Customer Reviews


15 Reviews
5 star:
 (9)
4 star:
 (4)
3 star:    (0)
2 star:
 (1)
1 star:
 (1)
 
 
 
 
 
Average Customer Review
Share your thoughts with other customers
Create your own review
 
 
Only search this product's reviews

The most helpful favorable review
The most helpful critical review


10 of 11 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars The Best Shoe Available
My job requires me to run a lot. Sometimes I run with shorts and a T, sometimes I run with a 25-50lb weighted vest. Most of the time I run on tarmac, sometimes I run on trails, and rarely I run on astro-turf/rubberized gym flooring. In all environments this shoe excels. Comfortable and light with a generally flat sole (good for "pose running" or "chi running") and...
Published on January 26, 2010 by L. Cox

versus
1 of 4 people found the following review helpful:
2.0 out of 5 stars Fit runs very small
I ordered this shoe in size 13 and really liked it. In a Brooks Cascadia, I wear a size 12 1/2 shoe, but got the size 13 because I had read these run small. They sure do. The size 13 in this shoe actually felt smaller than a size 12 in a Brooks. Unfortunately, New Balance apparently doesn't make a size 14(!), so I can't order the next size up. One point that might...
Published 21 months ago by Steve


‹ Previous | 1 2 | Next ›
Most Helpful First | Newest First

10 of 11 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars The Best Shoe Available, January 26, 2010
My job requires me to run a lot. Sometimes I run with shorts and a T, sometimes I run with a 25-50lb weighted vest. Most of the time I run on tarmac, sometimes I run on trails, and rarely I run on astro-turf/rubberized gym flooring. In all environments this shoe excels. Comfortable and light with a generally flat sole (good for "pose running" or "chi running") and minimal support and cushioning. The shoe has a good tread but remains responsive and you can really feel the ground with these shoes (though I wouldn't say you would feel rocks or anything like that). I have even begun using these shoes in the gym.

Great shoe, but if you are a runner with a serious knee destroying heel strike I would recommend a different shoe (not enough cushioning for that style of running). If you run with vibram five fingers (and are tired of all the questions) or you have a fore foot strike you'll love these shoes.

Curiously I generally wear a 9 in athletic shoes, with this one I found that the 9.5 to be extremely comfortable.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews 
Was this review helpful to you? Yes No


7 of 7 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars new balance 100, October 28, 2009
Amazon Verified Purchase(What's this?)
I've been using nb 790 for a while and like them a lot. The 100s are the replacement, similar but more rigid sole, haven't quite got the hang of them yet. I use the nb 840s if I need more protection and at this point still prefer the 790s over the 100s but will eventually have to migrate to the 100s as the 790s become unavailable. For me the 100s are a little smaller than the 790s of the same size and I will go up a 1/2 size for the next pair (11d->11 1/2d).
Unrelated to the quality of the shoes, there was a peculiar and unpleasant chemical smell from the new pair I bought, to the point that I cannot keep them in the house.
Overall this seems like a good shoe and they are very light and comfortable to wear.
Both the 790 and 100 are low profile with little or no cushioning or arch support, they are probably best for a neutral runner who's relatively light on their feet. If you're moving from a heavier pair of shoes with a built up heel you might want to build in a transition period to acclimatize your muscles to the lower heel and lack of cushioning. In my case it took about 3 months to move to the nb 790s

Update:
I've now had the nb 100 for a couple of months and have run about 300 miles in them. I now prefer them to the nb790 because of the more rigid sole. Did a few 20 mile runs trail runs in them with no problems.
I plan to stick to the size 11 as the fit seems fine now, may have stretched or just got used to the more snug fit
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews 
Was this review helpful to you? Yes No


3 of 3 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars Better than anything else, October 16, 2009
I've run in several of the low-profile NB models including the XC flats. This is the first pair with enough protection to keep my feet unbruised on long trail runs. The rock stop is much more substantial than in the other models, the shoe is also much stiffer (heel to toe). They are a little narrower than the NB 790s and the 505s but not as narrow as something like INOV8. The interior of this shoe is really soft, there is also a nice dense foam band that runs around the ankle and gives a little extra support while keeping things pretty minimal. Arch support in the foot bed is pretty low/neutral-I use an insert which gives a little more support to my very, very high arches.
New Balance has done a great job of balancing support, rigidity and lightness. Should also mention (as others have) that the tread is an improvement over the 790s, these are a little stickier.
Awesome shoe.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews 
Was this review helpful to you? Yes No


3 of 3 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars Finally, what we've been waiting for, almost., October 5, 2009
I wore this shoe's predecessor (790s) before I purchased these. The 790's were OK, I removed 3-4 mm of padding out of the shoe's heel to make them truly "flat" and they served me well. They were not "great" for "no socks" running but I got by. The sole on the bottom of the shoe was a bit "hard", and these tended to slip on hard surfaces. Another deficiency was that the "rockstop" only did a moderate job of stopping rocks and roots. Therefore, I had to tread lightly over that type of terrain.

