Firstly, let’s be clear, Hoka One One provided this shoe for review, but I also did request it. I’ve run, on and off, in Hokas for a few years now and all those super fast chaps they sponsor had been cruising around in these, so I figured I wanted to give it a try.

Expectations

In 2018 the Hoka Torrent had provided some smooth riding for the Gorce 100k in Poland, whilst the Evo Jawz got me through the Three Peaks Fell race and a 56km Italian ultra, but had let me down at the Marathon du Mont Blanc by a rock piercing straight through the sole. They’re a light weight racing shoe so maybe I asked a little much of them.

So I wondered if the Evo Mafate was the middle ground between those two. A racer with good cushioning and tidy grip for those hills.

The grip is a Vibram mega grip so you know it’s solid and maybe a step up on the Torrent’s home grown Hoka grip. 

The weight

As the shoes are used for racing by many I figured the Evo Mafate might come in a little lighter than his friends the Speedgoat 2 or the Torrent, but that wasn’t the case.

It was actually a little bit heavier. I put that down to the solid grip and a bit more durability, but it was a little disappointing to start with. The Torrent is actually the lightest of the three.

That said, when the shoe is on your foot and you’re running up or down a mountain it doesn’t feel heavy. It actually feels like a smooth ride and that could be down to the meta-rocker in a lot of Hoka shoes.

This shoe is built with extreme endurance challenges like Diagonal des Fous on Reunion Island, so it’s built to last and that comes across.

Over a hundred miles in and the shoe is showing very little signs of wear and tear. It still looks shiny, pretty and super blue, but it might have to wait for a few more miles as snow has hit the ground in the French Alps.

The cushioning

A mainstay in the Hoka collection is the super cushioned shoes that make you feel like you’re barely in contact with the ground.

While the Evo Mafate does provide good cushioning, it does not feel like you’re totally out of touch with the floor like some other cushioned shoes. They’re stiff and you can feel what’s running underneath you, which is something I like about the shoe. 

I find if I run in maximal cushioned shoes too much then my muscles take more of a hit. You’re just hitting the ground with more force because that proprioception isn’t there as much, but the Evo Mafate didn’t feel like that as much as some of the very early Hoka models did many years ago. 

That said, I wouldn’t run in this shoe every day, for that reason. I see the shoe as one suitable for long runs and races when you need the cushioning, and also for shorter runs in between to let feet and muscles have a bit of a break.

Comparison

How does it compare with it’s Hoka Peers, the Speedgoat 2, the Torrent and the Challenger ATR? I haven’t worn the Challenger ATR but I know a few people speak very highly of it. IT seems quite a similar shoe to the Torrent and I’m a big fan of that one. 

The Torrent is lighter than the Evo Mafate and for a race not too long, maybe 100km or less, I would choose the lighter shoe as it’s pretty durable. For something bigger and tougher I might go for the more durable Evo Mafate or the Speedgoat 2, which I have raced in a lot in the past.

The biggest difference for me that will make a difference is the cost.

At £150 RRP, although you can get it a bit cheaper, it is an expensive shoe and I don’t think I would have purchased it myself. I have bought the Torrent (£100 RRP) and the Speedboat 2 (£120 RRP) myself in the past.

The summary

Well, it’s a wonderful running shoe. Tough, durable, fast feeling and well cushioned. It looks mighty fine in electric blue and feels like you’ll get many more than the standard 500 miles out of it. Yet I’m still undecided if it works out as a £ per mile bargain.

I will be running in this shoe in 2019, it’s a joy to train in, but maybe a little heavy for me to race in. I wouldn’t buy it myself, but that’s just because it’s out of my budget more than anything.

I’ll update this in the middle of the summer to see how the shoe is holding up with more miles logged.

Are you a fan of Fast Running? Then please support us. For as little as the price of a monthly magazine you can support Fast Running – and it only takes a minute. Thank you.

The post Shoe review: Hoka One One Evo Mafate appeared first on Fast Running.

Designed to stand up to miles and miles of pounding the pavement, the lightweight stability On Cloudflyer should provide enough cushioning and support for most distance runners.

Since making its move into the UK market, the Swiss company has signed up the running stalwarts Andy Vernon and Chris Thompson as ambassadors, as well as dedicated club runners such as Kirsty Longley and Ben Fish.

