Reebok Floatride Run Fast Pro

Reebok Floatride Run Fast Pro

This is the first Reebok shoe I’ve ever tried. I needed a new workout flat, so I decided to try it out. The Reebok Flotride Run Fast Pro was designed as a racing shoe.  To my knowledge, it’s the lightest racing flat on the market weight just 3.5 ounces.

It’s more designed for a 5k but could you run a half or maybe (maybe!), a full marathon, sure.  Most of the weight is taken out of the upper material. There is a ton of cushion in the shoe for the weight, which is why the price point is $250.

Reebok Floatride Run Fast Pro Shoe Review

Fit:

Like most flats, they fit narrow. I usually wear between a women’s 10-11 wide. I found the unisex/9 to fit the best since it’s a bit wider.

The upper is very thin engineered mesh.  The thin mesh takes off a few ounces (which is a lot in the racing flat world). There aren’t any seams or overlays that would cause blisters. For a racing flat, it fits fairly average, and I’ve come to wear unisex 9.5 in most. I’ve done a few workouts in it, and haven’t had any issues with any irritation.

Reebok Floatride Run Fast Pro Shoe Review

Ride:

This is the first Reebok shoe I’ve tried and a different feel altogether. It’s much softer and with more cushion than a traditional flat like the Nike Streak, yet doesn’t have the weight.

Reebok uses an entirely different material than the traditional EVA.  The cushion they use it called “Pebax.” Why should you care about Pebax

Pebax is lighter and doesn’t compress as regular EVA foams. It’s softer and similar to the Vapor Fly. So yes, this shoe feels similar to the Nike Vaporfly but lacks the carbon plate.  The new types of foam brands are incorporating are expensive which is why they are costly to the consumer. You do feel as though your foot springs forward with every step.

One interesting thing is how much rubber there is despite how light they are.  For a racing flat, they have the most traction of any shoe I’ve seen. I haven’t run on a rainy day, but I don’t foresee it being a problem either. In fact, this will probably be my rainy day staple.  The entire sole of the shoe has traction.

I like running in them, and I feel fast when I do. They’ve become my staple speed shoe, and I think they’ll be a better 5k shoe than the Nike Vaporfly. Reebok Floatride Run Fast Pro Shoe Review

Conclusion:

I do believe this is a good flat and has become my favorite workout flat.  If you had asked me two months ago, would I like Reebok, I would have LOLed. It’s not a shoe you “go for an easy run in,” but it’s a great workout and racing shoe. To me, it feels the most like the Nike 4%, but I think the durability will be better than the Vaporfly. Plus, the traction responds much better in a rainy day.

To me, this is a very strong competitor to VP and would probably win for a better racing shoe for the 5k or in rainy/poor weather conditions.

Current Rotation:

Easy Runs: New Balance 1080, Brooks Glycerin 17, Hoka Mach 2

Long Runs: Hoka Cavu 2,, Nike Pegasus Turbo

Workouts: Nike LT Streak 4, Reebok Floatride Fast

Races: Reebok Floatride Fast, Nike Fly

Finally, have you subscribed to the LOLZletter? It’s a free newsletter that comes out each Monday. In the newsletter, I share running industry trends and things relevant to the sport. 

Questions for you:

What is your favorite racing shoe right now?

Have you run in Reebok?

 

Glycerin 17 Shoe Review

Glycerin 17 Shoe Review

I seem to always some version of the Brooks Glycerin in my rotation. I’ve run in several models, and the Glycerin is my favorite.  It has the most cushion of any Brooks neutral shoe.

The Glycerin is designed for training. It’s Desi Linden’s favorite training shoe.  With the amount of the cushion, it’s great for the bulk of mileage. For me, it’s an easy run, daily run, or even recovery run.  I’m not a Brooks ambassador or blogger or being paid to talk about the shoe.

Brooks didn’t update much from the Glycerin 16 to 17 which is appreciated. The significant updates come with the shoe’s upper. There is more 3D printing and fewer seams. I didn’t really notice a difference.

Brooks Glycerin 17 Shoe Review

Weight:  8.6 oz
Heel To Toe Drop:  9 mm

Fit:

The Glycerin 17 uses a Double Jacquard Mesh upper.  Basically, it’s two layers of fancy mesh to prevent toes from ripping through.  It’s breathable and flexible while still having structure.

