a question of subjective preference, biomechanics, etc.
(4) It has a rather bizarre offset lacing system that weaves into the tongue, which prevents me from tightening the shoe in the manner I typically do. In other words, it fits a tad loosely, but such has no effect on it performance.
I've had shinsplints since I started running and no shoe has quelled the pain quite like this one. Thus far I've run about 50 miles in them.
This morning I put them to a weather test: I ran in a heavy rainstorm (and quite cold): their grip was true and they did not betray me through all the water and precariously wet surfaces.
This is a fine shoe, and I am impressed. I was initially skeptical, but now I'm convinced that Nike has authenticated their claim. Perhaps the science they employed was true to the purpose of developing a MC shoe that prevents the problem "at the point origin."
Whatever you do, suspend any doubt of its effectiveness based on anything other than a handful of test runs. . .
Posted: 05/12/2005 at 19:21
