New Balance MT1010 Review

The New Balance Minimus Trail (MT10) is known for its sock-like fit, highly flexible sole, and minimal protection from sharp rocks. The New Balance MT1010 (also know as the Minimus Amp) aims to change that with a more generous fit in the forefoot, a much more aggressive lug pattern, a rockplate that provides ample protection, but still maintains the MT10’s ideals of lightweight minimalist trail running. [Note: You can learn additional details about the shoe in our New Balance MT1010 preview.]

New Balance MT1010

The New Balance MT1010.

When you first try on the shoe, you’ll notice much more roomy fit for natural toe splay. I found going a half size smaller worked well for most of my 1-2 hour runs, but I needed my regular 10.5 for ultra distances. The toebox is slightly pointed and features a suede-like toe cap with a few key overlays that provide a durable blister-free fit up front. The midfoot and heel are looser than the MT10, but still provide a good firm fit. Overlays are thin and precise and add to the lightweight feeling of the shoe. A heel counter is included, but it is a very flexible plastic piece that accommodates a variety of foot types.

New Balance MT1010 - upper

The New Balance MT1010’s upper.

Throughout the product development process the Revlite midsole was wear tested at different durometers, and eventually a firmer formula won out. In general, the MT1010 is a bit more cushioned than the original Minimus, but it is far from mushy. Where this shoe shines is in the responsive rockplate and super grippy lugs. The forefoot experience is spot on and gives a solid blend of proprioception, protection, and grip. The added rockplate definitely extends the range of the Minimus Amp for minimalist ultrarunners, but it does not lend any extra features like arch support or extra heel cushion found in other minimalist ultra shoes. In fact, the arch is comprised of three foam lugs that create the barefoot sensation of a “floating arch.” Grip is maximized through 19 lugs with sharp ridges locking in immediately on impact. The spacing between the lugs kicks in two fold in soft terrain, and provides solid grip everywhere from Pacific Northwest mud to Colorado scree to California silt to Appalachian rock fields. All these features come together to give a combination of grip, proprioception, protection, flexibility, and freedom.

New Balance MT1010 - outsole

The New Balance MT1010 outsole. (Note: The production model uses a Vibram outsole.)

The Minimus line is founded on the ideals of low drop, flexibility, and proprioception in a lightweight package. The MT1010 brings these ideals to runners that find themselves on rocky trails with long distance ambitions. The shoe retails for $110 while it weighs in at 7.5 ounces with a 4 mm heel-to-toe drop.

Call for Comments (from Bryon)

Since the MT1010 is already trickling onto the market, we should be able to have lots of feedback from reader. So…

  • What are the New Balance MT1010’s strengths?
  • What are the MT1010’s weaknesses?

[Editor’s Note: The reviewer is a New Balance athlete who we feel was able to provide insight into the development of the shoe as well as an extremely in-depth account of the differences between the MT1010 and the MT10 based on a large amount of actual mileage that other runners have not yet be able to log.]

There are 210 comments

  1. Dom

    I did this post voluntarily for the community. Every year there's some great products that are overlooked by runners (i.e 3oz jackets, new energy food, etc.). I think this is something a lot of minimalist runners on irunfar will enjoy, and I wanted to give a technical in depth review for those readers. Newbalance.com gives a generic description, and I only meant to add some insight for runners that might be ordering online based on pictures and reviews. I hope this helped!

  2. money B

    is there a difference between the men and women's shoe? i'm only asking because i like one of the women's colors better – the purple w/yellow – but wasn't sure if the shoe was constructed differently depending on the gender. many thanks!

    1. Melanie

      I was wondering the same thing, for the reverse problem! I don't think there is anything different in the construction or materials after looking at both in detail (but I could be wrong, just based on my observations). The difference is the sizing and width. For example, if you are a men's 9, width B, I think you would wear something like a women's 11, width D.

      Speaking of different widths, I see the width chart on the website, but am wondering- where do they widen or narrow the shoe? Throughout the entire length of the show, or only in a specific place? Running shops tend to only carry the "normal" width, so it's difficult to compare and try them on.

  3. Mike

    50 miles so far through roots, rocky terrain, boulders, dry loose trails, loamy trails, hard packed trails, water crossings. No problems with build construction on my pair, I have the black/blue colorway. I went with a half size down from my normal size(9.5 in the 110, 9.0 in the 1010). If I would change anything i'd make the vibram rubber a tad softer as grip on rocky terrain especially boulders was not that stellar. Otherwise, awesome shoe.

