Have any minimalists tried the Saucony Kinvara?

I mean this in the nicest possible way but do you really have the build to be wearing minimalist shoes?

I haven't been training in minimalist shoes, but I tried on the Saucony ProGrid Kinvaras recently because I was looking for a good half marathon racer. Because I was looking for a racing show, I found them too soft. It feels like lots of energy is lost in the marshmallow-like landing.

While I was in the shoe store, I tried on a bunch of other lightweights and decided to post my reviews here:

http://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?thread=3731719

Good luck

I've been wearing minimalist shoes for 3 1/2 years. So far, so good. And no, you didn't mean to be nice, so why even pretend?

Thanks. I've run in a wide variety of racing flats, depending on what kind of training I'm doing, surfaces, recent injuries, etc. Currently I'm in the Lunaracer 2, which is more shoe than I'm used to, but are not bad now that they are broken in. I like that the sole is cushioned more than more minimal flats (such as the Nike Mayfly, my favorite shoe so far), but it's not very flexible. I only run 30-40 mpw, but would like to increase my mileage and might train for a spring marathon, so that's why I am leaning towards something with more cushioning, but still flexible and low-heeled.

Huh. Then you might like the Kinvaras.

Why do you assume increasing your mileage means you should increase the cushioning in your shoes?

I heard that Steven Reich likes them, but Phillip Glass is not impressed with them.

I am not a "minimalist", however I do typically train in lightweight, neutral trainers. I believe in wearing whatever shoe is comfortable and works for your gait. I find control shoes hurt my feet and are heavy. They work well for other people.

I ran Chicago and a warmup 1/2 in Kinvaras. I was very happy with them. I like that they have cushion like a trainer, but weigh ~8oz in my size (10.5). I weigh 148 lb. I found Mayflys (raced 5ks in them) to be way too mushy, but the Kinvara is firm enough, but still softer than some others. Lower heel to toe feels more like a racer. For a Marathon shoe, I don't want the same firmness as what I would wear for a 5K because my feet would be destroyed by that over 1/2 or Marathon distance. No calf issues after Chicago, but my thighs were pretty beaten. Could be from being soft or could just be the Marathon. My thighs are always beaten so I won't blame the shoe. Also ran other marathons in Asics Gel DS Racers and Trainers and liked them.

immodest proposal wrote:

Why do you assume increasing your mileage means you should increase the cushioning in your shoes?

Mostly a precaution. I'm injury-prone. I have not had any serious injuries lately in flats, but have noticed some niggles (shin and heel pain on some runs) if I start increasing my mileage too much. I'd like to be closer to 60 mpw. I know a lot of it has to do with running on roads instead of softer surfaces, but I'm limited to where I can run.

txRUNNERgirl wrote:

Thanks. I've run in a wide variety of racing flats, depending on what kind of training I'm doing, surfaces, recent injuries, etc. Currently I'm in the Lunaracer 2, which is more shoe than I'm used to, but are not bad now that they are broken in. I like that the sole is cushioned more than more minimal flats (such as the Nike Mayfly, my favorite shoe so far), but it's not very flexible. I only run 30-40 mpw, but would like to increase my mileage and might train for a spring marathon, so that's why I am leaning towards something with more cushioning, but still flexible and low-heeled.

I don't like the Kinvaras. Way too much shoe for me. I have been running in flats for years. I don't understand why you would want something that has more cushioning. I don't like the Luaracers either, again too much shoe. I use the Saucony Kilkenny because it's the most flexible flat I can find. If you are looking for something with a little more you could try the newest version of the Saucony A4 road racer. The insole has arch support so I had to cut that out, but otherwise it's a good shoe. I almost never wear them but they don't hurt my feet.

el chilar wrote:

I don't like the Kinvaras. Way too much shoe for me. I have been running in flats for years. I don't understand why you would want something that has more cushioning. I don't like the Luaracers either, again too much shoe. I use the Saucony Kilkenny because it's the most flexible flat I can find. If you are looking for something with a little more you could try the newest version of the Saucony A4 road racer. The insole has arch support so I had to cut that out, but otherwise it's a good shoe. I almost never wear them but they don't hurt my feet.

seems like you're missing the point of what she's trying to do. type A4 is about as little shoe as you can get before running VFF's. kinvara is almost identical to the LR2's in terms of cushioning, but has a lower heel/forefoot ratio (4mm drop) and is considerably more flexible. personally i hated the stiffness of the LR2.

bottom line is that in the kinvara's your heels will not be encouraged to strike first at all. you've got a nice even surface. cushioning is a little softer than most flats but i consider that a good thing for longer runs when form tends to break down a bit.

txRUNNERgirl wrote:

Thanks. I've run in a wide variety of racing flats, depending on what kind of training I'm doing, surfaces, recent injuries, etc. Currently I'm in the Lunaracer 2, which is more shoe than I'm used to, but are not bad now that they are broken in. I like that the sole is cushioned more than more minimal flats (such as the Nike Mayfly, my favorite shoe so far), but it's not very flexible. I only run 30-40 mpw, but would like to increase my mileage and might train for a spring marathon, so that's why I am leaning towards something with more cushioning, but still flexible and low-heeled.

