The Baby Jogger Summit X3 has been one of the most popular running strollers available for several years and it has been a useful addition to our household during testing, making it easy to get out for a run while my infant son sleeps. 

It’s an expensive purchase and there are areas where the design could be improved, such as the non-adjustable handlebar, but the Summit X3 is a great all-round stroller that copes brilliantly with off-road runs and walks.

Baby Jogger Summit X3: Price And Availability

The Baby Jogger Summit X3 was originally launched in 2016 and costs $549.99 in the US and £529 in the UK.

How I Tested This Running Stroller

I’ve been running regularly with the Summit X3 over the past four months, and my wife has also used it during this time. I have used it mainly for runs in a local forest, which has been muddy for most of my testing, as well as on runs on paved surfaces.

Design And Assembly

The Summit X3 is a stroller with three air-filled wheels, all of which have suspension. The large front wheel can be set to fixed, which you need when running, or swivel, which is more useful for everyday use. You can change the wheel setting using a lever on the side of the stroller.

There is a brake on the handlebar and a strap you can use to tether yourself to the stroller, both are important for staying in control when running downhill. The height of the handlebar can’t be adjusted and it was a little low for me when running—I’m 6ft and my wife is 5ft 8in, and the height suited her better.

The reclining seat is padded and the five-part strap, while is fiddly to do up at times, holds your child in place comfortably and, most importantly, securely when running. There is a large adjustable hood that provides protection from the sun (it’s UV 50+-rated), and it folds down far enough to keep the wind out of a child’s face when running. There are mesh windows on top you can use to check on your kid while running.

There is a rear pedal brake you can use to anchor the stroller. Once this got muddy I found it hard to operate the brake with my foot and often had to reach down to press it into place with my hand. Although the instructions weren’t particularly clear, it was easy enough to assemble the stroller in around 10 minutes. 

Running With The Baby Jogger Summit X3

The Summit X3 is smooth to run with thanks to the large wheels with suspension, even when taking it off-road. Most of the runs I did with the stroller were on forest paths with muddy and rutted sections, and it handled them well. The stroller feels sturdy and I’ve not had any punctures.

One problem with runs in the mud or along leaf-strewn paths was that the front wheel can get clogged up quickly. On one outing I had to poke a stick through the gap at the top of the wheel several times to clear it out. My wife has also experienced some front wheel wobble when running with the Summit X3, which hasn’t been a problem for me yet.

Running with any stroller isn’t the most natural movement, but this was exacerbated for me because of the fixed handlebar, which was low for me. The stroller is wide and has some weight to it, which is good for stability especially on uneven ground, but means it can feel heavy to push up hills on the trails. This wasn’t such a noticeable problem when on asphalt though, and you can run quite quickly with the Summit X3 when on hard, flat ground. I’d prefer to save my speed sessions for when I’m not pushing a stroller.

I can’t speak for every child, but mine always fell asleep quickly when I ran with the Summit X3—it was generally an easier and more reliable way to get him down for his afternoon nap than pushing him in his pushchair.

Folding And Daily Use

The Summit X3 has a one-handed folding system where you pull the strap in the center of the seat up and the whole stroller collapses into place. There’s a knack to this. First you pull the small loop with a finger and then the larger loop with the rest of your hand. 

It can be done one-handed, but only with practice, and then actually lifting the stroller with one hand isn’t that easy, since it weighs 28.4lbs/12.8kg and is large and awkward. I needed two hands to unfold it because of this. The wheels are so large it’s not the easiest to store even when folded, especially as it doesn’t stand unsupported, but it did fit the trunk of our small car comfortably.

The wide base of the wheels is useful for running, but makes it hard to maneuver the Summit X3 at times, especially in narrow store aisles. While we did use the Summit X3 regularly when not running—and it’s great for walks on rough terrain—it can be cumbersome to use around town compared with a non-running stroller.

There is a large compartment under the seat for storage, which is useful for shopping, and a mesh pocket on the back of the seat you can pop a water bottle in when running, though I found it hard to reach into the pocket without coming to a stop.

Is The Baby Jogger Summit X3 Worth It?

The Summit X3 is an expensive purchase but one that can make a huge difference in fitting in your exercise while looking after children. My wife and I enjoyed using it for regular runs and it was ideal for the forest paths we predominantly used it on. I used a Out ‘n’ About Nipper Sport (UK only) with our eldest child and found the Summit X3 to be an improvement on that, with a smoother ride especially when off-road, though the Nipper is cheaper. 

The Coros Vertix 2S is a small-but-meaningful upgrade on the Vertix 2, notably improving the accuracy of the GPS tracking. It’s one of the best sports watches you can get and despite the high price, it’s reasonable value for those who want a rugged titanium watch with long battery life.

However, it is still outclassed by the best Garmin watches, like the Garmin Fenix 7 or Garmin Enduro 2, which offer better navigation and smart features, while matching or outdoing the sports tracking and training analysis on the Vertix 2S. There are also AMOLED sports watches I prefer like the Garmin Epix Pro and Suunto Race.

Coros Vertix 2S: Price And Availability

The Coros Vertix 2S launched on April 25, 2024 and costs $699 in the US and £599 in the UK, the same price as the Coros Vertix 2. It’s far from cheap, but equivalent watches with titanium bezels and sapphire screens—like the Polar Grit X2 Pro, Suunto Vertical and Garmin Fenix 7 Pro—are all more expensive (if you choose the titanium models of each).

How I Tested This Watch

I used the Vertix 2S for two weeks prior to its launch, and will continue to use it until I’m able to drain the battery entirely. I have run more than 60 miles with the watch, as well as tracking other activities like yoga and strength sessions. I’ve tested the rest of the watches in Coros’s range and the Coros Vertix and Vertix 2, as well as the best sports watches from other brands.

Design And Hardware

The Vertix 2S is a large watch, with a 50.3mm case that’s 17.6mm thick. It’s light for its size though, with the case weighing 61g, which rises to 70g with a nylon band and 87g with a silicone band—both bands are included with the watch, and you can also use other 26mm straps with it.

There are three colors available—black, gray and blue—and all have a titanium bezel and back case, with plastic used for the rest of the case. The 1.4in memory-in-pixel touchscreen is made from sapphire glass. There are three buttons on the watch, with the middle one also being a dial. 

The Vertix 2S has a 10 ATM waterproof rating and will work in a temperature range of -22°F (-30°C) to 122°F (50°C), according to Coros. The materials used, and the durability of the watch, are a selling point because you have to pay more to get equivalent materials from other brands. However, the screen is duller than others, including other LCD watches like the Fenix 7, and it’s less bright than the AMOLED display you get on the likes of the Garmin Epix Pro and Polar Grit X2 Pro. It’s clear enough to read outdoors, but a bit dull inside and I often had to turn on the backlight to read it throughout the day.

The Vertix 2S has a new optical heart rate sensor that promises more accuracy than the sensor on the Vertix 2, but reduces the battery life of the watch. In fairness, the Vertix 2S has battery life to play with: the 2S will still last up to 46 days in watch mode and offers 118 hours of GPS tracking. As with the Vertix 2, the Vertix 2S offers dual-band GPS tracking, though Coros has redesigned the antennae to improve the accuracy. The Vertix 2S has a barometric altimeter and compass, and can measure blood oxygen saturation and heart rate variability. You can connect external sensors via Bluetooth, but not ANT+.

HR And GPS Accuracy

The Vertix 2 was the first sports watch I’d tested that offered dual-band GPS tracking, but it wasn’t as big an upgrade in accuracy as I’d hoped. Since then many brands have launched watches with dual-band GPS, and Garmin and Suunto’s watches were more accurate than the Coros watches with dual-band in particular.

Coros seemed to fix this with the Coros Pace 3, which is accurate, while the redesigned antennae on the Vertix 2S have improved the accuracy compared with the Vertix 2. On all my runs I compared the Vertix 2S to the Garmin Epix Pro and it matched up closely and there were few, if any, errors on the GPS traces I looked at after runs.

Unfortunately, the picture isn't as rosy with regards to the Vertix 2’s heart rate tracking. This is often a weakness with sports watches, but given that Coros sacrificed battery life to put in a new optical sensor to improve HR accuracy I expected better.

On almost all my runs the Vertix 2S has been inaccurate when compared to a chest strap, usually reading way too high, and if you’re planning on using its training analysis or using heart rate to guide your training, I would pair a chest strap to the watch.

Battery life

Coros watches are renowned for their long battery life, and the Vertix 2S is no exception. It will last up to 46 days in watch mode, though this drops to 36 days if you use the sleep tracking on the watch, and offers up to 118 hours of standard GPS tracking, or 43 hours of dual-band GPS tracking. All these numbers are comparable with the longest-lasting watches out there, like the Garmin Enduro 2 and Suunto Vertical, though the Vertix 2S offers less battery than the Vertix 2 because of the new HR sensor.

There are a couple of negative reasons Coros battery life is so good that are worth noting. One is the dull screen compared with other watches, and the other is that the watch only takes HR readings every 10 minutes rather than continuously when you’re not exercising. You can change this setting, though, and I think taking readings every 10 minutes is a good option to have as I’d rather have good battery life over 24/7 HR stats.

After 10 days of use, including eight runs using dual-band GPS and sleep tracking each night I was down to 60% battery. Even for those training heavily you can expect two to four weeks of battery life, with the main determining factor being how much time you spend training using GPS—in between workouts the battery barely drops on the Vertix 2. The battery life is as good as, or better than, what I got from the Garmin Enduro 2 and Suunto Vertical. The only watch that consistently outlasts the Vertix 2S is in fact the Vertix 2.

Sports Tracking And Training Analysis

The Vertix 2S has a variety of sports modes, including triathlon and open-water swimming tracking, along with a dedicated track mode for runners. You can create a custom sports mode if one of your favorites isn’t listed by default. It’s also easy to create and follow structured workouts or training plans on the watch, and you can customize data screens to show up to eight stats at once.

It’s an easy and intuitive watch to use for sports tracking. Coros has upgraded the sports tracking across its watches with a software update. This includes screen mirroring so you can see the watch’s stats on your phone during a workout, as well as the navigation screen if you’re following a route. This update also added a virtual pacer for running workouts.

The Vertix 2S also feeds into Coros’s EvoLab training analysis platform, which gives you a rating of your running (and cycling) fitness, predicted race times and a breakdown of your recent training load. This is available across all Coros watches. I’ve always found EvoLab a pretty accurate and useful gauge of my current fitness and training load.

The sports tracking and training analysis on the Vertix 2S is up to par, though it doesn’t stand out, aside from extra features for outdoor climbing I’ve not been able to test. Coros offers the same array of features across its range, and on the best Garmin watches you get extras like a training readiness score, plus interesting ratings of your endurance and hill running ability.

Maps And Navigation

The Vertix 2S has color maps with turn-by-turn directions on routes and a back-to-start feature. It’s easy to create routes within the Coros app, or import them into it from other sources to load onto the watch. The maps are not as colorful and clear to read as those on Garmin, Polar and Suunto watches, especially those brands’ AMOLED watches, nor are they as detailed as Garmin’s, but it’s easy to navigate routes using them.

You can’t add the maps as a default data screen within an activity, which seems odd to me, but I set the maps to come up when I held down the light button on the watch. You can do this during a run or other activity to add the map to your screens without pausing or stopping your workout. This will show a breadcrumb trail of your route so far overlaid on the map, and you can also add a back-to-start pointer to any outdoor activity. When following a route you also get an elevation profile that shows the climbs and descents to come, plus details on the total distance and amount of uphill you have left. 

The navigation features on the Vertix 2S are good and on a par with Polar and Suunto’s, but Garmin still reigns supreme here. Its watches have “routable” maps that know where you are so you can create or adjust routes on the fly, whereas the Coros routes are overlaid on a map, so if you go wrong you are just told you’re off course. Garmin also has the excellent ClimbPro tool that shows each climb and descent on your route individually to help you judge your effort on long uphills in particular.

Smart Features

The Vertix 2S shows your phone notifications and has a weather forecast widget, and can store music to playback on Bluetooth headphones. The watch doesn’t yet work with any streaming platforms, so you will need the digital files to drag and drop across to the watch, whereas Garmin works with Spotify, Deezer and Amazon Music so you can wirelessly transfer across your playlists.

It’s good to have the option to play music on the watch, but the way it’s done means it’s not a feature I’d use regularly. I mostly stream music and even getting hold of podcast files to transfer isn’t always easy. There is no app store for the Vertix 2S—though you can pick from a range of watch faces in the Coros app—and it doesn’t offer NFC payments. If you want a sporty smartwatch then Garmin is a better bet, while full smartwatches like the Apple Watch obviously offer more on this front.

Activity And Sleep Tracking

The Vertix 2S will diligently track the usual daily activity stats, like steps, active minutes and active calories burned, and it tracks your sleep if you wear it at night. It’s not the most comfortable watch to wear overnight, which is a problem with any large sports watch, but the sleep tracking was broadly accurate to me.

If you wear the watch at night it also provides a heart rate variability score in the morning, which is compared with your baseline. You can use this as a guide to how stressed your body is, and it can help guide how hard you push in training each day, since HRV is the main data used to underpin readiness scores from other brands. The Vertix 2S tracks stress levels throughout the day, and you can take a wellness check, which gives on-the-spot measurements of your HR, HRV, stress, breathing rate and SpO2. 

Is The Coros Vertix 2S Worth It?

The Vertix 2S is an excellent watch and a strong alternative to the Garmin Fenix 7 for those who want a watch that uses the best and most durable materials, and does the essentials of sports tracking well. You get more features from the best Garmin watches though, and the features Coros and Garmin have are generally more polished with Garmin, such as music and maps. 

The Fenix 7 is also in sales fairly regularly, so you may be able to get a titanium one for a similar price to the Vertix 2S, and that would be a better buy, while the Garmin Epix, Polar Grit X2 and Suunto Race are attractive alternatives with AMOLED screens.

The main upgrade you get here, compared with the Vertix 2, is improved GPS accuracy, which may not be a vital feature for some who’d rather have the longer battery life of the older watch, which is still getting regular software updates from Coros.

Hate is a strong word, so let’s just say I strongly disliked the Under Armour Reign 5. When its successor arrived for review I had low expectations, yet come the end of my customary two-week testing period I didn’t want to take them off. 

What happened? Under Armour revamped the shoe and I think it did an outstanding job. Rather than attempt to replicate the cushioning of the Reebok Nano X4 or the tech-heavy build of the Nike Metcon 9 (among the best CrossFit shoes), the brand has instead delivered a barefoot feel courtesy of a thin, flexible outsole and minimal heel-to-toe drop. 

This is sure to divide opinion, with some fitness fans wanting more shock-absorbing foam. However, I found the updated delivered brilliant ground feel and stability, which I liked for lifting and WODs alike. 

Under Armour Reign 6: Price And Availability

The Under Armour Reign 6 was released in late 2023 with an RRP of $130 in the US and £125 in the UK. It's available on the Under Armour website, as well as through third-party retailers. I’ve already spotted it on sale for $100 (£90). 

How I Tested This CrossFit Shoe

I wore this shoe for every training session over a two-week period, and it was an intense period. There were 10 trips to the gym and the usual mix of varied metcons that you’d expect from CrossFit training. I completed regular Olympic weightlifting sessions, strength exercises, gymnastic drills and bodybuilding-style accessory work. The shoe got its first taste of the big three lifts, along with cleans, snatches, wall walks, handstand push-ups, rope climbs and burpees.

Design And Fit

With protective fins on the heel, an undulating raised rubber outsole and a flash of lurid green, the Reign 6 has a distinctly Alien aesthetic. Some will like it, others won’t; it has grown on me, despite initial misgivings. 

Green detailing aside, these features aren’t included for their looks—they all serve a purpose. The raised rubber outsole wraps around the midfoot to offer lateral support for multidirectional movements, and the rubber heel fins are handy for protecting the shoe from rough walls during handstand push-ups. 

I found the Reign 5 too wide for my narrow feet, but the Reign 6 locked my heel in place while still giving my toes room to spread for balance. As a result, it was comfortable from day one. 

The main change I noticed was in the sole of the shoe. The outsole is thin and all cushioning comes from a dual-density insole: thicker and firmer under the heel then thinner and softer under the ball of the foot, allowing me to feel the ground under my forefoot. 

This may come as a shock if you’re used to a thicker midsole, like that of the Nano X4, or a less flexible outsole like the Inov-8 F-Lite G 300, but I liked it. It helped me feel balanced while lifting and able to generate power through the floor effectively.

Is The Under Armour Reign 6 Good For WODs?

If it’s cushioning you’re after for high-impact exercises, look elsewhere. However, that doesn’t mean this shoe is bad for burpee-heavy WODs. 

As long as you know what you’re signing up for—a shoe that feels almost like a gateway to barefoot footwear with its minimal outsole and negligible offset—then this can be a solid performer for CrossFit workouts. The locked-in fit, wide forefoot and great ground feel helped me keep my balance while cycling a barbell. I also appreciated the absence of power-sapping midsole cushioning during explosive moves like box jumps, and the lateral support offered by the raised rubber outsole for multidirectional movements, like skater jumps and shuttle runs. 

The shoe didn’t grip a rope as well as the Reebok Nano X4, which I’d tested before it. It felt heavier too—436g for a US size 11 compared with 378g. But those were my only notable criticisms. 

Is The Under Armour Reign 6 Good For Resistance Training?

The first exercise I faced in the Reign 6 was a classic: five-by-five barbell squats. The shoe’s performance in this sent it skyrocketing in my estimations. The heel felt stable and the improved ground feel allowed me to spread my toes, distribute the weight evenly through my feet and enjoy great power transfer through the floor. The same applied for Olympic lifts, with the shoe’s natural fit offering excellent balance and stability. 

Is The Under Armour Reign 6 Good For Running?

As part of my training I tackled 8 x 400m intervals. I’d usually change into a pair of running shoes for that, but decided to go with the Reign 6. It was a different experience. Rather than feeling a plush midsole underfoot, I felt the Tarmac and any surface I was running on. If this is something you like, great. However, if you’re a regular runner who enjoys the usual cushioning, I’d say stay with what you know. I didn’t mind the minimalist experience for shorter intervals, but for anything above 400m I’ll stick to my running shoes. 

Is The Under Armour Reign 6 Worth It?

I loved lifting in the Reign 6. The flexible, minimalist sole and low-to-the-ground build offered stability and great ground feel and allowed me to power through sets of heavy leg exercises. For this reason alone, I think the shoe is a worthy investment, particularly if you can find it discounted. 

Beyond this, I enjoyed its minimalist feel during WODs. This, along with smart features like the raised rubber outsole, offered balance and support during multidirectional movements. It’s built to last too, with a robust feel and no signs of wear after two weeks of rigorous use. 

The shoe’s performance while running is likely to spark debate, with the limited cushioning meaning that you’re getting little added shock absorption with each stride. The same logic applies during any workout—if it’s a soft sole and lightweight feel you’re after, look elsewhere. However, if you want a CrossFit shoe that breaks free from the crowd and excels under a heavy barbell, give the Reign 6 a try.

Hoka was one of the first brands to release a carbon plate running shoe designed for easy daily training runs, with the Hoka Bondi X coming out in 2022. That was not a good shoe. It was firm, lacking in bounce, and generally not fun to run in.

The Hoka Skyward X is a different beast. It’s bouncy, comfortable and great fun to use for easy and long runs. It’s too big and heavy for my taste, and I didn’t enjoy it as much for fast runs, but if the price doesn’t put you off then the Skyward X is a springy option for daily training.

Hoka Skyward X: Price And Availability

The Skyward X launched in April 2024 and costs $225 in the US and £185 in the UK. That surprising disparity in prices means it’s a little cheaper than similar super-trainers like the Asics Superblast and New Balance SC Trainer v2 in the UK, but more expensive than those same shoes in the US. Wherever you are in the world, however, it’s not a cheap shoe.

How I Tested This Running Shoe

I ran just shy of 40 miles in the Skyward X, using it for a range of marathon training runs including a 15-mile long run. I’ve also tested Hoka’s other carbon plate shoes, including the Mach X and Bondi X, and a range of super-trainers from other brands.

Design And Fit

There’s a lot going on in the midsole of the Skyward X, which contains two foams and a convex carbon plate. The main foam is a bouncy Peba-based material, with a supercritical EVA foam used to create a frame that makes the Skyward X more stable. Your foot also sits within the foam at the back of the shoe, and there’s a large plastic heel counter, both of which increase stability.

The stack height is high—48mm at the heel and 43mm at the forefoot in the men’s shoe, and 46mm at the heel and 41mm at the forefoot in the women’s—with a 5mm drop, and the ride is smooth thanks to the rocker design. All that stack adds up to a heavy shoe: The Skyward X is 11.3oz/320g in my UK size 9, which is heftier than most other super-trainers, with the similarly stacked Asics Superblast weighing 8.8oz/251g.

Hoka says the convex carbon plate, which bows upwards in the center, creates a more cushioned and “suspended” feel to the ride. It’s not a full plate, and the gaps in it are visible in the large cut-out on the bottom of the shoe. 

The Skyward X has a knit upper with a lot of padding on the tongue and collar for added comfort. I found it fitted well in my usual running shoe size and it’s not as narrow as some other Hoka shoes, such as the Mach 6. There is good rubber coverage on the forefoot and heel, with a thick outsole that should be durable, and which gripped well in wet conditions. I’ve taken the shoe on some light trails too, with no signs of wear and tear from that rougher ground.

Running Performance

The Skyward X is a big shoe, but a deceptively smooth and quick one. My first run in it was 15 miles where most of the first half was downhill and the second half uphill. It protected my legs well when pounding down hills; even when going uphill I was surprised by how smooth and easy to pick up it was for such a big shoe.

Throughout my runs, I’ve consistently found myself moving faster than I expected for the effort level put in. That’s partly because it’s harder to judge speed when you have such little feel for the ground because it’s such a cushioned and tall shoe, but also because the foam and plate combination does a good job of propelling you on your way efficiently.

There’s an upper limit to how fast you can run comfortably in the shoe. I did a couple of progressions runs, including one in which I finished at around my marathon pace of 3min 30sec/km and it felt cumbersome for that kind of pace. It’s not as versatile as other super-trainers like the Saucony Endorphin Speed 4 or Asics Superblast, but the Skyward X is more cushioned and comfortable. Cruising through easy runs in the shoe felt great.

Yet, even with all its positives, it will be too big a shoe for some. I prefer the lighter, nimbler feel of other super-trainers or more regular shoes, like the Hoka Mach 6 and New Balance Rebel v4, for most runs, including easy plods. But if you love a cushioned ride, the Skyward X delivers.

Is The Hoka Skyward X Worth It?

You don’t need to spend so much money to get a great daily trainer. The Hoka Mach 6 or plated shoes like the Saucony Endorphin Speed 4 offer more versatility at a lower price than the Hoka Skyward X. If you’re planning to just use it for easy and long runs then a more normal cushioned shoe like the Brooks Glycerin 21 will do a brilliant job at a much lower price.

The Hoka Skyward X is something a little different from most shoes, however, which may make its high price more palatable to some. It’s more cushioned than other super-trainers, while still pretty versatile and stable enough for daily training. I prefer a lighter and smaller shoe, even for easy runs, and even if you love a max-cushioned shoe the Asics Superblast is another cushioned (and expensive) option that is lighter and more versatile than the Skyward X. The Hoka is bouncier and more comfortable, and it won me over during my testing.

If the On Cloudmonster Hyper was $140 instead of $220, I’d still tell you to buy something else. Yes, this is a comfortable shoe you can roll through a lot of miles in—that’s true for many shoes—but the best running shoes offer more in versatility and how enjoyable they feel underfoot. Most are much cheaper, too.