  4. Mike

    If you're a 10.5 in the 110 a 10.5 in the 1010 will feel roomier in the toebox. You'd want to size down a half size to get a similar fit to your 10.5 110.

  5. Rich S.

    It's almost September. The snow here in Colorado is coming. Any insight on how these will work in the wet, sloppy, Sept/Oct Colorado snow? I run in Cascadia 7's now (love/hate relationship with them btw) but I'm looking to move towards a lower drop shoe.

  6. Jake C.

    So bummed right now. I just blew out the upper on my 110s and was ecstatic to get my toes in the 1010s. I took them out for a 12 miler this morning and noticed that the lugs on both feet under my big toes are starting to peel away. I see per earlier comments that this was an issue but thought it was resolved. Anyone else still having this trouble?

  7. Jake C

    I had this same problem with mine after 12 miles on pretty rocky terrain. I took them back to the store and got my money back but am gutted because the shoe was very comfortable and just what I'm looking for. I am not sure if I want to try another of the same pair and hope the one I had was just a dud. Anyone else still having the problem with the lugs starting to peel away prematurely?

    1. Andy

      I bought 2 pair in early August — one from Running Warehouse (Red/black) and one direct from NB (blue/black). On the blue ones the front lugs on one shoe started to peel after one run, but have not gone any further. The red ones are still fine after at least 50 rocky/rooty miles. Not sure if the colorway or any other production variable is at play.

    1. Mike Behnke

      I just bought a pair of 1010's and they are awesome. I was in a 10D in the 110 and went with a 9.5 for the 1010. If you have a little extra room in your current shoes I would go down a half size!

    2. Andy

      The 1010 is definitely roomier (and longer) than the 110, but I went with the same size – 10.5D – and have been very happy. Just a different, softer, roomier feel, but no slippage or sliding forward or toe bashing on the descents. Great shoe!

  8. Danna

    Has anyone else noticed a prominent seam or ridge under the toes about 1/2″ from the front of the shoe? I didn’t notice it when trying them on, but after my first 4 miles on trail today I ended up with a blister under my longish 2nd toe from rubbing over the seam on downhills. I checked out my wt110s, wt00s, wt10s and 730s (yeah I’m a fan) and none of them have anything that this noticeable or this far back. I guess its possible to go a 1/2 size up so the toes couldn’t reach it, but my super narrow feet tend to slide to the front of any shoe, so that might not work. Just wondering if I got a defective pair or if they’re all like this? Can’t imagine trying to go without socks. Trying to decide whether to send them back or rig a thin insole over it… bummer either way. At least an insole would help fill some of the extra volume, but I wasn’t looking to add to the stack height.

    Ever since I took a box cutter to the lateral lugs on my 110s I’ve been incredibly happy with them, but I was excited to try the 1010s for ultra distances. At least they have no lateral build up, and with the exception of this toe rubbing issue, they ran like a dream.

  9. Todd Gallagher

    I've had my 1010's for about a month now. Here's my two cents. I wear a 9D in all my other New Balance shoes so ordered a pair of the 1010's in my regular size. The shoe does feel a bit roomier but I don't feel that much of a difference when running. I have no bruising on my toes/toenails and no blisters. The shoe stays on the foot nicely and doesn't slip around and the toe bumper has saved my toes a few times on roots and rocks. I've run a couple of 25 mile runs in them and they have performed very well for me. I live in the Pacific Northwest so there tends to be a lot of roots, rocks and mud, very technical trails and significant climbs/descents. The shoe grips well on most surfaces, although I've yet to find a shoe that doesn't slip at least a little on wet roots. The shoe drains well post stream crossings. I've logged about 100 miles on them and the only breakdown I've noticed is that one of the lugs underneath the left toe section is lifting ever so slightly and it seems to be where the shoe flexes. The sole itself has very little wear. The only thing that I'm curious about and I'd like to know if anyone else has noticed is this. The sole of my left shoe has slight cut downs/indentations between the lugs on the rear section of the shoe but they aren't on the right sole. Anyone else notice this? Just wondering if it's a one off or a production glitch/error. All in all I am very impressed with this shoe, it'll be my go to shoe for distances of up to 50 miles.

  10. Ben

    I noticed the same thing in my 9's. I returned them for 9.5's. But I'm still waiting for the shipment. Hope it fixes it, i hate black toes.

