I have used a lot of shoes from different brands and have a good rotation of shoes. I find the Novablast to be very good. It's a pair I can do anything in and feel good.
I have the Nimbus 25 and they are pillows lol Great for slow plodding but there's no energy return in long runs. I bought them as my first running shoe. I have since picked up other shoes (1080V12, Boston 12, Speed 4, Speed 4 pro for racing and just recently deviate nitro 2's. But I would love to try out the Novablast series. Should I wait until the 5 comes out? Can you tell me what the main differences would be on the 3-4-5? I can buy the 4's at 30 bucks off or the 3's at 40% off right now. But where I live I have to buy these online so I am unsure of what to go with at this point. I am in Canada so the online retailers aren't always great to deal with in returns.
I didn’t run in the 3 but this whole video is breaking down the 4 v the 5. For the most part the 5 is more responsive. NovaBlast is a good daily shoe when you want something with a little spring but not necessarily a workout shoe
Great comparison. I have seen some reviewers say they are softer than the 4. You mentioned they were a little firmer. Hard question, but do you think that's just how different mechanics perceive this new foam, or does it feel harder to compress if you push it in with your thumb (very scientific style). Thanks again!
It’s 100% mechanics, doctors of running are a great account that break down how mechanics can change the perception of things. This is just an initial comparison too though so once I have 40-50ish miles on the 5 I’ll do a full review!
Doctors of Running said the 5 is softer and the 4 has a little more rebound. Now I'm confused 😂. Although this is not the first time DoR had a totally skewed info in their reviews. Guess I'll have to check other reviewers and see what the majority says about the softness.
So something to clarify is that the 5 is softer while standing but while running it feels firmer to me. It’s definitely more of a smaller compressions and more rebound to me vs the 4 I sink into and it compresses more. So the 4 feels softer to me while running
@@raddadbodtv First, good review. But I'd disagree with those numbers. I think shoe companies greatly underreport durability numbers for the obvious reason--they want people to buy shoes more often. I put 1500 miles on Novablast 1 and 1000 miles on Novablast 2. I also put 750 miles on shoes like Reebok Floatrides and Nike Pegasus 29. The reason I retire them is not because the reduction in cushioning leads to pain, but because of holes/tears in the upper. I've never had foot/leg problems caused by wearing shoes beyond the recommended miles. I know that YMMV and not everyone is blessed with good biomechanics, but I don't think it's doing your viewers a service by simply repeating the shoe companies' durability numbers.
@ I hear you but you said it yourself, not everyone is blessed with good biomechanics and the alternative is I tell people they last much longer and they potentially get hurt. Most people that I run with would agree that 3-400 is the UPPER limit that they feel the cushion supports them. I don’t have a dog in the fight but when it comes to keeping my viewers healthy I’d rather be conservative
@@raddadbodtv What you say is reasonable. But I never hear shoe reviewers mention that it's possible to go (way) beyond the recommended mileage. I dont know what percentage of people can safely go beyond 300-400 miles, but I think there are a lot of people out there who only hear one side of the story (the shoe industry's side)--that you shouldn't wear shoes beyond 300-400 miles. Also, I'd love to get some solid data on the relationship between injury and shoe mileage, between injury and no longer feeling very plush cushioning. It could be that the plush feeling disappears after 300-400 miles, but that doesn't mean that the shoes will cause injury. Let's not forget that many, many people ran successfully and injury-free before the advent of high-stack shoes.
Important note about nova 4 - version you have is lite (cool grey colourway i believe) - it's diferent upper material than regular version - lite is thiner and more breathable and believe lighter too - there is no explanation on asics website how this version differ, also no one in asics flag store know the difference - is beyond me why that is and why asics would not let customers know the difference, it's kind of pointless in having diferent versions of same model without marketing it to its customers 😅
This always confuses me as well. Surely if you change a show from the specs of the release version (which everyone reviews) tell people about it. Some brands change the upper and call it an entirely new version. Then you get others like the Puma Foreverrun Knit which also lowers the drop (which massively improves the shoe) and they don't tell a soul.
particularly notable when at least for me as someone with feet on the borderline of D and E I found the upper on the standard NB4 had zero budge whatsoever which for me was quite uncomfortable
Hmm, you are the only reviewer I have heard that says the 5 is firmer than the the 4s. Most are saying it's softer, with one indicating it's "mushy". I hope it's not mushy.
