Brooks Running Shoes Review

Customer Reviews

Most helpful customer reviews

9 of 9 people found the following review helpful.
Great shoe for forefoot runners
By Rob Howard
Running background - I run between 15-25 miles week and have run several half-marathons (both stand alone events and in half ironmans).Prior to running in Brooks, I ran in Nike Pegasus. I don't have anything against the Nike shoes, but began to wonder if the height of the heel padding was contributing to my ITB pain when I started increasing my distance. Several of my running friends encouraged me to try the Brooks based on my running style (more of a forefoot striker) and I have to admit I wish I had tried them sooner.The shoe itself takes a little getting used to and they definitely aren't a shoe that you would use for anything other than running. Walking in them feels somewhat awkward because of the padding in the forefoot. Nevertheless, they are a dream to run in.I typically wear a size 10.5 - 11 (with 11 being more common), and my Brooks are a size 11. The toebox is really roomy and I read this was to allow for your toes to spread out more during the run. I've got lots of toe room, to the point of the shoe feeling like it might be too big, but they fit perfectly.I'm looking forward to putting some mileage on these shoes.

9 of 10 people found the following review helpful.
Pure Greatness
By Krosby Keller
I began my brooks journey with the first pureflows and I run about 35 miles a week. These shoes are great! When my pureflow (1) gave out I went and bought another pair immediately and then saw that these came out. I ordered these in orange day one that I could and have put about 20 miles on them so far. These shoes are designed as more of a minimal type shoe for road running. Do not get the thought that they are toe shoe or minimalist, they are just more of a road shoe. The still give great support though. They are snug on the arch like you would want and wide in the shoe box which allows for a more natural foot plant at strike and to give you a little more grip and push for explosion. These have a lot to offer. With that said it mentions that you can expect only about 250-300 miles. I say that is extremely conservative. If the 2's last along as my last ones did, I got about 550 out of them including a full marathon. This can be expected depending upon your style of running, your pronation, if you take them off road a lot, how much you wear them outside of just the run (mine are on only to go run, no extra walking around or as little as possible)... Hope this helps.

5 of 5 people found the following review helpful.
A Tech-Filled Minimalist Shoe.
By J. Parro
The PureFlow2 is, as the name would suggest, the second generation of the fully cushioned, 4mm drop shoe from the Brooks Pure Project. The Pure Project is Brooks' foray into minimalism, and they've seen decent success. The PureFlow2 (PF2) falls into roughly the same category of shoes as the Saucony Kinvara 3. Its light weight, low offset, and wide toe box put it squarely in the minimalist genre, while its full cushioning and stack height give the feel and protection of a more traditional trainer. Don't let the word "minimalist" throw you off, though. This shoe brings a lot to the table in terms of technology. "Technology?" you may ask. Why, yes. The PF2 is a walking, or perhaps running, (heh heh) contradiction. It is a minimalist shoe with all the bells and whistles.Think, Smart Car with a lift kit, rims, hood scoop, and a fin. There's nothing wrong with such a Smart Car. The extras don't turn it into a gas guzzling SUV. But it does seem go against the ethos of why a Smart Car was built in the first place. To date, the Brooks PureFlow2 is the most technology equipped minimalist shoe I've ever used. The bad news is that some of these "technologies" do nothing for me. The good news is that they don't seem to inhibit me either. In fact, I even like some them.The Best PartsFit- I really enjoy the feel of the tongueless, asymmetrical lacing system. I honestly wish more shoe companies would make the jump. I think asymmetrical lacing works because feet are asymmetrical. The thickness of a foot is not uniform, but traditional lacing systems treat the foot like it is. Instead of cinching the two pieces of the upper over the top of your foot, the upper of the PF2 swaddles the the foot with overlapping layers of maternal affection. I simultaneously feel secure and free. Good job, mama Brooks. Also, the PF2 run wider than some of the other PureProject shoes, which in my humble estimation is a big plus. Minimalist/barefoot enthusiasts love the extra space.Cushioning- The cushioning in the PF2, as I mentioned earlier, is very similar to the well loved Kinvara 3. It may be just a touch firmer if at all. Perfect for a daily trainer. My longest runs in these shoes have been between 9 and 10 miles, but they could easily perform well over longer distances; I suspect they'd be great up to a marathon. If you're used to running in something more on the barefoot end of the minimalist spectrum (like I was) then this will feel like quite a lot of cushion between you and the ground, enough to noticeably change your gait. Brooks claims that their BioMoGo DNA midsole is an "adaptive" cushioning system, meaning that it should feel firmer when running faster and and softer when running slower. If the midsole is actually accomplishing this, and I'm skeptical that it is, it's not all that noticeable.Beveled Heel- Brooks calls their beveled heel design, "Ideal Heel". Whatever they call it, it works great. It makes the shoes feel more level than the 4mm offset would suggest. Further, it delivers on the promise of moving the runner a little more forward in their stance making the mid/forefoot strike feel about as natural as it would in a zero drop shoe.Durability- After 100 miles, there is very little wear on the outsole rubber. It may be difficult to see in the photos, but there are very small, hexagonal etchings on the black in the rubber pods. The only difference I can see between the sole with 0 miles and the sole with 100 miles is that some of those etchings seem to have worn off. They served no function beyond aesthetics as far as I can tell, so the out sole rubber might as well be new. Likewise the upper is flawless.Traction is good but not great; fine for every road I've been on. I took these out for two snowy/icy runs. They performed fine. They didn't catch my attention as being either excellent or sloppy. I slipped around a little, but not enough to think that the shoes were failing me.The Worst PartsAs I mentioned, the worst part about this shoe that it's not as awesome as it wants to be, which isn't to say that the shoe is bad. Think of this section of "The Worst Parts" as "The Underwhelming and Mediocre Parts".Technology- Technology is not bad. But I am pretty sure a good bit of the technology that is supposed to make these shoes unique and, indeed, supposed to set the entire PureProject apart, is non-functional. Take the Nav Band for example. It seems like nothing more than a piece of elastic waistband material. I can't tell if it's doing anything that the laces are not doing already. I can't feel it, so it is good that it doesn't bother me, but I'm not sure why it's there. The other bit of technology that has me scratching my head is the split toe. It's not a bad idea really. Other folks are doing it. The idea is that it'll allow the big toe to flex independently and in a more natural way. That would be fantastic if the big toe section could actually move. I can push, squeeze, compress and pull at the toes of the PF2's but I can not, for the life of me, make that big toe section budge one bit from the rest of the shoe. So how exactly does it allow my big toe to flex independently of the rest of my foot?Weight and Flexibility- The PF2's are light (8.5 oz), but they could be lighter. The upper is thick and firm. Here, I think the PF2 could learn from the Kinvara 3. The Kinvara is comparably cushioned, even slightly thicker (23mm/19mm heel and forefoot stack heights), uses a similarly strategic outsole rubber scheme, but manages to be noticeably lighter (0.6 oz lighter according runningwarehouse.com). So where does the extra weight come from? Almost certainly from upper materials including the Nav Band. The shoe is no clunker, but it's no feather weight either.The PF2's flexibility, like some of its other features, is just ok. It's certainly more flexible than some of the other shoes Brooks makes (*cough* Beasts *cough*), but is just average compared to other minimalist shoes in it's category. On maybe one in ten runs I feel like I'm fighting the stiffness just a little. My foot wants to bend and flex in a way that is every so gently restricted. Perhaps another 100 miles will change it's mind.ConclusionThe PF2 is a solid shoe and has been my go to daily trainer since January. I can't say that it has ever let me down. It leaves something to be desired in terms of simplicity, but the lack of simplicity is not a deal breaker. If you're looking for a transitional minimalist shoe, or just a cushioned daily trainer that is level, and feels stable and secure, you should take a look at the PureFlow2.