  11. jhnnyk

    I'm loving my 1010's and have about 175 miles on them. Unfortunately when I finished my run I noticed a huge tear on the inside of the shoe above the arch-like reinforcement near the ball of the foot. It's only on one shoe, but I can see the tear starting on the other one too :-(

    I like them enough I was planning on another pair, but I need them to last a bit longer. Now I'm wondering what to do. Should I try them again and hope a new pair lasts longer?

  12. Bill B

    A few comments for those thinking of a purchase. I think this shoe will work well for many people, but there is a reason for the word "minimus" in the name. I logged about 50 miles in them, including one 3 hour effort in rocky terrain, then laced them up for a steep rocky 17 mile trail race (Imogene Pass). At the end of the race, one of the vibram pod covers on a heel was torn away and flapping. Also have some minor heel bruising because I believe the rock plate does not extend the entire length of the shoe. Still, I loved the shoe for the short time I did run in them, but I think this going to depend on the type of trails you enjoy. Just don't think they are going to hold up for any amount of time in rocky terrain. Did same event a year ago in NB 101s and worked better. Should have used my 110s which I love. Figuring this was my poor choice to use a minimus line shoe in such steep rocky terrain at race pace, I left them in Telluride for whomever wanted them rather than contact NB for a new pair or rebate.

  13. STEVE

    I live about 4-5 miles from the nearest trail head. I was wondering is anyone knew how the treads hold up on concrete on the way to the trail?

    1. jhnnyk

      I normally run 100% trails, but bought these shoes while traveling and ran probably 100 miles of pavement on them. The tread definitely showed signs of wear, but held up quite well. I've had none of the pod covers fall off or anything like that.

  14. rms

    Alas, I have a contraindication after starting with the MT1010 on the MAS50 course (very rocky, steep climbs & descents). I'd worn them for only 2 6milers previous, and loved them, 1/2 size down from my MT110, which along with the VerticalK are my shoes lately. Still loved them till 15miles into the race, and was very impressed with how protective the shoes were, then started experiencing metatarsal head pain in both feet http://www.ourhealthnetwork.com/conditions/Footan… which quickly worsened, and I had to stop at 20miles. Also, one of the vibram pads is peeling off after 3 runs, I'm going to try to RMA this pair.

    I'm not sure what to think now. I'm still impressed with the shoe, no black toenails or other issues, I *love* the upper, just this metatarsal problem. Are my feet weak? Does the shoe design need tweaking? Is the odd distribution of the vibram pads causing an unusual flexing of the forefoot that's irritating the balls of the feet? Dunno

  15. Andrew

    Just had a 50km day followed by a 40km day here in the Drakensberg in South Africa. It was the first time I'd ever worn my 1010s.

    They are great shoe – we had snow, mud, rock, rivers and lots of clumpy off camber grass (it's similar to how I imagine Hardrock being but with less path). Great grip, enough cushioning and zero foot damage. The gusseted tongue is great for keeping stones and grass out of the shoe. They still look pretty much new.

    I think for most people it is a far better shoe than the 110. I find it difficult to run downhill quickly with my 110s as the heel is very narrow so stability is an issue. Also, the 110 lets in a ridiculous amount of mud and stones when running through rivers etc.

    Today after a 90km weekend when my weekly mileage is normally only 30km or so my legs are a little sore but nowhere near what I was dreading.

  16. jhnnyk

    My local running store replaced them for free (thank you Footzone Bend!). But with less than 100 miles on the second pair, the tear in the upper is already starting in the same spot again. :-(

  17. Andrew

    Ooops, looks like I may also have to retract my awesomeness rating.

    Getting little holes on the innier side (medial?) near the ball of my foot just behind the reinforcing there. After only 100km?

    Glad I got them for free.

    Still a very comfortable and "fast" shoe but if the durability is this poor they may be difficult to recommend.

    Is it just me or does NB briong out a new shoe every 5 seconds.

    Surely Salomon's model is better – bring out fewer models and focus on making them more durable?

  18. rms

    Giving this pair another chance, I took the foam cover off a pair of Superfeet Black insoles, leaving just the 3/4 length plastic frame, and this worked quite well, reducing metatarsal pain to a minor annoyance during a rocky 50k run, while not changing the feel of the shoe. However three more vibram pads are tearing off, near the heel of both shoes.

    The sole of the MT1010 needs a major redesign. The 'lily pond' web of vibram pads IMHO is a source of instability in the forefoot, that makes me feel I'm balancing on a dinner plate when landing on one of them. This extra squirminess just slows me down on a technical surface, and I think contributes to metatarsal pain.

