I recently went into one of the VivoBarefoot factory outlets and found that they had a "sample" pair of what the shop keeper said were a new Neo shoe. These are apparently the "Neo Mesh", an upgrade or update to the original Neo shoes. I did a quick search and have found no reference to a "mesh" version. Anyway, these sample shoes were in my size and on offer for £10 so I grabbed them. Here are my new bargain "Mesh" Neo shoes:
Now it might be just down to the size of the shoe but I prefer this bargain shoe to my original Neo. This is simply because my feet slip forward quite a lot in the original Neo when running downhill. The original was also quite bad (for me) when I was just walking up a hill because the balls of my feet slipped on every step inside the shoe. This aggravated the Mortons Neuroma like sensation that I sometimes get. I found that the mesh version was much better for walking and a little better for running. But this could be just down to slight differences in the cutting of the shoe to size during manufacture.
While in the factory outlet I picked up a pair of the Ultra shoes. I won't go into details about how they look, there's lots of that out there in other reviews. Here are mine:
Above you can see the bootie bit (middle) out of one shoe (top) and in the other shoe (bottom).
What I'm interested in is how the Ultras compare to the Neos (either the old or the "new"). As mentioned, I've done lots of runs in the Neos. I have now done 5 runs short runs in the Ultras (~2 miles per run mildly hilly - on the streets across Brighton). Four of these runs were in the dry and one was when it was raining about as heavily as you'd ever expect in the UK. My feet did not suffer in either condition and the shoe dried ready for the next day with the bootie bits removed. I have done long runs in continuous rain with the Neo and then found it took several days to dry out. Round one to the Ultras.
I do not think that it is necessary to do a big build up here. No further detail is necessary. I can say that I much prefer the Ultra to the Neo.
WHY: It's that bootie thing that the Ultras come with that does the trick I think. Your foot fits snugly in this (and I used thin running socks too anyway). In any running shoe you must have plenty of space around your toes but this can lead to unexpected issues like slipping of your feet inside the shoe. So far so whatever, the Ultra has space around the toes too, big deal. The bit that kills off all that slipping to the extent that it is a big plus is that the bootie thing locks into the outer shell of the shoe. Ground feel seems about the same as with the Neo but the run just feels better by enough to make these my current favourite.
My conclusion; A well fitting Neo is nice to walk in. It's not bad to run in. People may think that you're using "Crocs" but forget that, the Ultra is a better shoe by design than the Neo for running.
Thanks for the review. I live in a rain forest and finding a shoe that will work well in wet conditions is nice.
ReplyDeleteI have no experience of real rain forest conditions but I have since done more running in them.
DeleteI ran the North Berwick Law (Scotland) in the Ultra shoes. (The run was not far but very very steep). In these conditions the shoe suffered greatly on the damp & steep descent due to the lack of grip, (otherwise the shoe was fine).
What happens when the water does get in... I do not think that any of these shoes will solve the problem of running on wet feet leading to blisters etc. because your feet will not stay dry for ever.
I think that for rain forest use you ideally need to be able to try a pair out for a while first. I'd love to be in a position to give more useful recommendations for your location but you will know far more than I. Good luck, let us know what shoes you decide use in the end & how you get on with them.