It’s definitely not mushy to me, doing another run in it today and many more to come but to me it’s almost like comparing two completely different foams. The Nb 4 compresses more when running and you sink into the shoe a little while the Nb 5 firms up as it compresses giving you more responsiveness. So initial on foot I could agree that the 5 is softer but while running the 5 feels firmer if that makes sense
This probably has a lot to do with the strike pattern of individual runners. I am generally a midfoot striker who takes shorter strides and I have found that many shoes various reviewers claim are soft or mushy don't feel that way to me at all. Many reviews suggest that the softness of the v5 may be more prevalent on the mid/fore-foot. So, if you are a heel striker, you may not feel the added softness? And also, I am wondering if the trimming of the protruding foam at the rear end may have reduced the softness of heel landings?
Great review 🎉
Thanks man!!
I cancelled plan to buy NB5. May buy another pair of NB4 of different colours
good review.hope you channel can grow bigger 1 day!
Thanks man, I’m growing and that’s all that matters. Blessed to be able to review shoes to begin with!
NB4 did not work for me. I started feeling pain in my knee and shins. Never felt that when I had my Nike Invincible 3s.
I have used a lot of shoes from different brands and have a good rotation of shoes. I find the Novablast to be very good. It's a pair I can do anything in and feel good.
@ what shoes would you recommend for someone 6’1 235lbs coming from the bodybuilding realm?
I got the same feeling when I try to run on my NB4. Interesting that Im not the only one.
Same the nova blast 3 were much better no shin pain
Invincible 3s did not work for me. I started feeling pain in my knee and shins. Never felt that when I had my NB4.
NB 5 is a softer version of NB 4. NB 4 is more versatile.
I felt the bulging in the 3…hmm..I will try the 4. Thanks for speaking about that.
Yeah on the 2 it really annoyed me! No issues on the 4&5 though!
I have the Nimbus 25 and they are pillows lol Great for slow plodding but there's no energy return in long runs. I bought them as my first running shoe. I have since picked up other shoes (1080V12, Boston 12, Speed 4, Speed 4 pro for racing and just recently deviate nitro 2's. But I would love to try out the Novablast series. Should I wait until the 5 comes out? Can you tell me what the main differences would be on the 3-4-5? I can buy the 4's at 30 bucks off or the 3's at 40% off right now. But where I live I have to buy these online so I am unsure of what to go with at this point. I am in Canada so the online retailers aren't always great to deal with in returns.
I didn’t run in the 3 but this whole video is breaking down the 4 v the 5. For the most part the 5 is more responsive. NovaBlast is a good daily shoe when you want something with a little spring but not necessarily a workout shoe
@raddadbodtv I wasn't sure how the 3 compared. I appreciate the response. Ordered the 4 and will see how they are.
Great comparison. I have seen some reviewers say they are softer than the 4. You mentioned they were a little firmer.
Hard question, but do you think that's just how different mechanics perceive this new foam, or does it feel harder to compress if you push it in with your thumb (very scientific style).
Thanks again!
It’s 100% mechanics, doctors of running are a great account that break down how mechanics can change the perception of things. This is just an initial comparison too though so once I have 40-50ish miles on the 5 I’ll do a full review!
@@raddadbodtvinterested to look up on this. Is it an article or a video of them i can watch?
@@syaz6014 I think doctors of running did a video on it
NB4 LE has jacquard mesh upper, same as NB5
I really like the 3 but not the 4 (returned them).
Same here the 4 break my legs with strong pain in the shins
Doctors of Running said the 5 is softer and the 4 has a little more rebound. Now I'm confused 😂. Although this is not the first time DoR had a totally skewed info in their reviews. Guess I'll have to check other reviewers and see what the majority says about the softness.
