I’m not an expert when it comes to running shoes.  I do think it is valuable when considering shoe options to get the opinions of the everyday Joe’s (or Greg’s) who have experience with a specific model and can speak to their joys and concerns.  Thus, I do plan to write up some non-technical reviews of a few of the shoes I have experienced, but I will only do so when there is enough mileage and range of workouts on them to form good opinions.

As I detail in a post on Runblogger regarding my shoe selection process, I was looking for some options to replace my Nike Air Max Moto’s.  They are good shoes, but I felt I could get something lighter, and they had done some damage to my pinky toenails at the Cleveland Marathon (irreparable damage, in fact – but frankly my pinky toes have long been a lost cause – a story for another time, perhaps).  Since the Moto’s are already a pretty neutral shoe, though definitely with more support than others in the category, the logical step in seeking something lighter is to find a shoe with less cushioning.

After trying on the Mizuno Wave Rider 13, ASICS DS Trainer 15, and Brooks Ghost 3, I decided that the Mizuno’s were worth a try, with the Ghosts as the backup, more cushioned option.  My preliminary observations, after 30 miles, were included in the post on Runblogger, but to summarize:

• There is a notable increase in your ability to “feel” the road. In fact, you almost feel like you are gripping it on each stride (and that may be due to the flexibility that the Riders are known for).
• My legs were more sore from these shoes – initially in the shins, but later in the hamstrings.  This may be related to the first point, but was my biggest concern early in my experiments with these shoes.

Now, with 240 miles on the shoes, it’s a better time to make a fair judgment.  But yet, I still have some uncertainties about them.  First the positives:

• I have found that not only do I need a wide show, I specifically need a shoe with a large toe box – both “laterally” (across the toes) and, well, whatever you call the “up and down” direction.  My toes splay and curl up, and many shoes (including, regrettably, the Brooks Ghost 3’s that I did eventually try) create issues with toenails bruising.  That was another minor issue that drove me from the Nike’s, though I was wearing a normal width.
• They are light – not as light as performance trainers, but definitely on the low end of the neutral category.  They are listed at 10.5 ozs., which is a decent reduction over the Nike Air Max Moto’s (11.7 ozs.).  It is easy to see why – there is not much cushioning.  The shoe is thin all around.
• For as much as you feel the road, the impact is well spread across the bottom of the foot – I do believe the Wave technology works for this.  I have not felt any particular hot spots or bruising, which others who have worn the shoes have complained about.
• The slightly lower heel-to-toe drop may have reduced my heel striking. Don’t get me wrong, I am still a heel striker, but I think I’ve improved my stride a bit even with the Nike’s (where I saw less heel wear on my most recent Max Moto’s then I had seen previously).  I run pretty quietly in this shoes, which I take as a sign of efficiency.
• They are flexible and the soles seem durable – after 240 miles, I see minimum tread wear, with just a tiny bit in the heels and inner midsoles (where I saw significant wear in the Nike’s).  Most of my miles are on asphalt or concrete, so I would expect to see more wear than I am.

The soles of the Wave Riders show little wear at 213 miles.

And now, the concerns:

• My legs continue to be sorer after the long runs than in the past.  I haven’t finished off my long runs with the same pep that I used too.  Now here’s the question – is it the shoes (do I need more cushioning – and thus more weight?) or is it the fact that I’ve added distance, speed, hills, and strength training to my workouts simultaneously, to an extent I’ve never done before.
• At first I thought the toe box was too large, especially in the lateral direction.  I started getting some blisters with about 50 miles on the shoes. However, switching to Wrightsock (for their double-layer anti-friction properties) and maybe developing more durable calluses on my toes has eliminated this issue.
• Even with the more generous toe box , I’m still damaging my toe nails.  Maybe I need to go up a half-size, and this is not a problem unique to the Mizuno’s.

All in all, I’m a fan of these shoes, but still have my doubts about whether they’d work for me in a marathon.  Thus, I’m going to seek other options, though my time frame is short.  I may fall back to the Nike Max Moto’s in a wider size.  Over a longer time frame, I may try the ASICS DS Trainers or Nike Air Pegasus 27.  In a pinch, though, I’m just comfortable enough with the Mizuno Wave Rider 13’s to give them a go at Akron if I have no better option.

If you want a light trainer capable of medium to heavy weekly distance, have a neutral running style without much need for arch support, appreciate a decent-sized toe box, and run on smooth surfaces (not trails or roads with a lot of potholes), this may be a good shoe option for you.  I’m interested in your own experiences with these shoes, as well as other suggestions for similar neutral shoes you may have tried.

Addendum

I did end up wearing Mizuno Wave Rider 13′s for the Akron Marathon, and was completely satisfied with their performance.  I had purchased a new pair and put 50 miles on them before the race, and felt no issues with my toes nor any particularly noticeable “extra” fatigue on my legs.  I do now believe they are truly a marathon-worthy shoe.

Also, if you like the Wave Riders, you may want to also check out my review of the Mizuno Wave Precision 11.  They are similar in feel to the Wave Riders but roughly 0.5 oz. lighter, so a good alternative for taking out a little more weight.

Addendum #2 – Feb. 24, 2011

The most recent shoe review in Runner’s World revealed that Mizuno has increased the weight in the Wave Rider 14 by 2 ozs. versus the Wave Rider 13. This seems out of sync with the listed specifications on Running Warehouse, RoadRunner Sports, and the Mizuno site itself, which list the shoes at 10.6 ozs., a minimal (if any) increase.  Regardless, it seems they are quite a different shoe than the 13, seemingly offering more support and cushioning, and initial reviews seem pretty positive save for a perhaps-too-tight toebox.

You may also find these interesting:

• Shoe Review – Mizuno Wave Precision 11
• Another Baby Step towards Less Shoe
• Running Shoe Review – Nike Lunarfly 2
• Product Review – Yaktrax Pro Traction Cleats

Tags: equipment, mizuno, shoes

Posted in Gear
14 Comments Posted by Greg