Analyitics

Tuesday, April 17, 2012

Shoe Review: Brooks PureCadence, 400+ miles later

Back in November, I wrote a review of the Brooks PureCadence running shoes.  At that point in time, I was very happily surprised with my whimsical purchase of these shoes.  So now that I've logged over 400 miles, how have they held up?

I must say, absolutely great!  I've included a picture of them to the right.  To reiterate some of my initial concerns, I was worried these shoes wouldn't last much more than a couple hundred miles.  My initial review was at about 30-40 miles and I had noticed some significant wear in the shoes at that point in time.  But as you can see, I've gone over 10X that far in this pair and they have held up quite nicely.  That has included everything from 20 mile slogs on the Charles River, 10 mile trail runs over roots, rocks and what have you and up and down 9+% graded hills, both paved and otherwise.

My biggest concern with these shoes was whether they would hold up, and they certainly did.  I do have an important comment I'm hoping the folks over at Brooks will listen to however.  These shoes served me well in most running conditions.  One situation, however, they failed to perform well, and that was rainy, slick runs on urban streets.  When i say urban streets, i mean any street/sidewalk/running surface that has man hole covers, iron grates, or any metal of any kind.  To take it even further, and for the sake of clarity, let me say that the PureCadence version 1 shoes do not grip all that well in wet conditions on any hard surface.

Beyond that, however, I really don't have any negative comments whatsoever.  I wear the PureCadence on all of my long runs and all of my "key runs", meaning, any tempo work or other essential workouts.  I spent two months prior to strapping them on injured and unable to run.  I'm not going to claim that the PureCadence fixed my ails...  I'm pretty sure it was the countless repetitions of daily exercises geared and strengthening my lower legs...  but I can say, I wear the PureCadence when I fear injury the most, because they are the most trustworthy shoe I own and I have never had an issue with them unrelated to traction.

After a run in my other regular running shoes it is a pleasure to put my feet back in the PureCadence.  To reiterate, my favorite features are the following:


  • The last of this shoe fits my foot like no other shoe I've ever put on.  It literally feels like an extension of my foot.
  • Having had an extensive background in shoe-less exercise, the 4mm heel-to-toe differential allows me to harness my leg's strengths in a much more natural feeling way.
  • The biomogo provides very comfortable cushioning while still allowing for you to gain some sense of proprioception, allowing for a more natural engagement on each footstrike, regardless of what part of your foot hits the ground.
  • The support in these shoes is not overwhelming.  I've got some crazy movement when my foot hits the ground...  like it or not.  I do like a bit of support, and I think the PureCadence provide that but leave it up to me to ensure I'm running with good form.  I don't want to be controlled, but I also don't mind a helpful reminder at mile 20 that it's a good idea to keep my form in check.
  • I've never run in a shoe that is so light.  Once you try a shoe as light as this one, you'll never, ever go back to those big 'ol clunkers we all used to train in.  It really makes a difference.
  • Seems simple enough, but the laces are standard up through the eyelets to allow for ease of tightening and loosening, but are fashioned in a wave-like "stay-tied" manner in the upper section, translated into, well, laces that stay tied on your run.  Laces that stay tied are good.
  • The shoe just plain fits my foot.  Heel to toe.  I don't know if it's a stroke of luck, that the designers and testers had feet like my own, or not, but it cannot be denied.  It feels like these shoes were made for me.

On their website, Brooks indicates the PureCadence should last you about 250 miles.  Clever marketing for such a popular shoe...  and as previously stated, my initial worry was that Brooks was right.  I was hooked on these shoes, and I was afraid I'd be paying the hefty price for them every couple of months.  But the truth is in the testing, and after 413 miles, I'm happy to say I've purchased my second pair of these running shoes. When it comes time for me to run the Burlington Marathon in May, I'll have them on my feet.  And in October, when I run Annette Bednosky's amazing New River Trail 50K, i'll have them on as well.

Related Links:
Shoe Review: Brooks PureCadence

19 comments:

  1. I totally agree. Love these shoes! As you said, the only problem is that they do not grip wet surfaces well. Glad to know that your's have lasted so long. I'm at about 200 miles in mine and was just hoping that I could get through the Cleveland Marathon without buying a new pair.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Can I ask what size you went for? I bought a pair in 8.5 US. tHe exact fir would've been US 8 but the guys at the shop recommended half a size up. Now I'm doubtful as the arch support seems like its too forward in my foot. Will the half size down matter?

