After I announced my initial success transitioning from the Nike Air Pegasus to the lighter minimalist Brooks Pure Flow in early-December, I received a note from a fellow runner and “sounding board” partner; recommending that I’d try Newton’s Light Weight Neutral Trainers.

Proving that timing is everything, I took a flyer on the shoe recommendation after thinking about it for a couple of days; the new “kicks” arriving a week later.

The following day, I took the Newton Trainers out for a spin and instantly fell in love with them, largely due to the biomechanical metatarsal sensor plate in the midsole, which encourages a runner to land on their forefoot with a clean and consistent foot strike.

Continuing to prove that timing is everything, the new Newton MV2 Men’s Racing Flats came on the market and a friend who knew my size sent to them to me in the mail at the end of December.

Now that’s a great friend.

The shoes also became a great friend during the initial rollout as well.  It took me about half a mile to get used to the zero (0) millimeter drop compared to the 4mm heel-to-toe drop in the Brooks Pure Flow and Pure Connect shoes in my current rotation, but I quickly adjusted and continued to be blown away by Newton’s sensor plate in the midsole.

Additionally, the biggest “aha moment” in all my 16 years as a declared runner occurred during the MV2 rollout, when I “felt” all phases and landings in my footstrike, getting into a comfortable rhythm for the duration of the workout.

I also love the shoe’s overall fit and feel.  At 5.8 ounces, the MV2′s are definitely the lightest shoes I’ve ever owned and unlike the fit challenges I initially experienced with the Pure Connect, I never noticed wearing them at all, despite being created to advance a “race day fit.”

My thanks to the great friend for the MV2′s as these are likely the shoes I’ll be using for speed/tempo training as well as short distance events in the coming weeks and months.

However, I’ve been kind of babying my new racing flats, only wearing them during “game time” and using other shoes during warmups and cooldowns, as I want these shoes to last a looooooong time.

The new MV2′s ain’t cheap at $125.00 retail, but a well-made and technology-driven shoe should pay dividends for serious runners and event competitors.

__________________

Brian Adkins is a Chicago-based runner, marathoner, endurance athlete, writer, editor, essayist, and independent scholar.   You can contact Brian at: marathonbrian1@gmail.com

On Sunday, October 7, 2012, I turned right onto Roosevelt Road from Michigan Avenue in the final stretch of the 2012 Chicago Marathon.

After crossing the finish line and leaving the marathon grounds, I headed home and removed the Brooks Pure Connect’s that I wore in the race, placing them in their original box.

After more than nine (9) months of service, including wearing them at the 2012 Boston and Chicago Marathons, the shoes were officially retired.

Nearly a year earlier, I adopted the Brooks Pure Flow, one of four (4) new shoes in Brooks’s Pure Project, featuring the Pure Connect, Pure Grit, Pure Flow, and Pure Cadence, designed to provide a more “natural feel and running experience.”

I used the Pure Flow’s in my final race of 2011; taking a calculated risk that paid off; finishing 27th overall (out of 508) in a competitive 5k event where I’d finished 60th in 2010.

The shoes made the biggest impact for me in the final mile of the race when I had to make a sharp left hand turn heading towards the finish line, because I didn’t have to slow down to make the turn like I would have in heavier and clunkier running shoes.  I also blew by a number of runners in the event’s closing stretch and didn’t fade in the end from fatigue like I did in ’10.

However, despite being pleased with the Pure Flow’s initial results, I tested them in conjunction with another shoe similar to my old Nike Air Pegasus’s with the built-up heel and heavier overall weight; making a decision to adopt the Pure Flow as one of my primary training shoes in mid-December, 2011.

Compared to the Pegasus and the similarly-constructed test shoe, I ran better, faster, cleaner, and more responsively when I wore the Pure Flow’s, with a consistent midfoot strike and better overall turnover.

But there was the nagging voice in back of my head about the Brooks Pure Connect (also featuring a 4 mm heel-to-toe drop, similar to the Pure Flow) asking me questions I couldn’t answer: Why are they lighter than the Pure Flow?  What’s better?   What’s worse?  What’s different?  Why, why, why?   What, what, what?