    In addition, the 'floating arch' — the triangle of EVA bumps under the instep — is a failure. At purchase these are full-height, but collapse entirely after 20miles or so, completely changing the dynamics of the shoe, and is the main cause of my metatarsalgia, with the instep becoming lower than the outboard perimeter of the shoe. This is quite different than the MT110, where the instep of exposed EVA is flat all the way across: I don't need arch support insoles in the MT110, but they are required for any long run in the MT1010.

    The upper, the rockplate, the shape of the sole, are all wonderful. The out-sole (whatever the proper term is) needs a redesign, mainly to be more side-to-side symmetrical. This I think would reduce squirming in the forefoot and make arch support less dramatically absent.

  19. A ndy

    I've got the same tear at the same spot, as well as lugs peeling away. That's why I've got a second pair just gently used to wear for VT50 this weekend, but I agree the durability factor is an issue. Of course, you can buy 3 pairs of NB for the cost of about 2 pairs (or less) of Salomons.

  20. Andrew

    Agree, most annoying. Think I need to harden up and actually wreck my F Lite 230s, MT 110s and MT1010s properly before searching for the next greatest thing!

    But the 1010s are really cool and with a "normal" upper they'd be ideal – something like the 101 is all that's needed.

  21. Jon

    I really enjoyed these kicks for a couple of weeks. Now, after about 150 miles, I have several holes in the upper and a lug has completely been torn off the bottom while one other lug is just barely hanging on. I'm pretty bummed, durability is what most of us look for in a shoe, and I'm afraid this isn't the one.

    I miss the trusty 101s, I got over 1,000 miles out of a couple of different pairs of those…

  22. andrew

    Hi Dom, Can you give some indication of when the 110v2 is due to be released? I love the v1 and have had several pairs. I think it's almost the perfect shoe when used for what it's designed to do. Cheers

  23. Jason

    I picked up a second pair of these within days to have 2 pairs to rotate through. I prefer the synthetic upper from the 110 better as it feels much more confidence inspiring on downhill and technical sections. After approximately 300 miles of trail running on a variety of surfaces and am really impressed with the fit and rock plate. The additional heel of the 1010 is appreciated on downhills as well. My only complaint with the 1010 would be in the durability department. Have had issues with the lugs coming unglued on both the grey/blue and black/yellow models. The manager at the local NB store had no problem with me returning the grey/blue pair for this issue, despite the obviously trail worn condition of the shoe.

    All in all a great light-weight neutral trail shoe with good protection under foot protection on rocky terrain. I wish this shoe was more durable. Will continue to alternate these with my 110 depending on trail conditions.

    @ Dom: Look forward to seeing you at the Team RWB training camp here in Texas in November.

    Jason

  24. Andy

    Just put my second pair through the VT50 on Sunday — a really tame course as far as rocks and roots go — and still came away with one shredded upper. Too bad, they only have about 100 miles on them and were supremely comfortable despite the rain and mud, and my feet are perfect and blister free. Traction in the mud was fair to midling. Bottom line: A superbly comfortable shoe but with a very short lifespan.

  25. Jon

    I do want to say that I contacted New Balance today relaying to them the problems I've had with the lugs and they quickly replied offering for me to send the shoe back and get another pair. Really great service, and I am a very grateful runner.

  26. Todd Gallagher

    Like many other folks here, my 1010's are tearing/ wearing out on the medial side near the reinforcement area by the big toe. I've sent them back and awaiting my replacement pair. New Balance was very prompt in getting back to me and asked no questions, just replaced the shoe. Hopefully they will tweak the shoe for 2013 and make the upper more durable. All in all though a great shoe.

  27. Dutch

    Sadly, I have to report the same tearing as others have on the uppers after ~130 miles. At 149 miles, and just days before a 50K I was planning on wearing them in, the shoes tore to the point where I didn't trust them. I took pictures and emailed with New Balance about the "premature wear" issue (as they called it). They were happy to exchange for a new pair. Aside from the tearing and one other issue (sort of upper related) I really like the shoes.

    The other issue is how the upper is attached to the shoe. The upper sort of tucks under and towards the middle of the shoe. This leaves a strange gap/bump feeling right at the tips of your longer toes. The first pair I had I stopped noticing it after ~20-25 miles. The second pair my first run in them was the 50K and that was a poor choice. This bump gave me some exceptional blood blisters on the bottoms of my big and second toes.

