I was recently involved in a review of 6 running shoes aimed at the larger runner in need of support for pronation. This is some of what I said about the Brooks Trance 6:
Running Experience:Awful. Walking a few steps before running felt bad and only got worse once I got going. It feels like the stiffness and support is down the outside of shoe and accelerating the pronation rather than controlling it. My knees were knocking together and I could hear my feet slapping as the shoe caused rapid inward motion. I did not like these at all
Summary: I do not like these shoes, maybe if supination was my problem they could work. Couldn’t recommend them to anyone who needs a support shoe. I had expected much more from these given the reputation of such shoes as the Beast
I have yet to see the article but am told that the above comments were edited to this:
Snug all over fit to this shoe. Very firm fitting, heavy on the support up the edges of the shoe, this felt the most structured and controlling of all the shoes I tested. It was a durable model, and had good grip in the rain, but not the ideal shoe for me.
I know why they did it but it helps put the relevance of magazine reviews in perspective.
I liked the Reeboks and the Sauconys, mizunos were pretty good, nikes have never worked for me (and still dont) and the adidas were hard work to run in.
Not much point in getting different types of runners to test shoes if all the published review does is merge them into mush.
Given the trouble it caused NZBike when they made a mildly negative comment about some aspects of a couple of bikes it’s not much of a surprise that things are like this though.
Based on what was published I suspect they had multiple testers for each model. Unless the “some of what I said” you wrote about left out things about running in the rain and durability that is.
I’ve been involved in shoe testing for 4 years for a friend who writes for Men’s Journal. It’s amazing to me what they send me to test with my preferred shoe being “lightweight trainer/cushioned”. Year 1 I got the Nike Spiridon which I liked a lot and performed well as a lightweight trainer. Year 2 I got the Asics Gel Nimbus which I hated and which I wouldn’t consider a cushioned shoe, and really wouldn’t call a lightweight trainer either. Year 3 I got the Nike Shox TurbOZ which is under no circumstances a lightweight trainer. This year I got the Nike Hayward and the Brooks Glycerine, both of which I liked.
Each year I’ve sent succinct comments. The only years they’ve used my comments were re: the Spiridons and the Nimbus.
By the way, the Brooks Trance seems like it would definitely be a compromise for a “larger runner in need of support for pronation”. Brooks website recommends the Trance for up to mild overpronators (not severe pronators) and only for up to medium frame runners (not large frame runners). From the way you describe yourself the Beast would be the Brooks shoe for you.
Full disclosure…I don’t work for Brooks but my team has a deal with them. We’ve got about 15 of our 22 athletes/coaches in Brooks and they’re working out very well.
Three testers and the other two were actual runners. I was the only one with trance I think. All I said about rain and durability was that a 2 run test is not enough to comment.
I didnt choose the shoes - that was based on podiatrist assessing me and talking with supplier. I’m only a mild pronator now and I think they wanted to give out the trance regardless.
My aim wasn’t really to comment on the Trance itself - biomechanics are too individual for personal endorsement to mean all that much. Just to comment on the pointlessness of getting reviewers then writing your own blurb anyway.