Blackburn Harriers’ Fish features on Fast Running this year as part of the ‘Fast 10: class of 2018’ and when asked about his go-to shoe for most of his training, he said: “I’ve been using the Cloudflyer, which is a great shoe for mileage.”

On that recommendation, I put the shoes to the test and completely agree with it as being a shoe for high mileage and regular runs.

Now in its second generation, the shoe weighs in at 283g for men and 243g for women. In terms of appearance, what stands out about the Cloudflyer to other brands, is the 12 ‘clouds’ underfoot.

The cloud elements, developed with On’s Zero Gravity foam, move individually as they absorb impact with each foot-strike.

My assessment would be that the cloud elements are firm compared to highly cushioned shoes, but deliver enough cushioning for long runs, while still feeling like a lightweight performance shoe.

The fit of the shoe is comfortable and snug, while the heel is kept well in place and centred throughout a run. This is helped by the laces, which are slightly stretchy, and tie in a criss-cross fashion.

One downside about the cloud elements is that stones can become lodged underfoot if running regularly off-road, so do keep that in mind if you normally train away from the tarmac. I did not get to test the shoe in wet weather, but other reviewers have noted the grip on wet surfaces.

The Cloudflyer’s £135 RRP will put some runners off, but a good shoe that can stand up to the demands of regular long runs is worth the investment.

Bottom line

On the road, the Cloudflyer is at home and I have no complaints. The shoe is light enough to also double up as a racing shoe but other On Running alternatives include the Cloudflow or Cloud-X.

Not that it is important to every runner, but in terms of style the Cloudflyer comes in various colour combinations, such as the orange and navy pair which I tested, which allows them to double up nicely as a casual shoe well after you have logged your daily miles.

In terms of size they size up slightly small, so do try on a couple of different sizes before purchasing.

Overall, I would recommend the Cloudflyer for long distance runners, from the natural runner to those that require a bit more stability.

Are you a fan of Fast Running? Then please support us. For as little as the price of a monthly magazine you can support Fast Running – and it only takes a minute. Thank you.

The post Shoe review: running on ‘clouds’ with the On Cloudflyer appeared first on Fast Running.

Saucony’s Freedom ISO was the first shoe with a full-length Everrun midsole, this is similar to the Boost foam found in Adidas shoes but a bit firmer. The Liberty was next to incorporate this midsole and I was keen to test them out on a few easy runs initially, before seeing how they faired in faster runs.

I found them very responsive on firm ground, both road and grass and comparing the Liberty to the first version of the Freedom there are a lot of similarities between the shoes, including the upper fit.

As mentioned this is a stability shoe and the support you get is certainly the main difference of this shoe over its sister. The stability comes from the inner midsole, the added structure of the upper and the heel also locks nicely in place. The guidance frame on the medial side of the shoe certainly helps to provide added stability as well.

The shoes aren’t ‘too restrictive’ though and those who like a natural feel or usually choose a neutral shoe can certainly go for the Liberty as the support features are mild.

Are these for easy runs, sessions and/or racing?

The Liberty is a good training shoe and I found it comfortable and responsive for every day easy runs for anything up to 12 miles with good shock absorption and a good return of energy. Personally, long runs of 16 miles or more I would probably go for something with a bit more cushion.

In terms of the terrain and speed work, the shoes were tested on road and firm grass and sessions were fast. Although I didn’t race in the shoe I would happily wear it for a 5k road race up to a half marathon.

Faster runners would probably go a lighter shoe for a 5k to 10k, but if you are in the 33 minute plus 10k range the Liberty is a good choice.

As mentioned this is a firm shoe with ‘some bounce’, but when it comes to a marathon I like a bit ‘more bounce’. However, if you happily see out 26.2 miles in a pair of Adidas Tempo or Saucony Kivanra or Freedom, you could comfortably do it in the Liberty too.

Final thoughts

The cost could put some off. Upon release in 2017, they were RRP £150, but you should be able to find them at around £110 now.

The heel drop of the shoes is 4mm and some runners who are not used to low drop shoe may require a bit of time to be accustomed to the shoes, but this is the same with any low drop shoe.

Rival shoes that I have tried out would include the Adidas Adizero Tempo or the Boston. You could say the Liberty is somewhere in between the two.