Even when set against other On running shoes I’m not convinced the Cloudmonster Hyper is your best bet for daily training, The On Cloudeclipse is similarly well cushioned and delivers a smoother, rockered ride. It’s good to see On’s Peba-based Helion HF foam brought to a training shoe, but the overall design of the Cloudmonster Hyper didn’t work well for me.

On Cloudmonster Hyper: Price And Availability

The Cloudmonster Hyper launched in March 2024 and costs $219.99 in the US and £210 in the UK. That’s a high price for a daily trainer like this and more than you pay for the best super-trainers, such as the Saucony Endorphin Speed 4 and Asics Superblast, or other On options like the Cloudeclipse or Cloudmonster 2.

In the US the Cloudmonster Hyper is initially available from On Running and Marathon Sports.

In the UK the Cloudmonster Hyper is initially available from On Running and Sports Shoes.

How I Tested This Running Shoe

I ran 32 miles in the Cloudmonster Hyper, using it for arange of runs during the high-mileage weeks of marathon training that the shoe seems perfect for. I’ve tested most of On’s other shoes, and a range of super-trainers from other brands.

Design And Fit

The Cloudmonster Hyper takes the design of the Cloudmonster 2 and upgrades it through the addition of Helion HF foam to the midsole. This is the Peba-based foam used in the On Cloudboom Echo 3 racing shoe, and it’s bouncier and lighter than On’s other materials.

There is a slab of the Helion HF foam under the forefoot of the Cloudmonster Hyper, with the brand’s signature CloudTec pods used at the heel and underneath the Helion HF. The CloudTec layer is firmer and adds stability, but is also heavier and less springy than the Helion HF foam.

The Cloudmonster Hyper, which weighs 9.5oz/270g in my UK size 9, isn’t a heavy shoe, but it’s not as light as many super-trainers. The Asics Superblast is 8.8oz/251g in my size and has a higher stack height: The Cloudmonster Hyper is 37.5mm at the heel and 31.5mm at the forefoot for a drop of 6mm, where the Superblast is 45mm high at the heel.

On has opted against adding a Speedboard to the midsole of the Cloudmonster Hyper, which is unexpected given that it’s designed to handle faster runs. The lack of a Speedboard makes it less stiff and more comfortable for daily training, though. The shoe has a lightweight woven mesh upper with padding around the collar and a thin tongue. The fit was good in my usual running shoe size, with enough room in the toe box to make it comfortable for long runs.

There is rubber covering the pods on the outsole at the forefoot and heel to provide grip and durability in the main impact areas, though I found it slipped a bit on wet paved surfaces at times. There’s a groove at the back that is shallower than on previous On shoes, though it still looks likely to pick up the odd stone if you’re running on gravel tracks. 

Running Performance

Price aside, I was initially excited about running in the Cloudmonster Hyper. The Cloudboom Echo 3 is a good carbon plate running shoe and its use of Peba-based Helion HF foam was a step up on other On midsole materials. Unfortunately, while the chunk of Helion HF under the Cloudmonster Hyper’s forefoot delivers bounce, it’s muted and overwhelmed by the firmer CloudTec material in the midsole. The CloudTec layer is also heavier, and I found the Cloudmonster Hyper felt heavier than it actually is while running.

As a result, I never felt comfortable running at faster paces. It doesn’t have the propulsive feel of a plated shoe like the Saucony Endorphin Speed 4, nor the nimble, enjoyable ride of the best non-plated daily trainers like the New Balance FuelCell Rebel v4 or Hoka Mach 6, which are lighter and have more responsive midsole foams.

I liked the Cloudmonster Hyper more when cruising along at an easy pace and, having used it for runs during high-mileage weeks, it does protect the legs. The stability it has by virtue of the firmer-than-average midsole is also supportive of tired legs, though it isn’t a shoe that screams “expensive super-trainer” to me. 

Instead, it feels like a typical cushioned shoe, and it’s not as rockered as the On shoes that have the brand’s CloudTecPhase midsole design, like the Cloudsurfer and Cloudeclipse, which have smoother rides as a result.

Is The On Cloudmonster Hyper Worth It?

On has put a target on the Cloudmonster Hyper’s back with the high price. Any daily trainer is going to struggle to be worth $220/£210, though if it delivered an amazing ride then you could perhaps start to justify the outlay; many have done this with the Asics Superblast, which is expensive but impressive.

Unfortunately, the Cloudmonster Hyper isn’t impressive. It will handle a lot of miles, but it’s not particularly versatile or fun to run in, and it’s easy to find shoes that offer more for less money, including the Superblast.

I consider the Saucony Endorphin Speed 4 the best daily trainer because of its versatility, but if you don’t want to train in a plated shoe then the Hoka Mach 6 and New Balance FuelCell Rebel v4 are more enjoyable options than the Cloudmonster Hyper, and significantly cheaper.

The Sennheiser Momentum Sport earbuds are an exciting addition to the world of workout headphones, offering the excellent sound quality you expect from Sennheiser’s Momentum line and health monitoring in the form of heart rate and body temperature tracking.

They are very good headphones that I greatly enjoyed testing, but they have a few flaws that mean I don’t rate them as highly as the best workout headphones. The price is also eye-wateringly high, even compared with the top buds from Apple, Bose and Beats, so unless you are dead set on having that Sennheiser sound for your workouts, there are better-value options available.

Sennheiser Momentum Sport: Price And Availability

The Sennheiser Momentum Sport headphones were announced at CES 2024 and went on sale in April 2024. They cost $329.95 in the US and £259.95 in the UK, putting them among the most expensive sports buds I’ve ever tested. Even the Apple AirPods Pro 2 and Bose QC Earbuds II are cheaper, while the Jabra Elite 8 Active are substantially less. There are three colors available: Polar Black, Burned Olive and Metallic Graphite.

How I Tested These Headphones

I used the Sennheiser Momentum Sport buds for several weeks, wearing them to run most days as well as when working and traveling. I also did yoga and strength workouts with the buds. I have tested the Sennheiser Sport True Wireless headphones, as well as a range of the best workout headphones from other brands.

Design And Fit

The Sennheiser Momentum Sport are quite large in-ear headphones secured by one of the three sets of wings they come with. You can also use the buds without any wings, which is more comfortable if wearing them for long stretches at work, but during workouts I needed the wings to hold them in place.

While they did stay put during runs and vigorous workouts, the wings are not that comfortable, and I’d have soreness when I took the headphones out at the end of longer runs. The wings also move around on the buds when taking them in and out of their case, and it’s annoying to have to readjust them repeatedly so they’re in the right spot.

The headphones are IP55 rated, so they’ll withstand sweat and rain without any problems even if they’re not fully waterproof. The case is IP54 rated, which means it’s fine to put into a running belt or shorts pocket where it might get sweaty. It’s not a small case, but quite flat and easy to slip into a pocket.

There are touch controls on the outside of each bud, and they have a heart rate sensor and body temperature sensor on board too. You can link the buds with any watch and app to track heart rate, while body temperature is tracked using Polar tech and only shows in the Polar and Sennheiser apps.

Controls

Along with touching the sensor on each earbud, you can control the Sennheiser Momentum Sport headphones by tapping your cheek. You can customize the controls in the partner app and use them to switch between sound modes as well as to control playback and volume.

You can also set the sensitivity of the touch panels, which is fortunate because to begin with the wind kept setting off the controls during runs. On one run it kept cycling between the buds’ ANC, wind reduction and transparency modes in an infuriating manner, but since turning down the sensitivity this hasn’t happened again.

This may explain why I found the controls a little hit-and-miss, and it took a couple taps on either my cheek or the touch panel before my attempts registered. A successful tap is indicated by a beep, which is helpful since some actions require three taps.

Heart Rate And Body Temperature Tracking

The Sennheiser Momentum Sport paired easily with several different watches and apps to broadcast heart rate, acting like any other external heart rate sensor. The body temperature sensor works only with the Polar app and watches. You can’t show temperature on a Polar watch live during workouts yet, but that is coming and will be the easiest way to keep tabs on the data—I had to look at the Sennheiser app on my phone to see the info during runs and other workouts.

The body temperature tracking was interesting at first, but I was training during a mild spring in the UK and had no real need to check my temperature stats. It will be of more interest when training in hot climates, especially during long workouts when you’re at more risk of overheating.

I found that the heart rate tracking accuracy was pretty poor on the headphones. When comparing their readings to that of a Polar H10 chest strap, the headphones were often wrong, especially in the second half of workouts. On runs they often locked on to my cadence (steps per minute) rather than heart rate, and even now as I sit at a desk and write this the heart rate reading is clearly too high when compared with a chest strap monitor.

If you’re someone who wears a chest strap or armband heart rate sensor and headphones, and were hoping to consolidate those two devices into one, I think you’ll be disappointed because the Sennheiser Momentum Sport are not reliably accurate.

Sound Quality

Despite being in-ear buds, the Sennheiser Momentum Sport headphones have a semi-open design that doesn’t block out your surroundings as much as other in-ear headphones. This reduces the internal thudding you get when running or walking with some in-ear buds, and gives a little more awareness of your surroundings, though you still need to use the transparency mode to really hear what’s going on around you.

There’s a 10mm driver on board to power the sound, and the buds do sound excellent. The vocals and other instruments come through with crystal clarity and listening to a range of music genres during and outside of workouts was a joy. Sennheiser’s headphones have a more natural sound to them and aren’t as heavy on the bass as the likes of Beats, but you still get plenty of power at the lower end. You can adjust the EQ in the partner app and use a bass booster mode if you do want more bass. 

I haven’t come across any sports headphones that sound better than the Momentum Sport—they certainly live up to the standards of the renowned Momentum line.

ANC And Transparency Modes

There are three sound modes on the Sennheiser Momentum Sport: ANC, transparency and an anti-wind mode. I found the latter very useful during runs, especially at windy running tracks, when many buds capture a lot of wind noise in ANC or transparency modes.

The ANC filters out most external sounds well when traveling, though it’s not quite as impressive on this front as the Bose QC Earbuds II or Apple AirPods Pro 2. The transparency mode is handy at times and you can adjust the amount of external noise you want to hear, but while running it does sound very windy at times, to the point where you can’t hear things like traffic around you, negating the point of using the mode.

Battery Life

The battery life of the buds is listed as up to six hours, with another 18 hours of charge held in the case. Those figures are based on a mid-level of volume with the ANC on, and the heart rate and body temperature sensors active. I found that the battery drained a little faster than that for me even when I had the headphones at a fairly low volume, but they were still on track to last over five hours.

A quick-charge feature on the headphones delivers one hour of playback from 10 minutes of charging, and it takes around 90 minutes to fully charge the buds from empty. The battery life is neither a strength or a weakness for the Sennheiser Momentum Sport. They are about par with other top buds, though they do offer less battery life than the Jabra Elite 8 Active.

Are The Sennheiser Momentum Sport Headphones Worth It?

The Sennheiser Momentum Sport are great sports headphones that excel on sound quality, but a few frustrating flaws make them a hard sell at the sky-high price. The fit is secure, but not that comfortable, and the wings are a bit awkward to deal with. I wasn’t impressed with the heart rate tracking either, and the body temperature sensor will be handy for some people, but I’d wager it’s irrelevant info for most.

You can get the Apple AirPods Pro 2 or Bose QC Earbuds II for less, and they are outstanding cross-over sports/lifestyle headphones that offer excellent sound quality. The Jabra Elite 8 Active headphones don’t sound as good as the Sennheiser Momentum Sport, but they still sound great and they’re a lot cheaper, plus the fit is more comfortable.

The Puma Fuse 2.0 has been my favorite budget CrossFit shoe for some time, delivering superior comfort and a springy yet supportive midsole that’s suitable for pretty much any WOD. So when its successor was released with a $20 higher retail price, the pressure was on for the brand to deliver. 

The dramatic nature of Puma’s redesign was apparent to me as soon as I pulled them on. The upper feels firmer, the forefoot seems narrower, the shoe is noticeably heavier and the heel is a different beast entirely thanks to several new stability features.

Overall, I do believe the upgrade has furthered Puma’s mission to make the best CrossFit shoe, but this might be a case of taking one step back to take two forward.

Puma Fuse 3.0: Price And Availability

The Puma Fuse 3.0 costs $120 in the US and £100 in the UK. That’s a $20/£10 price rise on the Puma Fuse 2.0 and brings the 3.0 more in line with well-established CrossFit shoe brands, which typically charge north of $130.

The Puma Fuse 2.0 was often discounted and I’d expect the 3.0 to follow suit so it may be worth shopping around after six months. 

How I Tested This Shoe

I wore this shoe for two weeks of no-holds-barred training in the lead-up to the CrossFit Open, using it for 10 90-minute-plus training sessions in that time. 

Each one started with some strength work or Olympic weightlifting, followed by gymnastics practice, a varied WOD and some accessory lifts. 

It’s also been used for its fair share of shoe-destroying moves such as wall walks, rope climbs and handstand push-ups that come as standard in a CrossFit training program. 

Design

The look of the Puma Fuse 3.0 isn’t to my taste. The design is busy and blocky, with raised detailing around the Puma logo and an angular heel. 

Some of those elements do serve a purpose, though. The pointed edges on either side of the angular heel mean it doesn’t roll when pushed sideways, delivering a solid platform for catching Oly lifts.

There are also sturdy heel and toe guards for protection during wall walks and handstand push-ups, along with extra raised rubber sections around the midsole for rope climbs and lateral support.

This catalog of new stability features delivered just that: superior stability. But they do add weight to the shoe, making it feel less nimble than its predecessor. The Puma Fuse 3.0 weighs 454g in my UK size 10. The Puma Fuse 2.0 is 405g and my one-time favorite TYR CXT-1 is 348g.

Is The Puma Fuse 3.0 Good For WODs?

I love the Puma Fuse 2.0 for WODs. It’s lightweight and breathable, with a responsive midsole foam that was a dream when bounding onto boxes. 

The Puma Fuse 3.0? Not so much. This is mainly because it has a fair amount of weight to it and the heel in particular felt heavy whenever I tried to move quickly in fast-paced workouts. 

It beats its predecessor for stability thanks to the redesigned heel, and there’s no questioning the purchase afforded by the PUMAGRIP outsole. As a result I quite liked the shoe for barbell-heavy workouts like Grace. 

But as soon as I had to move fast, I noticed the shoe’s heavy heel. This was particularly apparent during longer workouts like a 40-minute EMOM I tackled while wearing them. 

Is The Puma Fuse 3.0 Good For Resistance Training?

This is where the Puma Fuse 3.0 is at its best. The angular edges of the outsole that flare out from the heel stop any unwanted rolling and the PUMAGRIP design offers great grip. 

The midsole feels firm under heavy weights too, with none of the unwanted compression I experienced with past models. As a result, it provides a firm foundation for generating power during squats, cleans, snatches and more. 

The only drawback is that the forefoot feels narrow and squashed, even though Puma claims it has “widened the last” of the shoe. This left me less able to spread my toes for balance than I would have liked.

Is The Puma Fuse 3.0 Good For Running?

The restrictive forefoot and weight meant that the Puma Fuse 3.0 didn’t impress during short (up to 400m) mid-WOD running intervals.

Compared with other CrossFit shoes I’ve tried, it didn’t feel as nimble, springy or energetic, although it wasn’t as clunky as the Nike Metcon 9.

No CrossFit shoe is made to handle more than a couple of kilometers—this just wouldn’t be possible while maintaining a firm enough midsole for lifting. But most still offer a bit of bounce from a thin layer of midsole cushioning, and I felt that was missing here. 

Is The Puma Fuse 3.0 Worth It?

I’m going to save you some money here. If you want a great budget CrossFit shoe, buy the Puma Fuse 2.0. If you want Puma’s best CrossFit shoe, buy the Puma Fuse 2.0. In fact, if you want a great CrossFit shoe full stop, you could still buy the Puma Fuse 2.0.

The main problem with the Puma Fuse 2.0 was its lack of stability in the heel, with a little compression in the heel when under heavier weights. The Puma Fuse 3.0 has solved this problem, delivering a superbly stable heel with an innovative angular design to stop unwanted lateral movement. This is something the brand needed to fix to compete for the title of “best CrossFit shoe”—but the improvements have come at a cost. 

The shoe feels heavy during WODs, the weighting seems to be off in favor of the back of the shoe, the midsole lacks energy and my foot feels uncomfortably cramped along the sides of the midfoot and forefoot. 

I’m hoping Puma can marry the stability of this shoe with the attributes of its predecessor with its next functional fitness-focused release. But for now, the unparalleled comfort of the Fuse 2.0 makes it my preferred Puma training shoe. 

The best carbon plate running shoes do not come cheap, so when Decathlon announced the original Kiprun KD900X—a carbon racing shoe for £130—I was excited. However, the Kiprun KD900X was a firm shoe that lacked the feel and performance of top super-shoes, and while still a fast and durable option for training, it didn’t really rival the likes of the Nike Vaporfly.

Decathlon has come back stronger with the Kiprun KD900X LD. It’s more expensive than the KD900X, but still relatively cheap, and offers a higher level of performance thanks to the updated midsole foam. If you want the best racer then there are faster shoes available, but the Kiprun KD900X LD is an excellent option for those on a budget.

Kiprun KD900X LD: Price And Availability

The Kiprun KD900X LD launched in April 2024 and is available from Decathlon. It costs £159.99 in the UK and €180 in the EU, but it’s not sold in the US. It’s £30 more expensive than the Kiprun KD900X, the first carbon plate shoe from Decathlon, but significantly cheaper than most carbon super-shoes, which usually cost at least $250/£220.

How I Tested This Shoe

I have run just over 30 miles in the Kiprun KD900X LD, using it for a mix of training runs including a testing track session and a progression run finishing at my goal marathon pace. I have also tested the Kiprun KD900X (although it was stolen before I could complete my testing for a full review) and almost all of the best carbon plate running shoes available from major brands.

Design And Fit

The main change to the Kiprun KD900X LD compared with the KD900X is in midsole foam. It’s changed from VFOAM to VFOAM PLUS, and while both are Peba-based materials, the PLUS is softer, lighter and bouncier. 

Decathlon has halved the drop of the shoe to 4mm, with a 36.8mm stack height at the heel and 32.8mm at the forefoot. This means there’s more foam under the forefoot, which will also increase the comfort of the ride compared with the firm feel of the Kiprun KD900X.

Despite the extra foam, the weight has gone down. The Kiprun KD900X LD weighs 8.1oz/230g in a UK size 9/EU 44. That’s a lot lighter than my review sample of the Kiprun KD900X, which was 8.8oz/249g in a slightly smaller size, an EU 43.5.

Like the KD900X, the KD900X LD came up long for me, and I would recommend going at least a half size down on your normal running shoe size. There’s too much room in the toe box, and although I didn’t experience any slipping at the heel, I did find the plastic strip on the upper that contains the lace eyelets cut into the top of my right foot just below the ankle. 

This was particularly bad on my first and longest run in the shoe, which was around 13 miles. On my runs since I haven’t had the problem to the same extent, so hopefully it’s something that goes away when the shoe breaks in a bit, but it’s a concern if you’re planning to use the shoe for a marathon.

Aside from this, the breathable open-knit mesh upper was fine and held my foot securely when running fast. It’s a lightweight material and has minimal padding around the collar and tongue, as you’d expect from a racing shoe. 

A midsole cut-out on the bottom of the shoe displays the carbon plate. There is exposed foam in the middle of the bottom of the shoe, but two patches of rubber at the heel and a larger section on the forefoot cover the main impact areas. The Kiprun KD900X was built to last 1,000km and while the softer midsole might reduce the lifespan of the Kiprun KD900X LD, I still expect it to be a long-lasting shoe.

Running Performance

The Kiprun KD900X LD is notably softer and bouncier than the KD900X, and feels more in line with other super-shoes. It’s not as springy as shoes like the Nike Alphafly 3 or Hoka Cielo X1, but VFOAM PLUS is a pretty bouncy material and it’s a lot more comfortable than VFOAM.

That’s particularly noticeable under the forefoot, where there’s more foam. You get a springier toe-off as a result, and I had no discomfort under the forefoot on my longest run in the KD900X LD.

I did a track session in the shoe running four miles at 5min 40sec/mile, my goal marathon pace, followed by 12 reps of 400m alternating 72sec and 77sec per rep. The Kiprun KD900X LD was comfortable when cruising along at marathon pace and sprightly enough for the shorter reps.

It has a flatter ride than many super-shoes owing to the low drop, and it’s not a highly rockered shoe. I noticed the day after the session that my legs were more beaten up than usual the day after training in a super-shoe. The Kiprun KD900X LD also puts a bit more strain on your calf muscles than higher-drop racing shoes, which may affect heel-strikers like myself more than forefoot-strikers.

The ride is less propulsive and feels less fast than the best super-shoes, and the KD900X LD suffered in comparison with the very bouncy and rockered Hoka Cielo X1, which I was using at the same time. However, the Kiprun shoe has quite a natural feel, and I was comfortable using it for easy paces as well as fast ones, which is not true of some super-shoes that feel worryingly wobbly and unnatural at slow speeds.

Is The Kiprun KD900X LD Worth It?

If you’re willing to spend big money on your racer, the Kiprun KD900X LD is not among the best carbon plate running shoes. My standout picks at the moment are the Asics Metaspeed Sky Paris, Nike Alphafly 3, Nike Vaporfly 3 and Hoka Cielo X1. 

However, it is significantly cheaper, and there’s no shoe available for a list price of £160 I’d rather race in—if I could get the fit right to avoid any unwelcome friction with the plastic strip on the upper. Even the best super-trainers like the Saucony Endorphin Speed 4 or Adidas Boston 12, which are closer in price, don’t match the speed of the Kiprun KD900X LD.

The biggest competition to the Kiprun KD900X LD for those who are looking for a cheaper racing option comes from the discounts available on older carbon shoes. The likes of the Asics Metaspeed Sky+, Adidas Adizero Adios Pro 3 and Saucony Endorphin Pro 3 are often available in sales, and if you can get them or other older carbon shoes for around £160, they are stronger racing options.

I was impressed by the Kiprun KD900X LD, though, and it’s not far off the standard of those shoes. It’s now a racing alternative at a lower price that’s worth considering, whereas the original KD900X was more of a long-lasting training option than a true racer.

The Wahoo Kickr Core has been my go-to direct drive turbo trainer recommendation since it was released in September 2018. In fact, I reviewed the Wahoo Kickr Core last year, five years on from its debut, and could still only find minor faults, which can be overlooked at its price point. So, when Wahoo and Zwift announced their Wahoo Kickr Core Zwift One collaboration in February 2024, I was intrigued.

The concept is ingenious. Traditionally, you install a cassette (the cogs on your bike’s rear wheel) on the turbo trainer, and increase or decrease the trainer’s resistance when free-riding (and not following an ERG-mode workout) by shifting up and down with your bike’s drivetrain. The Zwift One cog replaces the cassette with a single-speed cog, and instead of controlling resistance with your bike’s gears, you modify resistance with two handlebar-mounted buttons.

How does this compare to that traditional cassette-based set-up? And will the Wahoo Kickr Core Zwift One knock its cassette cousin from my top spot as the best turbo trainer?

Wahoo Kickr Core Zwift One: Price And Availability

The Wahoo Kickr Core Zwift One was released in February 2024 and costs $599.99 in the US and £549.99 in the UK. When the Wahoo Kickr Core was first launched it cost $899.99/£699.99 and didn’t include a pre-installed cassette, so the total set-up has come down by roughly $400/£200—bucking the trend seen across the rest of cycling. What’s more, it includes a free 12-month Zwift membership (RRP $149.99/£129.99), which reduces the actual cost of your investment to $450/£420.

How I Tested This Turbo Trainer

I logged 10 hours of turbo training on the Kickr Core Zwift One. I’m currently training for the Paris-Roubaix Challenge and I performed several long interval-based workout sessions on the training apps Zwift and TrainerRoad. I also spent time free-riding in Zwift’s virtual worlds and attempted (and failed) to test it in other virtual world-based training programs, such as Rouvy and MyWhoosh. I have experience with most of the best turbo trainers and smart bikes, including the cassette version of the Wahoo Kickr Core, Tacx’s top-of-the-range Neo 3M, and Wahoo’s Kickr Bike V2 smart bike.