    -curious

    ReplyDelete
  3. i generally wear a size 11.5 and went with the 11.5 in the purecadence as well. while i think it's on the smaller end of an 11.5, i wouldn't consider switching sizes. a key to why this shoe works for me is how it fits my foot: the anatomical last, the upper, the toe box and so on. if i were you, if something feels off with the last, i would definitely recommend returning your shoe for your natural size. proper fit is of the utmost importance in my opinion!

    ReplyDelete
  4. Thanks for the reply re sizing. I have swapped them for the US 8's and picking them up in the next two days. I really hope they are good. I loved them even if they were half a size up and I hope the proper size is even better.

    - curious

    ReplyDelete
  5. Just saw this great review and wondered what you thought about the Cadence as a marathon shoe? I'm rotating the Pure Flow and the Mizuno Precision 13 right now, but thinking the Cadence might add a little more firmness, BUT ALSO some stability at the marathon distance over the more cushioned (soft) feel of the Pure Flow. I'm a neutral runner/40 mpw.

    Thanks

    ReplyDelete
  6. Hi, I need help. I want the closest shoe to the Cadence, but in a model that works really well on wet pavement. I have 40 miles on my cadence I ran a 10k race on Sunday (Seattle) on wet pavement. I felt a slipping back sensation (very slight) on each stride. I will note that the shoes actually had ok traction when breaking and when (that is, they were safe)when taking the corners. These shoes are really working for me for the most part. I've been a Brooks Adrenaline and Cascadia wearer for 3 years.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Michael,

    i raced in the purecadence for a marathon and a 50k, and wore them on all my training runs 20+ miles leading up to each race. i think they are a great marathon shoe. i think the stability features are subtle in the purecadence. i find the cushioning to be quite plush in them, but since i haven't tried the flow, i cannot compare the two. my saucony mirage are much more firm, but i get much better ground feel out of the cadence and actually like the plushness of the ride in the later miles of longer distance runs, and the minimal stability features help keep my form in check, if ever so slightly. you could certainly give them a spin alongside the flow to see if they give you a bit more firmness... i do think they are a good shoe for the marathon distance.

    hope that helps.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Anonymous (October 23),

    sorry to hear you also had trouble with the traction of these shoes on wet pavement. it seems like such a basic feature of any running shoe, it's hard to imagine how brooks could have missed this one so badly. it's especially difficult considering how well these shoes perform in almost every other way!! i do believe version 2 of these shoes will be out early (January?) next year, and hopefully they have resolved the traction issues in that version.

    in terms of alternatives, the only shoe i've actually tried with similar specs is the saucony mirage. i wrote a review of those shoes on this blog, but i think (in summary) you'll find these shoes to be more firm with less of a glove-like fit. they have been a good shoe for me nonetheless, although i don't like them on longer distances. they do have a new version coming out soon that could fit the bill, but i can't say from experience just yet.

    there are plenty of shoes emerging in the market these days that fall into the "moderate minimalism" segment... shoes that compare well with the purecadence. check out some of what inov8, new balance and asics have to offer to see if anything catches your eye. i will certainly review any new shoes i try out, although i've been running more in trails shoes these days...

    good luck!

    ReplyDelete
  9. Thanks again for both of your reviews of this shoe. I'm so glad Bing found it for me. Your passion for running shows in your reviews. I probably should have tried the Cadence sooner. I'm not going to let the lack of perfect traction on Wet pavement get me down. My recent track work and these lighter shoes has led to a minute PR on my 10k. I'll continue to run in my Adrenaline and Cascadia (both fit my feet really well), in addition to the Cadence.
    I'm on trails for about 1/2 my mileage - it's all good, solo or with a group. If you have never tried it, being part of an XC team is also a lot of fun.

    ReplyDelete
  10. I totally agree with your review! I bought the Pure Cadence shoes a week ago, and the first time I ran in them was my long run of 11 miles. They felt wonderful. So much easier to run in than my previous traditional running shoes. The only problem I am having is that the bottom of my socks get wet (especially the forefoot) when I run on wet pavement (like after it has been raining), and when I run in the rain, my feet are more soaked than usual (compared to running in traditional running shoes). Do you experience the same thing?

    ReplyDelete
  11. Hi Anonymous, thanks for stopping by. i think the pure cadence have a lower platform than a traditional shoe, so the proximity to the ground is more than likely the reason why your feet are getting wet. i also wonder if you have a wide mid/forefoot, as i've noticed a bit of overhang in the middle of the lateral side on my feet. regardless, the only problem i have with wetness is the traction when the shoes get wet. otherwise, i haven't noticed anything i would characterize as an issue.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Eric, thank you for your response. Really like your blog. I enjoy wearing the Pure Cadence so much that I guess I can tolerate the wetness. The traction for me has not been an issue. I think I need to buy some running socks with merino wool - that may help keep my feet drier in these wet winter months. Happy Running!