Finally, though it doesn’t happen too often, in some other shoes that are snug fitting I do occasionally overpronate on my left foot, but with these, there were no such issues. A big plus in my book.

The post Shoe review: Saucony Liberty ISO appeared first on Fast Running.

Not all road shoes are created equally. Some are made just for the tarmac, whereas others can handle a few miles on the trail in your weekly mileage. That seems like a reasonable ask in the days of parkrun and mixed terrain events.

Whilst it might be possible for some to afford a shoe for every occasion, we can’t all have the full arsenal with us at all times. Sometimes you just need a shoe that is very good at one thing, but alright elsewhere too.

The New Balance Zante, the 1, 2 and 3, is a lightweight road shoe with a good grip on the tarmac. There is even a Zante 4 but I’ve not had the need to upgrade this excellent shoe just yet.

Certainly, the time will come and I’m confident the 4 will keep the feet happy.

The 6mm drop, bold colours and New Balance fresh foam mean this is a comfortable training shoe that is good enough for racing too. Weighing in around 250g in a size 9 (UK) it won’t be weighing you down on the sprint finish.

What gives me such confidence to wax lyrical about this particular pair of kicks? How much do you expect a reviewer to run in trainers before passing a verdict?

Is well over a thousand miles with one pair surviving a 600 km run across the Kom-Emine trail in the Bulgarian Balkan mountains sufficient?

The pair used in Bulgaria are still seeing extra miles on the feet of a mountain guide, although their best road miles were behind them.

The best thing about these shoes is the cushioning. Whether it’s hard, fast tarmac or miles of rock, the fresh foam provides a good level of cushioning, spacious toe box and a trustable grip.

If the trails were wet then more grip would be needed, but how much do you want from one shoe?

If you’re a fan of New Balance shoes, the fresh foam cushioning or just a great value pair of running shoes that go the extra mile, the Zante is a real steal.

The post New Balance Zante: the shoe for everything… kind of appeared first on Fast Running.

The shoes were first unveiled for Nike’s Breaking2 marathon in Monza, Italy earlier this year. While the 2-hour marathon barrier wasn’t broken, Eliud Kipchoge came closer than any man has ever done, running an incredible 2:00:25.

The highly cushioned shoes were also worn by Geoffrey Kamworor and Shalene Flanagan en route to their wins at the New York City Marathon on November 5.

And most recently, Camille Herron shattered the 100-mile world record at the Tunnel Hill trail race in a pair of Vaporflys. Herron spoke to Fast Running following her world record on November 11, saying: “Nike actually got me a new pair on the Thursday before the race as I had trained my others into the ground. I love them.”

Nike Vaporfly 4% – Photo credit: Nike

While it was not the world record Nike’s Vaporfly 4% shoes were intended for – a world record is still a world record. Herron’s time of 12:42:39 took more than an hour of the previous record.  This translates to an 8 percent improvement in running economy. And while the shoes can’t claim responsibility for such an improvement, the findings from a new study published in the journal Sports Medicine indicates that the shoes do improve a runner’s running economy.

The term running economy refers to the energy demand and oxygen consumption at a given pace. Runners who have ‘good’ running economy or if their economy improves, use less energy and therefore less oxygen. This implies that a runner can maintain a given pace for a longer period of time – delaying the onset of fatigue.

The study

Led by Rodger Kram and Wouter Hoogkamer along with a team at the University of Colorado’s Locomotion Lab tested 18 runners running in Nike’s Vaporflys and two other models of racing shoes – Adidas’ Adios Boost 2 and Nike’s Zoom Streak.

The 18 runners were all male and non-elite but were high-calibre runners who had recently run a sub-31 minute 10km race at sea level (or a sub-32 minute 10-km race at the local altitude) or performed to an equivalent standard over a different distance.

During the study, runners ran a series of 5 minute times trials at three different speeds 6:54, 6:02 and 5:22 per mile on a treadmill rotating the use of each shoe model.

The researchers measured oxygen uptake and carbon dioxide production and of the 18 runners tested, all of them showed improvements in running economy when wearing Vaporflys compared to the other two models.

Photo credit: Sports Medicine

In fact, of the 18 individuals, they averaged just over a 4 percent improvement in running economy when wearing the Vaporflys. Most impressively some runners saw as much as 6.26 percent jump, while in others it was as low as 1.59 percent – though still a 100 percent improvement across the board, something that is rarely seen in human-based research.