Features

The Zwift One edition of the Wahoo Kickr Core is a carbon copy of the standard one, aside from the new  Zwift One cog replacing a cassette. That means you get the same maximum output (1,800W), simulated incline (16%) and power accuracy (+/- 2%) as the Kickr Core that’s been around since September 2018. 

While there are direct drive turbo trainers that can beat all these stats (most notably the Tacx Neo 3M), it’s important not to get fooled into thinking bigger is better. Even serious club riders aren’t able to exceed that maximum power output for more than a second or two at best, while you’d have to be a masochist to want to ride up gradients above 16% for sustained periods. The power accuracy may be an issue if you’re a professional athlete following strict interval sessions, but even the best turbo trainers have a +/- 1% margin of error, so it’s a minor sacrifice to make for substantial savings on the cost of a premium set-up. 

The main difference between the standard Wahoo Kickr Core and this update is the Zwift One cog. The 14-tooth sprocket comes installed on the unit and is compatible with most 8- to 12-speed bikes. This is different from the cassette version, which required the purchase of a separate driver and the installation of a drivetrain-specific cassette if your bike didn’t have a Shimano/SRAM road set-up. This makes the Kickr Core Zwift One more accessible to Campagnolo and mountain bike/gravel bike users, whose drivetrains aren’t compatible with the standard Wahoo Kickr Core out of the box. It also means if you have multiple bikes, or multiple riders want to use the turbo trainer, you can swap the bikes over without having to remove and install different cassettes and drivers.

The resistance is controlled by a Click button rather than shifting between gears on a bike’s drivetrain. The virtual drivetrain has a 24-speed drivetrain and a wide enough gear ratio for inching your way up Watopia’s inclines or putting down the hammer on the flats without spinning out. During ERG mode workouts, it can also increase and decrease the difficulty of the session—ideal if you’re struggling with a hard drill and want to dial it down rather than stopping. The Bluetooth button can be mounted in multiple locations on a handlebar, whether you have flat, drop or triathlon bars, and its coin battery is said to last 100 hours.

The Kickr Zwift One has one major flaw: It’s only compatible with Zwift. While the cog can be used in ERG mode in platforms such as TrainerRoad, if you want to simulate free-riding and shifting between virtual gears, you won’t be able to on rival platforms like Rouvy and MyWhoosh.

The Set-Up

The Kickr Core Zwift One requires some self-assembly but should pose no issues. In the box, you’ll find the main unit, two stabilizing feet, instructions and tools, and it’s hard to get it wrong. Unlike previous Kickr Core models, the Zwift One cog is installed, so once the feet are on the base unit, you just need to remove the back wheel from your bike and slot it in place on the turbo. 

The Click button is a cinch to install on your handlebars. You can put it in various spots, but I found that the inside of the right hood allowed me to easily shift up and down with my thumb in my standard indoor riding position.

The Ride

The Kickr Core Zwift One has a similar ride feel to the cassette version. It has the same 5.4kg flywheel, and the resistance feels smooth and controlled, even when completing intervals that quickly switch from anaerobic efforts to recovery. In free-ride mode, the shifts in gradients feel realistic, and a sharp hill will soon have you out of the saddle.

However, there are notable differences. The single cog design seemed quieter than the cassette version I tried previously, while there are no clunks of the derailleur between gear shifts. The 24-speed virtual drivetrain had no noticeable jumps between gears, and it solves the issue you can have with a cassette where you start to cross-chain or when you spin out after shifting between the big and small rings when downshifting quickly. Keeping track of what gear you’re in is easy and it’s displayed alongside speed, cadence and power output.

As with the cassette version, the main downside is the lack of lateral movement. This was noticeable when jumping from the Wahoo Kickr V6 with Axis feet to its cheaper sibling, and the latter has a stationary riding position, which started to get uncomfortable on training rides of an hour-plus.

Is The Wahoo Kickr Core Zwift One Worth It?

The Kickr Core Zwift One is the cheapest it has ever been, and when you consider that it also comes with a year’s subscription to Zwift, it’s hard to beat on cost. The Zwift One cog should last longer than a cassette because there’s no shifting between cogs to wear out the teeth, reducing long-term costs, while the fact that it can be used by multiple people could help you share the investment between others.

If you’re searching for the most cost-effective way to get started with Zwift, then it’s difficult to look beyond the Kickr Core Zwift One. The smart direct drive turbo trainer, pound for pound, is the best design available, and the addition of the Zwift One cog removes some of the hassles that can come with a cassette version. If you plan on using other training programs then you’re better off with the original Wahoo Kickr Core, but for Zwift and TrainerRoad, the Zwift One version takes some beating.

The Salomon S/Lab Spectur will live and die on whether you accept the idea behind its design, which is that people running at slower speeds need a different racing shoe to elite athletes. It’s meant to be a super-shoe for those running marathons in around four hours, rather than setting world records, and cater to their needs by being more stable.

I don’t accept the notion that elites run in one way and, say, 4hr marathoners another. Watch any group of runners at any speed and you’ll see variations in running style. That said, the S/Lab Spectur is a versatile shoe that can handle a variety of training, but its price is too high, and using one of the best carbon plate running shoes is going to deliver a higher level of performance on race day for any runner.

Salomon S/Lab Spectur: Price And Availability

The Salomon S/Lab Spectur launches in May 2024 and will cost $220 in the US and £210 in the UK, which is cheap for a super-shoe but expensive for a super-trainer—which is what I consider it to be. The S/Lab Phantasm 2 is the more performance-focused super-shoe in Salomon’s range and costs $275/£240. The brand also has the standard Spectur shoe, which is a cheaper training option.

How I Tested This Running Shoe

I ran 30 miles in the S/Lab Spectur, using it for several training runs at a range of speeds. I’m a 2hr 28min marathoner, so not the target for the shoe, but used it at a mix of easy and fast paces to see how it felt compared with other carbon plate shoes. I’ve also tested the S/Lab Phantasm 2 and a range of the best super-trainers and super-shoes from other brands.

Design And Fit

How do you make a super-shoe for the average runner? Well, basically, you make it less of a super-shoe and more of a souped-up trainer. The S/Lab Spectur has elements of the S/Lab Phantasm, adjusted to make it less aggressive and unstable. 

The dual-density midsole has a top layer of the brand’s Peba-based Energy Foam+, with a bottom layer of Energy Foam, which is a blend of EVA and Olefin and is firmer and more stable than the bouncier top layer. There are sidewalls of foam that your foot sits within at the back for increased stability. The shoe has a stack height of 38mm at the heel and 30mm at the forefoot for a drop of 8mm, and weighs 9oz/254g in a UK size 9.

There is a carbon plate running through the midsole, which is winged at the back for stability, and the shoe is quite wide at the heel—again for stability. The R.Camber rocker has been moved further back in the shoe to cater more to heel-strikers. This is because Salomon suggests slower runners tend to land on their heels, which is presented as a difference from elites, though research has repeatedly shown most runners are heel-strikers regardless of pace.

The upper on the shoe is lightweight and breathable in the forefoot, but has a lot of padding around the collar and a high heel tab, to add more comfort for runners taking longer to complete events like a marathon. The fit was good in my usual size, though the long heel tab irritated my achilles tendon on long runs.

There is a cut-out on the bottom of the shoe to reduce its weight, but most of the bottom is covered with a Contagrip rubber outsole. The S/Lab Phantasm 2, which also uses Contragrip rubber, didn’t grip well in wet conditions, but I had no problems with the S/Lab Spectur when running in the rain.

Running Performance

The S/Lab Spectur provides a firmer ride than I expected. It’s not harsh by any means, but you don’t have the feeling of sinking into that top layer of Peba-based foam, which is firmed up by the plate and bottom layer of foam.

I’m a heel-striker and I felt, and enjoyed, the rocker on the shoe, which moves you onto your toes nicely at a range of paces. There isn’t a big propulsive feeling as you toe-off, however, which you get from most of the best carbon shoes.

The shoe felt at its best when running at faster paces, going down to around 3min 30sec/km. Although this is not the pace it’s aimed at, I think most runners change their gait a little when running at faster speeds, and the S/Lab Spectur has a smoother and more enjoyable ride when you’re pushing the pace. 

It’s too bulky for really fast running, though. The heel section is large and noticeable, and while it provides a stable landing zone it makes the shoe feel more like a daily trainer than a racing shoe. The fact it’s also comfortable at slow paces means it works better as a versatile training shoe than one I’d consider racing in. It’s not at the level of a super-shoe like Salomon’s S/Lab Phantasm 2, but I’d prefer racing in a number of other, faster super-trainers like the Saucony Endorphin Speed 4 and Adidas Adizero Boston 12. 

The Salomon feels more like the Saucony Kinvara Pro to me: A bulky, stable shoe with a plate in it that’s good for training and works well for heavy runners and those who don’t get on with unstable super-shoes. It has its purpose, but doesn’t feel like it brings any major benefits to the table for racing.

Is The Salomon S/Lab Spectur Worth It?

Although I don’t agree that slower runners need different super-shoes from fast ones, there is something to the idea of a more stable super-shoe because most of the best carbon shoes are pretty wobbly. Unfortunately, the features that bring stability to shoes often make them less “super” and the S/Lab Spectur is an example of this. It just doesn’t feel like a fast racing option.

There are shoes that provide a better balance of stability and speed, like the Saucony Endorphin Pro 4 and Saucony Endorphin Speed 4, which are fast and more stable than most super-shoes, especially the Endorphin Speed 4. The Brooks Hyperion Elite 4 is also stable, for a super-shoe, though that’s partly down to its midsole foam being less springy than others.

The S/Lab Spectur needs to be convincing in its role to make spending such big sums of money on it, and while it works fine as a versatile trainer it’s too expensive for that role, and is still outperformed by shoes like the Endorphin Speed. With regards to racing, I don’t feel like it’s a shoe that delivers as much as other options, no matter what your goal pace is.

The Kiprun KS900.2 adds a max-cushioned option to Decathlon’s range of running shoes and it sits above the Kiprun KS900 Light in terms of the amount of foam underfoot and its price. 

It’s cheaper than many of the best cushioned running shoes (though this isn’t a budget shoe) and while it performed well enough, there are more comfortable and enjoyable cushioned options available for a similar price. This makes Decathlon’s cushioned cruiser a tricky sell.

Kiprun KS900.2: Price And Availability

The Kiprun KS900.2 launched in February 2024 and costs £119.99 in the UK and €140 in the EU. It’s not available in the US, and there’s no indication that it will be. It’s the most expensive cushioned shoe in Decathlon’s Kiprun range, sitting above the KS900 Light, which is £89.99/€100.

How I Tested This Running Shoe

I ran 35 miles in the KS900.2, using it mainly for easy and recovery runs during marathon training. I’ve tested other Decathlon shoes like the Kiprun KD900 and KS900 Light, as well as a variety of the best cushioned running shoes from other brands.

Design And Fit

The KS900.2 has a stack of Decathlon’s MFOAM material in the midsole, standing 39mm at the heel and 33mm at the forefoot for a 6mm drop. The M stands for mattress, though MFOAM isn’t a soft material. It’s well balanced to offer support and comfort, with sidewalls of foam helping to add stability despite the high stack. All that foam makes it a heavy shoe: It weighs 11oz/314g in a UK 9.5, which is comparable to other highly cushioned shoes, such as the Asics Gel-Nimbus 26 and Nike Invincible 3.

The mesh upper has a lot of padding on the tongue and heel to create a comfortable and secure hold, while an internal heel counter adds more stability. I tested a shoe half a size up on my regular size and it was a little too long, so I’d stick with your usual running shoe size. 

There is exposed foam on the bottom of the shoe but the heel, sides and forefoot are all well covered with a thick layer of rubber that should last a long time. It gripped well for me on wet paved surfaces. I’d expect the KS900.2 to last a long time, with its durable midsole and outsole materials.

Running Performance

The KS900.2 is built to be a comfortable and supportive shoe for racking up easy miles, and that’s exactly what it is. The midsole foam isn’t very soft or squishy, but it’s undoubtedly comfortable, and the shoe rolls through quite smoothly when ticking along at a relaxed pace.

It’s not versatile and I didn’t enjoy doing any kind of fast running in it, but ideally it would be used in a running shoe rotation with lighter, faster options for your speed session. The MFOAM didn’t feel bouncy and there are livelier materials used on cushioned shoes from other brands. It will soften a bit over time and last hundreds of miles, but don’t expect the most exciting ride from the KS900.2 compared with cushioned shoes that use Peba foams or nitrogen-infused materials.

The KS900.2 is quite a bit narrower than other high-stack cushioned shoes. Many max-cushioned shoes have a wide base to ensure they’re still stable, and while the KS900.2 has sidewalls of foam (and the firmer midsole means it didn’t feel unstable) it may not work as a stable-neutral option for those who overpronate a little.

Is The Kiprun KS900.2 Worth It?

The KS900.2 isn’t exciting or versatile, but it is comfortable and durable and will cover all your easy runs. It’s also good for beginners who want a protective shoe that isn’t as wildly expensive as some cushioned cruisers, which now often cost more than $150/£150.

However, most of the best cushioned running shoes provide better rides, offering a softer, bouncier feel thanks to the more advanced midsole materials they use. Some are not much more expensive than the KS900.2, while some are even cheaper. The Puma Velocity Nitro 3 and Puma Magnify Nitro 2 are better cushioned shoes that offer more value, especially as they are often in sales as well as having a fairly low list price.

If price isn’t a consideration, the Brooks Ghost Max and Brooks Glycerin 21 are excellent cushioned shoes, as are the Saucony Ride 17 and Saucony Triumph 21. The KS900.2 is a good addition to Decathlon’s range, but it’s a very competitive cushioned shoe market right now, and it doesn’t do enough to stand out on either price or performance.

Asics didn’t rush to bring out a successor to the Metaspeed Sky+ racing shoe, which was launched in spring 2022. However, taking its time has paid off because the Metaspeed Sky Paris includes important upgrades and is now clearly one of the best carbon plate running shoes. I put it at the top of the tree—even ahead of the Nike Alphafly 3—and the fact that it’s cheaper than many super-shoes is a bonus.

Asics Metaspeed Sky Paris: Price And Availability

The Asics Metaspeed Sky Paris launched in February 2024 and costs $250 in the US and £220 in the UK. That’s the same price as the Metasped Sky+ in the US, and £5 cheaper than the older shoe in the UK. The Metaspeed Sky Paris is at the cheaper end of the super-shoe spectrum: the Nike Alphafly 3 costs $285/£285. Asics also has the Metaspeed Edge Paris in its line-up, another carbon super-shoe designed to suit higher-cadence runners.

How I Tested This Running Shoe

I’ve run 60 miles in the Metaspeed Sky Paris, using it for a range of marathon training runs, including a 20-mile long run and an all-out parkrun. I have also tested the Metaspeed Sky and Metaspeed Sky+, along with the older models in the Edge line-up. I'm yet to review the Metaspeed Edge Paris but will be testing it soon. Aside from the Adidas Pro Evo 1, I have also tested all the leading carbon plate running shoes from other brands.

Design And Fit

The Metaspeed Sky Paris is one of the lightest super-shoes I’ve tested, weighing just 6.6oz/188g in my UK size 9. That’s a drop of 0.7oz/20g from the Metaspeed Sky+ and, while weight isn’t everything even with racing shoes, it’s significant how light the Metaspeed Sky Paris is. Most super-shoes, including the Nike Vaporfly 3, are more than 7oz/200g in my size.

Despite this, Asics hasn’t skimped on the cushioning. The stack height is 39.5mm at the heel and 34.5mm at the forefoot for a 5mm drop. Key to the reduction in weight is the new FF Turbo+ foam in the Metaspeed Sky Paris, which is softer, lighter and bouncier than the FF Turbo used on previous Metaspeed shoes.

The Motion Wrap 2.0 upper is lighter than the material used on the older shoes, though Asics has still been able to add a touch of padding at the heel for extra comfort over long distances. The shoe fitted well in my usual running shoe size, the same size I’ve used for all previous Asics racing shoes. 

Asics has made weight savings on the outsole. The forefoot is well covered with rubber that has lots of holes in it to reduce weight, though the strips of rubber running towards the back of the shoe stop short of the heel to leave some exposed foam. With previous versions of the Metaspeed, I’ve ripped this foam a little as a heel-striker; after 60 miles I’ve not seen the same wear on the Metaspeed Sky Paris, but it’s something to look out for if you do land on your heels.

The Metaspeed Sky Paris is Asics’ super-shoe for “stride” runners, who mainly increase their stride length when running faster. The Metaspeed Edge Paris is for “cadence” runners, who mainly increase their cadence (number of steps per minute) when running faster. The Paris editions have fewer differences than older models of the two shoes did. The shoes have the same stack height and drop, and similar weights, while the main differences are that the Edge has a longer rocker at the forefoot and more scooped carbon plate to aid turnover with a higher cadence. The Sky’s plate sits higher in the foam to give more energy return to bounding runners.

Running Performance

I’ve been a fan of the last two versions of the Metaspeed Sky and my PRs for the 10K and half-marathon were set in them (10K in the Metaspeed Sky, half-marathon in the Metaspeed Sky+). Although I’m a cadence runner with a shuffling gait, I’ve preferred the bouncier Sky to the Edge, though I’ll reserve judgment on comparing the Edge Paris and Sky Paris until I’ve tested the former.

However, it’s going to take something special to make me like it more than the Metaspeed Sky Paris, which I’ve found sensational. I’ve done a variety of sessions in it: three long progression runs including a 30km with 10K at 3min 30sec/k pace, along with probably the best track workout of my life running 6 x 5min 20sec/mile reps with float recoveries and a parkun in 15min 51sec.

On every run it’s felt amazing. The light design comes across late on fast runs when it helps to keep turning over your feet, but the shoe still has the spring you expect from a high-stack super-shoe. It’s less bouncy than some racers, like the Nike Alphafly 3 and Hoka Cielo X1, but the Metaspeed Sky Paris has a faster transition and a more aggressive feel while still being comfortable for long distances. 

Some may prefer a softer super-shoe for the marathon, but I had no discomfort even when running hard up to distances of 20 miles and would have no fears about going the full 26.2 in it. Over shorter distances the lightness and aggressive design is an obvious boon, especially when accelerating out of corners; while it’s not a stable shoe, I found the Metaspeed Sky Paris nimble enough on a parkrun course with a few sharp turns. The grip was good when running fast in wet conditions, despite the relatively small amount of rubber on the outsole. 

Is The Asics Metaspeed Sky Paris Worth It?

The Metaspeed Sky Paris is a perfect modern racing shoe for all distances. It’s light, but still springy and cushioned enough for the marathon, and the updates Asics has made put it at the top of my list of carbon racers. There are, however, still excellent alternatives to consider, including the Nike Alphafly 3 and Nike Vaporfly 3, which are equally impressive all-distance racers. There is also the bouncy Hoka Cielo X1 for the marathon. 

Everyone needs to find the racer that suits them, so I’m not saying the Metaspeed Sky Paris is objectively the best, but it’s my preferred pick right now. The shoe is cheaper than many top racing shoes, and it’s welcome news that Asics didn’t raise the price compared with the Metaspeed Sky+ despite making significant updates to the shoe.

In April 2022, before artificial intelligence (AI) was frequently grabbing the headlines, Peloton launched Peloton Guide, its first connected strength-training product. Drawing on the power of machine learning (a type of AI), it used a TV-mounted camera to track every rep you performed and the weight you lifted, along with detailing heart rate and calories burned. There was also a “strive score” to gauge how hard you were working. 

The Guide met with mixed reviews, struggling to match the meteoric success enjoyed by Peloton’s sector-spearheading Bike. As gyms fully reopened after COVID-19 lockdowns the demand for home workout content had, it seemed, waned. 

However, with hybrid fitness habits crystallizing and people looking for ways to train as hard at home or on their travels as they would in the gym—and considering AI looks destined to play an increasingly prominent role in how we exercise—I felt Peloton’s strength-training device warranted another look. I was pleasantly surprised with the results. 

Peloton Guide: Price And Availability

The Peloton Guide is available now. Unlike Mvmnt, which is only compatible with Sky’s kit, Peloton Guide can be used with any HDMI-enabled TV (which is most TVs), but it’ll cost you a pretty penny. The camera costs $195/£225 (Sky Live’s version, available in the UK, is £242) and you’ll also need a Peloton Guide Membership, costing $24/£24 a month.

If you own a Peloton Bike, Bike+ or Tread, and are therefore already paying $44/£39 a month for an All-Access Membership, there’s no additional membership required. Accessories, including the choice of a pair of dumbbells (from 2.3kg-13.6kg), a water bottle and workout mat range, cost extra—from $55/£45 to $590/£515. For my review, Peloton loaned me a set of 20lb/9.1kg dumbbells but the device works with any weights, so I was also able to use my trusty set of 15s for the heavier exercises. 

How I Tested This Fitness Device

I used Peloton Guide at home for two months, comparing it with the breadth of workouts and technical smarts offered by rival brands FIIT and Mvmnt. I mainly used it to maintain my general fitness and overall strength, while seeing how well it integrated with Peloton Gym for workouts away from home.

The Set-Up

The Peloton Guide consists of a 12-megapixel front-facing camera and a digital microphone in a unit designed to be mounted on top of your TV or on the table in front of it, along with a remote control. For privacy, you can slide a cover across the camera and switch the microphone off when not in use.

The set-up process was relatively painless once the device was mounted in position and synced with my Peloton account. After I entered my height, weight and workout preferences, the Guide’s dashboard presented me with a broad range of live and on-demand classes, as well as strength programs, including three- and five-day splits, and a weekly “strength roll-call” plan. Evidently the idea is to take the guesswork out of your training. 

For the roll-call plan you can select how many days a week you’d like to train and Peloton’s algorithm will suggest classes to fit your schedule, each ready to go when you open the app. You can scroll through half a dozen alternatives, each of varying duration, targeting different muscle groups, with different instructors. It’s a simple but effective way to give your training structure, while affording it flexibility and a level of customization that is commonly overlooked by Peloton’s chief rivals. 

The Experience

For my first workout I opted for a 10-minute bodyweight core class with British trainer Jermaine “JJ” Johnson. Before loading up the session, the camera started up, using a virtual rectangle to trace my feet and arms and confirm that I was in shot. In dumbbell classes, you can enter your weight selection at this stage so you have a reference point of what to beat next time. 

In the class, body-tracking tech allowed the camera to automatically record the reps I completed. If I hit my required rep target per set, I earned a “streak”. Keep hitting them throughout the workout and that streak goes up, but if you lose form the streak collapses. 

Peloton didn’t provide cues or feedback for when my technique broke down—this is offered by Mvmnt’s virtual personal trainers throughout the class—but the streak format, I discovered, was a clever mechanic that kept pushing me from first rep to last. Peloton says that more than 1,500 in-home beta testers completed more than 15,000 hours of workouts and 35,000 classes in order for the camera to recognize good form from bad.

After eight minutes of JJ’s class, I was straining every sinew to maintain my debut streak through three non-stop rounds of bicycle crunches, crunches and bear crawls. JJ rounded the class off with a straight-arm plank and hollow hold. Despite its brevity this was a tough, effective session. Throughout, and between form pointers, JJ offered shout-outs to members joining the workout live, as well as to those “showing up” in the room with him—it was filmed in front of an audience at Peloton Studios London. For me this added an extra buzz to the class.

Yet the best thing about my first dabble with the Guide wasn’t the instructor, the workout selection or the music. It was the camera’s extra wide-angle lens, which meant I didn’t have to rearrange my living room to fit within shot—a personal bugbear. All you need is a fairly modest 1.4 x 1.8m of space in front of your TV. 