So in late-December, 2012, I acquired a pair of Pure Connect’s to test and there were two (2) things I noticed right away.  First, the shoes were considerably snugger in the Connect’s upper than the Pure Flow.  My left foot is slightly larger than my right and the Connect’s innate snugness became more pronounced.  Runners considering adopting Pure Connect’s should probably visit a local running store to try them on or purchase shoes half a size larger than your normal fit if you’re not comfortable with an overall snug feel.

Secondly, at 7.1 ounces (compared with 8.71 ounces for the Pure Flow), the Brooks Pure Connect are among the lightest training shoes on the market and constructed with less-weighty materials than most shoes.  The Pure Connect’s alternative construction came into play when the left ankle collar changed shape after being too aggressive initially trying them on, irritating my ankle.  Eventually, I was able to “break in” the collar and haven’t experienced any further ankle discomfort, but runners accustomed to more cushioned collar padding need to be aware of the Connect’s lighter construction in that area.

Unexpectedly, compared to the Pure Flow, which I took to almost immediately, I didn’t “feel it” in my first two (2) Pure Connect test runs, so I shelved the shoes and gave them another shot a week later.

Proving the old adage about the “third time being the charm,” I had strong success in the Pure Connect’s, executing a progressive 5-mile training run that became better and better as the run continued.   The run was so good, I actually didn’t want to stop after my scheduled 5-miles; way to get out of the training shoe dog house, Brooks.

Why in my opinion was the third run so comfortable?  Surprisingly, the factors that initially worried me about the shoes, namely, the snug glove-like feel and the lighter weight/construction.  My feet finally acclimated to the shoes, providing an opportunity to actively wear the lightest training shoes I’ve ever had in my active rotation.

I know what question you’re probably asking in back of your heads right now.  Which Brooks shoe has the edge?  The Pure Flow that I’d worn since October or the Pure Connect that emerged like Secretariat at the 1973 Belmont Stakes?

Initially, when I first posted this review in January, 2012, the Pure Connect had a slight advantage with me, largely because of the refreshing “bounce” that the shoe provided and the Pure Flow lacked.

However, as 2012′s event training advanced, the Pure Connect became my primary running and training shoe and the Pure Flow became more of a “general purpose” shoe that I’ve used for stair climbing (due to its rubberized sole) and for walking around.

I successfully used the Pure Connect for a 3-minute half marathon PR on April 1, and wore them at the now legendary Boston Marathon on April 16 (see the photo posted on the bottom; I’m in the closing stages of the event heading uphill).

Like many, I had high hopes before Boston in 2012: I was in prime physical condition, had run the course in 2011, and expected to benefit positively from wearing my Pure Connect’s in Beantown.

As many of you have likely heard, 2012′s Boston Marathon was a slug-fest, with temperatures that climbed to the low-90′s in the middle sections of the course and volunteer stations were littered with trampled beverage cups and slippery sections.

However, I have to give my props to Brooks about the Connect; I don’t remember my feet hurting once during the entire marathon.

My feet were the first thing to go during last year’s San Francisco and Marquette Marathons, so it was a welcome benefit to debut the Connect on the marathon level.

It was also a breeze to wash the accumulated Gatorade, road debris, and paper cup residue off the Connect’s sole’s after Boston as well.

However, that represented the shoe’s high water mark as their previously-refreshing “bounce” faded away by the 175-mile mark, reflecting what’s become the official “scouting report” for the shoes by other wearers who’ve contacted me over the past year: the most comfortable training and racing shoes most of us have ever worn, but pretty much “shot” around 200-miles.

In fact, only one runner in my network has reported that they’ve been able to reach the 250-mile mark with the Connect so far.

I started the 2012 Chicago Marathon with 185-miles on the shoe’s odometer and the first half of the marathon was as smooth as Boston had been shoe-wise.  However, by mile-15, my left foot started to hurt, followed by my right foot a few miles later; closing the shoe’s official lifespan at 211-miles, 9-plus months, and 2 major marathons by the time I reached the finish line.