    I've really enjoyed the 110's but on anything over 2.5 hours I appreciate the extra cushioning of the 1010's. If I have similar issues with this second pair I won't go with the 1010's again… I'll just continue on my endless quest (my wife thinks I'm developing a problem) to find a good trail shoe with the perfect cushioning and drop – ~20mm cushioning in the forefoot and 4mm drop, if anyone has suggestions. I thought the 1010's would be the pair but, as things stand now, it's not looking that way.

  28. Jason

    I too had issues with the uppers ripping. I wore mine for seven runs for a total of 120 miles and both shoes had 1-2 inch tears where the upper connects to the sole of the shoe. Does anyone out htere know if New Balance is planning on making any changes/adjustments in response to this? I really loved the shoe, but I do not want to invest the money in a second pair knowing that so many other people have had issues with the uppers.

  29. Andrew

    Do you guys think that mine will last a 42km in extreme sand / rock coastal terrain? Doing the Otter African Run next weekend (Anton K is doing it too!) And I have small holes in the usual place on both. Not yet through the inner fabric and not big enough for for a finger to poke through? How quickly do they completely fall apart?

    1. Dutch

      The inner fabric never tore on mine, just the outside. It's possible they would have held up for a long time with just the inner material intact but I wasn't willing to risk having my shoes rip into multiple pieces at some point during a 5-6 hour race. The outside fabric on mine went from fairly minimal (but noticeable) tears to several inch long tears over the course of their final 10 mile run. It's obviously your call but I'd hate to have to finish a race of any distance with no shoes on my feet.

      If Anton K is there maybe you can get him to talk to New Balance about what's up with the 1010's. I think I remember reading on his blog that he was running in the 1010's for a while during his recovery. Probably best to try before the race since you most likely won't be seeing him once the race starts.

    2. Jason

      I second the idea of not chancing the inner lining ripping open. The exterior layer on mine ripped which permitted rocks to get in between the bottoms of my feet and the bed of the shoe, causing blisters. My tears happened pretty quickly as well.

    3. Andy

      Sadly, I agree. My second pair were pristine until the end of a 50m last weekend. I only noticed the huge rip after washing off the tons of mud that had collected — it was probably the only thing holding the upper together!. It's true the sock liner never tore, but I'd hate to be on a rocky course with debris coming in through the hole in the upper. Andrew — definitely check with Tony and let us know. Of course, he can probably change shoes as often as he wants, but not mid-race!

  30. Andrew

    Thanks for all of the advice.

    In a quandry now though – MT110s let in far too much sand, F Lite 230s too minimal and my road shoes will see me on my ass the whole time.

    May have to try to stick the holes together with some kineseotape and contact glue and hope like hell the 1010s can hang in for one last ride!

    If I can chat to Tony I'll mention the durability issue to him – if he's planning on running in his 110s I'd love to know what he does for sand coming through the mesh – I ran 2km on the beach in mine a while back and my toes literally got squashed by the amount of sand that got into the shoe.

  31. Jeremy

    I've recently begun to transition to a more minimal shoe concomitantly with a transition to mid-foot striking (I suffered a pretty intense case of IT-band syndrome during the Canadian Death Race last year that was traced back to heel-striking by my physiotherapist, and have not had any issues since the transition). I've been training in the Brooks Pure Cadence shoe for about 8 months and have no complaints, save sore heels after 2+ hour runs. I'm now looking for a more minimalist trail shoe, but am not interested in the Pure Grit because of its narrower toe box (I need room up there!).

    My question has to do with the function of a shoe like this. For someone with relatively little experience with minimalist shoes (if the Pure Cadence can even be considered minimalist), is this a shoe in which I could expect to run marathon and beyond distances? Or should this shoe be used more for training and a more substantial shoe for longer distances? I recognize that this question is very general, so I'm not looking for such a specific answer.

    1. Andy

      Once you've acclimated and conditioned to a more minimal shoe, this shoe will serve you very well and comfortably up to at least 50m or 100k. I haven't gone more than 50 miles in them but am interested to hear if others have worn them for a full 100 and how they fared.

      1. Anonymous

        There are issues with this shoe and longevity you can see above. It was a great idea and the shoe is wonderful out of the box but my belief is without an outsole covering the entire bottom the vibram pod covers will tear away going fast through rocks. Not an adhesive issue but a design issue. Others have noted the upper tearing with minimal mileage. The NB 110 has none of these problems, a rock plate, and adequate cushioning to run as far as you like. And same weight as the 1010. Don't get sucked in by marketing on the latest greatest.

        1. Andy

          With all respect, IMHO, they are really different shoes and the 1010 does have place in the pantheon of minimal shoes distinct from the 110. I love the 110s also but the fit, feel, and cushioning are quite different. And the 110 uppers do rip easily, though maybe not in the same way as the 1010. Will be interesting to see the 110v2 in January, and the later 1010v2.