At the end of the class I got a detailed breakdown of the session. I hit 100% of the target reps, burned 43 calories and earned a gold Movement Tracker badge. A body activity feature indicated which muscles I’d worked: 27% core, 24% obliques, 14% hips, 10% quads, 7% shoulders and 18% other. In subsequent classes, which I completed with an Apple Watch linked via the Peloton App so I could track my heart rate, I was also provided with a “strive score”, to reflect effort and exertion mid-class, and a summary of which heart rate zones I was working in.

Delving deeper into the Guide’s extensive workout library over subsequent weeks it became evident that Peloton has leaned into the language and programming of the weights room. Plans are built around day and body part “splits”, such as chest and back on Monday, legs and abs on Wednesday and arms and shoulders on Friday. Several intermediate and advanced upper-body sessions include hypertrophy elements—with slow tempos, high volumes and long rest periods—that will deliver decent muscle-building returns for beginners and experienced weightlifters. 

The Guide workouts also fitted around sessions I did away from home, using the company’s latest feature, Peloton Gym. For example, a 30-minute Full-Body Strength routine, devised by instructor Assal Arian, includes detailed form guides and demonstrations for each exercise, plus a timer so you can track rest periods. 

Altogether, this meant that when I opened the app on my TV after a month of home and gym workouts, I could quickly see the muscle groups I’d hammered and which I’d neglected, so I could then fill in any gaps in my training via the recommended classes. As a result, with the Guide it feels like Peloton is trying to corner a market it’s long missed by recreating the structure and discipline of the gym floor in the comfort and privacy of a living room. 

Is The Peloton Guide Worth It?

After eight weeks of mostly bite-size strength workouts at home and longer sessions in the gym, I was pleasantly surprised by how easily Peloton Guide slipped into my routine. Typically, the excitement of using a new home workout device keeps me engaged just long enough to write up a review, as it did for the VAHA fitness mirror and the Mvmnt body-tracking app; with the Guide, however, the novelty hasn’t worn off yet. 

This is largely because it’s so convenient. The app started quickly without glitches—something that continues to dog some of Peloton’s rivals—and the app reduced the conundrum of choosing a workout as it recommended sessions customized to my goals. Plus, the camera’s wide field of view and automatic body-tracking tech meant I could quickly jump into a workout without needing to clear space or strap on any additional kit. 

Thanks to Peloton’s comprehensive library and the app’s seamless navigation, I still find myself flicking through workouts when at home or on the go to draw inspiration for my next session. I’ll also often turn to the body activity feature to see how evenly I’ve been training—or how often I’ve been skipping leg days. 

Given that I can use Peloton Gym when training at the gym and the Guide when working out at home, and track every rep completed and weight lifted in the app, it perfectly suits the hybrid way I like to exercise. All in all—and it should be no surprise given the company’s deep pockets and popular trainers—Peloton Guide strikes the right balance between prescriptive follow-along strength workouts and flexible programming to suit any schedule. It might not have been met with the same fanfare as the Peloton Bike, but I’d say it will prove to be a greater tool for all-round strength and fitness for the everyday home exerciser.

The Brooks Glycerin was once the most comfortable running shoe available, with its stack of cushioning making it stand out. Now, however, many of the best cushioned running shoes have higher stacks and softer foams than the Glycerin—and the Brooks Glycerin 21 is relatively lightweight and low-stack for a cushioned shoe. This makes it a more versatile daily training option than many cushioned shoes, and I rate the Glycerin 21 among the best running shoes for those looking for a protective shoe that has pop for faster runs.

Brooks Glycerin 21: Price And Availability

The Brooks Glycerin 21 launched in February 2024 and costs $160 in the US and £165 in the UK. That’s the same price as the Glycerin 20 now, though the older shoe initially launched with a UK price of £155. It’s far from cheap, and although many of the best cushioned shoes now cost a similar amount, there are cheaper options like the Puma Magnify Nitro 2 and Saucony Ride 17.

How I Tested This Running Shoe

I ran 32 miles in the Glycerin 21, using it mostly for easy runs during my marathon training, including one longer run of about 13 miles. I’ve also tested each of the previous six versions of the Brooks Glycerin line, along with the Brooks Ghost Max and Ghost 15, and many other cushioned shoes from other brands.

Design And Fit

The new Glycerin has had its upper, midsole and outsole updated. Of these I’d say the most important is the 2mm increase in stack height. The Glycerin 21 is 36mm tall at the heel and 26mm at the forefoot for a 10mm drop, and while it’s only 2mm the extra cushioning is notable while running.

The foam used is Brooks’ DNA Loft v3, a nitrogen-infused EVA that offers a good balance of softness and responsiveness. It’s not as squishy as most foams used on cushioned shoes, but still protects the legs well, while being stable and giving a bit back when you run at faster paces. 

Despite adding more foam Brooks has been able to reduce the shoe's weight. The Glycerin 21 weighs 10.2oz/290g in my UK size 9, whereas the Glycerin 20 is 11oz/314g in the same size. Part of this is due to the redesigned upper, which Brooks describes as more streamlined, but it still has a lot of padding around the tongue and collar to provide the high level step-in comfort you expect from the Glycerin line. The shoe fitted well in my usual running shoe size, the same one I’ve used for previous versions of the Glycerin.

There is a new RoadTack rubber outsole on the shoe, which has more exposed foam on the bottom than the Glycerin 20, but all the key impact areas are covered with a thick layer of this rubber and it gripped well for me in wet conditions.

Running Performance

I’ve long been a fan of the Glycerin as a comfortable shoe for easy runs, and the Glycerin 20 went beyond that thanks to the introduction of the nitrogen-infused DNA Loft v3 foam, which made the shoe more versatile and enjoyable for faster running. The Glycerin 21 continues along that road by being lighter than the 20 while adding more foam, which increases its comfort. The ride isn’t particularly bouncy or as soft as other cushioned shoes, but it’s well balanced and works for a range of running.

It’s still a shoe that’s best for easy runs and it excels on long runs in particular. As with the Glycerin 20, my favorite runs in the Glycerin 21 were my longest ones, when the foam provided a resilient and protective base to work against. The 10mm drop and lack of a big rocker mean the ride is traditional and less smooth than more rockered shoes, but the transition from heel to toe isn’t so snappy that your forefoot slaps the ground. The Ghost Max is a more rockered option in the Brooks range that feels smoother, which some runners may prefer.

When I ran faster in the Glycerin 21 it still felt bulky to me so I’d use it in a running shoe rotation with faster shoes, but if you prefer a cushioned shoe for all your runs then it’s a good daily training option. Almost all my runs in the shoe were in wet conditions and the grip from the outsole was reliable even when pounding down hills streaming with water. The thick layer of rubber will also be durable and the DNA Loft v3 foam has a well-earned reputation for retaining its bounce over hundreds of miles, so you can expect the Glycerin 21 to be a long-lasting shoe.

Is The Brooks Glycerin 21 Worth It?

If you like a cushioned daily trainer, the Glycerin 21 is one of the best options. It’s also a great pick for marathon training, and running the race itself if you’re not shooting for as fast a time as possible, because of the way the foam retains bounce and comfort during long runs.

If you want as soft a ride as possible, check out the New Balance Fresh Foam X 1080v13 or Asics Gel-Nimbus 26, although these are not as versatile as the Glycerin 21 and I prefer its feel for long runs even at easy paces. There are cheaper alternatives that do the same job, like the Puma Magnify Nitro 2 and Saucony Ride 17, which are cushioned but still versatile shoes. The Puma Velocity Nitro 3 also has a similar level of cushioning to the Glycerin 21 and is lighter and cheaper, though it’s not as comfortable as the Brooks shoe.

For me, the Glycerin 21 is a more enjoyable shoe to run in at any pace than Brooks’s Ghost 15, which lacks the pop you get from the DNA Loft v3 foam (which will be used in the forthcoming Ghost 16). However, the Ghost Max is a good alternative to the Glycerin 21 if you prefer a smoother, more rockered ride.

The Brooks Hyperion Elite 4 is the most impressive racing shoe Brooks has released so far and an improvement on the underwhelming Hyperon Elite 3. Yet it still suffers in comparison with the best carbon plate running shoes from other brands.

This is mostly down to its midsole foam, which lacks the bouncy, propulsive feeling you get from shoes like the Nike Vaporfly and others. The Hyperion Elite 4 is a fast shoe and more stable than some other super-shoes, but it’s not as fast—and it’s too expensive considering the performance it delivers.

Brooks Hyperion Elite 4: Price And Availability

The Brooks Hyperion Elite 4 launched in January 2024 and costs $250 in the US and £220 in the UK. It’s at the cheaper end of the scale for carbon plate racing shoes, but still expensive, and the price has gone up £30 in the UK compared with the Brooks Hyperion Elite 3.

How I Tested This Running Shoe

I ran 33 miles in the Hyperion Elite 4, using it for two progression runs and a track session during my marathon training. I’ve tested the past three versions of the Hyperion Elite, along with almost all the carbon plate running shoes launched by major brands in the past few years.

Design And Fit

Given the shortcomings of the Hyperion Elite 3, I was hoping for a major update to the design, including a new midsole foam. Brooks has obliged on the latter, but only with an updated version of its nitrogen-infused EVA DNA Flash foam, rather than bringing in a Peba-based foam like those used in most carbon racers.

The DNA Flash v2 foam is lighter and softer than the foam used on previous versions of the shoe, and the Elite 4 is a lot lighter than the Elite 3 in general. The new shoe weighs 7.9oz/224g in a UK size 8.5, while the Elite 3 was 8.8oz/249g in a UK 9. 

Some of that drop in weight is due to the new upper. Instead of the chunky knit used on the Elite 3, the Elite 4 has a breathable woven upper that holds the foot well during fast runs. I used a shoe that is half a size smaller than my usual UK size because I’m often in between a UK 8.5 and a 9, and Brooks shoes often come up a little long for me. I’d say using your usual size will be fine for most runners, but if you’re between sizes I’d go for the smaller one.

An Arris carbon plate runs through the midsole. This has an open lattice design and adds more stiffness to the already fairly firm DNA Flash v2 midsole. There is a large cut-out on the bottom of the midsole to reduce weight. The stack height is 40mm at the heel and 32mm at the forefoot for a drop of 8mm, which is a 5mm rise in stack height on the Hyperion Elite 3.

As with most carbon shoes, the outsole coverage is minimal to help keep the weight down. Most of the forefoot is covered, though there are gaps in the rubber. I found the shoe gripped well in wet conditions.

Running Performance

Brooks was one of the first brands to launch a carbon plate shoe with its Hyperion Elite, which was firm, a bit of a disaster and quickly followed by the Hyperion Elite 2. This was a good shoe at the time, with its lightweight DNA Flash midsole that delivered a fast ride, and though it didn’t match the Nike Vaporfly it was still a viable racing option.

Since then, however, almost every other major brand has adopted a similar style of carbon shoe, with a high stack of a springy Peba-based foam. Instead of doing this, Brooks just changed the upper on the Hyperion Elite 3, which made it a heavier and less effective racing shoe than the Elite 2.

The Hyperion Elite 4 is an improvement, but because Brooks has stuck with an nitrogen-infused EVA foam the ride still lacks the bouncy, propulsive feeling you get from other carbon shoes, as well as their comfort levels. By the end of 10-mile runs the ride had started to feel too firm, and I wouldn’t consider the Elite 4 a marathon racing option for most people.

It is a light and fast shoe, and when I did a track session running three sets of 2K and then 5 x 400m reps, the Elite 4 felt pretty good. The firmer foam is less noticeable on a track and helps to keep turning your feet over at fast paces on short reps. While it’s not going to stop you running fast, the lack of punch is noticeable compared with the best carbon shoes. Running in the Hyperion Elite 4 is harder on the legs than in softer, springier shoes. It also feels harder to sustain fast paces over longer distances. If you’re spending this kind of money on a plated super-shoe that helps you run more efficiently, and thus faster, you simply won’t get the same level of benefit from the Elite 4 as you would from other shoes.

One advantage of the firmer foam is that the Hyperion Elite 4 is more stable than most super-shoes and I’d expect it to be more durable. You can use the Hyperion Elite 4 more frequently in training as a result, and it might be a racing option for some who have found softer super-shoes too wobbly.

Is The Brooks Hyperion Elite 4 Worth It?

The Brooks Hyperion Elite 4 is a fast shoe and the best Brooks running shoe for racing, but it doesn’t reach the standards set by other brands’ carbon shoes. It’s around the same price as excellent racing shoes like the Nike Vaporfly 3, Saucony Endorphin Pro 4 and Asics Metaspeed Sky Paris, and simply doesn’t deliver as fast and propulsive a ride as those shoes.

I rate the Elite 4 more in line with the best super-trainers, like the Saucony Endorphin Speed 4 or Adidas Adizero Boston 12. It feels a little faster than them, but it’s more expensive. Until Brooks updates the midsole foam to use a more dynamic material, it’s hard to see the Hyperion Elite line competing with the best racers.

The Hoka Mach 6 builds upon the fine reputation of the Hoka Mach 5 in being a simple, lightweight daily trainer that can handle a range of training runs. It’s comfortable for easy cruises, but light and poppy enough for when you want to up the pace. The Mach 6 is a great alternative to plated training shoes like the Saucony Endorphin Speed 4 for those who’d rather run plate-free outside of races.

It’s one of the best running shoes and is in competition with the New Balance FuelCell Rebel v4 and Asics Novablast 4 for the title of best daily trainer without a plate. I think the Rebel v4 just edges the battle, but the Mach 6 is more cushioned and some may prefer it for easy runs.

Hoka Mach 6: Price And Availability

The Hoka Mach 6 launched in February 2024 and costs $140 in the US and £140 in the UK, which is the same price as the Hoka Mach 5. It’s similar in price to other daily trainers, and cheaper than super-trainers like the Hoka Mach X, which use plates and foams from the best carbon plate running shoes.

How I Tested This Running Shoe

I’ve run just over 30 miles in the Hoka Mach 6, using it for a variety of training runs including an easy to steady 15-mile progression run finishing at my marathon pace. I have also tested the Mach 4 and Mach 5, and a variety of the best running shoes available from other brands.

Design And Fit

The Hoka Mach 4 and Mach 5 were excellent shoes that stuck to a similar design, with a dual-density midsole with a layer of Supercritical EVA foam on top and a standard EVA foam on the bottom—with this bottom layer also acting as the outsole since there was no rubber on the underside of either shoe.

Hoka has made significant updates to the design of the Mach 6, which now has a single-layer midsole that’s made from Supercritical EVA, and a rubber outsole, which adds weight but should improve the durability and grip of the shoe. Even with the outsole the Mach 6 is a lightweight shoe at 8.2oz/233g in my UK size 9. That’s a slight gain in weight on the Mach 5, but just a few grams, which is a fair exchange for a rubber outsole.

The Mach 6 has a drop of 5mm: The men’s shoe has a stack of 37mm at the heel and 32mm at the forefoot, and the women’s has 35mm at the heel and 30mm at the forefoot. That’s a lot of cushioning for such a light shoe, which is the benefit of making the midsole from the lightweight Supercritical EVA foam.

I found the shoe fitted well in my usual running shoe size, but that’s because I have a narrow foot. As with many Hoka shoes, the Mach 6 might be a bit tight around the midfoot and forefoot if you have a wide foot. The creel jacquard mesh upper is comfortable and breathable, with padding around the collar of the shoe to cradle the back of the foot.

Running Performance

I’ve been a big fan of the past two versions of the Hoka Mach, with the Mach 4 and 5 offering versatility and a natural feel. By that I mean they were shoes that it was easy to forget about while running—they rolled along nicely at easy or fast paces without intruding on my thoughts.

The Mach 6 retains that admirable characteristic. It’s comfortable from the moment you pull it on and, whatever pace you’re running at, it provides a smooth ride. It’s not as explosively bouncy or propulsive as a plated shoe, but the new midsole set-up has spring in it, and the rockered shape of the shoe helps move you through your footstrike and up onto your toes.

Since it’s so light, picking up the pace feels good in the Mach 6, especially for short bursts. On my longest run I did the last five miles of a 15-mile run at sub-6min/mile pace, speeding up to around 5min 40sec/mile for the last three. While holding those paces is easier to do in a plated shoe like the Saucony Endorphin Speed 4, the Mach 6 still feels good for them, and it’s more comfortable for easy runs.

I did a couple of relaxed recovery runs and it was comfortable and stable at slow paces. It’s a shoe you can tackle almost all of your training in, and would also make a great marathon racing option if you don’t want to use a plated shoe. That said, based on performance alone I’d prefer to use a faster plated shoe for key workouts and races.

Is The Hoka Mach 6 Worth It?

The Mach 6 is a good daily trainer, offering the perfect blend of comfort and speed and certainly an option for a running shoe rotation. That’s especially apt if you prefer to train in non-plated shoes, since the Mach 6 is one of the fastest and most enjoyable plate-free options, rivaled only by the FuelCell Rebel v4. The Rebel has more bounce and is lighter still than the Mach, but the Mach is more cushioned for easy runs,

Within Hoka’s line-up the Hoka Mach X is the plated super-trainer that you could use for the same kind of runs as the Mach 6. I prefer the feel of the Mach 6, and it’s lighter and cheaper, and so gets my vote over the Mach X. The Hoka Clifton 9 is a more cushioned and less speedy Hoka option for those who find the Mach 6 too speed-focused, though I’d prefer to be in the Mach over the Clifton.

If you are happy to use plated shoes in training then the Saucony Endorphin Speed 4 and Adidas Adizero Boston 12 are among the best running shoes with regards to versatility. They have a more propulsive feel than the Mach 6 and are better for holding fast paces, and also comfortable for easy pace runs—though the Mach 6 feels more cushioned for those.

The Saucony Peregrine line has been a fixture on my round-ups of the best trail-running shoes, and the Peregrine 14 lives up to the high standards of its predecessors by being an excellent off-road shoe that’s comfortable on a variety of terrains. However, it’s also similar to the Peregrine 13, so the better value is to be found in hunting for a deal on the older shoe. 

Saucony Peregrine 14: Price And Availability

The Saucony Peregrine 14 launched in February 2024 and costs $140 in the US and £135 in the UK. That’s the same price as the Peregrine 13 in the US, but a £5 rise in the UK. There is also a Gore-Tex version of the shoe with a waterproof upper that costs $160/£155.

How I Tested This Running Shoe

I’ve run 35 miles in the Peregrine 14, mostly on muddy forest tracks and grass, with stints on harder, gravel trails and the road. I have also tested several past versions of the Peregrine, including the Peregrine 12 and Peregrine 13 GTX, as well as a range of the best trail-running shoes from other brands.

Design And Fit

The main changes to the Peregrine 14 are all in the upper, which has a more comfortable tongue and has been tweaked to offer better debris protection. I tested the Gore-Tex version of the Peregrine 13 so can’t precisely compare the uppers between the generations, but it doesn’t seem like an alteration that will make a huge change to many runners. 

It’s a good upper and the fit was comfortable and secure in my usual running shoe size—the same I’ve used for several generations of the Peregrine. A toe bumper protects the foot from inadvertent contact with roots and rocks, and the padding around the collar and tongue is comfortable and helps to hold the foot in place when pounding down hills.

As with the Peregrine 13, the 14 has a midsole made from Saucony’s PWRRUN foam, with a PWRRUN+ sockliner that’s softer and bouncier than the midsole foam. Saucony says the PWRRUN foam on the 14 is softer to increase the comfort of the new shoe on long runs. The stack height is 28mm at the heel and 24mm at the forefoot for a 4mm drop, which is enough cushioning for longer runs while allowing you to feel nimble on zigzag trails. There is a rock plate under the midsole to protect the foot on rocky trails.

The Peregrine 14 weighs 10.4oz/295g in my UK size 9, which isn’t especially light, though it’s  not heavy—especially considering the 5mm chevron lugs on the PWRTRAC outsole. These bite well into soft ground and also stick well to harder surfaces, even in the wet. They are the key to the Peregrine 14’s all-terrain versatility.

Running Performance

I’ve long heralded the Peregrine as an all-round trail shoe that can handle the bogs seen on many trails during the British winter. This remains true for the Peregrine 14. It’s also comfortable on harder, dry ground and rocky trails, and the outsole grips well on soft stuff, even when the mud is deep.

During testing the Peregrine 14’s outsole also shed mud pretty well during runs, which is important in maintaining good grip and not getting too heavy by picking up chunks of mud. I’d opt for a more mud-focused shoe with 8mm studs for fell running or cross-country—when you’ll spend almost your entire time on grass and mud— but the Peregrine 14 handles most soft ground you’re likely to come across on runs, and is more comfortable and grips better on hard trails.

My longest session in the shoe was a 90-minute easy run on forest trails, covering around 12 miles at the end of a big week of marathon training. The shoe was comfortable throughout, and I’ve found it protects the legs well on recovery runs the day after a workout, but I don’t think it’s notably softer than the Peregrine 13. If you’re lining up long trail runs like ultramarathons, then the more cushioned feel of some shoes, like the Saucony Xodus Ultra 2, may be preferable.

The Peregrine 14 is a pretty nimble shoe that feels lighter than its weight when running fast down hills or along twisty single-track paths. It’s not light enough that I’d use it for short trail races, when I’d prefer a shoe like the Inov-8 Mudtalon Speed, but for longer events on mixed terrain the Peregrine 14 is a good trail-racing option.

Is The Saucony Peregrine 14 Worth It?

The Peregrine is an easy shoe to recommend to people looking for a general trail shoe, and indeed it’s the one I most often suggest to friends and family when they ask for a tip. It can handle mud and frozen ground in winter, and is comfortable on hard and dry trails.

It’s also a shoe that’s often in sales, especially if you opt for an older version, which is what I’d do right now. The Peregrine 14 is an outstanding trail shoe but similar to the Peregrine 13, which is being widely discounted at the time of writing.

Other good all-round trail shoes include the Saucony Xodus Ultra 2, which is more cushioned and bouncy than the Peregrine, and the Puma Voyage Nitro 3, another comfortable and good-value shoe with an outsole that can handle most trails.

The Saucony Guide 17 is one of the best stability running shoes thanks to its comfortable, wide design, which supports without feeling overbearing. The shoe provides a smooth, cushioned ride that works best for easy runs, but there is versatility too, and the Guide 17 is a good daily trainer for those who need stability.

Saucony Guide 17: Price And Availability

The Saucony Guide 17 launched in February 2024 and costs $140 in the US and £135 in the UK. It’s the stability version of the Saucony Ride 17, which is a neutral shoe, and is cheaper than some of the top stability shoes, such as the Asics Gel-Kayano 30.

How I Tested This Running Shoe

I’ve run about 30 miles in the Guide 17, using it mostly for easy runs during my marathon training, as well as for warm-up and warm-downs before and after workouts. I have run in the Ride 16 and tested other stability shoes, and though I’m a neutral runner I appreciate the extra support at times, especially during the high-mileage weeks I logged while testing the Guide 17.

Design And Fit

The Guide 17 looks a lot like the Guide 16 on paper, with the same PWRRUN foam in the midsole and similar stack height and weight. However, Saucony has made a series of updates to the shoe that really change how it feels while running.

Instead of traditional stability elements—like a plastic insert on the medial side, which the Guide 16 used—the Guide 17 aims for stability through Saucony’s CenterPath Technology. This means features like a wider base than the Guide 16 and sidewalls of foam that help guide your foot into a neutral position when running. The drop has also been lowered from 8mm on the Guide 16 to 6mm, with a stack height of 35mm at the heel and 29mm at the forefoot. The lower drop and rocker profile helps to roll you through your foot strike smoothly.