Brooks Glycerin 17 Shoe Review

The shoe is available in wide. I wear between a size 10-11 wide for women.  I’ve worn either a 10.5 or 10.5 in Glycerin depending on the year. This year, the 10.5 is fine. If you have bunions, I recommend the wide. For those who like the Brooks Ghost, it’s more cushion than the ghost but a more narrow fit. I always say, I wish the Glycerin had the fit of the Ghost.

Brooks Glycerin 17 Shoe Review

Ride:

The Glycerin is plush with plenty of cushioning. It’s soft, so you feel as though your foot sinks in. The Glycerin uses Brooks DNA Loft foam.  The DNA Loft foam is designed for comfort. It’s not a responsive shoe and not intended to run “fast”, although you could if you wanted. If you like the Hoka Clifton, you’ll appreciate the Brooks Glycerin as well.

In my rotation, it’s fit in a daily or recovery trainer.

The traction is fine on inclement days and I’ve run outside in the rain, sleet, and snow, with no issues. My only issue is we’ve had all of that in the first week of March.

Brooks Glycerin 17 Shoe Review

Summary:

Not much has changed between models which I’m thankful for! It’s still light and kept under 9 ounces for women.  If you like the previous versions of the Glycerin, the newest one feels very similar. If you’re looking for a high soft cushion trainer, it’s a great option too.

Current Rotation:

Easy Runs: Hoka Mach, Saucony Triumph ISO 5, New Balance 1080

Long Runs: Hoka Cavu

Workouts/Races: Nike Lt Streak, Nike Fly

If you want to read more about running industry and news, subscribe to my weekly newsletter. 

Questions for you:

What is a shoe you’ve run in several models of?

What is your current favorite shoe? 

New Balance 1080v8 Shoe Review

New Balance 1080v8 Shoe Review

Truthfully, I haven’t run in a lot of New Balance.  Many moons ago, I was injured in my final year of running cross country.  I had been “fitted” for a pair of New Balance shoes, and they were the last pair of trainers before my cyst injury took me out in 2012. It wasn’t the shoes fault, but since then I haven’t found a lot of New Balance shoes that feel comfortable to me.

I’ve tried the New Balance 880 as well as the Fresh Foam Zante.  Both are quality shoes, but they both didn’t have the maximum and plush cushion that I prefer.

new balance 1080 v8 shoe review

Enter the New Balance 1080.

This has quickly become a staple in my rotation as one of my favorite shoes.  New Balance isn’t paying me to tell you that, and I’m not Emma Coburn’s teammate.  In fact, I’m as a surprised as you are of how much I like the shoe!

New Balance Fresh Foam 1080 v8 Fit:

As someone with a more full foot and toebox, I appreciate that the 1080 has a full, seamless, toe box.  It’s deep enough to hold an insert and wide enough to have plenty of space if you’re dealing with bunions or need extra space.  I wear anywhere between a 10-11 wide in running shoes, and the 10.5 regular width is comfortable for me.

New Balance Fresh Foam 1080 v8 Ride:

I’ve tried on previous versions of the 1080 but never run in them.  This is my first review of the 1080.  From my knowledge, the 1080v8 hasn’t been updated too much since V7 (version 7). Most people who have liked the previous versions, also like the V8.

For how much cushion is in the 1080, it’s much stiffer than other plush models such as the Brooks Glycerin or Saucony Triumph.  The stiffness allows a bit more responsiveness.  Another note is the shoe feels much flatter than many other plush brands and has an 8 mm drop.

One thing I appreciate is the flex grooves in the forefoot.  As someone who runs very far on their forefront, it’s support and flexibility I need.  I’ve run both on the treadmill and outdoors, and the shoe feels great.

New Balance Fresh Foam 1080 v8 Conclusions

Although I haven’t worn previous versions, I know there aren’t significant changes to the shoe. If you like the previous version, then you will continue to like the 1080.  If you’re new to the shoe, like me, then you’ll enjoy how soft and cushioned it is.

new balance 1080 v8 shoe review

As you can see, my shoe rotation has currently changed, and I have a lot of shoe reviews to catch up on:

Easy Runs/Daily Runs: Brooks Glycerin 16, New Balance 1080, Saucony Ride ISO, Hoka Mach

Workouts: Nike Fly, New Balance 1400

Races: Nike LT Racer, Nike Fly

Questions for you:

What shoe brand are you “most loyal” too?

Do you like maximum cushioned or minimal shoes? 