  32. Dutch

    I agree with Andy. I love the 110s for anything up to about 2.5 hours. Beyond that and it's nice to have a little more cushioning – which the 1010s offer. While I have had some tearing on the uppers of a pair of 110s it was notably from catching a tree branch during a log crossing. When you have shoes with minimal weight, you're going to have some concessions made to durability, there's simply no way around that and I can accept that sort of risk. The tearing of the 1010s upper, however, was not due to an acute event and was only from the material wearing down over an unacceptably short period of time.

    I think an amazing combination would be the 110s but with the midsole of the 1010s.

    Jeremy, the stack heights and drop of the Pure Cadence and MT1010 are very similar (www.Runningwarehouse.com does a great job of showing shoes' stack heights and drop if you ever want to compare. I've also found their Shoefitr link to be very accurate in comparing the differences of wear-feel too). I don't think you'd have any issue going from one shoe to the other. I've run up to 40 miles in the 1010s and found them to offer sufficient cushioning and protection. My only concerns with the 1010s are for the durability of the upper.

  33. Andrew

    I agree with the above sentiments.

    I have both 110s and 1010s and they are very different.

    1) Way less cush on the 110 – I eventually fitted cheap thin ish NB insoles in the 110s to make them a but more plush.

    2) The 110 is an awesome shoe but it lets in soo much dirt / sand through the mesh, it is heavier than the 1010 once wet and the heel is very XC flat in that it is narrow. The fit IS awesome on the 110 but you need to be fairly deep into the minimalist koolaid to use them for everything.

    3) Apart from the upper which lasts 150km, the 1010 is the best shoe I've run in. And to be honest, I did the 42 km Otter African Trail Run in my already tearing 1010s and the inner lining held up fine.

    As an aside, google the race and check out the terrain – pretty epic!

    1. Andy

      Yeah, was waiting for your report on your chat with Anton but apparently he was nursing some lower leg nerve issues that flared up and (wisely) decided not to run. Anyplace to see your race report on that epic coastline run? With a CR of 4:20 for 42k it's got to be a tough, though spectacular, course. Congrats on your finish!

  34. Andrew

    Hi Andy

    So bleak Anton couldn't run – it would have been cool to meet him and he would have definitely challenged for the win!

    Check out http://www.theotter.co.za and search for Jacques Marais photographer's pics. I also see that Sebastien Chaigneau will have a race video on youtube – there's a teaser http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6MiuPJbOBFo .

    Incredible course – I have done up to 65km at highish altitude but nothing has bever been as difficult – quads were cramping from before halfway and I only just scraped a finish before the cutoff. I will be back next year with stronger legs as it is the most beautiful, technical, relentless course I have ever done!

    1. Andy

      I saw the website pre-race, and have spent a tiny bit of time in SA and on Table Mountain and surrounding countryside. It is truly exquisite. Sounds like an epic, quad-crushing course — maybe next year! Congrats again!

  35. Andrew

    Hi Max. If you have no other shoes then I guess they would be ok but a bit hard. Try to find some Kinvara 2s somewhere as they will be cheaper than the new Kinvara and have a similar drop but good cushioning. Otherwise, New Balance RC 1400s are cool.

    1. Andy

      Tough question because there are so many choices depending on your running style, experience, preferences, etc. The MT110 and MT1010 are both fabulous trail shoes if you are comfortable and seasoned at wearing a minimalist shoe, but otherwise I would avoid these at least for starters. Same story on the road with the Minimus Road, Zeros etc., and even the 1400s (though they do have a much more substantial drop and some cushioning). Maybe get to a local retailer and test drive a few options?

      1. Fitz

        I say, especially if you are a new runner, start with the minimal styles. I think it'll save you from developing a bunch of bad habits that you'll want to shed eventually. I think you may like the feel better of having "less shoe" and more feeling, I know I do!

  36. Phil

    I love the New Balance MT1010. I just bought a pair and went on my first test run. My initial concern was the downhill on rocky terrain, but they were actually surprisingly cushioned. My feet felt very protected. Previously,I have been running in the Altra Lone Peaks, which is a very hardy shoe, however, they also are a bit on the heavier side. The MT1010 are much much lighter. Although they aren't designed for the road, it felt ok on cement and asphalt. I think I am going to use my NB MT's for trail runs and the LP's for longer mountain runs.

Post Your Thoughts