So something to clarify is that the 5 is softer while standing but while running it feels firmer to me. It’s definitely more of a smaller compressions and more rebound to me vs the 4 I sink into and it compresses more. So the 4 feels softer to me while running
@ Awesome, thanks. Makes total sense. The new midsole material sounds like its engineered for less fatigue and more rebound.
Which one is more durable?And how long is the lifespan?
Most modern running shoes really only get you up to 3-400 miles, my testing only goes to about 50 so hard to say which would go furthest for you
@@raddadbodtv First, good review. But I'd disagree with those numbers. I think shoe companies greatly underreport durability numbers for the obvious reason--they want people to buy shoes more often. I put 1500 miles on Novablast 1 and 1000 miles on Novablast 2. I also put 750 miles on shoes like Reebok Floatrides and Nike Pegasus 29. The reason I retire them is not because the reduction in cushioning leads to pain, but because of holes/tears in the upper. I've never had foot/leg problems caused by wearing shoes beyond the recommended miles. I know that YMMV and not everyone is blessed with good biomechanics, but I don't think it's doing your viewers a service by simply repeating the shoe companies' durability numbers.
@ I hear you but you said it yourself, not everyone is blessed with good biomechanics and the alternative is I tell people they last much longer and they potentially get hurt. Most people that I run with would agree that 3-400 is the UPPER limit that they feel the cushion supports them. I don’t have a dog in the fight but when it comes to keeping my viewers healthy I’d rather be conservative
@@raddadbodtv What you say is reasonable. But I never hear shoe reviewers mention that it's possible to go (way) beyond the recommended mileage. I dont know what percentage of people can safely go beyond 300-400 miles, but I think there are a lot of people out there who only hear one side of the story (the shoe industry's side)--that you shouldn't wear shoes beyond 300-400 miles. Also, I'd love to get some solid data on the relationship between injury and shoe mileage, between injury and no longer feeling very plush cushioning. It could be that the plush feeling disappears after 300-400 miles, but that doesn't mean that the shoes will cause injury. Let's not forget that many, many people ran successfully and injury-free before the advent of high-stack shoes.
Important note about nova 4 - version you have is lite (cool grey colourway i believe) - it's diferent upper material than regular version - lite is thiner and more breathable and believe lighter too
- there is no explanation on asics website how this version differ, also no one in asics flag store know the difference - is beyond me why that is and why asics would not let customers know the difference, it's kind of pointless in having diferent versions of same model without marketing it to its customers 😅
Great call out, I was unaware of that too actually since I purchased it on my own. I still felt it was a little warm
This always confuses me as well. Surely if you change a show from the specs of the release version (which everyone reviews) tell people about it. Some brands change the upper and call it an entirely new version. Then you get others like the Puma Foreverrun Knit which also lowers the drop (which massively improves the shoe) and they don't tell a soul.
particularly notable when at least for me as someone with feet on the borderline of D and E I found the upper on the standard NB4 had zero budge whatsoever which for me was quite uncomfortable
I'm big fan of NB 3, NB4 not too good for me.. Skip for NB5, want to try Adidas Evo SL instead
I’m very excited to get the Evo SL on foot
Hmm, you are the only reviewer I have heard that says the 5 is firmer than the the 4s. Most are saying it's softer, with one indicating it's "mushy". I hope it's not mushy.
It’s definitely not mushy to me, doing another run in it today and many more to come but to me it’s almost like comparing two completely different foams. The Nb 4 compresses more when running and you sink into the shoe a little while the Nb 5 firms up as it compresses giving you more responsiveness. So initial on foot I could agree that the 5 is softer but while running the 5 feels firmer if that makes sense
This probably has a lot to do with the strike pattern of individual runners. I am generally a midfoot striker who takes shorter strides and I have found that many shoes various reviewers claim are soft or mushy don't feel that way to me at all. Many reviews suggest that the softness of the v5 may be more prevalent on the mid/fore-foot. So, if you are a heel striker, you may not feel the added softness? And also, I am wondering if the trimming of the protruding foam at the rear end may have reduced the softness of heel landings?