Brooks Launch & Nike LunarGlide Shoe Review

Three shoe models: (1) Brooks Burn III (discontinued model), (2) Brooks Launch, and Nike LunarGlide. I’ve purchased 21 pairs of Brooks Burn shoes over the years (they really ought to make me a tester and give me shoes), and now I’m looking for a replacement. Brooks says the Launch is their replacement, and I've had very good luck with Brooks, but I’d sort of prefer to find a Nike model instead because my son works at Nike. I don’t really know if the LunarGlide is an appropriate alternative to the Launch, but I was baffled by the overchoice on the Nike web site and finally settled on that one. I am a neutral runner, a midfoot striker with an efficient stride. My feet are average width, size 11 to 12 depending on the shoe. I want a light but cushioned shoe for both training and road racing, up to marathon distances.

Brooks Launch:
Men’s size 12, weight 22 ounces per pair, 11 ounces each. Sole curved upward beginning behind the ball of the foot, toe curved up significantly, heel curved up only slightly. The sole is flat from the arch all the way back through most of the heel. By contrast, the sole of the Burn is curved throughout, and the Burn has a "lateral arch lug" on the outside of the arch, not present in the Launch, though the heel of the Launch does come farther forward than the heel of the Burn. The tread has lots of narrow grooves which will pick up sand and small rocks.

Here is what Brooks says about it: "With an incredibly flexible outsole and seamless transition, this lightweight neutral trainer will get you from start to finish, whether for a tempo run or in a race. Add to that the lower-profile midsole and minimal upper, and it's 3, 2, 1 . . . blast off! Weight: 9.3 oz" Helpful, isn’t it? Marketing hype is so impotent when it replaces actual information.

The Launch is listed on Brooks’ web site under "neutral" and under "competition" shoes. List $90.00. I paid about $80. Made in China.

Nike LunarGlide:
Men’s size 12, weight 26 ounces per pair, 13 ounces each. Sole even flatter than the Launch, toe curved up less than the Launch, heel curved up only slightly. It does seem to have a structure similar to the Burn’s lateral arch lug, though the Nike web site doesn’t mention it. The tread is a bit more aggressive than that of the Launch, but with deep groves to pick up larger rocks and some small grooves to pick up sand.

Here is what Nike says about it: Boasting ultra-light, ultra-strong Flywire and the next generation of LunarLite system technology, the men’s LunarGlide+ combines a soft core within a firmer carrier to achieve a previously unattainable blend of cushioning and response from heel to toe." Equally helpful.

The LunarGlide is listed on Nike’s web site under "cushioned" shoes and under "stability" shoes. List $100.00. I got them at an unusual price of about $60. Brand new, though. Made in Vietnam.

I ran ten laps on an indoor track with my last pair of Burns to get warmed up, then ten with the LunarGlide shoes, then ten with the Launch, then LunarGlide again, then Launch again. Both pairs of shoes were perfectly comfortable and well-cushioned, fitting properly in the heel, arch, and toe box. Both felt smooth, with no hitches between footfall and toe-off. I felt no noticeable knee or hip twinges during any of the runs. The Burns were the quietest, the Launch next, and the LunarGlide last. The LunarGlide shoes were pretty noisy, in fact. Note that the noisiness seems to correspond to the flatness of the sole.

I’ve always assumed that the slap-slap sound indicated an inefficiency of some sort. Doesn’t it take energy to make sound? Truth be told, though, the LunarGlide shoes seemed to be as efficient as the Launch. I was surprised when I laced up the LunarGlide shoes for the first time and slapped through the first two laps nine seconds quicker (total) than I had averaged during the warmup in the Burns.

I tried to run with the same "perceived effort" throughout, resulting in a pace of 9:03 min/mi for the warmup laps (always slower), then an average of about 8:23 for the rest of the test. Perceived effort is iffy, of course. The result does not show a clear advantage in speed versus effort for either the Launch or the LunarGlide, no surprise. I’d be happy to run a race in either.

The LunarGlide shoes did, unaccountably, seem to want to propel me forward. Nike’s web site mentions "men's-specific flex grooves to encourage an efficient stride." I don’t know what that means, but if you already have an efficient stride, does that help make you more efficient, or does it just encourage you to run a little harder? I couldn’t tell in this short test. I'll try both pairs on the road - neither is going back to the seller.

Good stuff:

• Both pairs of shoes fit nicely and felt good.
• Both seemed as efficient as my old beloved Burns.
• The LunarGlide shoes have "Nike+" monitoring technology, if you care. I don’t.

Complaints:

• The LunarGlide shoes are too noisy. I really don’t like that.
• Both shoes have treads that will pick up rocks and sand. We mostly run on roads and trails, not tracks, and these shoes will drop sand & gravel in the house and, what's worse, into each other. Why don’t shoe manufacturers get that?
• The Launch is not quite a direct Burn replacement because (a) It has no lateral arch lug, and (b) The sole is flatter. I don't think it's made for a midfoot striker, as the Burn was.