So now you have it, the full lifespan report of the Brooks Pure Connect from one of the shoe’s inaugural wearers.

They were by far the most comfortable shoes I’ve ever worn in the 8 (eight) marathons I’ve run so far.  However, there’s strong evidence that the Connect is a one-marathon cycle training and racing shoe.

We’ll soon know if that’s really the case.   Why???

The Pure Connect 2 has finally hit the general market and is now making the rounds in the running community.

One chapter ends, while another one begins.

Click here for my full review of the Brooks Pure Flow Men’s Running Shoe.

__________________

Brian Adkins is a Chicago-based runner, marathoner, endurance athlete, writer, editor, essayist, and independent scholar.   You can contact Brian at: marathonbrian1@gmail.com

In late-October, 2011, I officially stopped wearing Nike Air Pegasus +26′s; my primary training and event shoe since February, 2010.

This wasn’t a decision I made lightly as the Pegasus played an important role in my recovery from foot injuries and performance setbacks that had plagued me since 2008 with its cushioned ride, durability, and predictable responsiveness.

I never warmed to revised Pegasus versions, instead, stocking up on stray +26′s sold on the internet after being forced to run the 2010 Chicago Marathon in a so-so replacement shoe when I couldn’t locate new +26′s in time for the event.

Prior to my final race of 2011, Brooks e-mailed me information heralding their new Pure Project, featuring 4 new shoes, the Pure Connect, Pure Grit, Pure Flow, and Pure Cadence, designed to provide a more “natural feel and running experience.”

After comparing the attributes I liked with the Pegasus, namely the cushioned ride, I traveled to my favorite specialty running store and tried out the Brooks Pure Flow.

Weighing only 8.71 ounces (compared to 11.7 ounces for the Pegasus), I immediately liked how the shoes felt the minute I laced them up and started walking around in them; I could hardly believe they were athletic shoes.

Feelin’ like a giddy school kid from the 70′s, I jumped on the store’s treadmill and ran in the shoes; briefly disoriented, due to the lower heel-to-toe drop (4 mm) compared to the Pegasus, but quickly made the adjustment to running midsole only using my heel to complete the foot striking process.

The Pure Flow’s were the last ones in the store my size, so they had an instant sale; didn’t want someone else to grab the shoes because I dithered around.

Three days later, I used them in my final race of the year; taking a calculated risk that paid off; finishing 27th overall (out of 508) in a competitive 5k event where I finished 60th in 2010.

The shoes made the biggest impact for me in the final mile of the race when I had to make a sharp left hand turn heading towards the finish line, because I didn’t have to slow down to make the turn like I would have with the Pegasus’s.  I also blew by a number of runners in the event’s closing stretch and didn’t fade in the end from fatigue like I did in ’10.

However, despite being pleased with the Pure Flow’s initial results, I tested them in conjunction with a new shoe that’s similar to my old Pegasus’s with the built-up heel and heavier overall weight; making a decision to adopt the Brooks Pure Flow as one of my primary training shoes in mid-December.

Compared to the Pegasus and the similarly-constructed test shoe, I run better, faster, cleaner, and more responsively when I wear the Brooks Pure Flow’s, with a consistent midfoot strike and better overall turnover.

UPDATE FROM MARATHONBrian (Posted May 8, 2013): I’m still wearing the Pure Flow in events more than 18-months after adopting the shoe; recently finishing in the top-10 overall in a four (4) mile race on May 4, 2013.

At slightly more than 196 miles, the Pure Flow held up far better than the first version of the Pure Connect did in my rotation and retained much of the comfort and refreshing bounce that won me over in late-2011.

So far, that is.

Click here for my full review of the Brooks Pure Connect.

__________________

Brian Adkins is a Chicago-based road racer, marathoner, endurance athlete, writer, editor, essayist, and independent scholar.   You can contact Brian at: marathonbrian1@gmail.com