The study also looked at energy return and any biomechanical changes in the runners.

Nike’s foam (thick layers of material surrounding a stiffened embedded plate) used in the Vaporlfys returned 87 percent of stored energy, compared to 75.9 percent for Adidas’ Adios Boost model – its main competitor in the elite racing world of marathon running. Nike’s other model, the Zoom Streak 6 returned 65.5 percent energy.

Looking at any changes in biomechanics – when running in the Vaporflys, runners ran with a longer strides and lower cadence, and both; greater peak vertical force and longer contact time with the ground.

While they did not set out to evaluate the foot strike pattern of the shoes the study allowed for it. The group included eight heel strikers and 10 midfoot or forefoot strikers – with the heel strikers gaining a slightly greater benefit.

The study concluded that “we predict that with these shoes, top athletes could run substantially faster and achieve the first sub-2-hour marathon.”

Dennis Kimetto set the current world record of 2:02:57 in 2014 wearing a pair of Adidas Boost shoes, and based on the research’s findings the 4% running economy improvement would dip well under the 2-hour marathon barrier. Although this is all theoretical, and the study was performed on a treadmill without considering a wide range of outdoor factors, including air resistance.

It must also be noted that the study was funded by Nike, and may bring questions from some quarters. However, the laboratory in Boulder, Colorado is reputable and the study’s results that 100 percent of runners all improved their running economy in the shoes is phenomenal.

The post Nike’s Vaporfly 4% shoes do improve running economy – research confirms appeared first on Fast Running.

The shoe that was used in Nike’s breaking2 project, includes a full-length carbon fibre plate and an advanced midsole foam that claims to offer 13 percent better energy return.

Putting the advancements in shoe technology aside, running shoes are still man-made products with a limited lifespan and as the mileage builds up, your shoes will lose stability, cushioning, become worn, and prolonged running in shoes in this condition can leave you sidelined.

To minimise the risk injury, it’s advisable to replace your shoes at the right time. But when is the right time? To help you make an informed decision here below are few key guidelines.

1. The outsole tread is worn

One of the main intended uses of a running shoe is to provide traction when we run, and over time the rubber on the bottom outsole will wear away. Depending on how your foot strikes the ground one part of the shoe might wear away more quickly.

The worn part on your shoe can also highlight your gait pattern, and if there is considerable wear on one side and minimal wear on the other, it could indicate a biomechanics imbalance issue. If this is left unaddressed you increase the chance of an injury developing over time.

2. The mileage on your shoes is high

An old rule of thumb among runners is to replace your running shoes every 250-350 miles, depending on your running style, weight, and the surface on which you run.

Where you run also determines how soon you’ll have to replace your shoes. If you run on rough roads or trails, you’ll need to replace your shoes sooner than if you primarily run on grass. If you take good care of your running shoes, you may be able to get away with the higher end of the mileage range.

3. Aches and pains

Your body can be quick to tell you when it’s time to invest in a new pair of running shoes. Sore hips, feet and knees can be indications that the stability, support and cushioning built into the shoe has worn down to the point that it’s counterproductive to continue running in them.

4. You only have one pair

All runners have a favourite pair of shoes that they trust for any run, regardless of the weather or terrain. However, when you only wear the one favourite pair it can increase your risk of injury. Why is that? It is because with every run the midsole foam (the part of the shoe that gives your legs that “springy” feeling with each step) becomes compressed, and for it to return to its original shape it needs time, usually longer than 24 hours.

When the midsole foam of your shoe isn’t allowed to return to its original shape it’s more compressed, and running in shoes in this state increases the strain on your feet and lower limbs.

If you feel you over-reliant on one pair of shoes, it is recommended that you invest in a second pair. Once you have that second pair, alternate every few days to give the midsole foam a chance to return to its original shape. This will also help prolong the life of your shoes.

And there is science to back it up. In a recent Scandinavian research project, researchers looked at runners who changed between models of shoes over a 22 week period. They found that 39 percent had a lower risk of injuries compared to runners who ran continuously in the same pair of shoes. It was concluded that because the leg muscles are having to work differently in each pair of shoes, less stress is repeatedly applied to the same muscles.

The post Is it time for new running shoes? appeared first on Fast Running.