Waterproof Gore-Tex NMDs

I am a massive fan of Gore-Tex here on shoeslifeblog, and who wouldn’t be? Waterproof yet breathable, it prevents soggy feet and cold, sore bones, especially in winter, without having to don a pair of massive wellies. For my arthritis, wet bones are excruciatingly painful.

More and more shoe manufacturers are lining their winter offerings with Gore-Tex, and most interestingly, Adidas have just brought out a pair of Gore-Tex NMDs (they seem to be based on their original versions looking at the support on the heels). I know a lot of people really like NMDs, myself included, although I much prefer the R2 versions. I find them cool and modern and supportive without being bulky. I think I’ve said before, I wouldn’t run in them (I mean, I can’t really run, but I wouldn’t advise other people to), their lack of laces/adjustability means your foot could slip, and the knit fabric isn’t supportive. But for walking about, they’re good, and have lots of cushioning.

Now, typically, they have only brought the Gore-Tex versions out in men’s sizes. It’s frustrating; I don’t know why — maybe they don’t think women go out in the rain (hahaha) or maybe NMDs just don’t shift in sufficient quantities in women’s sizes to warrant a special run. If you really want a pair and you have small feet, please write to them and tell them. If you’ve got big feet like me, the non-Gore-Tex NMDs tend to run small, so I would go up a size. I wear a UK7 (but I am actually a 6.5) and they are snug on me, but bear in mind that a men’s UK7 is a women’s UK8, so if you’re a woman, I would go for your normal size and hope for the best.

They come in black and white, and have a sleek urban design:

NMD_CS1 PK Gore-Tex: £170
NMD_CS1 PK Gore-Tex: £170

They’re not cheap, but Gore-Tex never is, but if you’re a fan of the NMDs and having dry feet, they’re something to know about.


Adidas NMD R2 — a review

So, the 2nd version of the Adidas NMDs have been out for a while now, and given how annoying I found every aspect the NMD R1, I haven’t really been that bothered about them (my good opinion once lost is lost forever). However, that all changed when I saw this polka-dot pair on the &OtherStories website. That’s right, my good opinion can always by swayed by POLKA-DOTS:

Adidas NMD R2: £130

I love polka-dots, and I like the contrast between the retro dotty fabric and the futuristic shape of the trainers. I am all about the contrast. What I also like about these is that they’re a bit different to the endless sea of white trainers that are ubiquitous in summer; the Reebok Club Cs seems to be the white trainer of choice at the moment, but they remind me so much of my high-school PE teachers, I get a Pavlovian ‘being-picked-last-for-the-team’ anxiety when I see people wearing them and an urge to protect my face from a stray wet netball.

Reebok club C85: £64.95

I don’t really like the shape of these, and I think it is the association with PE lessons, and to be honest, if you want to go down the ‘not cool so that makes them cool’ hipster route, the best trainers are the Hi-Tec silver shadows, as issued to men and women of the British armed forces — purposefully chosen to be as functional as possible.

Hi-Tec silver shadows: £24.95

But back to the NMD R2s. There are some small differences in the styling of the NMD R2 versus the NMD R1, which I think improve the look. First of all, the plastic lace tabs have been removed, giving a more streamlined look, which I think is a good change, especially as the laces didn’t actually tighten the shoe anyway:

R2 laces (left) versus R1 laces (right)

But the most important change is that the tabs on the lateral side of the sole have been removed, which I found a little uncomfortable on the R1s, but they have left the tab on the medial side, which is great news for an overpronator like me who needs support on the inside of the ankle.

New ‘medial only’ tab design

The R1s did very little for my overpronation, so I was really looking forwards to trying the R2s out, and to my surprise I really liked them!

Box Fresh!

First of all, the knit fabric is much, MUCH, easier to stretch and so they were really easy to put on — no puffing and panting trying to squeeze it over my swollen joints like with the NMD R1, and there is no pressure across the joints:

Looking good

As for the comfort factor, this is much improved in the NMD R2 compared with the NMD R1. The outer sole is smooth but grippy, and there is nice smooth cushioning inside.


I would say the fit is true-to-size, verging on small, I am a UK6.5 (or I take a 7 if there is no half-size),  the EUR40 in this (which is normally classed as a UK7) is a UK6.5 and they fit perfectly. They are very roomy across the toes, so great if you have joint problems there. Like the R1s, you cannot alter the width of the shoes with the laces, so if you have very narrow feet, you may find them too wide.

So, how are they with the overpronation? The lack of supportive tabs on the lateral side works so much better for me than the R1s. They are not very rigid and so I don’t think you can describe them as preventing overpronation, and there is no support under the arch; however, they are supportive enough on the medial side to encourage proper joint placement, and the encouragement is often all I need, and indeed my leg positioning was better with these shoes.

Medial support

So, in short, I was impressed with the NMD R2, I think the changes they have made have really improved the shoe and made it worth the price. They’re a nice-looking shoe, and something a bit different to the retro shape of trainer I normally wear. I feel like I could wear these for sport, or (more likely) for brunch with a skirt, so they’re hard-working too; the R2s get the shoeslifeblog seal of approval.

Adidas NMD (for the urban nomad): a review

Edit: This is a review of the NMD R1, for the 2017 review of the NMD R2, click here

I am not sure about how anybody else finds it, but the minute I feel I am getting marketed at (rather than to) I immediately get turned off. I am not one of these people who despises advertising in all its forms and lives in an unbranded yurt; everyone is influenced by advertising, the media, social media, friends, and I do want to buy stuff so I am quite glad that someone is shouting, hey! Look over here! We have what you need, and we do it in a way that you like. However, the marketing campaign for the new Adidas NMD has been so rubbish that I didn’t really feel any excitement towards them, which is why I’ve only just got round to trying on these trainers despite being aware of their existence for several months now.