Despite the wider design and an increase in stack height under the forefoot, the Guide 17 is a similar weight to the Guide 16. At 10.4oz/295g in my UK size 9, the Guide 17 is lighter than many stability shoes. Part of that is based on the minimal rubber coverage on the outsole. There is rubber at the heel and around the edge of the forefoot, but there’s a lot of exposed foam on the base. This didn’t negatively affect grip during testing, but may reduce durability, especially if you take the shoe on gravelly tracks or light trails.

The upper is padded enough around the tongue and collar to feel comfortable without being oppressive, and I found the Guide 17 fitted well in my usual running shoe size. There is a PWRRUN+ foam sockliner that is softer and bouncier than the PWRRUN midsole foam underneath, which also creates a more comfortable step-in feel.

Running Performance

The Guide 17 is a supportive cruiser. I found it just the ticket for easy and recovery runs during marathon training. Although it’s quite a big and wide shoe, the ride was smooth and the stability elements weren’t intrusive. It lives up to its name by guiding the foot into a neutral position by providing support on all sides, rather than using medial posting or a similar method to prevent overpronation.

I’d use the shoe in a running shoe rotation as an easy-day option because I prefer lighter shoes for tempo runs or speedwork, but the Guide 17 could be used as an all-rounder if you want a highly cushioned ride on every run. It’s not that heavy, and the rockered ride helps when picking up the pace.

The 2mm decrease in drop, compared with the Guide 16, is more noticeable than I expected. The Guide 16 provided a snappier ride that was firmer, whereas the Guide 17 felt smoother and notably more cushioned even though both shoes have similar amounts of foam underfoot; the Guide 16 also has a 35mm stack at the heel, which drops to 27mm at the forefoot.

Overall, the changes have improved the shoe’s running performance, though some may find the firmer feel of the Guide 16 makes it a more versatile daily trainer. The Guide 17 is more a cushioned cruiser, but I’d say the changes will appeal to fans of the Guide line, and might win over some new ones. Even as a neutral runner the support you get is appreciated at times, and the wider base means the Guide 17 feels as stable as the Guide 16.

Is The Saucony Guide 17 Worth It?

The Guide 17 is a good cushioned daily trainer for those who want extra support, and plays its part well as a more supportive counterpart to the Ride 17. The Ride 17 has a more responsive midsole, made entirely of PWRRUN+ foam, and is more versatile, but I found the Guide 17 had a smoother, more comfortable feel.

The shoe will work best in rotation with a faster option, such as the Saucony Tempus, which also has a stable design, though the Guide 17 also works as an all-rounder for newer runners who want a stable shoe. 

The Asics Gel-Kayano 30 is another option for those seeking a cushioned stability shoe and it has more foam underfoot for those seeking maximum comfort and protection on the run, but the Kayno is more expensive and less versatile than the Guide 17.

It took time for Hoka to launch a competitive modern racing shoe, but now it has two: the Cielo X1 and Rocket X 2. Both are among the best carbon plate running shoes, with the Cielo X1 offering more bounce and protection for longer events than the Rocket X2, which is lighter and nimbler.

The Cielo X1’s weight will put off some runners, but I was blown away with its performance. It’s springy, fun and fast, and doesn’t feel like a heavy shoe when running. It’s one of the best marathon running shoes too, competing with top options like the Nike Alphafly 3.

Hoka Cielo X1: Price And Availability

The Hoka Cielo X1 launched in February 2024 and costs $275 in the US and £250, making it Hoka’s most expensive carbon shoe, with the Rocket X 2 priced at $250/£220. The price is on par for top super-shoes though, and still shy of the $285/£285 the Alphafly 3 costs.

How I Tested This Running Shoe

I’ve run 37 miles in the Cielo X1, including a long track workout running 15 x 1km reps and a 24-mile long run as part of my marathon training. I have also tested the Hoka Rocket X 2, plus all the Carbon X line of shoes, and most of the best carbon plate running shoes.

Design And Fit

The Cielo X1 certainly looks the part of a super-shoe, with its decoupled midsole and aggressive rocker showing off the fact it’s built for speed. The midsole is made from two layers of a bouncy Peba-based foam, with a winged carbon plate sandwiched between them. The shoe has a drop of 7mm and stack height of 39mm at the heel and 32mm at the forefoot for the men’s shoe, and 37mm at the heel and 30mm at the forefoot in the women’s.

There are several cut-outs in the midsole to reduce weight, but the Cielo X1 is still heavy for a super-shoe, weighing 8.9oz/253g in my UK size 9. That’s around the same as the Puma Fast-R 2 Nitro Elite, but heavier than the other new super-shoes I’ve tested this year like the Nike Alphafly 3 and New Balance FuelCell SC Elite v4, while the Rocket X 2 is 7.9oz/225g.

The Cielo X1 has a knit upper with a partially gusseted tongue, and I found it fitted in my usual running shoe size, with a secure but comfortable hold around the heel and midfoot for fast running. This is despite the laces, which are made from a strange and stiff material that makes them hard to tie. The odd material made me concerned the laces would come undone during runs, but it hasn’t happened yet—after they were triple-knotted.

Aside from the cut-outs that show off the carbon plate, the bottom of the shoe is covered with a rubber outsole that has gripped well on my runs, including on a wet track and an all-weather path with muddy patches.

Running Performance

My first run in the Cielo X1 was the hardest workout of my London Marathon training block so far: three sets of 5 x 1km reps with a 100m jog recovery. The first set was done at 3min 30sec/km, my marathon pace, the second at 3min 20sec/km, and the third at 3min 10sec/km.

It was a great chance to judge the Cielo X1 at different speeds, and at marathon pace it felt amazing, with a bouncy ride that helped me cruise through the reps with a lower perceived effort than most shoes. That’s what I expected given the shoe’s marathon focus, but it also felt good for the faster reps, including the all-out reps in the final set of five. I thought the Cielo X1 would be cumbersome for those, but it felt nimbler on the foot than anticipated. It wouldn’t be my first pick for a 5K or 10K race—it’s not as agile and light as others—but it’s still fast over short distances thanks to its propulsive ride.

Where it really shone was on a progressive 24-mile training run, moving from easy pace to around 5min 45sec/mile for the final three miles. Even at easy paces the shoe felt comfortable and natural thanks to the rocker, and it only feels better as you speed up, with extra bounce and a faster transition onto your forefoot.

It also protects the legs well, and I felt reasonably fresh at the end of the 24-miler and bounced back to run the next day with minimal soreness. It’s better on this front than the Rocket X 2, which is still a great carbon shoe but less protective and bouncy by the end of long runs.

Is The Hoka Cielo X1 Worth It?

I didn’t expect to love the Cielo X1 as much as I did. I rate it as one of the best marathon running shoes, providing stiff competition to the Nike Alphafly 3, which I currently have as the best carbon racer overall. The Hoka is bouncy and protects the legs brilliantly while still providing a fast ride.

The weight does stick in the mind, though, and I don’t think it’s as well-rounded a racer as the Alphafly for shorter events. However, once you start running in the Cielo X1 it doesn’t feel heavy, and I wouldn’t be deterred from picking it for longer events.

I think it’s Hoka’s best carbon shoe yet, though those who prefer a lighter and more grounded shoe—and who mainly stick to shorter events—will probably prefer the Rocket X 2, which is cheaper and still a good long-distance option.

The Bose Ultra Open Earbuds are my new favorite running headphones and are among the best workout headphones for any type of exercise. The innovative design creates a fit that’s secure for vigorous workouts without being uncomfortable, and the sound quality is better than any other open or bone-conduction buds I’ve tried.

They won’t suit everyone, because the open design means you don’t get any kind of noise cancellation in loud environments, and that limits their use outside of workouts. The price will also be a stumbling block for many because the Ultra Open Earbuds are more expensive than many excellent sets of in-ear buds.

Bose Ultra Open Earbuds: Price And Availability

The Bose Ultra Open Earbuds launched in February 2024 and cost $299 in the US and £299.95 in the UK. That’s the same price as Bose’s top in-ear headphones, the QuietComfort Ultra, and more than the Apple AirPods Pro 2 and Bose QuietComfort Earbuds II, as well as being more expensive than other top open headphones, such as the Shokz OpenFit and Cleer Arc II.

How I Tested These Headphones

I tested the Ultra Open Earbuds for two weeks, using them for a variety of workouts but mainly running, since I’m in the middle of a marathon training block for the London Marathon. I have also tested the Bose Sport Earbuds and Bose QC Earbuds II, as well as a range of the best workout headphones from other brands.

Design, Controls And Fit

The Ultra Open Earbuds have an innovative design with a hook that sits in the ear and a barrel that you pull back and wrap around the back of the ear. This clasps the bud in place, and then you can adjust the angle of the speaker to get it into the perfect spot near the ear canal.

Initially, I worried it would be tricky to get the earbuds in exactly the right spot to get the best sound, but they settled in the perfect place naturally, with the speaker hooked in and the barrel wrapping around the ear at an angle. The fit proved to be superb. 

The buds don’t put unwelcome pressure on the ears so you can wear them for hours without discomfort and they stayed securely in place during runs, strength workouts and yoga sessions. I barely felt them during my workouts, including a 2½-hour run, and they fitted well alongside hats and glasses because they don’t go over the top of the ear like most hook-style buds.

Though they aren’t waterproof, the Ultra Open Earbuds have an IPX4 rating, which means they are water- and sweat-resistant. I’ve used other IPX4 buds for years of rainy and sweaty workouts without problems, so don’t expect durability to be an issue, but some other sports headphones are fully waterproof.

Each bud has a button on top of the barrel that sits behind the ear that you can use to control playback and switch between the stereo and immersion sound modes. You can’t turn the buds off with the buttons, though, but have to put them back in the case. The buttons are easy to use during workouts, and I preferred them to the touch controls on the Bose QC Earbuds II.

Sound Quality And Immersion Mode

The main drawback of open headphones compared with in-ear buds is sound quality. The extra awareness you gain from the open design comes at the cost of the passive and/or active noise cancellation (ANC) and more powerful bass you get from in-ear headphones.

However, open headphones are getting better and the Ultra Open Earbuds sound excellent. In quiet environments they’re the match of in-ear buds for overall sound, offering clarity and warmth in the upper ranges and enough punch with the bass. You can also adjust the EQ in the app to increase the bass. 

The buds still don’t deliver as much power as the best in-ear buds for bass, but on tracks like Massive Attack’s “Angel” the Ultra Open headphones were powerful enough that I didn’t miss in-ear buds. The sound was also enjoyable when running outdoors, even in windy environments such as at running tracks. The headphones won’t be drowned out by traffic when running by busy roads, while still giving you an awareness of your surroundings.

However, I missed the noise cancellation you get from in-ear buds when traveling, especially in noisy spots like on the London Underground when it’s hard to hear music and podcasts. It means that the Ultra Open Earbuds have less appeal as lifestyle/sports cross-over buds, though this will depend on your lifestyle. I don’t go into the office or travel much, so the more comfortable open design is preferable for me most of the time.

The Ultra Open Earbuds have Bose’s immersive audio mode, which is its spatial audio setting. It’s designed to make it sound like your music is coming from in front of you and add depth and realism to the sound. There are two settings, still and motion—the latter is better if you are turning your head a lot—and you can also turn it off and use stereo mode for more traditional sound.

At times the immersive audio sounded better to me, especially with soaring tracks from bands like Beach House, but it’s not a big difference and reduces battery life from 7½ hours to 4½ hours. On most tracks I didn’t notice an improvement in sound, and after using it a lot at first I now leave the immersive audio off to preserve battery life.

Battery Life

The Ultra Open Earbuds last 7½ hours on a charge, which drops to 4½ hours if using the immersive audio mode. The case adds up to 19½ hours of battery for a total of 27 hours in stereo mode, and 16½ hours in immersive mode. A quick-charge feature means you get two hours of playback on the buds from 10 minutes in the case.

I found that the headphones lived up to their listed battery life and while they’re not exceptionally long-lasting, with even smaller buds like the Jabra Elite 8 Active lasting longer on a charge, the 7½ hours with the immersive audio off is good and they do charge quickly in the case.

Are The Bose Ultra Open Earbuds Worth It?

Can $300/£300 open headphones ever be worth it? Perhaps that’s a valid question because they are, by design, not ideal for traveling and other loud environments, so you may need another set of in-ear or over-ear buds as well for those situations.

However, open headphones are brilliant for lots of other settings, especially workouts, and the Ultra Open Earbuds are the best open headphones I’ve used. They’re now my preferred running headphones, replacing the Shokz OpenRun bone-conduction buds because of the better sound quality and fit.

Compared with the best workout headphones with in-ear designs, like the Jabra Elite 8 Active and Apple AirPods Pro 2, you pay more for the Ultra Open Earbuds, which don’t bring benefits like ANC. If you’re buying one set of headphones for everything then the best in-ear buds, which also have transparency modes for more awareness, are a more practical choice. But the Ultra Open Earbuds undoubtedly deliver a better experience during workouts thanks to the excellent fit and open design.

The Saucony Endorphin Speed was launched as a fast training shoe, but quickly became established as one of the best running shoes and one of the most versatile, thanks to its comfortable, speedy ride. Given its popularity, Saucony has mainly stuck to a similar design with subsequent editions of the shoe, and that is still true of the Endorphin Speed 4.

There are updates to the shoe, though, and these have made the ride better at fast paces and improved its grip and fit. Picking up the Endorphin Speed 3 in a sale is still a good option, but the Endorphin Speed 4 is now the shoe to beat for runners looking for a versatile daily trainer.

Saucony Endorphin Speed 4: Price And Availability

The Saucony Endorphin Speed 4 launched in February 2024 and costs $170 from Saucony US (men’s | women’s) and £180 in from Saucony UK. That’s the same price as the Endorphin Speed 3 in the US, but in the UK it’s a £15 price rise. It’s far from a cheap shoe but the price is in line with the best super-trainers from other brands.

How I Tested This Running Shoe

I’ve run just over 30 miles in the Endorphin Speed 4, using it for a mix of fast and slow training runs. I have reviewed all past editions of the shoe, racking up more than 300 miles in the original, as well as a range of the best running shoes from other brands.

Design And Fit

As with each of the three generations of the shoe, the Endorphin Speed 4 has a midsole made from Saucony’s Peba-based PWRRUN PB foam. This is not as soft and springy as some Peba-based foams used by other brands, but still delivers a responsive and comfortable ride, with a Speedroll rocker that helps move you onto your forefoot quickly.

The stack height of the shoe is the same as the Endorphin Speed 3: 36mm at the heel and 28mm at the forefoot for an 8mm drop. This is lower than the stack of the Saucony Endorphin Pro 4 carbon racer, and the Speed sometimes feels less comfortable under the forefoot than higher stack super-trainers and racing shoes.

There is a winged nylon plate running through the midsole to add propulsion without being as stiff and hard as a carbon plate. Saucony has also brought in a new sockliner with the Endorphin Speed 4, which is meant to be bouncier than the sockliners on previous versions of the shoe.

By my measurements, the Endorphin Speed 4 has a wider base than the Endorphin Speed 3 through the heel, midfoot and forefoot. Saucony has added some sculpting to the back of the midsole foam and overall the updates have made the new shoe heavier than the Speed 3. The Speed 4 weighs 9oz/255g in my UK size 9, whereas the Speed 3 is 8.5oz/240g.

One change Saucony made with the Speed 3 was a wider design and fit than the Speed 2. I found it a little too wide. The mesh upper on the Speed 4 has more of a locked-down fit and I haven’t had any heel-rubbing with the shoe, which I experienced with the Speed 3. I’d stick to your usual running shoe size with the Speed 4.

The outsole has been redesigned with a lattice pattern on the rubber that covers the forefoot and heel sections, and this has improved the grip of the shoe. I’ve run in torrential rain without slipping on paved surfaces in the Speed 4.

Running Performance

I’ve been a fan of the Endorphin Speed line since its launch and when the Speed 4 landed it slipped straight into my running shoe rotation as the perfect daily trainer for my marathon training. I’ve used it for several longish runs, including a steady hour running just over 10 miles, plus an easy recovery run done the day after a hard workout. It felt great for pretty much everything.

When running faster, the reshaped midsole felt snappier and quicker at moving you onto your toes than the Speed 3, but the Speed 4 remained comfortable and felt natural at slow paces too. The Speedroll rocker is the key feature of the shoe because the Speed 4 is not a particularly bouncy super-trainer. Its speed comes from the smooth, rockered ride, which helps you to keep turning your feet over quickly, with some pop added to your toe-off by the nylon plate.

As with the Speed 3, I got forefoot discomfort on longer fast runs in the Speed 4, which I didn’t get with the Endorphin Pro 4, which has more foam in the midsole. The Speed 4 is by no means uncomfortable, but it is lower-stacked than many super-trainers these days, especially under the forefoot. That gives the shoe a more grounded feel and helps with stability. The Speed 4 isn’t a stable shoe but it’s not as wobbly as 40mm-high carbon racers or training shoes with softer foams in the midsole.

Is The Saucony Endorphin Speed 4 Worth It?

The Endorphin Speed 4 is the best all-round running shoe, though only a small upgrade on the Endorphin Speed 3, so that remains a good option if you see it in sales. The only other shoes I’ve found that come close to the Speed’s versatility are the Adidas Adizero Boston 12—which is more speed-focused and let down by its uncomfortable upper—and the Asics Superblast, which is wildly expensive but lots of fun.

For daily training, the Puma Deviate NItro 2 is another great plated option. While it’s heavier and not quite as fast or comfortable as the Speed 4, it has a better outsole that grips well in wet conditions. 

For those looking for a cheaper alternative, or who don’t want to use a plate for daily training, the New Balance FuelCell Rebel v4 is an excellent, lightweight all-rounder. It doesn’t have the propulsive feel of the Speed 4 when doing long fast runs, but is more comfortable and stable for easy runs while still good for intervals as well.

Without too much fanfare, Reebok has been making some of the best-value running shoes of recent years with its Floatride Energy line. The latest generation of the shoe—the Floatride Energy 5—is versatile, durable and a lot cheaper than many rivals.

The Floatride Energy foam from that line is now being used in the Reebok FloatZig 1, a striking new running shoe that aims to marry the performance of the Floatride Energy shoes with the looks of the Reebok Zig. As a good-looking shoe that feels fine to run in, the FloatZig 1 can be considered a modest success, but there are many better daily trainers, and I still prefer the Floatride Energy 5, which is cheaper.

Reebok FloatZig 1: Price And Availability

The Reebok FloatZig 1 launched in March 2024 and costs $130 in the US and £120 in the UK. It’s inexpensive for a running shoe, though notably more expensive than the Reebok Floatride Energy 5, which is $110/£85 and one of the best-value running shoes available.

How I Tested This Running Shoe

I’ve run 30 miles in the FloatZig 1, using it for a variety of training runs. I have also tested the past three versions of the Floatride Energy line, along with a variety of the best running shoes from other brands.

Design And Fit

The zigzag design of the midsole is the most eye-catching feature on the FloatZig 1. The Zig shape isn’t just for looks, as the intention is to deliver more energy return from the Floatride Energy foam, which has proven a durable and responsive material in other Reebok shoes I’ve tested.

It’s 31mm tall at the heel and 25mm at the forefoot, for a 6mm drop, making the FloatZig 1 a fairly low-stacked shoe by current standards—which means its weight of 10.2oz/289g in a UK size 8.5 seemed surprisingly high, especially as the Floatride Energy 5 is 9oz/256g in the same size. 

The shoe has a full-length carbon rubber outsole with one large cut-out at the rear of the midfoot that is, unfortunately, the ideal size to catch and hold large stones. The rubber outsole gripped well during runs on slick paved surfaces and, like the midsole foam, it seems built to last.

The mesh upper has a reinforced section around the midfoot that uses stiff material. There is padding on the tongue and at the back of the collar of the shoe, but I found the collar was stiff and uncomfortable at times. I also had to heel-lock the shoe to stop my foot moving around in it. I was wearing a half size down on my usual UK size with the FloatZig 1 and it fitted well for length; it's a pretty roomy shoe, so going half a size down is my advice. 

The FloatZig 1’s design is a big part of its appeal. To me, it’s a great-looking and distinctive shoe that will be worn as much when not running. Unless you get yours covered in mud, like I did when I made a poor route choice on one of my early runs in the shoe.

Running Performance

The FloatZig 1 is a versatile daily trainer. It doesn’t excel at any one kind of run, but can be used for a variety of them successfully. It’s not the most cushioned shoe but isn’t uncomfortable for plodding around short runs at an easy pace. It’s not the lightest and liveliest either, but you can do faster runs in it.

However, it is a dull experience underfoot. The Floatride Energy foam is well balanced, in that it’s not too soft or too hard, and the FloatZig 1 is a stable shoe, but it doesn’t have much bounce. The Floatride Energy 5 relied on being lightweight to increase its versatility, especially for faster efforts, but the FloatZig 1 is, and feels, bigger and heavier on the foot.

It’s not a shoe I enjoyed running in at faster paces, and for long easy runs the FloatZig 1 isn’t as cushioned as I’d like—especially during high-mileage weeks of marathon training. Over shorter distances it’s more reliable and if you stick to runs of around 5-10K, at a mix of paces, the FloatZig 1 will do a good job, while also being a good-looking option to wear outside of running.

Is The Reebok FloatZig 1 Worth It?

The FloatZig 1 is only going to be worth it if you value its looks highly, because as a running shoe it’s just OK—and there are better options available for around its price or less. The Puma Velocity Nitro 3 is more comfortable, bouncy and a superior running shoe on every front, as is the New Balance Rebel v4, which is lighter and more fun to run in at any pace.

The FloatZig 1 is a serviceable running shoe with a great design, and I think it will last a long time as well, but I hope Reebok continues with its traditional Floatride Energy line of shoes alongside the FloatZig. I rate the Floatride Energy 5 as a better all-round shoe than the FloatZig 1, and it’s now available for half the price of the FloatZig in sales.

The Technogym Run is an impressive machine and one of the best treadmills you can get, as long as neither its size or price put you off. You can get more compact machines that offer better value for home use, including the Technogym MyRun treadmill or Bowflex Treadmill 10, but if you simply want the best machine the Technogym Run is hard to look past.

Technogym Run: Price And Availability

The Technogym Run treadmill launched in spring 2023 and costs $11,850 in the US and £9,480 in the UK. This makes it one of the most expensive home treadmills, and the priciest that I’ve tested. The Technogym MyRun is a cheaper option in the range at $4,650/£3,450.

How I Tested This Treadmill

I tested the Technogym Run for two weeks, doing six runs on it during that time as part of my usual training: I’m a keen runner and was logging 60-70 miles a week while marathon training at the time of the review. I’ve also tested the Technogym MyRun treadmill, as well as the Peloton Tread and a range of the best treadmills for home use.

The Treadmill

The Run is a large machine that doesn’t fold. It measures 78in x 33in x 69in (LxWxH; 197cm x 83.5cm x 175cm) and has a 68in x 20in (172cm x 51cm) slatted running belt. This belt is raised off the floor, and you need clearance in the room where you use the machine. Technogym suggests a ceiling height of a user height plus 23in (59cm) to be safe. The max user weight is 353lb/160kg.

There are paddles at the front on either side of the machine that are used to change speed and incline quickly, and bars to hold when using the sled push function. The Run has a speed range of 0.1mph-15.5mph, which is a higher top speed than most home machines. It has an incline range of 0%-15%. It doesn’t offer a downhill incline setting, unlike some home treadmills from other brands.

A 27in HD touchscreen is on the front of the machine. In the main, this is what’s used to control it. The screen is huge and when running it creates an immersive experience, whether you’re following a guided workout, enjoying a scenic run or using apps like Netflix or YouTube.

The large running area, slatted belt and open front makes running feel natural. With most treadmills I’ve tested, I usually feel a difference in the feel and intensity of indoor running vs outdoors, but to me the Run feels like a more realistic equivalent of outdoor running with regards to effort and feel. The machine changes speed and incline quickly during interval workouts, and runs smoothly and quietly at higher speeds. You can also do sled-push exercises on it, leaning forward and holding the front bars and pushing against resistance on the belt. It can mimic weights of up to 121lb/55kg.

