Adidas Boost Trainers, anyone had a run in a pair yet?

All the hype over these new trainers, anyone on here had a go yet in them?

Mark

«13456789

Comments

  • ive seen the "boost" foam stuff, but not tried the actual shoes on. tis very bouncy stuff, but i'm not sure its going to make any difference, just like "zig-tech" doesnt or any other gimmick. it might be squashier but that looses energy.

  • I don't think they are likely to be the revolution that Adidas claim. 

    A running shoe ultimately involves a trade off between shock absorption and responsiveness, and I suspect that the industry has done as much as can be done in terms of specification.   

  • Do they have a snake oil additive ?
  • Probably about 15 years ago I remember a (then) fancy counter top demonstration thing that showed the "bounce" of a large ball bearing on 3 different materials - metal (representing nothing), a piece of EVA foam and a piece of NOENE insole.

    This was supposed to demonstrate the shock absorbing benefits of the Noene insoles.

    Basically, on the metal the ball bounced the highest, on the EVA it bounced a bit and on the Noene there was NO bounce at all…

    Therefore… ta daaa… prooving the shock (energy?) absorbing benefits of the fancy insole.

     

    Apparently these days, bounce is good!

     

    Surely you can’t have shock (energy) absorbing and bounce (energy return) – it’s one or the other surely…

     

    Depending on which one the marketing guys decide in in vogue in the current market probably!

     

    Today Adidas have decided BOUNCE is good.

     

     

    Who am I to argue - if the shoe fits, wear it.

  • Agree with all of above.

    The manufacturers place an emphasis on a different performance aspect each season, this doesn't represent a shift in trainer development but a reason to punt out more units to gullible punters.

    As far as I can tell we should all be running barefoot or as near a dammit or having a mini bouncing ball stuck under each foot depending on whose manufacturer's pitch this sales campaign you follow. It is similar to football kits being constantly tweaked it just shifts units it is almost as if Adidas are motivated by profit image

    Trainers are like haircuts, when you hit 30 find one you like and stick with it image

    Fashion cycles make me laugh, what was cutting edge two weeks ago is passe now and don't get me started on features announcing that "Denim is back". Yeah right because we all stopped wearing jeans didn't we image

    Emperors and new  clothes come to mind. Who is to say that in 40 years time we won't be a generation of aging cripples ruined by bogus running technology? We could be wearing the Asbestos of exercise on our feet five times a week.

    I'm a cheery ole sole this morning image

  • XX1XX1 ✭✭✭
    oirisheyes -- If we should all be running barefoot, or as near as dammit, then perhaps the majority of us have been gullible punters for many years... But who's to say that this whole barefoot thing isn't the asbestos of exercise?
  • stutyrstutyr ✭✭✭

    Agree with what others have said, and Adidas seem to have completely missed the minimalist shoe idea, where less padding is better.

    If you want to see something worse than the new shoes, google "Adidas Bounce" and see the monstrosities they've previously made with this name - hideous £200+ porsche design shoes with some bizarre suspension system.

    Of course, I'll take this all back if the Adidas-sponsored runner breaks the 2 hour barrier in VLM (I think its Kipsang who'll be wearing them, but I might be worng)! 

  • Taxi Driver wrote (see)
    oirisheyes -- If we should all be running barefoot, or as near as dammit, then perhaps the majority of us have been gullible punters for many years... But who's to say that this whole barefoot thing isn't the asbestos of exercise?

    I don't think thats quite what oirisheyes meant

  • Waylon Smithers wrote (see)

    Probably about 15 years ago I remember a (then) fancy counter top demonstration thing that showed the "bounce" of a large ball bearing on 3 different materials - metal (representing nothing), a piece of EVA foam and a piece of NOENE insole.

    This was supposed to demonstrate the shock absorbing benefits of the Noene insoles.

    Basically, on the metal the ball bounced the highest, on the EVA it bounced a bit and on the Noene there was NO bounce at all…

    Therefore… ta daaa… prooving the shock (energy?) absorbing benefits of the fancy insole.

     

    Apparently these days, bounce is good!

     

    Surely you can’t have shock (energy) absorbing and bounce (energy return) – it’s one or the other surely…

     

    Depending on which one the marketing guys decide in in vogue in the current market probably!

     

    Today Adidas have decided BOUNCE is good.

     

     

    Who am I to argue - if the shoe fits, wear it.

    It depends on whether it is a damped or undamped spring response, a pure spring response will return almost all the energy on the return stroke.

  • Whether they're good or not, I certainly won't ever run in adidas shoes again.......they are the asbestos of running in my humble opinion.

  • Adidas running shoes give you cancer?

  • http://www.stuff.tv/news/life-etc/5-of-the-best/adidas-boost-and-five-other-running-trainer-milestones

    The reviewer in this piece seems to like them.  But at £110 its' a bit pricey. 

  • XX1XX1 ✭✭✭
    oirisheyes -- If nothing else you seem to have coined a new term: "the asbestos of running" image
  • I worked for a few years in a specialist running shop, that placed a very high premium on customer service. 

    The first thing that I taught new trainees, was to ignore everything that the manufacturer told you about their product. 

