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

Shoe Review: Brooks PureCadence

I've posted a follow-up review of these shoes after 400+ miles in them that you can find here: http://readingrunningredsox.blogspot.com/2012/04/shoe-review-brooks-purecadence-400.html

i've been through a LOT of shoes over the years, especially this year.  like most people who care about these things, my head is all mixed up about whether i should be looking for more technology, less technology, more shoe or less shoe.  i made a decision a while back to forget about all that and simply go with what works.  how great, in theory...  but the opportunity to truly test out each and every shoe just plain isn't going to happen.

this year, i've run on neutral shoes, motion control shoes, stability shoes, barefoot and stability shoes.  i realized, from all this, that i need at least some stability technology in my shoes.  the comes into play for me on longer runs, when i get fatigued and have a tendency to lose a bit of my running form.  i am an over-pronator with high arches.

Todd runs the Brooks Adrenaline and seems to like them, so i thought i'd give them a try.  when i tried to order them, however, they were somehow out of my size at the price i was looking for, and so, out of frustration and a penchant to be swayed by good marketing, i bought the Brooks PureCadence instead.

i wanted to give the shoes enough of a sampling before i passed any judgement on them.  i will say, however, that after the first run i was totally in love with them and have since only increased my affection for them.

let's be clear about what these shoes are.  Brooks have not one time included the word "minimal" in any of the descriptions i have found on their website for these shoes.  if you read people's comments about these shoes, however, you'll see the words "minimal" and "barefoot" come up a lot, and i'm pretty sure, for marketing reasons, Brooks is willing to ride that wave.  these shoes ARE NOT minimal nor anything similar to "barefoot" (that should be pretty obvious).  they ARE low-profile, low-heel-drop (4mm) and light-weight (9.5 oz) shoes suitable for short and long runs,   that also have ample cushioning and stability control.

my assumption after purchasing these shoes was that i would use them for shorter runs and then get a pair of adrenalines to wear on my longer runs.  so far, even with the vast sneaker collection i already have, i have not worn another shoe on any run i've done since i put these on my feet, nor can i imagine doing so.  the combination of the low-profile/low-heel drop/light(ish)weight with the stability control features makes this shoe somewhat unique in the market.  i don't know of another shoe that gives you what many would consider to be somewhat opposing features in one package.  but the result is amazing.  the low heel drop, which i thought would further tighten my calves, seems to ease them, allowing for much more ankle flex in my stride, a much more natural feeling. the light weight allows me to increase my cadence (purely) and keeps my legs fresher throughout the run.  the lower profile gives me a much better feeling from toe to heel when i come in contact with the ground, a much more solid and confident strike.

i have a pretty narrow foot, and the fit of these is quite good.  i could imagine the shoe being a bit too narrow for runners with wider feet, and i don't think they offer wider sizes yet.  i like the inclusion of the "nav band" which does make the shoe fit my foot more nicely.  all in all, the shoe feels REALLY good on my foot...  the fit is great and the shoe is so much more comfortable than i would have anticipated and sincerely as comfortable if not more so than any other shoe i've ran in.

when running in these shoes, the constant questions, tweaks and adjustments working through my head and body when i run in other shoes go away.  i find that i settle into the form i want to be in, the stride and strike i strive for naturally, as if the shoes were custom made for me.  this is a huge endorsement from me!  i don't know if it's a result of the technology being really good, or simply that there is less technology that makes this shoe work for me, but even towards the end of my longer runs in these shoes, my form feels stable and strong, even when my legs don't.  i will say, however, that i have rolled my ankle twice in these shoes...  i WAS running on uneven terrain in the dark, but i haven't done that in a long time in any other shoe.

i had originally questioned whether or not i thought these shoes would be cush enough to last through a marathon, but i do believe they will.  i haven't taken them over 8 miles yet though, so i'll be sure to report back if there is any issue when i do.

on the downside, i don't think these shoes are going to last me very long.  i've only put 30-40 miles in on them and they are already showing some signs of wear.  additionally, the "split toe" feature seems like a good idea, but on my shoe, the gap on the left side is (much) smaller than the gap on the right side, leading me to believe they aren't constructed as well as they could be.  (i have yet to experience anything new with this "split toe" feature either).  for a shoe as expensive as these are, i would hope they would last a decent amount of time and being well-constructed.

still, my primary thought right now is:  how do i make sure i am always able to run in these shoes.

Related Posts:
Review: Brooks Launch
Shoe Review: Asics Gel-Bandito
Kinvara 2 Review