Adidas NMD: £100

When they first came out I noticed the NMDs were being marketed as shoes for ‘Urban Nomads’, I wasn’t even fazed by this choice selection of marketing-speak, everyone needs to push their product, but these seemed to be a trainer designed for people who walk round cities a lot and need cushioning and support but also want to look good. Well, that includes me, and I decided to check them out. I actually went to the Adidas shop near Carnaby Street at the time of their release, but owing to a severe case of really-needing-a-coffee-and-not-being-bothered-to-try-shoes-on (I really needed that coffee) I only had a look at them, noting they were super light and seemed like they could be a good trainer for people with arthritis.

Then, a few days later, I picked up this issue of NME (yes, it’s not what it was, it’s not cool, but I still like it (and it’s free!)), and I just got a bit confused:

Oh no, my music magazine has been hacked by a trainer company

So… Generation Nomad (or, Adidas as its also known) ‘hacked’ NME. As far as I was aware, hacking was gaining unauthorised access to data, whereas the NME–Adidas combo seems to think hacking can be defined as printing on glossy paper with lots of adverts of ‘urban nomads’. It’s just weird to pretend it was some sort of hostile take over. I just don’t understand it, and I wonder how many Apprentice-style marketing executives it took to come up with this, I imagine the conversation went something along the lines of:

“We need to market these NMD trainers as being edgy!”

“You mean Urban”

“Yeah! Urban and edgy, because they’re for Nomads, which are cool”

“NMD sounds like NME… is the NME still cool?”

“Yeah! Must be!”

“Yeah, let’s pay for loads of advert space! They’re desperate, they’ll do anything for money”

“Paper is a bit low quality though, isn’t it, it feels cheap”

“Yeah, cheap is not our brand”

“I know! We can buy loads of advert space and make them print on nice paper, and all the cool kids will start wearing our trainers”

“Is buying advert space cool?”

“Good point, let’s just do it and say we ‘hacked’ it. Hacking is cool.”

“Genius, let’s open the champagne and caviar”

Now, I know I am not the target market, but I hate being treated as if I am stupid (I don’t blame NME, they really are desperate for cash). And, the hacking weirdness aside, to be honest, the adverts didn’t do that much for me. The NME has a young readership, but they also know that there’s an older generation who grew up with it too (like me), and they do try not to alienate these readers too much, and I respect it for that. 

Hmmmm, needs more concrete

I think the NMD adverts missed the mark. I don’t want to look like a kid wearing trainers in an ugly carpark, I’m in my 30s. Going for an aperol spritz at the Southbank Centre is about as ‘hanging round an ugly carpark’ as I can deal with.

Aperol spritz? Brutalist architecture? Jolly good

So, I basically decided I wasn’t in a rush to try these trainers out. In the end, however, I thought it would be a good idea to try them on eventually, as they might well have been revolutionary, so I ordered a pair in purple, which set me back £100. Not overly expensive, I pay that for my approach shoes, but I expect a £100 pair of trainers to be good.

Lovely new shoes feeling

Quick look in the box, and it’s all very nice. Who doesn’t love new shoes? The fabric was a peachy soft suede and looked good. And as I said above they are really light for their size, which is always good as I’m trying to avoid heavy shoes as much as possible at the moment, I’ve noticed it just adds unnecessary strain on my joints, especially if my feet are in a state of semi-rest (for example, when I am driving). However, the praise stops there.

The first thing, they are a massive faff to put on! There is no tongue to the trainers, it is just one solid construction, a bit like the embellished trainers, but it lacks enough stretch to be put on with ease.

Much grunting later, I got them on…

I only have swelling in my ankle, but if you have any foot problems, I think you would find just getting the shoes on very tricky. I had to really use the tab to pull them on my feet. This is just not what you want when you have arthritis: just getting dressed can be enough hassle without adding extra challenge.

I put on some shoes. Um, yay?

When they were on, I did like the way they looked. The laces are pretty superfluous, but I like superfluous things sometimes, so didn’t hold it against them. What I did hold against them was the fact they just weren’t very comfortable. The heel, weirdly, felt too firm underfoot and, also weirdly, there was no support under the arch so my bad ankle wanted to overpronate.

Definitely some overpronation going on with the potato-ankle

I didn’t think that the NMDs were terrible, they were fine. However I didn’t think they were better than many other trainers: they look good, they have an interesting design, but they didn’t feel amazingly better and, for £100, I would want these to do something a little more. It’s not that I particularly dislike Adidas either, I love Gazelles. I had a pair of Gazelles when I was 17 that were made from deep-blue corduroy (that’s how I roll) that I loved beyond all reason, and Gazelles have a special place in my heart. But for £90, you can custom design your own pair of Gazelles, which I think is better value than the basic NMD.

To make sure I was being fair I did a side-by-side try on with a pair of New Balance 420, which are a nice light trainer. I like the retro look that they have. They don’t have much arch support or do much for my overpronation either, don’t get me wrong, but I wouldn’t ever try to do urban nomading in them.

New Balance 420 Baby Blue: £65

To be honest, they didn’t feel that different, the NMDs do have more support in the heel, so perhaps I would notice the benefit if I had been walking for miles, but if I knew I were going to do that sort of distance, I would probably wear approach shoes (or Golden Goose trainers if I wanted to look like I was making an effort). The most notable difference I could see is that the NMDs cost an extra £35…  I sent the NMDs back.

So, basically, if you want a pair of trainers for general use, and you really like the look of the NMDs they are not a bad trainer (provided you can get them on). However if you are buying with walking benefits in mind, I wouldn’t rate them too highly as you would be better off, in my opinion, in something with better support under the arch.

The search for the perfect trainer continues…