Comment from: Rich [Visitor]

Good review. I had the kinvara 1 and have a newly delivered pair of the 3's waiting for me at home right now. Toe box room was my big issue with the first one, and it sounds like it was not addressed in this version. But I have read it has been improved in the 3. Also, the 3, unlike the earlier models, is available in a 2E width. Seems to me they are making really good strides with an already very solid shoe.

07/13/12 @ 17:35
Comment from: Frunning [Visitor]

"Low stack height: Heel (23mm), Forefoot (19mm)"

Come on, are you kidding?
That's not low in my book, and since this is a website about 'barefootstyle' shoes I guess most people here do not considder that as a low stack hight.

This shoe has a narrow, pointy toebox and a stiff cushioned non zero drop sole… and it still gets recommended.

I respect the reviewer, but I can't help but feel that his reviews are out of place for this website.

07/13/12 @ 20:00
Comment from: [Member]


Rob's made it pretty clear where he's coming from -- which is the perspective of a runner with thousands of miles under his feet running trails and training for ultramarathons. His perspective is that running form is what's most important and that there can be a time and a place for cushioned soles.

While that isn't the prevailing paradigm of this site or a primary quality of most shoes reviewed and talked about here, it's an important paradigm. In particular, it's important to consider what's most important to run without injury. And that's arguably a light, low-impact form -- landing on the ball of your foot. A barefoot style shoe isn't a prerequisite to having good form though for many of us, it's what works, it's the best way to keep our form in check (perhaps next to running barefoot), etc.

But what I want to avoid on this site is a dogmatic view of running that there's just one true way -- heck, if we wanted to take that perspective, we'd just say running *actually* barefoot is the one true path and anything on your feet is a bad idea.

The truth is more complex -- as is usually the case. And what I appreciate about Rob's view on this site is that it challenges some of the dogmatic tendencies we have in the minimalist shoe community that there's some black and white solution for running.

So to the extent that Rob's reviews and perspective remind us that ultimately it's about the runner (and not the shoes), well, I think that's a good thing. The last thing I want is this site to be exclusively a choir that rallies around one view at the exclusion of anything that challenges that view.

Hope that helps elucidate why a review on a shoe that isn't barefootstyle -- and I think Rob would fully agree with that as I would -- would show up on a site like BirthdayShoes.

Hopefully that makes some sense of it. Let me know if I'm just clear as mud!

07/14/12 @ 08:58
Comment from: Rich [Visitor]

@ Justin: hear hear. Within the past year I've run in everything from the brooks adrenaline and Nike Vomero to totally barefoot and most everything in between. I'm also a dedicated and active member of this site. There are a lot of good choices out there, and what's a good choice isn't the same thing for every person. Barefoot running isn't a religion and this isn't a holy war.

IMO the Vinvara and Nike free have done more to raise the profile of and discussion regarding running form and footwear than even vibrams. No, they aren't true minimalist shoes (let alone "barefoot" shoes, whatever that is), but it can be exactly what some people want/need. Pete Larson, "runblogger" and the author of a new book about this stuff, loves the Kinvara. And he knows a bit about form and footwear.

There's no reason to knock the Kinvara - for what it is, it's excellent. Now, you may not want what it is, and that's fine. This site has done countless reviews of more minimal shoes and made clear what those shoes are all about and their own relative strengths and weaknesses. All so we can all choose what's best for ourselves. There's no reason for dogma here.

07/14/12 @ 15:13
Comment from: leo [Visitor]

Good review, thanks!

I am actually looking for some shoes which are not too minimalistic but enough, due to the fact that after a few weeks of training with VFFs I can't use my archilles tendon anymore ;-)

Maybe these will do. I'll look into it.

07/15/12 @ 12:27
Comment from: [Member]


Justin already covered most of what I would have said (and then some) in his response to your comment. I've been on vacation for the past month so was not able to respond to comments before now.

Anyhow, I'd just add that I recommended the Kinvara despite it's detractors, such as the pointy and narrow toe box and stiff and not very flexible midsole-outsole, because I believe the positives of this line of shoes far outweigh the detractors. This is a great shoe for those of us who desire a fairly lightweight and low heel-to-toe drop shoe but don't want to sacrifice underfoot protection (i.e. want ample cushioning). If you read my review then you know that I felt the toe box was adequate when I ran sockless although I'd recommend sizing up a half size in the Kinvara2 for more toe room.

I hope to review the Kinvara 3 very soon so stay tuned...

07/22/12 @ 15:39
Comment from: Nigel [Visitor]

Thanks for the review. I love this shoe. I bought it on a whim when I found it on deep discount. But it's quickly becoming a favorite.

I just wanted to add that I live in Boulder CO and I've used the shoe on some VERY technical terrain and from a traction standpoint, I've had no problems at all. Even on high-speed (for me) technical descents it's done well. It does lack the protection of a proper trail shoe. After a while, my feet get sore on highly technical terrain, but it's fine up to about 1.5-2 hours for me. I'm planning to do a non-technical trail 50 in them this weekend. Unless it rains in which case I'm scrambling for a plan b. I too have concerns about them in wet and muddy conditions (which is incidentally how I found your review).

Hope that's helpful to someone.

09/10/12 @ 16:03
Comment from: Tony [Visitor]  

I don't think that this website is the place to review this type of running shoe. What happened to Birthdayshoes, the fan website for minimalist footwear. This shoe might be considered "minimalist" by Saucony, but it's NOT.

How can you run with those shoes having such a narrow toe box. It'll give you lots of blisters!

08/12/13 @ 11:25
Comment from: [Member]


I think it's pretty clear why shoes like this are reviewed on this site -- not only b/c minimalist-shoe using runners are running in them (which doesn't make them minimalist) but also because it's important to keep perspective on what's minimalist, why use minimalist, and how other runners might NOT use minimalist for whatever reason, not the least of which is because they can run without injury in thicker shoes.

In other words, I think it's useful to keep an open mind. What is or isn't minimalist is answered in shades of grey. So having stuff like this on the site helps keep in mind that things aren't black and white.

08/12/13 @ 12:04

Form is loading...