External devices, such as heart rate monitors, can be connected to the treadmill via Bluetooth and ANT+. It’s also possible to control external devices, like laptops or iPads, running apps such as Zwift. You can even plug a device in through an HDMI port on the back of the screen or use a Google Chromecast to mirror devices on the Run screen. You can use this to run Zwift on the treadmill’s screen, for example. A strong Wi-Fi connection is required to run some of the content smoothly on the treadmill’s screen, which may affect where you place the machine in your house. 

There’s nothing to fault with the hardware on the treadmill, as you’d expect from gym-standard equipment at this price. It runs like a dream and is likely to be better than the treadmill at your gym—unless it has its own Technogym Run.

The App

Brillant hardware is just half the story with the best treadmills these days, and the success of the Run is heavily dependent on the Technogym app. You can log in to your account on the machine by holding your phone near the NFC sensor on the console, or scan a QR code. 

There’s no need to log in to use most of the features, but for the best experience it’s worth linking an account. The treadmill uses your personal information to judge stats like calories, and you can see your workout history and sync training sessions to other apps, like Strava. There are four broad categories of entertainment available in the app: guided workouts, scenic runs, links to third-party apps, and links to streaming apps such as Netflix.

The guided workout category is extensive. It includes trainer-led sessions that can focus on running or incorporate the sled feature on the machine—so you can swap between running and pushing for a varied workout. There are also workouts to follow off the machine, like strength training and yoga. I still rate the guided class on the Peloton Tread as the best I’ve tried, but the Technogym sessions are excellent too. There are many options and the instructors are motivating.

The routines section of the app has guided workouts that can run in the background, so you can fire one up to follow, with the incline and speed changing automatically (you can also adjust them manually), while watching another app or a scenic run. You can create a custom routine if you have a training plan you’re following and want to do the workout on the treadmill. 

There are instructions that pop up when there’s a change in incline or speed, so you know it’s happening even if you’re using another app. The routines section contains a lot of workouts and it’s easy to tailor them to the time you have available, your fitness goals and your fitness level. You can even set up a customized training plan in the app for a 5K, 10K or half marathon.

The guided workouts are a big part of the Run’s appeal and you get an impressive library of them with a free account. You can unlock even more classes with a Technogym Plus subscription for $8.99/£8.99 a month, though I don’t think it’s a necessary addition given the amount of content you get without the subscription. It’s not the same as with the Peloton Tread, which is a basic machine with a simple running mode unless you have a Peloton subscription.

I have a training plan that’s set by my coach so I don’t use guided workouts on treadmills much beyond testing them out. As a result, the other entertainment options on the Run suited me better. The scenic runs are spectacular on the 27in screen, and there are some that use automatic incline changes to mirror the landscape you’re running on.

I’m a fan of using Zwift when on a treadmill because I find watching my avatar running through a virtual world engaging. I linked the Run to Zwift on my iPad for some runs, leaving the treadmill’s screen free to show workouts, scenic runs or YouTube, and did one run with Zwift mirrored from my laptop to the treadmill screen through an HDMI cable, which worked well.

The Technogym app is packed with entertainment that makes running on the treadmill fly by. On one evening run I had Zwift on the iPad with a scenic run and then YouTube on the treadmill screen. It’s a long way from my early days of treadmill testing, when mostly I stared at a brick wall.

Is The Technogym Run Worth It?

If price isn’t a concern, the Technogym Run is comfortably the best treadmill I’ve tested. It feels natural and comfortable to run on, and the software is without equal in the depth and range of entertainment available to help your runs pass by. 

However, if you’re at all concerned by the price of the Run, then it isn’t worth it. This is because you can get superb home treadmills for a lot less, like the Technogym MyRun, Bowflex Treadmill 10 or Peloton Tread. The Wahoo Kickr Run treadmill, which is due to launch in summer 2024, will be half the price of the Technogym Run and has the ability to adjust its speed based on how you’re running, making it another intriguing, cheaper option to consider.

The Saucony Endorphin Pro 3 was one of the best carbon plate running shoes, but after Saucony followed it with the Endorphin Elite—a more aggressive and expensive racing shoe—it’s easy to now see the Pro as a second-tier racing option. I think this would be a mistake. 

The Saucony Endorphin Pro 4 is an excellent racing shoe and while its ride is not as bouncy as some shoes, it’s still quick—and I think it will work well for a wider range of runners than many other super-shoes, including the Saucony Endorphin Elite.

Saucony Endorphin Pro 4: Price And Availability

The Saucony Endorphin Pro 4 launched in February 2024 and costs $225 from Saucony US and £230 from Saucony UK. That’s the same price in the US as the Endorphin Pro 3, but a £20 rise in the UK. Even with that rise, the Endorphin Pro 4 is cheaper than most carbon plate running shoes including the Endorphin Elite, which costs $275/£280.

How I Tested This Shoe

I’ve run 32 miles in the Endorphin Pro 4, most of which were done in two long workouts during marathon training. I have also tested every generation of the shoe to date, along with the Saucony Endorphin Elite and most of the best carbon plate running shoes from other brands.

Design And Fit

The main update to the Endorphin Pro 4 is its new dual-density midsole, which combines the two foams found in the Endorphin Pro 3 and Endorphin Elite. The top layer of the Pro 4’s midsole is made from the firmer, bouncier PWRRUN HG foam from the Elite, while the bottom layer is PWRRUN PB. A full-length carbon plate runs through the midsole.

The shoe still has the same stack height as the Pro 3 (39.5mm at the heel, 31.5mm at the forefoot, for an 8mm drop) but Saucony seems to have widened the base of the shoe at the heel. It is a little heavier, at 8.2oz/233g for a UK size 9, compared with 7.65oz/217g for the Pro 3.

There is a new sockliner in the shoe, which is designed to add more bounce to the ride. The Endorphin Pro 4 still uses Saucony’s Speedroll rocker geometry, which is designed to speed the transition onto your forefoot. The outsole has been changed to have a lattice pattern, with rubber covering the forefoot and sections of the heel, and a large cut-out in the center of the shoe that helps to reduce weight. The shoe gripped well for me during fast runs on wet roads.

Saucony has updated the upper on the shoe, which is a lightweight mesh material with minimal padding around the heel. It’s comfortable and holds the foot securely for fast running without creating irritation. I found the shoe fitted well in my usual running shoe size, the same one I’ve used for all past versions of the Endorphin Pro.

Running Performance

Given its relatively low price, and the fact that the Elite is above it within Saucony’s range of racing shoes, the Endorphin Pro line has lost a little of its luster as a top carbon racing option. The Pro 4 actually feels quite natural on the foot and isn’t as bouncy as many carbon shoes, which would seem to cement the idea that it’s not a rival for the best shoes.

However, the shoe’s performance during testing quickly dispelled the idea that it’s not a carbon contender. The ride may not be as springy as shoes like the Nike Alphafly 3 or New Balance FuelCell SC Elite v4, but it’s smooth and efficient thanks to the Speedroll rocker. The addition of PWRRUN HG foam into the midsole makes the Pro 4 more responsive than its predecessor.

I loved the Endorphin Pro 3 but, over extended testing, I found that the forefoot lost some of its bounce during longer runs. That isn’t the case with the firmer PWRRUN HG foam in the Pro 4. Crucially, moreover, the new midsole doesn’t make the ride as harsh as that of the Endorphin Elite, which I found fast but also too firm for my taste because I experienced forefoot discomfort on any hard run in the shoe over 10K.

I’ve done two hard workouts in the Endorphin Pro 4. The first was a session with 20 x 60sec on/60sec float (still running hard, but not as hard) followed by four miles at 5min 40sec/mile pace. The second was longer still, doing 10K at 5min 38sec/mile pace, then a parkrun, then another five miles at 5min 38sec/mile pace. 

In both workouts the shoe was comfortable and quick. In the first I was falling apart halfway through the four-mile tempo section, but the fluid ride helped me to get back into a groove and finish strong. I ran a 16min 44sec parkrun in the middle of the second workout, and rolled through the other sections—which were at my goal marathon pace—feeling reasonably controlled.

The shoe performs like a top carbon shoe at a significantly lower cost, and will suit a lot of runners who don’t like the bouncier, more unstable rides of other options. It may not be the carbon racer that feels the most like a super-shoe, but the Endorphin Pro 4 delivers when it matters. It’s also a more versatile and comfortable carbon shoe than others in that it feels good at slow paces as well and can be used for a range of training.

Is The Saucony Endorphin Pro 4 Worth It?

I think the Endorphin Pro 4 is a great racing option that will suit a variety of runners, and it may well work better for those racing at slower paces than other super-shoes, which are more aggressive and unstable. I prefer it to the Endorphin Elite, which might have more raw pace but its aggressive rocker doesn’t suit my gait. I found it uncomfortable over long distances. I also think the Endorphin Pro 4 is an upgrade on the Pro 3, though the latter is still a good racing shoe with similar characteristics, and it’s well worth looking out for in sales.

When picking my top racing shoe for my upcoming PR attempt at the London Marathon, I’ll still opt for the Nike Alphafly 3 or Nike Vaporfly 3 because they’re lighter. I find them quicker and, in the case of the Alphafly 3, bouncier. There are other carbon shoes I consider bouncier and more propulsive than the Endorphin Pro 4 too—but I think it’s as good as most. And just because it’s cheaper than most super-shoes absolutely doesn’t indicate that it’s inferior to them—the appealing price is a genuine bonus.

In a world where many of the best running shoes are getting more complicated and expensive, the New Balance FuelCell Rebel v4 is a breath of fresh air. It has a simple design and a reasonable price, and delivers a versatile and enjoyable ride for a range of training runs.

It’s the perfect option for runners seeking an all-rounder that eschews the trends of a high midsole stack and a plate. Those features have their place in shoes, and the best all-rounder on the market is the Saucony Endorphin Speed 3, which has both—though if you prefer a simpler and cheaper shoe for daily training, the Rebel v4 can do it all.

New Balance FuelCell Rebel v4: Price And Availability

The New Balance FuelCell Rebel v4 launched in the US in January 2024, with the global launch on February 29. It costs $140 in the US and £140 in the UK, which is a rise of $10/£10 on the price of the New Balance FuelCell Rebel v3.

How I Tested This Shoe

I’ve run 35 miles in the Rebel v4, using the shoe for a mix of daily training, including a track session, two easy runs and a 15-mile long run moving from easy to marathon pace. I have also tested every past generation of the Rebel, and most of New Balance’s other FuelCell shoes like the SC Elite v4 and SC Trainer v2.

Design And Fit

The Rebel has always been a lightweight shoe with a fairly low stack height, and that remains the case with the Rebel v4, though the stack has risen slightly. There’s also a new version of New Balance’s FuelCell foam in the midsole. This is now made from a blend of EVA foam and a Peba-based material, and while it’s not the full Peba midsole you get on the New Balance SC Elite v4, it’s a softer, bouncier material than the FuelCell used in past Rebels.

It’s also lighter, which means that although the shoe’s stack height has risen to 30mm at the heel and 24mm at the forefoot, the Rebel v4 is still only 7.7oz/219g in my UK size 9.5. That makes it one of the lightest shoes of the 50-plus pairs I’ve tested in the past year, and it’s actually around 1oz lighter than the New Balance SC Elite v4 racing shoe—though the Elite has a stack height of 40mm at the heel.

The Rebel v4 is also wider than its predecessor, which helps make it more stable, but sticks to the same 6mm drop. This is the biggest update to the Rebel since its launch, but the new shoe retains the lightweight, fun feel of the line.

I’ve run in a UK 9 when testing previous versions of the Rebel, but opted for a 9½ in the Rebel v4 because the Rebel v3 was tight around my toes. The new shoe has a wider fit around the front of the midfoot that was actually a little loose for me because I have a narrow foot, but overall the fit was good when I went half a size up. That’s in my UK size though, and if you are using US sizing you may be best sticking with your usual size because of the way New Balance converts US to UK sizes.

There is minimal padding on the tongue and collar of the shoe, which has a lightweight mesh upper. The lack of padding means the hold around the back of the shoe is quite loose, but I didn’t experience any rubbing, and the shoe didn’t irritate my achilles tendon, which I sometimes have trouble with in highly padded shoes.

The Rebel v4 doesn’t have a full rubber outsole and there’s a lot of exposed foam in the middle of the shoe but there is good coverage of the forefoot, plus two large rubber sections at the heel, so the main impact areas are covered. The shoe gripped well for me on my runs, even in wet conditions.

Running Performance

I loved the Rebel v3 as a lightweight daily trainer that could handle any kind of run—up to a certain distance. It felt nimble and speedy, but lacked the cushioning and stability I’d want for running more than 10-12 miles regularly.

The Rebel v4 has a different feel underfoot, but matches the performance of the Rebel v3 for short stuff, while adding comfort and stability for long runs. Some runners may want more foam underfoot for long runs, but during a 60-mile week of marathon training the Rebel v4 felt comfortable to me every time I used it. This included my 15-mile Sunday long run and a 40-minute recovery run the day after a track session.

It’s not as nimble a shoe as its predecessor, in that you notice the extra ground contact of the wider design. You can feel the support on either side of your foot, which is great for easy runs, and it doesn’t diminish the shoe’s performance for fast stuff. I did a track session running one mile and 400m reps in the Rebel v4 and it was sprightly enough that I didn’t miss the extra bounce of propulsion of a plated trainer like the Endorphin Speed 3.

You will get more pop from one of the best super-trainers with a plate, or one with a full Peba-based midsole and a higher stack, but the Rebel v4 felt great underfoot and the shorter stack and simple design were appealing. I’ve had no trouble doing a lot of training in plated shoes, but many runners now prefer to reserve plated shoes for race day and key speed sessions, with the Rebel v4 having a more natural feel.

Is The New Balance FuelCell Rebel v4 Worth It?

The Rebel v4 is an excellent shoe and the best daily trainer available without a plate. I even prefer it to the Asics Superblast, which is an outstanding shoe with more bounce than the Rebel, but it’s more expensive and has a high midsole stack, which makes it more unwieldy unless you’re on flat, straight roads.

I’d say $140/£140 is pretty good value too, given that the super-trainers you’d use for the same kind of runs can now cost more than $200/£200. If you’re happy to spend that money and use a plated shoe, the Saucony Endorphin Speed 3 or Adidas Boston 12 (which has rods, rather than a plate) are excellent all-rounders that are better than the Rebel v4 for longer hard runs in particular. I found New Balance’s own super-trainer, the SC Trainer v2, cumbersome and I prefer the Rebel v4 as an all-rounder.

Other impressive plateless all-rounders include the Puma Velocity Nitro 3 and Asics Novablast 4, which are more cushioned and comfortable for easy runs but lack the lightness and pop of the Rebel v4 for faster stuff. The Hoka Mach 5 is another great shoe without a plate and a smoother, more rockered ride than the Rebel v4, but the Rebel v4 is springier.

The Oladance OWS Sports are among the best workout headphones I’ve tested, ticking all the boxes as sports buds thanks to the excellent fit, long battery life, waterproofing and open design, which allows you to stay aware of your surroundings.

For open buds, the sound quality is impressive, even if it’s not as good as the best in-ear headphones. The downsides of open headphones remain, in that they’re not ideal for traveling or general use, and the OWS Sports are expensive for buds you may not want to use all the time.

Oladance OWS Sports: Price And Availability

The Oladance OWS Sports launched in February 2024 and cost $179.99 in the US and £189.99 in the UK. That price is in line with the most expensive open buds like the Shokz OpenFit and Cleer Arc II, but you can get open headphones for much less, such as the 1MORE Fit SE Open Earbuds S30. The Oladance OWS Sports come in four colors: silver, yellow, gray and pink.

How I Tested These Headphones

I’ve been using the OWS Sports headphones on and off for three months, mostly for running and general use. I’ve also tried them during bike rides, strength workouts and yoga sessions. I’ve tested a variety of the best workout headphones, including many open designs, including the Oladance OWS 1.

Design, Controls And Fit

Unlike the other headphones in the Oladance range, the OWS Sports are not individual buds. Instead the headphones are connected by a band that runs around the back of the head. They are light and I found the fit comfortable and secure enough to use the buds for long workouts, as well as throughout the day. However, there are times when it’s convenient to only use one bud to leave an ear clear, or not have the wire running around the back of your head, when truly wireless buds will be a better option. 

There’s a speaker on the inside of the buds that sits in your ear just above the ear canal so you can hear your audio clearly while still also being aware of what’s around you. That’s useful when running or cycling outside, or working out in a gym where you might need to hear what others are saying.

The headphones have an IPX8 rating, which means they’re waterproof and will not be troubled by sweat and rain during workouts. They aren’t suitable for swimming, though, unlike some bone conduction headphones like the Shokz OpenSwim. 

There is a multifunction button on the left bud to control playback and two buttons on the right, which control the volume and turn the headphones on and off. I found these easy to use during workouts, and more reliable than a touchpanel.

Sound Quality

The improved sound quality from the open design is a big reason to opt for the OWS Sports over bone conduction headphones. The OWS Sports buds don’t let in as much external noise as bone conduction buds (which leave the ears clear), but they sound better, with a fuller sound and much beefier bass.

You can customize the EQ in the Oladance app, which allows you to increase the bass further, and whether you’re using the headphones in a quiet gym or office or on a windy running track, you get loud and clear sound. Oladance says the buds reduce wind noise, and this works to some extent: You will still hear the wind when cycling or running, but it’s not as noticeable as with other open headphones. 

I found the buds enjoyable to use for long periods indoors, as well as during workouts, and that’s not the case with bone conduction headphones—I find those don’t have good enough sound quality to use when working out. You’ll still get better sound with passive and active noise cancellation (ANC) from in-ear buds, and for the price of the Oladance OWS Sports you can get excellent headphones like the Jabra Elite 8 Active, which are great for sports and general use. As open headphones, the OWS Sports are also not that great for use on loud trains and planes, when podcasts in particular can be drowned out.

Battery Life

Battery life is a strong point for the OWS Sports, which last 15 hours on a charge (even when using them at high volumes). A quick-charge feature gets you five hours of playback from a 15-minute charge. Since they don’t have a carry case you have to plug the buds in to charge them, and it’s a proprietary cable so you can’t use a generic one if you lose it. Buds that use carry cases that charge them can offer more total battery life, though 15 hours on the headphones themselves is great.

Are The Oladance OWS Sports Worth It?

The OWS Sports headphones are excellent. I prefer them to other open headphones I’ve used for running and workouts, though there are a lot of headphones of similar quality in this category now. The Shokz OpenFit and Cleer Arc II are great options and have individual buds rather than a neckband design, though I found the overall fit of the Oladance buds more comfortable and secure during workouts.

It’s hard for me to say open buds that cost this much are worth it because they aren’t always great to use outside of workouts. The Jabra Elite 8 Active are a similar price, and among the best workout headphones as well, while the Jabra Elite 4 Active are cheaper. They both have an in-ear design and great sound quality and ANC, with a transparency mode that allows for awareness of your surroundings; you can also use one bud at a time.

If you want the extra awareness of open headphones, however, the OWS Sports offer good sound quality. The price is high, though, and there may be better value in getting a cheaper set of open buds like the 1MORE Fit SE Open Earbuds S30—which still sound pretty good—for your workouts and an in-ear set for general use.

The high-end turbo trainer race has been hotting up in the last six months, with manufacturers adding exciting features to entice new customers and prompt indoor-cycling converts to upgrade their machines.

In September 2023 Wahoo released the Kickr Move, an upgrade to its respected Kickr platform. It integrated 8in/20cm fore-aft (forward and backward) movement into the turbo trainer, removing the need to use an accessory to allow the rider to experience lateral and front and back motion. Tacx wasn’t far behind and launched the Neo 3M in December 2023. This features 2in/5cm of fore-aft, as well as several upgrades to the Neo 2T, which came out in 2019.

However, is the addition of 2in/5cm of movement worth paying for? Or is it a fad, and something indoor cyclists can live without? I tested one to find out.

Tacx Neo 3M: Price And Availability

The Tacx Neo 3M was released in December and costs $1,999.99 in the US and £1,749.99 in the UK. Its main competition, the Wahoo Kickr Move, costs $1,599.99/£1,399.99. It’s possible to buy a Tacx Neo 2T for $1,399.99/£1,199.99 and the Tacx Neo Motion Plates ($299.99/£259.99) to acquire a similar set-up for less.

How I Tested This Turbo Trainer

I’ve logged about 10 hours of turbo training on the Neo 3M. I performed a mixture of ERG-led interval-based workout sessions on the training apps Zwift and TrainerRoad, and completed a resistance-based FTP test and spent time free-riding on Zwift. I’ve experience of the best turbo trainers and smart bikes, including the Wahoo Kickr Bike and the Tacx Neo 2T, as well as mid-range options such as the Zwift Hub and Wahoo Kickr Core.

Features

The headline feature of the Neo 3M is the fore-aft addition, though the improvements run deeper than this. The unit has more lateral movement than its predecessor, allowing you to throw the bike from side to side when out of the saddle on a virtual climb or performing sprints. It adds gravel to its simulated terrains (previously limited to cobblestones), helping improve immersion when riding off-road virtually.

The other main upgrade is the inclusion of a pre-installed cassette, although if you don’t own a Shimano/SRAM 11-speed drivetrain you’ll need to pay extra for the correct driver. The Neo 3M can be paired with the Tacx Smart Network Adapter to provide a more secure connection to cycling training apps via Wi-Fi or an Ethernet cable, although this also means an additional cost.

Otherwise, everything is the same as on the Tacx Neo 2T, including its maximum gradients and power (25% and 2200W). I can’t see a situation where you’d want to attempt more than either of those when riding indoors. Its accuracy on power, speed, and cadence is a solid +/- 1%, and it can still be used without a power source and doesn’t require calibrating. The trainer can be folded away when not in use, although you’ll have to remove your bike to do that.

The Set-Up

If you’ve spent more than $1,000/£1,000 on a turbo trainer it should be ready to use immediately. That wasn’t the case with the Neo 2T, which required the installation of a cassette (either a separate purchase, or the one from your bike’s rear wheel), and the additional costs involved.

Tacx has learned from this mistake and supplies the Neo 3M with an 11-speed cassette installed. If you have the correct Shimano/SRAM drivetrain (which most road bikes sold in the past 10 years or so will), then you can be set up and riding in under  10 minutes. The trickiest part is choosing which workout to do first.

The trainer isn’t perfect though. Twelve-speed drivetrains have trickled down to most 2024-release mid-range road bikes, which require you to swap the pre-installed cassette; if you have a mountain bike, expect to purchase the correct driver for an additional cost. It’s understandable that turbo trainers are made in a factory to mostly universal specifications, but in an ideal world Tacx would offer alternative set-ups free of charge—albeit with a slightly longer lead time.

Once your bike is installed, you can modify settings, such as road feel intensity and grade resistance (how realistic climbs feel) using the free Tacx Training app. One thing to note is that the fore-aft setting is locked out of the box, but you simply twist two dials at the rear of the turbo trainer to add forward and backward movement to your indoor riding.

The Ride

Turbo trainers are judged on how realistic the ride feels and the Neo 3M is one of the closest simulations of real-world riding I’ve tested. Its lateral movement is an improvement on its predecessor and allowed for a more natural throwing of the bike from side to side than the Axis feet of Wahoo’s Kickr. The benefit is increased movement in the saddle, getting you moving around on the bike as you would on the road and minimizing sore spots from sitting in one position for too long. 

However, the fore-aft was less noticeable, and I don’t think it added much to the overall experience. In fact, I preferred the Neo 3M when riding with the fore-aft setting locked.