Despite the drawbacks, I haven’t found anything better yet. I may end up settling on one of these, without a lot of enthusiasm. But road testing is yet to come. Perhaps these will seem better with some road miles on them.

Splits for ten laps (0.74 miles): Burn 6:41, LunarGlide 6:10, Launch 6:20, LunarGlide 6:13, Launch 6:07.

Caffeine works!

On the way out to a 16-mile run I grabbed a couple of packages of Clif Shot Gels, one cran-razz and one orange. I ate the cran-razz first, at miles 4 and 8. Then at mile 12, I had half of the package of orange.

By that time I was getting a bit tired - walk breaks were more frequent and maybe a little longer. But around mile 14 my energy picked up again. Walk breaks nearly disappeared. This doesn’t just happen, so I checked the package of orange Clif Shot Gels and saw that it says "with caffeine." I had completely forgotten that any of the gels contained caffeine, and wasn’t expecting the pickup, so it was definitely physical and not psychological. I’ve felt this pickup from caffeine before, especially in marathons, but never quite so dramatically. Just 50 measly milligrams of caffeine from green tea extract, according to the package. The benefit lasted for at least two miles, perhaps more but my run was over.

Today the idea was to take it easy - long, slow distance. That’s just what happened. No pains worth mentioning, just tired muscles, which feels pretty good actually. Because of recent ankle issues, I ran in my last pair of Brooks Burns rather than the Summons that I have been using for training. That might have helped.

A beautiful 64-degree day, lots of people on bikes, a few on skates, and plenty of moms & dads pushing babies in strollers. Egrets and herons, with lots of noisy frogs for them to lunch on. Precious few runners, but it was nice to cross paths with my sweeties on the way back from the northeast turnaround.

Water at the even-numbered miles, gels every four miles. So far, barring any still-quiet injury, this run was an unqualified success. It’s a masterpiece.

Splits: 9:10, 9:47, 10:41, 8:54, 9:41, 9:37, 10:14, 10:10, 10:30, 10:24, 10:28, 9:05, 11:21 (phone calls), 9:31, 9:46, 9:10, total 2:38:28, pace 9:54.



Recent dinner: Bison garam masala with peas, spinach, onions, and tomatoes, and chopped cucumbers with yogurt.

Brooks Summon Shoe Review, Updated

Two weeks ago I reviewed the brand-new Brooks Summon, comparing it with the Brooks Ghost and Burn. At that time I ran only a short distance in the Summon, but today I ran five miles with them on the indoor track at the club. So far so good. The Summon feels well-cushioned, with a very smooth transition from foot strike to toe-off. There is a slight slapping noise at foot-strike, but only a little more noise than the Burn makes. In my experience, this slap drops off a little as a pair of shoes collects a few meaningful miles. Perhaps they get a little more flexible.

I wish the tread wasn’t the kind that collects pebbles and grains of sand. Otherwise, so far, this is a great pair of shoes. Brooks is bringing out the Launch in July, as a direct replacement for my favorite, the discontinued Burn. I hope it’s as good as the Summon seems to be. Maybe it will even have a good tread.

A few days ago I ran into a guy who appeared knowledgable about Brooks shoes. He said that the Summon is a good shoe with a cost-reduced upper and aimed for more of a mass market than most running shoes, which are intended to be sold at running stores. You might find the Summon at Dick’s Sporting Goods, for example, but at The Runners Edge you would find the Ghost and the Defyance instead. We’ll see if it works out that way. So far, Dick’s doesn’t have it on their website, but Zappos does. The web makes all of that marketing stuff harder.

Splits: 8:56, 8:44, 8:48, 8:41, 8:42, total 43:50, pace 8:46. No pains, no strain. Good run, still recovering from the marathon.


Recent dinner: No-hormone no-antibiotic free-range beef, organic carrots, mango, pineapple, organic parsnips.

Today's lunch: Taco soup with free-range no-hormone no-antibiotic ground beef & organic vegetables, organic blue-corn chips with flax seeds (Target), avocado, & organic hot peppers.

Today's breakfast (hungry after snow shoveling): Gluten-free oatmeal with flame raisins & dried cranberries, banana, mango, Dove dark chocolate, organic strawberries, organic blueberries, organic fat-free milk.

Brooks Summon Shoe Review

I have used Brooks Burn shoes almost exclusively for the past six years, not only for training but hundreds of races including 32 marathons. Since Brooks discontinued the Burn, I've searched for a replacement. I need a cushioned shoe, average width, little more. So far I've stuck to Brooks shoes, because I like the fit. Today I tried out their newest shoe for neutral biomechanically-efficient runners, the Summon. I found them for $60 on Amazon.com, though it seems the price has since gone up a lot. Today I tested them for a few laps, on an indoor track to keep them new in case I needed to return them, comparing them with a pair of Brooks Burns and a pair of Brooks Ghosts, all size 11 1/2. I ran laps in each model of shoe, and more laps with one model on one foot and another model on the other. Here are some results:

