|  | | | Customer Reviews: | | | Average Customer Review: ( 44 customer reviews )
Write an online review and share your thoughts with other customers.
Most Helpful Customer Reviews
39 of 39 found the following review helpful:
 The Perfect Balance: A minimal shoe that's sturdy enough to train in Oct 10, 2010
By E. Brown
"EB"
Complete minimalist shoes are only good for short runs or races as they'll fall apart during heavy training. Overly-padded and structured shoes like Asics' Nimbus make you feel like you're wearing platform shoes & your feet are on lock-down. Saucony's Kinvara strikes the perfect balance.
If you're a Chi, POSE or minimalist runner, the Kinvara will provide enough protection from the elements, a flexible sole & a barely noticeable heel rise (4mm instead of the usual 11mm) such that striking mid-foot is easy to do w/o scraping your heels. I can actually feel the work-out on my calves as I do when I run in my bare feet.
We often hear, 'fits like a glove'. That's only a good thing if the material is as 'flexible as a glove'. Nike's Frees fit very tightly, but my toes can't get a break. Fortunately, the Kinvara's toe box is very flexible such that my toes aren't bound together whilst pounding the pavement. They're free to expand & breathe. The shoe is snug, but it expands very easily. As it should be.
Kinvara is quite reasonably priced. Minimal-ish shoes should be less expensive than those shored up with bells & whistles. Shoe-makers like Newton simply gouge us because they didn't have much competition in this market. Using similar materials, but shaping them differently shouldn't add to cost, particularly if less material is being used. Vibram's Five Fingers are a prime example of price gouging based on niche market, not cost to produce or value. Gloves with rubber bottoms shouldn't cost $85, especially as you can't put much mileage on them.
CONS? I got two of them. For a minimalist shoe, the arch is a bit too pronounced for me. Of course, I have flat feet, so it probably won't be too intrusive for most. Secondly, unlike the inner part of the sole (under the arch), which is flat, the outer sole sort of swoops upwards which makes it wear down a bit faster than the inner part. It looks good, but I wish the sole & arch were both more 'neutral'. However, the Kinvara is still at the head of the class when taking into account minimalist features (weight, nearly flat heel rise, toe & sole flexibility, airy) coupled w/ durability of a trainer.
As for aesthetics, the Kinvara is a unique looking shoe, but not as ghastly as most Asics and not as oddball as some minimalist shoes.
I feel comfortable running long distances in this shoe. I am using Kinvaras to train for & run in the LA Marathon. It's light enough to race in, but substantial enough to train in, even for a 6', 200lb man like me. That's not easy to come by.
10 of 10 found the following review helpful:
 Great Race Day Minimalist Shoe - Buy At Least a Half-Size Up Jul 20, 2010
By J. A. Walsh
On blogs, at road races, and throughout the running community, the Kinvara was a highly anticipated shoe that was met with a lot of pre-rlease buzz.
Like most (maybe all -- New Balance looks to be entering the fray themselves soon) running shoe manufacturers, Saucony was looking to make a marquee entry into the minimalist running shoe category to capitalize on the barefoot running resurgence, inspired in large part by Christopher McDougall's book.
Shoe tech geeks will tell you that Kinvara offered some surprises, with a bit more heel-to-forefoot than some expected, at 18:14. But, from the feel of the shoe, it does wear very naturally. Just putting it on I get a second skin sort of effect, and while I continue to do some training in more traditional performance training shoes, I really prefer and enjoy these.
At over 200 pounds, I am still concerned about the question of cushion, and when I am training for a longer race and my mileage goes up into the 40's weekly, I am a little concerned about wearing a shoe like this, but I am hoping to ramp up some more mileage in the Kinvara and see if it returns results consistent with what I am getting right now wearing it for speedwork and on race days (5 and 10Ks).
I agree with a previous review that the shoe fits a size or so small. My 13's were very snug. In a minimalist shoe, I want some extra room in the toe so that I get the benefit of wearing less cushion and my toes can splay and move and find solid ground. For me, the transition to 14 would be tough, but I would say you should buy these at least a half-size up.
7 of 7 found the following review helpful:
Love 'em--now that I have the right size! Jul 18, 2010
By Ken Wishart
Just took my new Kinvara's out for a test run, and they were just what I was hoping for: a comfortable, light, somewhat "minimalist" shoe but with enough padding that I'll be able to run my upcoming marathon in them. Not quite as far down the barefoot spectrum as I'd been thinking after finishing "Born to Run," (read it!) but they'll do for me...may get some FiveFingers, or just aqua-socks, for shorter runs someday.