Its magnet-based virtual flywheel remains one of the best around. When used in ERG mode, the gradual changes in resistance were fast enough to get the desired effect of an interval, but not so fast that it felt like you were suddenly riding through treacle when going from easy to hard. In free-ride mode, the turbo trainer’s simulation of road surfaces via haptic feedback felt realistic but still seems like a gimmick, with only a smattering of “non-tarmac” surfaces on indoor training programmes like Zwift.

Is the Tacx Neo 3M Worth It?

There’s no hiding from the fact that the Neo 3M is expensive. It costs more than its direct competitor (Wahoo Kickr Move) and, without built-in Wi-Fi and less actual fore-aft movement, has fewer features than its rival. If you’re on team Tacx, you may be happy to pay the premium, but I don’t think it does enough to justify the extra cost. In fact, it’s possible to get one of the best turbo trainers, like the Wahoo Kickr Core or Zwift Hub, and invest in a rocker plate accessory for a similar ride feel for a fraction of the price.

The Neo 3M is a welcome upgrade on the Neo 2T, but doesn’t shift the dial enough to overtake Wahoo’s offerings at the premium end of the turbo trainer market. The addition of fore-aft movement isn’t worth upgrading for, while the inclusion of a pre-installed cassette should be the minimum at this price. The lack of built-in Wi-Fi is a shortcoming that will raise eyebrows among serious Esports racers and those who want to minimize signal drop-outs during workouts and rides.

The Garmin Forerunner 165 is a new AMOLED option within Garmin’s extensive range of sports watches, coming in significantly cheaper than the Garmin Forerunner 265, though it’s not as affordable as Garmin’s true entry-level running watch, the Garmin Forerunner 55.

While you miss out on some useful features that are on the Forerunner 265 (and indeed the non-AMOLED Garmin Forerunner 255) like a triathlon mode and dual-band GPS tracking, the Forerunner 165 is an excellent option for runners who want a watch with an AMOLED screen. It’s certainly one of the best running watches available, and I’d say the only better-value options are non-AMOLED watches like the Coros Pace 3 and Garmin Forerunner 255.

Garmin Forerunner 165: Price And Availability

The Garmin Forerunner 165 launched in February 2024 and costs $249.99/£249.99 for the standard version of the watch, while the Garmin Forerunner 165 Music is $299.99/£289.99. It is available to buy now from Garmin US and Garmin UK and ships in five to eight weeks.

This is considerably cheaper than the Garmin Forerunner 265, which is $449.99/£429.99, and also cheaper than the Forerunner 255’s list price, though as an older watch it’s usually possible to find the 255 in sales for a lot less. Our coverage of 2023’s Black Friday Garmin deals found it for as low as $299.99.

How I Tested This Watch

I have been wearing the Garmin Forerunner 165 Music for two weeks, using it to track around 150 miles of running in that time along with other workouts including yoga and strength sessions. During that time I also wore the Garmin Epix Pro linked with a Polar H10 heart rate monitor to check the GPS and HR accuracy of the Forerunner 165. I have also tested the rest of Garmin’s Forerunner range, and all the best sports watches on the market.

Design And Hardware

The star feature of the Forerunner 165’s design is the 1.2in AMOLED display, which is as bright and vibrant as the screens on other AMOLED Forerunner watches such as the 265 and 965. The watch has Garmin’s usual five-button set-up, with two buttons on the right side and three on the left, and you can also use the touchscreen to navigate its menus. The screen is made from chemically strengthened glass rather than the Gorilla glass used on the Forerunner 265.

Unlike the Garmin Forerunner 255 and 265, the Forerunner 165 only comes in one size, which sits between the 265 and 265S sizes. The only differences between the 165 and 165 Music are the music feature and audio prompts during workouts on the latter.

It is a small and light plastic watch that I found comfortable to wear at all times. It uses a 20mm band, which you can replace on the watch easily, either with another Garmin strap or a third-party band.

The watch uses Garmin’s Elevate V4 optical heart rate sensor, which is not the latest Elevate V5 sensor found on watches such as the Garmin Fenix 7 Pro and Epix Pro. It has a barometric altimeter for elevation tracking during activities and counting your floors climbed each day, and also has a pulse oximeter for measuring blood oxygen saturation.

You can link to external sensors via both Bluetooth and ANT+, but the Forerunner 165 won’t connect to cycling power meters, which marks it out as a running watch rather than one aimed at triathletes or cyclists.

Sports Tracking And Training Analysis

The Garmin Forerunner 165 is not a triathlon watch with a dedicated multisport mode, but it does have sports modes to cover pretty much everything else, including pool and open-water swimming and a dedicated track run mode.

It will offer suggested workouts each day based on your past training, and you can link the Forerunner 165 with a Garmin Coach training plan for a 5K, 10K or half marathon, which will be customized to your fitness level and goals. It’s also easy to create and add your own structured workouts to the watch to follow on your wrist, and the Forerunner 165 can measure running power and running dynamics like ground contact time from the wrist without needing to link up with an external sensor.

The training analysis on the watch is not as extensive as on the Forerunner 265, which has Garmin’s training readiness stat and gives you your training status, but the Forerunner 165 does estimate your VO2 max and recovery time after a workout. It will also tell you the aerobic and anaerobic training effect of your run, as well as predicting your race times for 5K, 10K, half marathon and marathon distances.

During workouts the screen is only large enough to show four stats, but it’s bright and easy to see even in sunny conditions, and clearer than the LCD screens of watches like the Coros Pace 3 and Forerunner 255 when under cloud or tree cover.

While it lacks some of the insights you get on Garmin’s more expensive watches, the Forerunner 165 is a good sports tracker that covers the essentials for runners well, and also includes some extras like running power and technique stats.

GPS And HR Accuracy

While the Forerunner 165 does not offer Garmin’s dual-band GPS tracking, which I have found to be the most accurate from any brand, it does have an all-systems-on tracking mode as well as a basic GPS-only mode which can extend battery life.

I used the all-systems-on mode throughout my testing, comparing it against the Garmin Epix Pro in multi-band mode. Overall the Forerunner 165 was highly accurate, closely matching the Epix Pro on every run including some under tree cover.

I found it tended to overestimate distance slightly and was a little generous with my pace as a result, and looking at GPS tracks this would be down to it tracking a wider path around corners at times, but overall this was marginal. In a week where I logged 77.1 miles on the Epix Pro, the Forerunner 165 logged 77.6 miles.

The heart rate tracking, unfortunately, was less impressive. On most of my runs the Forerunner 165’s optical heart rate sensor would log an erroneously high heart rate compared with the Polar H10 chest strap, including for the entirety of a 20-mile run where it locked on to my cadence instead of my heart rate. 

This skews the limited training analysis on the watch, so if you intend on using that or to train using heart rate, it would be best to link a chest strap.

Navigation

The Forerunner 165 offers breadcrumb navigation, which is a feature you don’t get on the cheaper Forerunner 55 running watch. Create a course in the Garmin Connect and send it to the watch to get a line and pointer, plus turn-by-turn directions. You can also activate the back-to-start feature during an outdoor activity to get a pointer and the distance back to your start point.

I have always found Garmin’s breadcrumb navigation sufficient to guide me through runs in unfamiliar places. It’s not as easy to follow the route as when using a Garmin watch with full maps, but those are much more expensive.

Battery Life

Both Forerunner 165 models are listed as lasting up to 11 days in watch mode, and offer 19 hours of GPS. Judging by my testing, this GPS stat is based on using the more energy-intensive all-systems-on tracking, because I found the watch drained by around 5% an hour when tracking runs in that mode.

The battery life comes down if you turn the screen to always-on, which I did during my testing. My Forerunner 165 lasted four to five days on a charge when running, on average, for at least an hour a day—but I didn’t have notifications coming into the watch, which will reduce battery life a little. 

Setting the screen to raise-to-wake outside workouts will extend the battery life considerably, and the screen does wake quite quickly and reliably with a turn of the wrist.

Even with the screen always on and running every day, the battery life on the Forerunner 165 is pretty impressive for a small watch with a bright AMOLED display. Even with heavy use, it outlasts the best fitness smartwatches by a couple of days. If charging every four or five days is too much for you it’s easy to extend the life beyond that by disabling the always-on screen.

Smart Features

Both models of the Garmin Forerunner 165 offer notifications, access to the Connect IQ app store and NFC payments through Garmin Pay, and the Forerunner 165 Music also has music storage. 

As with all Garmins with music, the Forerunner 165 works with paid-for Spotify, Deezer and Amazon Music accounts, allowing you to wirelessly sync across your music for offline playback on the watch. It has 4GB of storage available, half the 8GB on the Forerunner 265, but still enough room for a lot of music.

The app store is limited and the Forerunner 165 doesn’t offer cellular connectivity, so it’s not a true smartwatch like the Apple Watch Series 9, but the smart features here are better than you get from any other sports watch. 

Activity And Sleep Tracking

The Garmin Forerunner 165 is very good as a daily activity tracker, logging your steps, calories, floors climbed and active minutes each day. It also has a pulse oximeter to measure your blood oxygen saturation, and will track your heart rate variability at night and plot it against your baseline once this has been established.

It also tracks naps as well as sleep, and gives you a sleep score for the latter plus your sleep stages and time in REM, deep and light sleep. While it doesn’t offer Garmin’s training readiness score, the Forerunner 165 does have the brand’s body battery feature, which rates your energy levels out of 100.

As with all Garmin watches I’ve tested, I found the Forerunner 165 was a little generous with its sleep tracking, missing periods where I was awake during the night and logging them as light sleep. I usually found it logged 30-60 more minutes as time asleep in total than the third-generation Oura ring measured, but the heart rate variability tracking numbers did largely agree with the Oura ring each night, and you can use those to judge the overall state of your body and your readiness to train each morning.

Is The Garmin Forerunner 165 Worth It?

The Garmin Forerunner 165 is an excellent running watch and while it’s not exactly cheap, it is a lot more affordable than Garmin’s other AMOLED sports watches. Whether it’s the best value sports watch for runners or not depends on how highly you value its bright display.

The main competition for the 165 comes from the Coros Pace 3 and Garmin Forerunner 255, but both have LCD screens. However, both those watches are a little cheaper and offer dual-band GPS and more insightful training analysis, and the Coros has significantly longer battery life too. The GPS tracking and training analysis on the Forerunner 165 was good enough in my testing, and I didn’t find its battery life annoyingly short, so I’d say the value you place on the screen and price are the key considerations. Unless you’re a triathlete, that is—the Pace 3 and Forerunner 255 have a multisport mode and the 165 doesn’t.

The Forerunner 165 is certainly a compelling alternative to the Forerunner 265, which is a lot more expensive. The 265 is undoubtedly a better watch and offers different size options and additional features like training readiness, but the extras it offers over the 165 won’t be required by everyone.

Compared with the Garmin Vivoactive 5 and Venu 3 smartwatches, the Forerunner 165 offers more sports features and training analysis, as well as more buttons for ease of use during workouts. I found the Vivoactive 5 a good sporty smartwatch, but the Forerunner 165 has proven more accurate and useful as a sports watch and has similar smart features.

More brands than ever are vying to produce the ultimate CrossFit shoe, with established names like Nike and newcomers like R.A.D all in the mix. As someone who’s tried many of the best CrossFit shoes, I’ve watched Reebok’s Nano—the original CrossFit shoe—slip down the pecking order. That’s about to change, though. I’ve had the Reebok Nano X4 on test and, after two weeks, I’ve already fallen for it head over heels.

Talking of heels, that area of the Nano X4 in particular offers a more solid foundation than its predecessor during Olympic lifts and, unlike the Nike Metcon 9, it doesn’t come at the expense of springiness for plyometric moves. This shoe is a slam dunk from Reebok, and I believe I’ve found the shoe to see me through the upcoming CrossFit Open. 

Reebok Nano X4: Price And Availability

The Reebok Nano was released on January 12, 2024, and costs $140 in the US and £126 in the UK. However, the Reebok website has a habit of dramatically slashing the price of Nano shoes once a shoe has been on the market for a few months. 

How I Tested This Shoe

I wore the Reebok Nano X4 for every training session over a two-week period. In this time I went to my local CrossFit box five times a week and did two at-home active recovery sessions, involving more than an hour on an exercise bike or rower. 

My average CrossFit session takes 90 minutes, comprising strength training and/or Olympic weightlifting, gymnastic skill practice, a metcon and accessory work. As a result, I was able to test this shoe through a range of movements including clean and jerks, snatches, squats, deadlifts, rope climbs, short running intervals and pistol squats. 

Design

To me, the Reebok Nano X4 isn’t the prettiest shoe in the world. It doesn’t have a monstrous rope guard wrapping around the midfoot (looking at you here, Nike), but the black, white and orange colorway I tried still wasn’t a looker as far as I’m concerned—but that’s my only complaint.

The Floatride Energy Foam midsole, 7mm drop and full rubber outsole remain from the Reebok Nano X3. This is excellent news, because when I wore the Nano X1 with its gapped outsole, I found the midsole foam ripped all too easily. 

The Nano X4 keeps the X3’s versatile Lift and Run chassis system, although Reebok has made subtle tweaks to improve it. This chassis incorporates a dome in the heel that compresses under load to provide a stable base when lifting heavy, then softens during explosive exercises and running for added support. You can’t feel the change happen, but you can feel the difference in how the shoe performs.

Reebok has also added a reworked TPU heel clip to aid multidirectional movement and a midfoot ventilation panel for improved airflow. There is a redesigned upper made with a new Flexweave material for comfort and breathability, too.

Is The Reebok Nano X4 Good For HIIT?

If you’re after a shoe for fast-paced WODs or exercise classes, the Reebok Nano X4 HIITs the spot. It weighs a similar amount to rivals like the Nike Metcon 9, with my pair tipping the scales at 13.3oz/378g for a US size 11. However, it made me feel lighter on my feet thanks to its slimmer silhouette and the responsive Floatride Energy Foam midsole. 

Where the large Hyperlift plate in the heel of the Nike Metcon 9 felt clunky during intense metcons, I found I could bound through burpees and box jumps with ease while wearing the Nano X4. The midsole provides an enjoyable amount of cushioning, although it’s still slim enough to offer decent ground feel.

Importantly for me, as someone who has slightly narrow feet, the heel lock worked well to prevent any unwanted movement or rubbing. There were minimal signs of wear and tear after two weeks of demanding movements like wall walks and rope climbs.

Is The Reebok Nano X4 Good For Resistance Training?

I’ve been spoiled on the CrossFit shoe front recently, testing the Nano X4 after trialing the R.A.D One for a couple of months. And, while the more stylish R.A.D chalks up a marginal victory for its nigh-on impeccable HIIT/metcon performance, the Nano X4 strikes back with its lifting superiority.

The X3’s outsole offered a solid foundation for exerting force directly downward when squatting or deadlifting, but during Olympic lifts it didn’t feel as secure with a lack of lateral stability. My tape measure tells me the X4’s outsole is pretty much identical to its predecessor, but the shoe felt more stable during Olympic lifts: When I caught a split jerk, my front foot felt incredibly secure in all directions. The toe box felt slightly roomier than the X3 too, allowing me to spread my feet for balance. 

The Nike Metcon 9 and Inov-8 F Lite G 300 remain my top picks if you’re looking for a CrossFit shoe just for lifting; they have solid heels and a wide forefoot for unrivaled stability. But if, like most CrossFitters, your training is varied, the lifting performance of the Nano twinned with its versatility is a winning combination. 

Is The Reebok Nano X4 Good For Running?

CrossFit shoes are not designed for running longer distances. You’ll want a pair of the best running shoes for that. In my eyes, the training shoe that’s come closest to delivering lifting and running performance is the On Cloud X 3, although you wouldn’t want to clean or snatch in a pair. 

What the Reebok Nano X4 can do is see you through running portions of a WOD. For example, when I tackled a workout that mixed dumbbell exercises with four 400m runs, I had no complaints or discomfort. The Floatride Energy Foam midsole provided more cushioning than rivals like the NoBull Trainer, and the effective heel lock kept my feet blister-free. 

Is The Reebok Nano X4 Worth It?

I like the Reebok Nano X4. I like it a lot. I think it’s worthy of your investment, especially if you can find it with a discount once it’s been around for a few months. 

Being frank, I wasn’t expecting to like this shoe. In fact, opening the box, I was a bit worried. I disliked the Reebok Nano X1 and X2: they felt like diluted CrossFit shoes, made to see you through a few exercise classes and some lifting without impressing on any front. Who’s spending upward of $100 on a CrossFit shoe that’s merely OK? 

The X3 was a major step in the right direction for Reebok, balancing comfort and performance, though I’d still reach for my R.A.D or TYR CXT1 shoe come competition time. When I first saw the X4, I was concerned the brand may have slipped back to its X1 days. I soon discovered that the latest iteration has built on its predecessor’s good work, so much so that I already see it as an early contender for the title of best CrossFit shoe of 2024.

The Under Armour Infinite Elite is a cushioned shoe with a durable design that will handle many hundreds of miles of easy running. It’s not as versatile or as lively as the best cushioned running shoes, but if you want a cruiser to protect your legs during high-mileage weeks it will get the job done. 

However, there are more impressive options to be the cushioned shoe in your running shoe rotation, such as the Saucony Triumph 21, Brooks Ghost Max or Puma Magnify Nitro 2. That’s particularly true if you’re looking for a cushioned daily trainer that can handle a variety of runs because the Infinite Elite is excessively heavy for anything beyond easy pace.

Under Armour Infinite Elite: Price And Availability

The Under Armour Infinite Elite launched in January 2024 and costs $160 in the US and £145 in the UK. That’s about on par for a top cushioned shoe in the US, and cheaper than most such shoes in the UK. Under Armour released the cheaper Infinite Pro cushioned shoe at the same time, which is $130/£120 and contains less of the brand’s top HOVR+ foam in its midsole.

How I Tested This Shoe

I’ve run 32 miles in the Infinite Elite, using it almost entirely for easy runs, including one long run of 12.5 miles. I did some faster running as part of that long run, just to see how the shoe felt at higher speeds, though it is designed primarily for slow runs. I’ve also tested a range of the best running shoes from other brands.

Design And Fit

The Infinite Elite is built for comfort and the main way it delivers that is through the stack of foam in its midsole. The shoe has a stack height of 36mm at the heel and 28mm at the forefoot for an 8mm drop, and the HOVR+ material used is a beaded TPU foam that reminded me of the feel of the Adidas Ultraboost.

Along with having a high stack, the Infinite Elite has a wide base to help with stability. This makes it a pretty large and heavy shoe, though. My UK size 9 weighs 12oz/339g, which is heavier than most of the best cushioned running shoes, even those that hit 40mm in stack height.

A plastic clip runs around the back of the shoe, which also has an internal heel counter to create more stability. Although it’s a neutral shoe, the Infinite Elite is a stable option that provides a lot of support on either side of your foot. The Intelliknit upper is comfortable and has a lot of padding around the tongue and collar. I found that the shoe fitted well in my usual running shoe size, with the roomy toe box and stretchy upper material making it comfortable to use for easy running.

The shoe has a thick rubber outsole that covers most of the bottom of the shoe, with the foam left exposed in a channel down the center that shouldn’t hit the ground much. In my experience, beaded TPU foams are durable in running shoes and the outsole also looks sturdy. I’d expect the Infinite Elite to be a long-lasting shoe.

Running Performance

I did all my running in the Infinite Elite as part of a 100km week, using it for most of my easy mileage during that time. In my opinion this is how the shoe should be used—as a workhorse that's great for easy miles and protects your legs, while you then use something lighter and faster for workouts.

In this role the Infinite Elite performed well. It was a little firm on my first couple of runs in it, but the midsole softened after as it broke in. The foam isn’t squishy and provides a comfortable but stable platform for easy runs, with some bounce to help you keep ticking over.

At anything faster than my easy pace, the size and weight of the shoe came into play. It’s not designed for fast running and doesn’t perform well for it. Normally, a shoe with Elite in the name would suggest a speedy racing shoe, but to my mind, here it refers to the fact elite runners rack up many miles and need a cushioned shoe for those runs.

The ride wasn’t especially lively over long runs, and there are more rockered cushioned shoes like the Brooks Ghost Max and Asics Gel-Nimbus 26 that have a smoother feel, while others like the Puma Magnify Nitro 2 have bouncier foams in the midsole.

Is The Under Armour Infinite Elite Worth It?

The Infinite Elite is a good cushioned shoe that fits into a rotation as a durable, stable and protective shoe for high-mileage runners doing a lot of easy runs each week. It would also work as a running shoe for heavier people perhaps doing running to support other sports, or logging a few miles on the treadmill before hitting the weights during workouts.

It doesn’t feel as good underfoot as the best cushioned shoes, and I prefer the ride of the Brooks Ghost Max and Puma Magnify Nitro 2 for easy runs. Both are also lighter while having as much (or more) cushioning underfoot.

If you’re a one-shoe runner looking for a cushioned all-rounder, the Infinite Elite isn’t your best bet. I’d look at the Saucony Triumph 21 or Saucony Ride 17, or the Ghost Max and Magnify Nitro 2, as cushioned options that feel better than the Infinite Elite at faster paces.

Inov-8 has a well-earned reputation for making some of the best trail-running shoes for soft ground. The impressive grip you get from its X-Talon and Mudclaw shoes makes them ideal for fell running, cross-country (XC) and mud runs.

So to say the Inov-8 Mudtalon Speed is the best soft ground shoe I’ve tried from the brand is high praise. It’s not a particularly versatile shoe—it isn’t designed to be—but for muddy conditions it’s the best trail-running shoe available.

Inov-8 Mudtalon Speed: Price And Availability

The Inov-8 Mudtalon Speed launched in January 2024 and costs $140 in the US and £130 in the UK. It’s not expensive for a trail-running shoe, although you can get cheaper mud-running shoes from Inov-8, such as the X-Talon 212.

How I Tested This Shoe

I’ve run 30 miles in the Mudtalon Speed, using it mostly for training runs in my local forest, which isn’t short of muddy areas to test out the shoe’s grip. I also used the Mudtalon Speed for a five-mile XC race on a hilly course that offered a mix of mud and frozen ground.

Design And Fit

The Mudtalon Speed combines some of the features of Inov-8’s Mudclaw and X-Talon shoes. You’re getting best-in-class grip for the mud and the lightweight feel of the X-Talon shoes, plus some of the comfort and protection of the Mudclaw.

This is no featherweight shoe, but the Mudtalon Speed—weighing just 9oz/257g in my UK size 9—is remarkable given the 8mm lugs on the outsole. These are made from Inov-8’s STICKYGRIP rubber and shaped to provide reliable grip when running fast up and down hills on grass and mud, and to shed any mud the shoe picks up quickly so you’re not carrying extra weight. The rubber provides traction on harder surfaces as well, including wet rocks, and though the Mudtalon Speed was more at home on soft ground I found it comfortable for short stints on harder trails. 

There is a flexible rock plate in the shoe to protect your foot when running on jagged rocks, and while it’s far from a cushioned shoe, the midsole is 11mm thick at the heel and 7mm at the forefoot, which is taller than past Inov-8 X-Talon shoes I’ve tested. The stack is 26mm at the heel and 22mm at the forefoot for a 4mm drop. The midsole is made from Inov-8’s POWERFLOW PRO foam and the shoe has a 6mm thick sockliner made from a beaded TPU foam, which provides more comfort and bounce than you may expect from what is still a low-stack shoe.

Inov-8’s mud-running shoes have often had quite a narrow fit in the past, which has suited me, but the Mudtalon Speed has a foot-shaped toe box and comes in two fit options: Precision and Wide. These refer to the width of the toe box, with Precision being narrower. 

I opted for a Precision fit and it was great in my usual running shoe size. I also found the Mudtalon Speed more open at the collar than the X-Talon shoes I’ve tried, which made it easier to get on and off. The shoe has a ripstop upper designed for durability and fast drainage, with added protection around the toes for when you inadvertently bump into rocks and other debris.