• Weight: All three pairs are within an ounce of the same weight, 24 to 25 ounces for both shoes.
• Size: The Summon is about the same as the Burn, and larger than the Ghost, which for some reason is undersized.
• Fit: This is why I want to stick with Brooks - I have almost no blisters or other fit problems with the Burns. When I put on the Summons, I could feel the heel sliding up and down a bit. So I threaded the laces into the very last holes, as I do with the Burns, and the heel felt properly snug.
• Shape:
  • Toe Box: Not as wide as the Burn, or so it appears, and certainly not as wide as the Ghost. But it didn't bother my foot in this short run.
  • Heel: The heel is long! It comes a full inch farther forward, toward the arch, than does the heel of the Burn. Perhaps this replaces the Burn's "lateral arch pod," absent on the Summon and the Ghost.
  • Sole: Like the Burn, the sole of the Summon curves gently toward the toe to allow a smooth transition.
  • Width: Fine.
• Tread: Very aggressive, as if the shoe was designed for the track, or maybe for trail running! It also has hundreds of small crevices that will collect tiny rocks which I will no doubt track into the house. Or they will drop from one shoe into the other as I run. That's just dumb design. The first Burns were like that too, but the tread design improved as the original Burn went to Burn II and Burn III.
• Color: Black, white, lime. Who cares.
• Cushioning: Well cushioned according to my feet and the finger-poke test. At least as responsive as the Burns too, though to be fair these Burns have 187 miles on them and the Summons have none.
• Ride: Very smooth. Unlike the Ghosts, they make very little slapping noise on the track, and they certainly aren't even broken in yet. The transition from heel-strike to toe-off seems very smooth, as good as the Burn.
• Manufacture: Made in China like everything else.

I wish Brooks was more runner-centric rather than marketing-centric. I don't think they entertain genuine input from real runners, actual customers, even though they supposedly have lots of runners in the company. Here are a few examples of what I mean:

• The shoe treads with little crevices that pick up small stones don't do any good and can be simpler and less expensive;
• The descriptions of the shoes are so generic (e.g. "built for the neutral, biomechanically efficient runner who wants to go fast") that they provide little guidance. Is that for a mid-foot striker? Heel striker? Marathoner? Occasional runner? High-mileage? What neutral runner doesn't want to go fast?
• The Ghost turns out to be a half-inch shorter than the Burn or the Summon. What's that? Surely they can make shoes the right size. Did they do that so that the shoes would seem just a little lighter when compared size-for-size? Anyway the Summon appears to be sized correctly.

Brooks is probably no worse than any of the other companies, but the prize will go to the company that really is customer-centric.

By the way, I wrote to Brooks to get more guidance and was told that the Summon would not be similar to the Burn at all. I was encouraged to wait for the Launch, another new model to be introduced in July. But since the Launch isn't here, I bought the Summons anyway.

So far I've run less than a mile in them. I'll probably post a little more when I have some real miles on them, but that will be a few weeks at least.

If you have a question or an opinion about these shoes, please do leave a comment. Thank you.

Running With Groups

Saturday, Oct 25:

St Croix Valley Runners. When we arrived at Northland Tennis Courts about two minutes before 7:00 am we were only the second car there. Then three more cars showed up, all just in time. Dave, Dave, Tom, & Roy all went out ahead of me, but I caught up to Dave & Roy at about the halfway point. Breathing was three footfalls per full breath, which is a race pace for me, and that continued through to the finish.

Five miles in 43:00, pace 8:36. I couldn’t have gone much faster, but that’s what I like to do the weekend before a marathon - a hard 5k, 8k, or 10k. Dark at the start, just the faint glow of sunrise 45 minutes away. That will improve after we switch back to standard time next Saturday evening, then it will gradually get darker again until December 21.

43 degrees again, no significant wind. I wore exactly the same running gear as last Wednesday evening. It was fine - a little too much if anything. Brooks Ghost shoes again.

Wednesday, Oct 22:

Woodbury Runners 5.2 miles in 57:27. I ran with Rich, well behind the larger group of faster runners. We took a shortcut again, running 5.2 miles to their 6.2, but finished after them anyway. Three days after a marathon, though, this was plenty fast and far enough. Pace 11:03. We did walk briefly in a couple of places where there were wet leaves on the dark trail.

43 degrees. I wore knee protectors (foam rubber sleeves), shorts, a long-sleeved shirt, a wind jacket, and gloves.

I tried the Brooks Ghost shoes again - they seemed better, with less foot-slap than I remembered, though still much more than the Burns have. They won’t become my new shoe of choice, but I probably will at least use up this one pair that I already have. 300 miles and out. Then what - I don’t know. Start trying out other brands I guess. Brooks has let me down, dropping the Burn with no replacement after I’ve bought 18 pairs and run 31 marathons and hundreds of other races in them. Sunshine and Sweet Pea have each bought almost as many pairs. Brooks certainly doesn’t deserve any loyalty.



This key ring just arrived in the mail today. Kinda cute. I think the organizers of the Lewis & Clark Marathon are trying to make it up to us for cancelling the marathon in mid-run.