A note: I had to send my first size 11 pair back (I typically wear an 11 New Balance) as they were too small; debated ordering 11.5 or 12, but as there was a $30 price differential between the two (go figure!) I opted for the 12's...and thank goodness, as the 11.5's would definitely have been small as well.
For me, men's (review has my name wrong) New Balance 769 size 11 = Saucony Kinvara size 12; exact same weight, as well.
6 of 7 found the following review helpful:
4 and 1/2 stars Oct 28, 2010
By Eduardo Nietzsche
The 1/2 star deduction is because I found the cushioning of this shoe to be a tad too soft/spongy for my tastes and does not provide enough proprioception and ground feel. Very subjective dislike though. My other pet peeve is that the insole has way too much arch support---but this is a common problem with many running shoes, and easily solved by 1. replacing the insole with the thinnest flattest $2 Dr. Scholls insoles you can find, 2. tossing the insole altogether and running without it, or 3. Using scissors to trim away the offending part of the insole that sits underneath your arches. I prefer #3 myself, and it made a HUGE improvement for the Kinvara. My last small quibble is that the shoelaces are too long and feel too flimsy.
Otherwise, it's a great shoe: comfortable, light, breathable with a BLESSEDLY low 4mm "offset" (the height of the heel vs. the mid/forefoot) especially for a trainer with this amount of cushioning.
Saucony is marketing this as a "minimalist" shoe, but that is really an extremely liberal use of the term. The Kinvara is basically a lightweight (just under 8oz) neutral performance trainer with a low heel...it does NOT provide nearly enough ground feel to be truly called a "minimalist" shoe like the Vibram Five Fingers, Saucony Grid Type A4, Asics Piranha, etc.
Having said that, the low heel can make ALL the difference in the world...most runners will find that it's much easier to get a cleaner and faster midfoot strike in a low-heeled shoe as opposed to the traditional clunky-high-heeled running shoes that the shoe companies have been pushing since the early '80s. Those traditional foamboats often encourage overstriding and hard heel-striking, a toxic combination that gives rise to all kinds of nasty injuries and which has given running its undeserved reputation as a high-impact jarring activity that only a masochist could sustain.
As of this writing, there is no other running shoe on the market which combines ample cushioning and a low heel like the Kinvara. Newton's shoes claim to do the same thing but at $155-170 they are way outside of most runners' budgets. The closest you can come to it is the Asics Hyperspeed, which is about 1oz lighter and slightly firmer and thinner, another excellent choice. Stupidly enough, Asics refuses to market the Hyperspeed as a "minimalist" shoe choice but tries to pass it off as a racing flat, which in my opinion it is not thin and light enough to really be.
In any case, let us hope that the Kinvara marks a turning point after which the running shoe industry will begin to lose its silly fixation on clunky, high-heeled foamboats.
3 of 3 found the following review helpful:
I wasn't much for running... until I got these shoes! Jun 27, 2011
By P. Patel
Before I started using these shoes, I used to *despise* running. I absolutely hated it. No matter what I did or how hard I worked, I just could not build my endurance or reduce my mile times. And don't even get me started on all the constant shin-splints, toe pains, and sore knees. Then I thought to myself, as the great Michael Jordan once said, "It's gotta be the shoes".
I was using a pair of Nike Shox Turbo (with some roman numeral at the end) and, compared to these Sauconys, the Shox were like strapping cinder blocks to my feet. The very first thing you'll notice about these shoes is that they are light as feathers. Now, with that being said, you will be sacrificing some cushioning and rigidity in order to achieve the light weight. However, your feet (unless you have very serious arch issues) are designed to move around a bit when you're running! Now I won't lie, your feet and legs will definitely be sore the first few runs if you're used to highly cushioned shoes like I once was, but eventually your muscles will build up to compensate and you'll wonder how you ever ran in other shoes.
The "citron" colored ones definitely draw attention, which is helpful if you're ever running in inclement weather or other low-light conditions.
They are well-ventilated, which prevents your feet from getting too sweaty and stinky.
I can't speak to the durability of these yet seeing as how I just received them a few weeks ago and my average weekly distance is only about 15 miles.
Take this review as you will, but I know that I will never go back to using another brand of running shoes after wearing these bad boys for the past few weeks. In fact, I'm going to purchase another set of these Saucony ProGrids as a backup pair once I have enough money.
Update 1: (02/05/2012) - I've put quite a lot of mileage on these shoes in the 8 months that I've owned them and they've held up really well. I try to run outside as much as possible and there is still plenty of tread left on the shoes. But then again, I take really good care of my things (I still keep these in the original box when not in use). I've been recommending these shoes to anyone that'll listen.
See all 44 customer reviews on Amazon.com
|
| | |