      Delete
    2. definitely a great shoe, proof (in my eyes) that sometimes a shoe can live up to the hype.

      as for socks, i've have great success with the ininji trail socks (we have a couple reviews on the blog of a few types of their socks) and the drymax lightweight trail socks.

      always good to hear some nice feedback, very much appreciated.

      happy running to you as well!

      Delete
    3. Another explanation may be that the Pure Cadence does not have either rubber or overlays around the front of the toebox, as many other running shoes do.

      And, I second both of Eric's sock recommendations. The injinji socks feel much lighter and thinner than even the lightweight drymax, so the best choice may depend on the temperature conditions where you run...

      Delete
  12. After being diagnosed with a torn medial meniscus in my left knee (inoperable due to previous blood clots, coumadin, blah, blah)I stumbled across a post concerning the Pose Method of running and decreased injury, pressure on knee, etc. Bought the book, bought the Cadence, ran a mile yesterday with no ill-affects. I know it's only a mile, but based on that. I might just be onto something that's going to allow me to keep running...who says you can't teach an old dog new tricks. I'll be 60 years old this October! Wish me luck.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Good for you for your pain free mile! I have been having knee pain (probably arthritis) and just bought a pair of these shoes and ran 3 miles. Very comfortable, and makes midfoot striking a bit easier. They are so light!

      Good luck with your recovery/running.

      Delete
  13. Hey Eric, nice review about our beloved shoes. Yes that's right, i have my purecadence passing it's 350 miles + and are not yet to give up any time soon. Question is, so many shoes appearing and launching in the same spectrum as the purecadence, are you still considering to use them again to your upcoming marathons/races (new pair of course) or you already have the version 2?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. firstly, congrats to anonymous X2...glad to hear anyone is running injury free, especially those who have recovered from an injury. great work keeping at it!!

      i'm just now hitting near 400 miles on my 3rd pair of the purecadence (first version). you'd think, at this point, that it would be a no brainer for me to snatch up a pair of the purecadence2. but please let me be honest...

      i'm happy to advertise for brooks with their initial release of the purecandence. it is by far the most comfortable running shoen i've ever worn. i've laid out the positives quite well.

      there are three factors which keep me from blindly (with no test) purchasing version 2:

      1. the traction issue: it's much less of any issue on the purecadence than the puregrit... but still a big deal. i need to feel confident in the widest variety of running conditions on the widest variety of running surfaces. simple.

      2. production anomalies: my left shoe feels ever so slightly different from my right shoe. nothing major, but notable regardless.

      3. the market: i think the pure line was pretty successful. and i think it led the market into a new category of shoe (along with NB and others)... the middle ground between minimal and maximal running shoes. i love that, so, great work brooks. but of the new additions to this market, shoes by pearl izumi, vasque and inov8 all are very compelling to me. i am not sure HOW to make this decision... time will tell.

      i would love to hear anyone's comments on the above... either regarding the PC2 or otherwise...

      Delete
  14. firstly, congrats to anonymous X2...glad to hear anyone is running injury free, especially those who have recovered from an injury. great work keeping at it!!

    i'm just now hitting near 400 miles on my 3rd pair of the purecadence (first version). you'd think, at this point, that it would be a no brainer for me to snatch up a pair of the purecadence2. but please let me be honest...

    i'm happy to advertise for brooks with their initial release of the purecandence. it is by far the most comfortable running shoen i've ever worn. i've laid out the positives quite well.

    there are three factors which keep me from blindly (with no test) purchasing version 2:

    1. the traction issue: it's much less of any issue on the purecadence than the puregrit... but still a big deal. i need to feel confident in the widest variety of running conditions on the widest variety of running surfaces. simple.

    2. production anomalies: my left shoe feels ever so slightly different from my right shoe. nothing major, but notable regardless.

    3. the market: i think the pure line was pretty successful. and i think it led the market into a new category of shoe (along with NB and others)... the middle ground between minimal and maximal running shoes. i love that, so, great work brooks. but of the new additions to this market, shoes by pearl izumi, vasque and inov8 all are very compelling to me. i am not sure HOW to make this decision... time will tell.

    i would love to hear anyone's comments on the above... either regarding the PC2 or otherwise...

    ReplyDelete