I have a pair of the Kinvaras, and I compared them directly to the Lunaracers. The Lunaracers felt positively terrible when worn back to back with the Kinvaras. Notably, the heel in the Lunaracers is very high, and it felt silly to sit up like that (Nike, you suck, why the hell is that idiotic heel necessary?). I LOVE the low drop between heel and forefoot in the Kinvaras. Now, once you've got them on and stand around in them you do notice how high you are sitting off the ground (this coming from someone whose other current trainers are NB MT100s and INOV8 230s), and it does make me dearly wish that Saucony would come out with a "halved" Kinvara, but that said, once under motion the shoes feel incredibly good. I've ran a couple of 24 mile+ long runs, and a number of 11-15 miles, and some shorter 7 mile fartleks and have always felt really good about them. They may chafe the ball of your ankle a bit, and I also managed to get a blister on the tip of one of my toes, but otherwise I'll give them 5/5stars.

The kinvara's seem ok for a little different ride. My favorite training & racing shoes are: Streak Vapors, Streak XCs, Hyperspeeds and actually Mushas. The Kinvara is unique because the overall midsole seems thicker, yet it still has a good heel:forefoot ratio. The width in the forefoot is a little strange when you are used to a more fitted shoe. It think they are worth it for experimentation. They certainly do not feel fast like regular flats. They actually feel a little too substantial (midsole thickness and width) but the different ride might be good for the body.

Stipe - The reason why the shoe does not feel "fast" like a regular flat is because it is not a racing flat, it is a minimal/performance trainer. Many people choose to use it as a racing flat especially for 1/2 or full marathon distances because of the weight 7.7 oz (M's 9) 6.7 oz (W's 8) however it has a much thicker/higher midsole than most racing flats. 22mm in the heel, 18mm in the forefoot for total tooling (midsole+outsole heights). One other poster made a comment about the shoe not being as minimal as a flat. While this in its overall midsole thickness as previously stated, it is incorrect in the heel to toe drop. The Kinvara features a 4mm drop from heel to toe, while most racing flats in the market have an 8mm drop or in some cases 10-12mm. One exception is the previously mentioned Type A4 which is also on a 4mm drop with a much, much lower overall midsole heights especially when compared to the previous type A3 model which had a thicker midsole and a larger heel to toe drop.

I just started running in a pair. They are amazing.It depends what you want from minimalist shoes. They are very flexible, comparible to my adizero adios flats. They have more cushion, but you can still feel the road, so I wouldn't worry about the cushioning. They have way less heel to toe drop than any flats. The adios are something like 12mm and the kinvara only 4 or so. You can really feel the difference. It feels really smooth to run with.I'm alternating them with the nike lunar racers, which has a similar heel to toe drop (6mm maybe?) but has a completely different feel to them. These are squishy, but you can somehow still get that road feel. Not for trails, though, I think. (I'm going to try that this afternoon, but they feel a little wobbly laterally. Maybe that's good. We'll see)

txRUNNERgirl wrote:

I have read plenty of reviews from people switching from regular trainers to the Kinvara, but none from current minimalists. Would you go from normally training in flats to the Kinvara. I know they claim it is a minimalist shoe, but it's obviously more built-up than flats. Since I end up running on concrete and asphalt more than I'd like, I am thinking about trying the Kinvara because of the cushioning, but I also don't want the cushioning to hinder me in any way.

immodest proposal: Why do you assume increasing your mileage means you should increase the cushioning in your shoes?

txRUNNERgirl: Mostly a precaution. I'm injury-prone. I have not had any serious injuries lately in flats, but have noticed some niggles (shin and heel pain on some runs) if I start increasing my mileage too much. I'd like to be closer to 60 mpw. I know a lot of it has to do with running on roads instead of softer surfaces, but I'm limited to where I can run.

Fine, but you may want to at least entertain the hypothesis that if less shoe is best for you at 35 mpw, it might also be what is best for you at 60. I think for me, the higher the workload, the more important it's the right shoe - and for me that means something like Wave Universe or Piranha.

Precious Roy: I heard that Steven Reich likes them, but Phillip Glass is not impressed with them.

Terry Riley for the tiebreaker?

I'm listening to his "The Book Of Abbeyozzud" right now, and it sounds great in bare feet! (and on a minimalist stereo, with 2 watt single-ended tube amp and single-driver speakers)

The A4's are really awesome shoes for everything but trail running. I did a few 16 milers on some rough trails and my feet were really in pain; also the sole comes off. Other than that, they're my favorite flats.

el chilar wrote:

I don't like the Kinvaras. Way too much shoe for me. I have been running in flats for years. I don't understand why you would want something that has more cushioning. I don't like the Luaracers either, again too much shoe. I use the Saucony Kilkenny because it's the most flexible flat I can find. If you are looking for something with a little more you could try the newest version of the Saucony A4 road racer. The insole has arch support so I had to cut that out, but otherwise it's a good shoe. I almost never wear them but they don't hurt my feet.

I don't think that I'm missing the point. I run in Kilkennys so the A4 is a much more cushioned shoe to me. The A4 feels like a lot of shoe compared to the Kilkenny. It's funny, I use the A4s for trail running. They are much easier on my feet than the Kilkennys if the trail is rough. I may be the exception because I've been running in Kilkenny XC flats for years so the A4 doesn't even feel like a flat to me. It lies somewhere in between a flat and the Kinvaras.