    It was less misleading, more informative, and plain easier, to teach them to interpret the shoe themselves from the ground up. 

  • 2wheels-good wrote (see)
    Waylon Smithers wrote (see)

    Probably about 15 years ago I remember a (then) fancy counter top demonstration thing that showed the "bounce" of a large ball bearing on 3 different materials - metal (representing nothing), a piece of EVA foam and a piece of NOENE insole.

    This was supposed to demonstrate the shock absorbing benefits of the Noene insoles.

    Basically, on the metal the ball bounced the highest, on the EVA it bounced a bit and on the Noene there was NO bounce at all…

    Therefore… ta daaa… prooving the shock (energy?) absorbing benefits of the fancy insole.

     

    Apparently these days, bounce is good!

     

    Surely you can’t have shock (energy) absorbing and bounce (energy return) – it’s one or the other surely…

     

    Depending on which one the marketing guys decide in in vogue in the current market probably!

     

    Today Adidas have decided BOUNCE is good.

     

     

    Who am I to argue - if the shoe fits, wear it.

    It depends on whether it is a damped or undamped spring response, a pure spring response will return almost all the energy on the return stroke.

    Thanks for that - so which one is better for runners - or is that imposiible to answer?

  • Sadly we've all been there, why did the maker of the running shoe we all like change the design, the matireal, even the way its laced?  When a company has a hit, they should change the colours options and thats all.  The standard of running has gone down in the UK, and its because of gimmicks like this. So many runners will show up in marathon season with a boost in the step (literally) image

    Guess it beats the old ways of solid training!!!

  • Lots of comments and opinions on this thread, but no answer to the original question - I must admit i am interested to hear the opinions of anybody who has actually run in a pair of Boost's? I'm due a new pair of shows soon and I'm considering my options.
  • Skebble - only adidas testers would have run in them so far (enough to give a review anyways).  Shoes have a life span, and the real new angle here is the fact these probably hold their life and properties for longer and in more extreme conditions (hot and cold seems to be the buzz).  Take running shoes reviews with a pinch of salt though, every shoe released and tested should have both good and negative reviews because everyone is different.  These shoes are probably similiar to the previous adidas line, and they've been launched in marathon season, most likely being targeted at lazy runners (in the main) with a very high price point.  Adidas shoes tend to be the smallest fitting size on the market, and tend to be quite stiff, not my cup of tea, but then they have runners breaking marathon world record in their adizero range (but in fairness the shoes the pro's wear are nothing like the stock version).  If you are running well in a particuliar shoe, then stick with it (unless your ready to repalce a previous adidas shoe), don't buy these because they promise energy return. Theirs only one property that can deliver that - the runner.    The way to get more, do the training miles, do a training program and get the best possible fitness you can push yourself to without geting injured. This is a gimmick, and in a few years adidas will need a new angle and buzz word.  Remember as well, adidas have a poor share of the running shoe market in the states, these were launched in New York. 

  • Some interesting articles which somebody recently posted in another thread:

    My Problem with the Adidas Boost Marketing Approach

    A Brief History Of Energy Return In Running Shoes

    One of the main things I got from this, especially the first article, is that the use of the ball-bearing video to highlight the material's "energy return" properties is, IMO, knowingly misleading.  The biomechanics of how a person's foot, legs and body move when running have got very little to do with the way a solid metal ball bounces off a flat surface covered in a certain material, and Adidas boffins surely know this, but they're happy (as far as I can see) for people to make the inference that these shoes will make you run quicker cos you're bouncing along the road more quickly.

    That's the only bit I don't like about it.  Maybe they're worth the premium price because of the other factors, i.e. simply providing a (subjectively) more comfortable ride, or lasting longer through more extreme conditions.  That all remains to be seen though.

  • MillsyMillsy ✭✭✭
    Sounds like a bit of a gimmick to me. It looks like Adidas are aiming them at the people who think that spending money on fancy kit will make you quicker rather than training harder / smarter.

    Maybe I'm just biased as all their shoes are too narrow for me.
  • Go and drop a ball bearing on a concrete surface. I bet it doesn't do as their advert suggests.

  • Wonder how long the sole is designed to last, doesn't look very thick and the shoe looks to be designed more for heel strikers.

  • Thought that myself Gazanmeister, looks liks a heel strikers shoe with very little cushioning towards the forefoot.

  • I think the sole looks very thick on them.

  • Have they re-invented the Hoka One?

  • Cushioned/structured shoes progressively weaken and misshapen feet.

  • Hey, I tested them out for a website I work on. I know this probably seems like spam cus I just joined but a bit of background, my bestfriend started training for the paris half last year and I got into running to support him and I write about sports tech so Adidas gave me a pair to try out.

    I'd be happy to answer any questions you have. The video blog of me wearing them for the past couple of weeks is online now if you want to have a look, I can share the link. Anywho, I found this thread looking up other people's thoughts on them but haven't found many others who have actually tried them, but I'm still keen to talk.

  • I tested them and found them narrow with too much toe spring 

  • I have quite wide feet and they didn't feel narrow, but the top of the laces were a little uncomfortable at first. And oddly I almost wanted more toe spring from them, I expected the spring to be noticeable, but for me it wasn't.

Sign In or Register to comment.