So, the NEW MT 100's are much better! The insole is glued in and is an excellent texture for "no socks" running, so far. The rockstop also includes a thin fiberglass plate which does STOP rock and roots in the fore/mid-foot part of the shoe. The back does not have this plate. The sole is also a more "sticky" rubber and does not slip on hard surfaces like the 790s. My one complaint is that the heel/forefoot sole thickness ratio is the same as the 790s. So to make them flat I had to remove 3-4 mm of padding from the heel. New Balance, you've come 95% of the way to the perfect shoe, make them flat and you'll get the extra 5%. Maybe next time?
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews 
Was this review helpful to you? Yes No


1 of 1 people found the following review helpful:
4.0 out of 5 stars Great trail shoe, October 10, 2010
Amazon Verified Purchase(What's this?)
Reviewing after >50 miles of steep and rocky trails: these are great minimalist trail shoes--very light with good grip and a good compromise of flexibility and protection. The lightweight construction does leave some unpadded spots that can prick/rub on the ankle, and you have to expect aches and pains from previously underused muscles if you are new to minimalist running. I'm a size 11.5 and didn't find them to be undersized in my case. It is true they have a strong chemical smell that takes a long time to dissipate; I kept them in the garage for a few weeks.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews 
Was this review helpful to you? Yes No


1 of 1 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars Best running shoe I've worn, October 1, 2010
By 
Dean Ekkaia (Berkeley, CA USA) - See all my reviews
I run both pavement and trails and was looking for a shoe that was close to a racing flat. I've run barefoot for several years, and worn all varieties of running shoe; this is the best shoe I've worn. It is lighter weight than most, breathable and most of all, doesn't have a thick sole.

Pros: lightweight, thin sole, breathable, ultra comfortable

Cons: bland color, peapod shoe lace loses shape over time/stops holding in place (need to double-knot)
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews 
Was this review helpful to you? Yes No


1 of 1 people found the following review helpful:
4.0 out of 5 stars Great for travel., September 6, 2010
While these sneakers aren't the absolute best quality, they're pretty good. I don't recommend running a marathon in them, but if you're going away for a week and want to work out in the hotel gym or run in the neighborhood, these are the sneakers for you. They're especially good if you do a lot of traveling and need to pack light; they can fold flat (the part behind the ankle - which is usually the bane of light packers' existences - folds down easily) and they don't take up much room. In terms of fit, they fit my feet just the same as other New Balance sneakers (same size).
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews 
Was this review helpful to you? Yes No


1 of 1 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars Best trail running shoe I've ever used., May 27, 2010
Amazon Verified Purchase(What's this?)
Excellent shoe: light weight, fits like a glove, low heel. I run mostly on gravel roads, trails and creek beds - the shoe is very sensitive, yet when I step on sharp rocks, the pressure is dispersed over a larger area and does not hurt. The low heel is great for forefoot (pose, chi or evolution) running. I will probably buy another pair asap - just to make sure I have a replacement in case the shoe changes!

I've also used the shoe during "CrossFit" workouts that include sprints, weights and body weight movement. It performs very well as an all around, go-to shoe.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews 
Was this review helpful to you? Yes No


1 of 1 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars Most comfortable shoe EVER!, May 24, 2010
By 
Steven List "Doc" (Austin, Texas, USA) - See all my reviews
(REAL NAME)   
Amazon Verified Purchase(What's this?)
I have incredibly flat feet. They're so flat that a sports orthopedist once asked if he could take pictures of them, because they were the flattest feet he'd ever seen. So I wear orthotics in my shoes all the time, and yet am still always struggling to find shoes that don't leave my feet hurting at the end of the day.

These are those shoes. They're amazingly light, fantastically comfortable to wear, and even after walking for hours and hours, my feet don't hurt. I've worn them in winter (Gothenburg, Sweden) and summer (Austin, Chicago, and other cities), and they've been a joy.

I loaned a pair to my son for his trip to Italy and France, and he wore them about 90% of the time and is buying his own now.

The only thing to watch out for is that they're designed for off-road running, so they don't handle wet, smooth surfaces all that great. I consider that a small price to pay.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews 
Was this review helpful to you? Yes No


1 of 1 people found the following review helpful:
4.0 out of 5 stars Amazingly light, size runs small, May 12, 2010
By 
These are the first "minimalist" running shoes I've worn and my initial opinion is good. They're definitely the lightest shoes I've ever owned. They have virtually no arch support, which I found odd at first given I've never had running shoes with so little, but that hasn't bothered me so far. (But I also don't have arch problems, so those that do should take note.) The size does run small. I usually wear a 9 1/2 and had to go up to a 10 and could probably even wear a 10 1/2 in these.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews 
Was this review helpful to you? Yes No


‹ Previous | 1 2 | Next ›
Most Helpful First | Newest First

This product