Brooks Pureflow 6 Review

This Spring there have been a lot of updated shoes I’ve wanted to try.  Since I took a big portion off, I have a lot of catching up to do!  I haven’t necessarily found a shoe I’m “married” too, but I have found most of the shoes I’ve tried are good updates.  I work at a local running store, but I’m not paid by any company.  All thoughts are my own.

One shoe I’ve wanted to try for a long time has been the Brooks Pureflow.  Unfortunately, I have a wide foot, and it never felt comfortable.  I also don’t train every day in flat, minimalist shoes.   For me, it’s more of a speedwork shoe.

The Pureflow was one of the last shoes I tried before taking a running break.  I was using it as a speedwork shoe.  During my running break, I rotated it into a casual shoe, and it was just as comfortable.  The shoe has almost reached the end of its life, and I’ve probably logged equally speedwork and walking miles.

Fit:

As mentioned, the Brooks Pureflow has run narrow.  The updated version has become wider and accommodating.  Like many Brooks shoes, the upper is now seamless, so even if you have a bunion or wider forefront, your foot will probably still fit into the shoe.  I usually wear a size 10 in running shoes, and size 10 fits well.

Feel:

The Brooks Pureflow is part of the Brooks “Pure” series which includes the stable Pure Cadence as well as trail Puregrit. The focus of the Pure line is low profile and minimal design.  For some runners, this is their everyday trainer.  For others, like myself, it’s more of a speedwork shoe.

To me, it feels like a typical speed work shoe.  It has a little more cushion than the Saucony Type A and a little less than the Brooks Ghost. In my opinion, it would be an ideal half marathon to marathon racing shoe for someone looking for a little less shoe but not a racing flat.

Pros:

  • Less than most trainers ($100)
  • Wider than previous models and can accommodate more foot types

Cons:

  • Less shoe means less durability.

In my rotation, the shoe is replacing the Launch 4.  I didn’t hate the Launch and would buy it again, but I wanted to try something different.

My Current Running Shoe Rotation:
Saucony Freedom ISO (long runs, daily runs)
Brooks Glycerin 15 (daily runs)
Hoka Bondi 5 (recovery runs)
Saucony Type A (races)
Asics Nimbus 19 (cross training)

Questions for you:
Do you prefer more cushion or less?
What is your current favorite pair of running shoes?

Saucony Freedom ISO Shoe Review

Saucony Freedom ISO Shoe Review

While living in Alabama, I committed one a runner sin.  I was underprepared shoe wise for 6 weeks.  While I could have gotten a pair of shoes I’ve already run in, I decided to try the Saucony Freedom.  Before leaving, I had tried them on at work. They seemed like they would be a good shoe for me.

This is the first model so there is nothing to compare it too.  I have run in multiple other Saucony shoes including the Kinvara, Zealot ISO 1 and 2, Ride 9 and Triumph ISO 1 and 2.

The Freedom uses Saucony’s signature Everrun material.  It is the first of the line to use the Everrun at the forefront of the shoe.  What does this mean for me? As someone who strikes extremely far to the front, there is plenty of cushion up there too.  There are actually very few shoes with a full length cushioning in the forefront too (most shoes have a lot of cushioning in the heel and it tapers to the front).

Fit:

Just like the Saucony Triumph and Zealot, the Freedom uses the ISO fit.  It fits more like slipper than an actual shoe.  I find the ISO fits my foot better but the shoe does run short.  Typically I wear a size 10 but I found the 10.5 to be the best fit.  I even contemplated doing an 11 or a men’s size 9 because I could use more width.  I would recommend going up at least a half size if not more.

Ride:

This was definitely interesting.  I could feel the extra cushion in the forefront immediately.  My first run in the shoe was an easy 7 miler.  It felt comfortable the moment I put it in on.  It was soft, yet responsive and the extra cushion for my metatarsals was immediately noticed.

me running

Pros:

  • More cushion in the forefront
  • Light weight

Cons:

  • Sizing
  • Cost ($160 makes it one of the most costly neutral shoes on the market)

Similar options:

There aren’t a lot of options with extra cushion in the front.  Both the Saucony Kinvara and Zealot ISO 2 have a 4mm drop and are the closest by far.  The Asics Nimbus or adidas Energy Boost has a good amount of cushioning in the front as well.

Current Shoe Rotation: 
Saucony Freedom ISO (long runs, daily runs)
Brooks Ghost (any run)
Brooks Launch (shorter runs, speed work)
Saucony Type A (speed work)

Questions for you:
Where do you wear out a shoe first?
Which shoes are you currently running in?

 

%d bloggers like this: