Built not to last

No one really does long term reviews because we are such a disposible society. We’ve been programmed to ditch the old and covet the new.

Manufacturers come out with new product at least yearly because they have us trained to think there is something wrong with last year’s model, even if it’s working perfectly fine.

All this is a prelude to bashing one pair of running shoes I have. So be forewarned.

Back in 2016, when I started running again on a regular basis, I picked up my first real pair of running shoes that actually fit (I had a pair of Asics that were 2-1/2 sizes too big).

Early in June of 2016, I picked up a pair of Brooks Adrenaline GTS 16 from our local (and soon to be closed) Fleet Feet in Brookfield, Wisconsin.

And no, those aren’t the shoes I’m going to bash, so don’t jump ahead of me. I used them soley for running.

Then in August, I decided to get a second pair of running shoes to alternate between. I picked up a pair of Saucony Grid Cohesion 9.

I alternated running between the two shoes, but then after running in the Saucony for about six consecutive runs without switching off, I noticed a hip pain that sidelined me for over a month. I don’t know what caused it, but to ne safe, I retired the Saucony to walking shoe status, while I continued to run in the Brooks (until March 2017, when I bought new shoes and retired the GTS16).

The Saucony I took to work to wear only for my mall walks. Usually when there is inclement weather, I wear my hikers to work because of snow or rain and then change into the Saucony.

The rest of the year, I wear either one of my many Pumas to work, or the Brooks GTS 16, in which case I don’t switch to the Saucony at all.

So theoretically, the Saucony, over the last two years have only gotten limited use, 5 days a week and only during the winter, whereas the Brooks GTS 16, have been my go-to shoe for any activity outside of work regardless of the weather (except for possible near 0°F temperatures).

In other words, the Brooks had logged nearly a full year as my principle running shoe and then a year of being my casual activity shoe, whereas the Saucony are strictly a workday shoe in the winter.

The Brooks Adrenaline GTS 16 look almost like new, as shown below:

Whereas the Saucony Grid Cohesion 9 are beginning to show signs of wear on both sides of the upper as the mesh tears away from the toe trim, as shown below:

And yes, I’m wearing red socks. So you can see the upper is wearing through at the point where my little toe resides.

That is unacceptable. I know, I know. It is two years old, after all. Still, that shows there is a durability concern with Saucony.

As you can see, the Brooks are still almost like new. Brooks has much more durable construction. In fact, I have a pair of 11-year-old Brooks Beasts that didn’t start thinning and separating like this pair of Saucony has for nearly six or seven years of constant every day use. They were pretty much my everyday walking, running, working, hiking, and everything else in between shoe and are probably still in better shape than these Saucony.

The Beasts are hiding under my bed and if I can find them, I’ll post a picture of them.

“But wait,” you say, “The Beasts have a wear hole by your little toe as well! Why call out Saucony?”

Why? Because the Saucony are only a little over a year and a half old, worn irregularly whereas the Beasts are 11-years-old and were worn all the time.

I not only can forgive the Beasts their flaws, I would commend Brooks on creating such a long lasting shoe.

My biggest gripe about anything I purchase is a lack of durability. I want things to last, if not forever, at least five years or more.

But many manufacturers believe in planned adolescence. They want us to spend money unnecessarily and to do that they make the old stuff so it falls apart before it should.

In this case, it was Saucony. Too bad for them because I’ll never buy another pair of their shoes again.

Another brand of running shoe I won’t ever buy again is Under Armour. I bought a pair of their shoes and they didn’t even last the summer. They fell apart so badly I threw them out.


If you know me even a little bit, you know I never throw anything out.

Yet I threw out the UA running shoes after only a few months. They were essentially unwearable, they were that shitty. As a consequence, I refuse to buy anything with a UA label on it.

If you want my business, then build it to last, dammit, or I’ll find a business that does.

Show some pride in your work.



It’s Friday!

A Friday Haiku

Fountain pens write with

An elegance and beauty.

They’re usable art.

Weigh-In Friday

After last week’s significant weight loss, this week I gained some of that back to the tune of 1.3 pounds.

I blame the night of baked fish and vegetables. My body obviously rebelled against healthy eating, thinking I was trying to starve it.

Won’t make that mistake again.

Time for new shoes

It’s getting close to the time I should start researching and shopping for new running shoes.

My current shoes were purchased last spring. I had two pair, actually. A pair of Brooks Adrenalize GTS 17 and a pair of Hoka One One Clidton 3.

I have my Brooks to ky older son several months ago when I noticed he was running on a pair of Asics that were several years old, so I’ve been running exclusively on the Clintons.

I really like the Clintons. They don’t have the stability of the Brooks, but they provide much more cushioning.

I like cushioning. Even though I’ve evolved from a heel striker to landing midfoot, I still land rather heavy (I am overweight).

Therefore, because I love doing research, I’ll be doing that for the next few weeks or so, narrowing down my choices of a nice chushioned running shoe.

If you have any suggestions, I’d like to hear them.


I’ve recently become more interested in jazz. I mean, I’ve always had a slifht interest in it from the first moment I heard “Chameleon” from Herbie Handcock’s Headhunters album on the radio way back in the day.

I became interested in what was then called jazz fusion, a blending of rock, R&B, and jazz that had it’s heyday in the 1970s. I enjoyed the music of Return to Forever, Al DiMeola, Weather Report, Jean Luc Ponty, Larey Coryell, Jan Hammer, Tony Williams, and Billy Cobham, to name a few.

But I also came to jazz indirectly from my father’s love of Dave Brubeck, as well. I mean, really, who among us hasn’t thought our parents’ music was lame? So, it wasn’t until many, many years later, after my father passed and I inherited all his 10-inch vinyl jazz records that I started to become more interested in traditional jazz.

And of course, that interest translated into research. Yes, I love doing research, reading and learning everything I can on a certain subject.

Which brings me to the etymology of the word jazz and the above meme that the word might not mean what you think it means.

Rather than regurgitate what I learned, it’ll be simpler to post a link to the website, “A Passion for Jazz! Music History & Education,” and their article, The Etymology of Jazz.


State of the Uniom

I’m not even going to talk about that orange turd’s pathological lying. He even tweeted he had the highest audience rating in history!

A fact that was easily debuncted. His ratings were the lowest in the last 25 years. Are his supporters that gullible?

In fact, all his lies are easily fact-checked. Are his supporters just that lazy, that ignorant, or simply so hateful of everything good and righteous in America that they want to see it all dragged down and destroyed?

Because if they loved America and what it stands for, it’s diversity and opportunity for all, and the entire concept of America as the melting pot of the world, then they’d see trump as the hateful, bigoted, xenophobic, un-American elitist that he really is.


Keep resisting. Keep on fighting the good fight. Don’t let the trump regime normalize facism and hatred.

End Note

Hope everyone has a great weekend. Since I mentioned it above, I’ll leave you with Chameleon.


A tale of two shoes

Here’s a quick first impression of both my new running shoes that I acquired on Saturday.

Hoka One One Clifton 3

2017-03-11 19.08.35

First I ran in the Hoka One One Clifton 3 running shoes. This is my first experience with Hoka One One shoes of any sort.

I ran intervals in them on the treadmill. A set of 2 minutes walking, 2 minutes running moderate pace, then 1 minute sprinting at 8 mph.

I was very pleased with them. They were like running on a mattress. Lots of cushion. I tend to land rather heavy and they absorbed it pretty well. My one fear was that I’d feel unstable on them, because that is a complaint I sometimes hear from people who have tried Hoka One One shoes. It’s also how I felt in the Puma Bioweb pair I have. You ride rather high and there’s this feeling like you’ll twist an ankle. Not with the Clifton 3 shoes. They felt just right. No instability. No feeling like I was on stilts. They felt secure even with all that cushioning.

First impression: I like the Clifton 3. They are a good trainer on the treadmill. I hope to try them on cement when the weather gets better (and my weight). I hope they’re as cushiony on cement as they are on the treadmill.

Brooks GTS Adrenaline 17

2017-03-14 20.44.31

Uecker is comparing the Brooks GTS Adrenaline 16 (top) and 17 (bottom)

I ran in these today. Put in a good long 5k run on the treadmill at a faster pace (for me), which is faster than the moderate pace I use in the intervals, but still slower than a sprint.

The shoes fit well, didn’t seem to create any hot spots, and were very stable. I’ve changed my running style from when I first started running in the Brooks GTS Adrenaline 16 shoes I just retired. I was a heel striker and I’d overpronate as my foot rolled from the heel to the toe.

Now with my running style I land more midfoot, so I wonder if I need a stability shoe as much since my foot doesn’t roll as severely as it would have striking with my heel first, but I like these shoes any way.

There seems to be more bounce in the midsole with the 17 than with the 16, a complaint I originally had with my first pair of Brooks.

Other nice changes:

  1. There is a bigger protective toe cap for the 17 than the 16, which just had an inch wide extension of the outsole. The 17 also has that inch wide extension, but there is now a harder protective piece of plastic that extends around the toe so the fabric won’t get scuffed.
  2. There seems to be an extra stabilizing strip along the outside of the upper (the black strip on the bottom shoe) compared to the 16.
  3. The 17 also has an extra reflecting strip on the toe instead of just at the heel.

My 16 are size 11, which is only 1/2 a size larger than my foot. I decided to go to an 11-1/2 this time because my toes were cramped in the smaller shoe (that’s what I get for listening to the salesman) and the tips of my toes rubbed against the inside of the toe box, which caused my toes to hurt. (I have a split nail on one toe that really hurts when I run in too short a length shoe.) The 17 are much roomier, but I can’t say that’s because the toe box is wider and more open or if it’s just a case of the extra 1/2 size of leeway inside.

First Impression: I like the Brooks GTS Adrenaline 17 much more than I did the 16. I just never felt comfortable running in the 16. They were too hard, too cramped, and I was just dissatisfied with them, which is why I tried to replace them with a pair of Saucony (fail), and alternated them with my Puma Mobius (which I’m going to use for trail running now that I have these two for treadmill/road running.

Disclaimer: I have never claimed to be a reviewer. I’m just a guy who runs and writes about the run. Additionally, I am not compensated for my reviews. Who the hell would pay me to write this shit?

Run. Switch shoes. Run again.



In with the new

For runners, what is our most exciting day?

OK, besides pizza day.

Right! Buying more equipment!

Today I struck gold, so to speak. I bought two pairs of new running shoes.

I went in not sure what I wanted, not even sure I was going to buy one pair, much less two. In fact, I went in just sort of thinking everyday walking shoes. But as I walked down the rows of running shoes, picking some up that grabbed my attention, flexing them in my hands to see how much give they had, and oohing and ahhing over the colors, I came upon a pair that this particular shoe store had never had before.

They had Hoka One One. (Someone told me that’s pronounced ohnay ohnay.)

Now to be honest, I’ve read about Hoka One One and they were never on my radar. Seems runners either love them or hate them. Plus, I was thinking more along the lines of another minimalist style pair of running shoes similar to the Puma Mobium I have that I like. Certainly not the exact opposite: a pair of maximal shoes. C’mon! They’re like 1970s disco platform shoes. It would be like being on stilts, or I’d look like Herman Munster! Who wants that?

But, for shits and giggles, I thought I’d try on a pair. I put them on, tied them tight, then jogged up and down the aisles.

Oh my! (You have to say that like George Takei to get the right effect.) They felt wonderful. I admit, I’m a heavy lander and these made it feel like I was running on a cloud. So I picked up a pair.

2017-03-11 19.08.35

Hoka One One Clifton 3

Another pair of shoes that attracted my attention were a pair of Adidas Alphabounce Engineered Mesh running shoes. I liked the feel of the sole, it seemed soft and giving, almost like the Hoka’s, so I tried them on as well. I did like them and was about to buy them when I saw the newer Brooks GTS Adrenaline 17. I’ve had my 16s for almost a year now and because they served me well, I thought, “What the heck? I’ll try these on.”

Well, one thing led to another as they say and I ended up liking them more than the Adidas, so I ended up purchasing the Hokas and the Brooks.

2017-03-11 19.08.57

Brooks GTS Adrenaline 17

So I came home with two new pairs of running shoes.

Maybe I’ll review them later after I’ve actually run in them a few times.

Run. Buy new shoes. Run some more.


Review Puma Mobium Elite V2

Ok, I know I promised a review of my Puma Mobium Elite V2 running shoes months ago. If you’ve actually been waiting for it, I apologize. But here it is. I hope the wait was worth it.

First, we’ll get the disclaimer out of the way. I have not been compensated for this review (but if you would like to send me a check, feel free). Nor am I affiliated with Puma or any running shoe company or store. I do admit, however, that I have always had a thing for Puma, although the last pair I actually used for running was in 1984.

There. That was relatively painless. 

I’ve had my pair of Puma Mobium Elite V2 running shoes for several months now. My first impressions of them were that they were lighter and more flexible than either my Brooks Adrenaline or my Saucony Grid Cohesion  (now retired to walking shoes), but they also had less cushioning.

Now, months later, I run almost exclusively in the Puma Mobiums. The pair I have aren’t for heel strikers, at least not extreme heel strikers, yet they’ve become more and more comfortable with each run. Maybe I adjusted my stride a little to become more of a midfoot striker, but that’s been an ongoing process and not something forced upon me by the shoe.

Also, considering I have flat feet and overpronate, I haven’t had any foot or joint pain despite the fact that these are more minimal than anything I’m used to. 

The soles have a rubber band (Mobium band) that Puma claims stretches as the foot flexes then releases all that kinetic energy when you push off. In effect, its supposed to be like snapping a rubberband. I don’t know if it does or not but I will admit that it felt like my step was springier on my outdoor runs, as if I was a little lighter.

The soles also have an arch in them where the Mobium band crosses in its figure 8 shape (see second picture below). I’m going to assume this absorbs some of the shock of your foot strike whereas other companies use thicker cushioning material to insulate your foot.

Additionally, Puma says the sole is designed like a cat’s paw. Sure. Ok. You can see the sole pictured below. I don’t know if they provide more grip as claimed, but they do seem very flexible.

The toe box is roomy, both width-wise and in front and my toes don’t feel crammed in there, nor do they rub against the front like they do with some shoes. Puma claims the shoe fabric conforms to your foot somehow. Adaptive running they call it. I don’t know if it does but I didn’t get that pinched feel across the top of my foot I get with other shoes.

To be honest, when I bought these my expectations were very low. All my other so-called running shoes from Puma were anything but made for running. They were more fashion than function. I was worried the Puma Mobiums would also turn out to be just another pair of good looking walkers. But I was pleasantly surprised to find these are an actual honest-to-goodness pair of running shoe and, despite the cool colors, aren’t just a fashion statement.

The Puma Mobium Elite V2 are now my go-to running shoes and I use them for the majority of my runs, preferring them to my Brooks Adrenaline, which had been my previous go-to shoes.

I’m happy Puma is finally concentrating on R&D in their running shoe development instead of relying on their marketing department.

If you’re looking for a comfortable, light weight trainer, then consider looking at a pair of these.

Run. Buy new shoes.Run some more.


Would Spider-Man wear these?

Earlier this summer I was in the shoe store, Rogan’s by name, and I was looking at the different pairs of Puma they had.

One of them stuck out from the rest, which is no small feat considering Puma is known for its bright, eye catching  (some might say garish) colors.

This one:

It’s the Bioweb Elite and as you can see on the upper there’s a website structure covering the fabric. Puma calls it a web-cage.

OK, I admit it. I’m a sucker for garish. So I tried on a pair and they seemed fine for the few minutes I had them on at the store.

At home, I decided to try to run in them. Well, let me tell you (and even if you won’t let me, I’m going to tell you anyway) they sucked.

Since then, I’ve read several reviews and they mostly seemed, if not rave, at least overly positive reviews. Makes me wonder if Puma isn’t paying them.

We’ll start with the so-called Web Cage. It was tight. So tight, that after a short time wearing them, my instep started to hurt.And I hadn’t tied them any tighter than any other shoe.

Second, they have a very high profile. Not Hoka One One high, which I’ve never tried, but high enough that they made me feel like Boris Karloff as Frankenstein’s monster, tottering around on his big platform boots. I felt tall and I think that threw off my natural sense of balance because running in them made me feel unsteady, like I was going to step wrong and sprain an ankle.

Third, they seem rigid and stiff. Not much flex. And whatever the cushioning material of the midsole is, when combined with the hard plastic webbing surrounding it, the shoes felt like I had two bricks strapped to my feet.

One reviewer called them light weight, but they felt just as heavy as my Brooks Adrenaline GTS16.

And one final comment: they are noisy! What with the hard materials of the midsole and outsole making the shoe clomp like it’s a hard leather boot, plus all the creaking, groaning, and squeaking coming from the midsole plastic wrap, suffice to say no cat burglar is going to want these Pumas.

It should come as no surprise therefore that I did not enjoy that run and immediately relegated the Biowebs to walking status. I mean, they still are attention-grabbing.

Also, I hoped that several months of walking would “break them in.” No such luck. I still have instep pain so have to tie them looser than I like and a recent run in them hasn’t changed my opinion of them.

Get them for the looks if you must (they do have a wide range of colors), but if you’re looking for a decent pair of runners, look elsewhere. These ain’t them.

[FYI: Puma released the Bioweb Elite in 2013. The model I have is from that first generation, I believe. Puma remodeled the shoe as the Bioweb Speed with a lower profile. I don’t know if that model is an improvement.]


Body and inSole

This may sound like a familiar complaint (see Remember the Brannock Device?), but it’s a whole new one, I promise.

As you may recall, I injured my leg somehow last week. There was pain in the thigh and gluteus and when I attempted to run, the leg felt weak, like it was going to collapse under me.

So I took a week off running, then ran Thursday. Everything felt fine, the pain was reduced. Today, I attempted another run. The pain was there and so was the weakness, but it was only evident at a 5 mph pace or slower. At 6 mph it was fine and at what for me right now is a near sprint — 8 mph — it was also fine.

The problem is, I took a week off! Yes, exactly. My aerobic level isn’t there. I can’t sustain 6 mph. So instead I did 30 to 45 seconds at 8 mph and then did about 3 minutes at walking pace, 4 mph. I managed about two miles in about 25 minutes.

Before I ran, I did two minutes of warm-up on my Lifestyler Cardiofit (which is in the foreground of the picture. In the background is my Schwinn treadmill. In the center is my comfy chair for vegging out and listening to my collection of vinyl).

exercise room

Afterwards, I stretched.

But, as you may have noticed reading this, I’ve ADHDed around what my complaint was and what the subject of this whole blogpost was supposed to be about. (It’s been a bad day ADHD-wise, but I’ll not go off on that tangent and explain. I’ll try to keep on topic.)

Back in June, I bought a pair of Brooks Adrenaline GTS 16 running shoes (see Saturday Shopping for Shoes). I tried on a few shoes and found them to be the most comfortable. The problem lately has been they just haven’t been as comfortable as they were just two months ago. That’s why I picked up the cushy pair of Saucony a couple weeks back, because the Brooks seems stiff and unpleasant, as if the cushioning had hardened up or something.

It was strange because my most comfortable fitting shoes were my Brooks Beasts and they’ve lasted for years. It seemed odd that Brooks had forgotten how to make good fitting shoes in such a short time.

Well, guess what it was?

Aw. You peeked.

Yes, it was the replacement insole the salesman at the shoe store talked me into. It was deja vu all over again. The insoles the salesman at Sports Authority (now kharmicly out of business) for the Asics I bought last year also hurt my feet. Now I find that the problem with the Brooks wasn’t the shoes, it was the Superfeet Orange Insoles I had in them.


Now, Superfeet is probably a very good brand of aftermarket insole inserts, but the problem I just realized today is: this particular pair hurts!

I put one of the original Brooks inserts into one shoe and left the Superfeet insert in the other and bounced in them. The Brooks insert felt the way I remembered the Brooks feeling at the store: cushy, yet supportive. Very, very comfortable. The Superfeet insert? It was only when I compared them side by side that I realized the problem was the Superfeet were too narrow at the heel. Instead of my heel fitting comfortably inside the hard plastic cup, it rested up on the sides.

So it never was the Brooks, it was a poorly-sized Superfeet inserts. I guess that was my fault. At the time, they seemed to fit. I didn’t realize they were too narrow or that the plastic sides were digging painfully into my heel. I just assumed a proper insert was supposed to be stiff… and, um, painful.

Now I know better. Maybe I’ll try to take the Superfeet back to Fleet Feet and say they weren’t the right size. It’s only been two months.

In the meantime, I was unhappy with my running shoes, but now I’m not. I’m very happy with the Brooks Adrenaline GTS 16.

And I wonder if aftermarket inserts are really necessary or if they’re just something shoe salesmen try to talk you into for an additional sale?

Do you use special inserts or do you use the insole that comes with your running shoe?