Running Performance

I’ve been a fan of the Inov-8 X-Talon shoes for some time and have used the X-Talon 210 for many XC races to great effect over the past few seasons, as well as other muddy runs. I didn’t use the Mudclaw so much because I found it heavy for my taste, but the idea of the Mudtalon Speed combining some of the comfort and protection of that shoe with the speed of the X-Talon appealed to me, and the shoe hasn’t disappointed.

It still gives you flexibility and feel for the trails, but the Mudtalon Speed is more comfortable than the X-Talon, which makes it better for longer races or events with a mix of terrain where you have to spend some time on hard surfaces, as well as for easy training runs. I’ve done several of those easy runs in the Mudtalon Speed, having rarely used the X-Talon 210 for them because it doesn’t offer much cushioning.

The Mudtalon Speed is also still lightweight and nimble enough for racing. I used it for a five-mile XC race where it was great for speeding down frozen hills and chugging up muddy climbs, and where the reliable grip was invaluable in making the ascents less taxing. I found the lugs shed mud pretty well, which isn’t always the case with heavy clay soil. The upper drains well too, so you’re not adding water weight over the course of a run in wet conditions.

Is The Inov-8 Mudtalon Speed Worth It?

Some may want even more cushioning for soft ground runs, but I think the balance of comfort, speed and grip is pretty much spot on with the Mudtalon Speed. I rate it as the best trail-running shoe for the mud, especially when you’re aiming to move fast. However, if you’re doing long runs on soft ground there’s a case for looking at a more cushioned shoe.

The Mudtalon Speed is a shoe that serves a specific purpose though, and if you want a more versatile option there are shoes like the Saucony Peregrine 13 or Inov-8 Trailfly G 270 V2 that handle mud well while being more comfortable on firmer trails.

Another great option in the category of soft ground speedsters is the Adidas Terrex Agravic Speed SG, which is lighter than the Inov-8, though I’ve found the grip of the Mudtalon Speed to be superior on both hard and soft surfaces.

Even when buying the best workout headphones, there’s always a compromise to be made somewhere. In-ear buds have a more secure fit and the best water and sweat resistance, and can sound fantastic, but don’t match the sound quality and active noise cancellation (ANC) you can get from on-ear or over-ear buds. 

Most over-ear headphones aren’t that comfortable or secure for use during workouts, though, which is why the Beats Studio Pro stand out. Not only are they lightweight, but they stayed in place during a variety of training sessions and are great for outside workouts. However, with no official IP rating you’ll have to be wary of not getting them too sweaty during more vigorous workouts when the heat rises.

Beats Studio Pro: Price And Availability

The Beats Studio Pro launched in July 2023 and cost $349 in the US and £349.99 in the UK. That’s considerably more expensive than Beats’ sports-focused in-ear buds, like the Beats Fit Pro, which are $199.95/£199.99 and the Beats Powerbeats Pro, which are $249.95/£269.95.

How I Tested These Headphones

I’ve used the Studio Pro for a variety of workouts, including weights sessions, core workouts, yoga and indoor runs. I’ve also used them extensively outside my workouts, and have tested a range of the best workout headphones, including Beats’ in-ear headphones.

Design, Controls And Fit

The Studio Pro headphones come in four colors—black, navy, dark brown and sandstone—and have a mostly plastic design, with metal hinges and sliders, and leather ear pads. The mostly plastic build helps keep the headphones light at 9.2oz/260g, which makes them more comfortable during workouts. By comparison, the Apple AirPods Max have a metal design and weigh 13.6oz/385g.

You can adjust the size of the headphones using the metal sliders and once set to the right length, they sit securely on the head during workouts and runs. Despite this tight fit, the headphones don’t become uncomfortable over a couple of hours of use. I found I could wear them with glasses without them putting unpleasant pressure on the top of my ears, which I often get with on-ear and over-ear buds.

The fit isn’t reliable enough for extremely vigorous workouts, like HIIT, where you jump around a lot, but for slow and steady strength sessions and easy runs the Studio Pro stayed in place. I also did a core workout where I had to lie on my side for short spells and while the large size of the headphones made it a bit awkward, they didn’t fall off.

The ear pads aren’t removable so you can’t wash them, and Beats hasn’t given the Studio Pro headphones an IP rating to indicate how water-resistant they are. I’d be wary about using the headphones as they are for sweaty workouts, and even after light training sessions I dried them off carefully. 

You can get silicone covers for the ear pads that I think would be a worthwhile investment if you’re planning to do long workouts in them regularly. The ear pads aren’t the most breathable, so even if you’re doing a low-intensity workout you’ll start to sweat around the ears after a while.

There is a small on/off button on the right side of the headphones, which can also be used to change between ANC and transparency modes, and on the left side is a large button to control playback, plus volume controls. All the buttons are large enough to be easy to use during workouts, and it’s possible to activate your phone’s voice assistant by holding the playback button, or by just saying “Hey Siri” if using an iOS device.

The headphones fold in on themselves and come with a soft carry case that has pockets for the 3.5mm jack cable and USB-C to USB-C cable you can use to listen to music through a wired connection.

Sound Quality

The Studio Pro have custom 40mm drivers powering their sound, which is rich and full and certainly not lacking in bass. The headphones offer Apple’s personalized spatial audio and head tracking (when using compatible audio sources), but you can’t directly adjust the EQ: You have to do so within the app you’re using, such as a music streaming app.

I enjoyed listening to a range of music genres and the sound was balanced and clear, with no distortion in the upper ranges. They’re bass-forward, but not unpleasantly so, and on busy tracks you can hear each instrument and the vocals clearly.

You can use a USB-C cable that comes with the headphones to plug them into devices and enjoy high-fidelity lossless audio, as well as three EQ modes to suit different situations. There’s one for entertainment, like films and games, one for listening to voice calls and podcasts, and the signature Beats profile for music.

ANC And Transparency Modes

The Studio Pro’s ANC mode cancels out background noise effectively, especially when traveling on trains. In the gym they filter out the in-house music and sounds of other users well, so you can focus on your workout—though it means you need to stay aware of others in case someone is trying to get your attention.

If that’s a concern you can use the transparency mode, which uses mics to filter in noise from your external surroundings, so you can hear what’s going on. This transparency mode isn’t as good as the one on the Apple AirPods Pro 2, where other people’s voices sound natural through the mics, but it does help you stay aware of the world.

Battery Life

The Studio Pro headphones last up to 40 hours on a change with the ANC off, and 24 hours with the ANC enabled. If you have the volume set high at all times these numbers come down, but I rarely felt the need to pump up the volume, because the over-ear design and ANC meant the sound was loud enough at mid-volume levels.

If you’re caught short of battery you can get four hours of playback from a 10-minute charge. The headphones are charged via a USB-C cable and you can charge the headphones while listening to certain Apple devices if you plug them in with the USB-C cable.

Are The Beats Studio Pro Worth It?

If you want to use over-ear headphones in the gym then the Beats Studio Pro are a compelling option, as long as you’re careful to clean the sweat off them after workouts—or invest in silicone covers to protect the ear pads.

I prefer a set of in-ear buds like the Beats Fit Pro or Jabra Elite 4 Active for workouts because they have a more reliable fit and durable design for sports, but you don’t get the same sound quality and battery life as you do with the Studio Pro, which are more enjoyable to use outside workouts.

The On Cloudmonster 2 is quite different from most cushioned shoes. It has a firmer, stiffer ride than most of the best cushioned running shoes, and traditional geometry that snaps you onto the forefoot of the shoe rather than a smooth rocker.

As a result, it will suit some runners who are not widely catered to in the cushioned shoe market, but I don’t think the On Cloudmonster 2 will be the best pick for most, and I still prefer the original shoe. I found the 2 a little too heavy and hard to really enjoy on easy runs, and prefer the rockered ride of shoes like the On Cloudeclipse or Brooks Ghost Max, or the springier, more versatile ride of the Puma Magnify Nitro 2 or Saucony Triumph 21.

On Cloudmonster 2: Price And Availability

The On Cloudmonster 2 launched on February 15, 2024 and costs $180 in the US and £170 in the UK. That’s a $10/£20 price rise on the original Cloudmonster, and although cushioned shoes are getting more expensive in general, the Cloudmonster 2 still sits at the top end of the price range.

How I Tested This Shoe

I have run 30 miles in the On Cloudmonster 2, mostly using it for easy and recovery runs during my marathon training. I have also tested the original On Cloudmonster, and a range of the best On running shoes, including the On Cloudsurfer and On Cloudeclipse cushioned shoes.

Design And Fit

The On Cloudmonster 2 sticks to a similar set-up to the original shoe, but increases the cushioning in the midsole. This cushioning is still a combination of the brand’s Helion foam on top of On’s signature CloudTec pods, and has a nylon Speedboard running through it to add some stiffness to the ride and make the transition through your foot-strike more efficient.

With a stack height of 35mm at the heel and 29mm at the forefoot the Cloudmonster 2 stands 6mm taller than the original, though it’s still not as high as many cushioned shoes. It still has a drop of 6mm, but the extra cushioning on the shoe has increased its weight. The Cloudmonster 2 weighs 10.7oz/302g in my UK size 9, while the original was 10oz/284g in the same size. 

The Cloudmonster 2 has a breathable mesh with a little padding around the collar of the shoe. Although it has less padding than other max-cushioned shoes, I found the upper very comfortable and the Cloudmonster 2 fit well in my normal running shoe size.

On has removed the deep cut-out on the bottom of the shoe that on the original Cloudmonster had a habit of catching stones, but the 2 still has the podded design on the bottom rather than a full-contact outsole. There is rubber covering the heel and forefoot pods and the shoe gripped well for me in wet conditions.

Running Performance

The original Cloudmonster was a shoe that grew on me. While it wasn’t especially soft, it did make up for that by being light and versatile for a cushioned shoe, and it was still comfortable for long runs. 

The Cloudmonster 2 trades in that versatility for the extra cushioning underfoot, but it is still not a particularly soft or bouncy shoe, and it’s heavier. I found that it was a bit too heavy for me even on relaxed recovery runs, and without a rocker or a particularly springy foam, it wasn’t as easy or enjoyable to tick along in the Cloudmonster 2 as in other shoes.

It is naturally quite stable, though, and the ride isn’t uncomfortable. The Cloudmonster 2 does a good job of protecting the legs at easy paces and some will find the natural, firm ride a welcome difference to softer or highly rockered cushioned shoes.

I think you could get all the same things from the original Cloudmonster, though, and it felt a bit more fluid and easy to run in at a variety of paces. I also prefer On’s other cushioned shoes—the Cloudsurfer is softer and smoother, and the Cloudeclipse more rockered and versatile.

Is The On Cloudmonster 2 Worth It?

Given the price rise and the changes to the shoe that have made it heavier, I don’t think the On Cloudmonster 2 is one of the best cushioned running shoes available. It’s a good-looking shoe you can wear when not running, and some will like its firmer ride, but there are better alternatives available.

Those include the original Cloudmonster, which shares a similar design but is lighter and more fun to run in, and On’s other cushioned options, the Cloudsurfer and Cloudeclipse. I also prefer several other cushioned shoes for both comfort and versatility, including the Puma Magnify Nitro 2, Brooks Ghost Max and Saucony’s Triumph 21 and Ride 17.

The Adidas Adizero Takumi Sen 10 isn’t a typical modern racing shoe. Instead of having a stack height that hits the 40mm limit set by World Athletics and a full carbon plate, it’s a nimble shoe with a relatively low stack and uses glass fiber rods rather than a carbon plate to provide added pop on the run.

As a result, the Takumi Sen 10 can’t match the propulsive feeling of the best carbon plate running shoes. I wouldn’t fancy using it for a marathon, but its lightweight and agile design makes the shoe a fantastic racing option for shorter events, especially on twisty courses.

Adidas Adizero Takumi Sen 10: Price And Availability

The Adidas Takumi Sen 10 launched in January 2024 and costs $180 in the US and £170 in the UK. That’s the same price as the previous two generations of the shoe and cheaper than top super-shoes like the Nike Vaporfly, which usually costs more than $200/£200. I got my sample for this review from SportsShoes.

How I Tested This Shoe

I’ve run 30 miles in the Takumi Sen 10, using it for three training runs, including two hard workouts and a five-mile race where I set my PR of 26min 6sec. I used the Takumi Sen 8 extensively, running more than 120 miles in the shoe including racing at 5K, 10K and half marathon distances, and have also tested most of the best carbon plate running shoes and Adidas shoes including the Adidas Adizero Adios Pro 3 and Prime X 2 Strung.

Design And Fit

Adidas didn’t alter much about the Takumi Sen between the eighth and ninth generations of the shoe and, while the midsole set-up has been changed with the Takumi Sen 10, it still has a similar look and feel to its immediate predecessors.

The stack height is still 33mm at the heel and 27mm at the forefoot for a 6mm drop, which is notably lower than most current super-shoes, which hit 40mm at the heel as standard. The Takumi Sen 10 also has a narrow design and feels more like a souped-up racing flat than a trimmed-down super-shoe.

There are two layers of Adidas’s Lightstrike Pro foam in the midsole that surround glass fiber rods. The EnergyRods 2.0 system in the Takumi Sen 10 extends the rods to the back of the shoe in one continuous piece, whereas the Takumi Sen 8 and 9 had rods under the forefoot and a small carbon plate under the heel. 

This design means the Takumi Sen 10 weighs more than the previous two versions of the shoe. The 10 weighs 7.3oz/206g in my UK size 9, whereas the Takumi Sen 8 weighed 6.8oz/184g. The Takumi Sen 10 is still light compared with most super-shoes, although the Nike Vaporfly 3 is the same weight despite its 40mm stack.

The Takumi Sen 10 has a lightweight mesh upper with minimal padding on the tongue and collar of the shoe. The tongue annoyed me because it was hard to get it into the right position when lacing the shoe, though it didn’t affect my running experience. I found the shoe fitted well in my usual running shoe size, but it does have a racing-focused fit, in that it’s narrow and tight around the toes. This works well for me because I have a narrow foot, but if you have a wide foot it may be cramped in the toe box.

There are cut-outs in the midsole foam to reduce the shoe’s weight, but the Takumi Sen 10 retains good outsole coverage. The Continental rubber used is durable and delivers great traction on wet roads. It also gripped well on a greasy track during my testing.

Running Performance

I loved the Takumi Sen 8 and used it for a lot of training and races, even though higher-stack carbon shoes delivered more propulsion. This was because, at times, the trade-off of that bouncier midsole for the agile, light design of the Takumi Sen 8 was worth it—especially when doing short reps in training or racing on courses with lots of twists and turns.

The same is true of the Takumi Sen 10, which still doesn’t match the spring of a full super-shoe like the Vaporfly, but is still fast, and is ideal for certain conditions. It’s just a lot of fun to run fast in such a light and narrow shoe, and a welcome change from the bigger feel of most modern racers. The changes in the midsole have made the Takumi Sen 10 firmer than the Sen 8, and I think you get a little more spring from the new EnergyRods 2.0, but I found the overall feel of the two shoes was similar.

I used the Takumi Sen 10 for a five-mile race in Victoria Park, London, on a mostly flat and fast course and it didn’t disappoint. I ran a PR for the distance of 26min 6sec and the shoe felt great, with the lightweight design helping me to turn my feet over and keep the pace up as I tired late in the race.

On that kind of course, however, with mostly sweeping turns and lots of flat straights, I’d still probably lean towards using a higher-stack shoe for the extra bounce. There are lots of courses where the Takumi Sen 10 has the edge, though, and for training runs I found it helpful to have a lighter shoe that took turns easily.

I did a progression 10K run in the shoe, moving from 3min 45sec/km pace to 3min 13sec/km pace on the streets around me. There were many moments during the run where I felt the benefit of the more agile design, such as when running on cambered paved surfaces, dodging other people and slipping through barriers.

The Takumi Sen 10 also felt brilliant when doing shorter reps at the track. I used it for a set of 10 400m reps straight after using the Puma Fast-R 2 for 10 1K reps, which showcased the different benefits of the shoes. The Fast-R 2 is considerably heavier but packed more of a punch and was great for helping me to cruise through the longer reps at speed, while the Takumi had the raw pace and lighter feel for the shorter reps.

Is The Adidas Adizero Takumi Sen 10 Worth It?

The Takumi Sen 10 is a brilliant shoe, and one I love, but it’s still a tough one to recommend because it doesn’t fit that well into a traditional running shoe rotation. For that I’d have a cushioned shoe, a versatile daily trainer that can handle some speed, and then one of the best carbon plate running shoes for races. 

The Takumi doesn’t fit any of those categories perfectly, unless you only do short races. However, it would be the fourth shoe I’d add to my rotation because it’s such a fantastic and fun option for fast training sessions and certain races. I found it a practical shoe for speed sessions on the roads near me, where it’s not easy to find flawless, flat asphalt with few obstructions.

At its full price it’s hard to say it’s worth picking up the Takumi Sen 10 for this purpose, when the Nike Vaporfly 3 is just as light and even better for most short races, then more propulsive for longer ones. However, the Takumi Sen line is often reduced, and I’d not hesitate to recommend the shoe if it drops nearer $120/£100, which has happened on many occasions with the Takumi Sen 8 and 9. 

You could also look to grab one of the older Takumi Sen models in the sale now the 10 has been launched because I found the new shoe similar to the Takumi Sen 8, despite the updated midsole.

Smart rings can be more comfortable and unobtrusive to wear than the best fitness trackers, and when I tested the Oura Ring I was impressed by the higher level of accuracy it offered for sleep tracking when compared to sports watches.

I hoped that the Circular Smart Ring Slim might be similarly effective and become a rival to the Oura but, after a month of testing, the Circular Slim has failed to wow me, with the design and the accuracy of its tracking falling short.

Circular Smart Ring Slim: Price And Availability

The Circular Ring Slim launched in November 2023 and costs £225 in the UK and €259 in Europe. This is cheaper than the Circular Pro 1 (€364), which is larger and comes in one of four finishes versus the Slim’s one. The ring ships worldwide, so can be purchased in the US. 

The Oura Ring 3 costs $299/£229, though you need to have a subscription to unlock many of its best features, which you don’t with the Circular rings. 

At the time of writing the Circular Ring Slim was out of stock, but it’s possible to sign up for notifications as to when it’s next available. 

How I Tested This Smart Ring

I’ve worn the Circular Ring Slim day and night for a month, only taking it off to charge it—though this was quite often. During testing I also wore the Oura Ring 3 to compare the readings, as well as the Garmin Epix Pro and Apple Watch Ultra 2. Aside from the past two versions of the Oura Ring, this is the only smart ring I’ve tested.

Design

The Slim in the ring’s name is justified. Where the Oura Ring is 2.55mm thick, the Slim is just 2.2mm; it’s also light, at 2g, and comfortable to wear day and night. It is 8.8mm wide and has a small white logo on the top that shows which way up it’s meant to be worn. To me, this isn’t an appealing or subtle design feature, though the bigger design issue is the materials used. The Circular Slim is made from a mix of aluminum and carbon fiber, rather than a hardier material, like titanium, and the result is that it scratches easily and has a plastic feel when compared with the titanium Oura Ring.

The ring became scuffed within days of starting to wear it, with silver scratches showing through the black exterior and reducing the appeal of its design further. The ring isn’t waterproof, just water-resistant enough to withstand splashing when washing your hands or showering. For now, it’s also only available in one color: matte black.

As with other smart rings, you are sent a sizing kit when you order to ensure you get the right fit. The ring needs to be tight so the sensors take an accurate reading and it’s wise to wear the sizing kit rings 24/7 to see how they feel when your fingers swell. The Slim is packed with sensors to track your sleep and daily activity. It has infrared, red and green LED sensors, a surface temperature sensor and a three-axis accelerometer. There’s a haptic button where the logo shows on the top of the ring that you can use to turn off features like the vibrating alarm powered by the motor in the ring.

In the box is a charger that plugs into a USB-C port on which the ring sits. The charger is neat and has a keyring on it, but the way the ring has to sit on it means it’s hard to use the charger when plugging it into a computer on a desk.

Sleep And Activity Tracking

The Circular Slim tracks a lot of data about you. On-board sensors monitoring heart rate, heart rate variability (HRV), sleep stages, blood oxygen saturation, stress levels and a lot more. There’s a 14-day calibration period to set your baselines, so it’s only after two weeks that you start getting useful insights into the state of your body. 

The headline stats are delivered in the app through “Circles”, which give sleep score, energy score (similar to the readiness score you get on other devices) and stress levels. You can also take a live measurement with the ring to show your heart rate, HRV and blood oxygen saturation.

You can then click on the Circles for detailed information about sleep and energy levels. As with other smart rings, I found sleep analysis the most interesting aspect of the tracking, with information on how long it took me to go to sleep, my overall sleep debt, and how restless I was overnight, along more common features like sleep stages. The Slim also tracks HRV and temperature and plots them against your baseline.

During the day the ring tracks steps, calories burned and heart rate, awarding “cardio points” for when you’re active as well as monitoring stress levels. I found the step tracking generally showed totals lower than the watches I wore that day, but not by much. The ring can’t track workouts, nor can it pull workout data from Apple Health or Google Fit to fill in this data in the app, unlike the Oura Ring.

Unfortunately, the accuracy problems I saw with the ring’s overnight tracking were extensive. My temperature fluctuated a bizarre amount throughout testing, including one night where it was shown as 7.3°C (approximately 12°F) below normal, while other trackers and the Oura ring showed normal readings.

I’ve barely had a minute of deep sleep throughout the month, according to the ring, again when other trackers have observed I usually get 40-50 minutes a night. My sleep scores have sometimes failed to tally up with reality too: I was getting 90+ scores for a week despite being regularly woken by a baby and staying up late and drinking alcohol one night. My resting heart rate data is also higher than with other devices, and some nights I get no sleep data at all from the Slim, or no sleep stages.

Some data has been accurate, or at least in line with other devices, such as the times I fell asleep and woke up, though the Circular Slim missed times I woke in the night occasionally, and the HRV measurements have been similar to those of the Oura Ring and Garmin watch.

The App

The Circular app is busy-looking, which isn’t surprising given the amount of data the ring collects, but it’s a bit cluttered and once you look beyond the Circles at the top of the app the data is overwhelming. The Oura app is cleaner and more enjoyable to use, though at least the Circular app doesn’t require a subscription to use it.

It takes time to sync the ring with the app though, and sometimes I couldn’t find the time to wait for the data to show up in the morning. The ring stores 20 days of data so you can do a catch-up sync at another point, but this slow sync is again worse than the experience with the Oura Ring, which flashes up sleep and readiness scores shortly after you open the app in the morning. 

There were also bugs with the Circular app, such as frequent notifications that I was offline (when I wasn’t), and that I couldn’t rename the ring (after it told me I could rename the ring when I first set it up).

One novel feature with the Circular Slim is the AI assistant Kira+, which offers daily recommendations based on the data tracked by the ring. Unfortunately, this wasn’t as smart as I’d initially hoped. Kira+’s suggestions were a long stream of text telling me, once more, the data the ring has tracked, plus basic advice like doing breathing exercises and keeping your bedroom cool and comfortable at night.

You can set an alarm clock in the app, including a smart alarm feature that wakes you in a window of time based on your sleep patterns. The ring vibrates to do this, and you turn off the vibration by tapping the logo. It’s an unobtrusive way to wake up when others are in bed with you.

Battery Life

The Slim is listed as lasting up to five days on a charge, but this is in Eco mode, which reduces how often it takes heart rate readings and doesn’t track your sleep stages. In Performance mode the ring lasted two days (at most), which is less than the four days I typically get from the Oura ring.

Is The Circular Smart Ring Slim Worth It?

I’d steer clear of the Circular Slim. To me, the design isn’t particularly nice and it scratches easily, and I’ve reservations about the accuracy of its tracking. The battery life is short and the Oura Ring is simply a better all-round product. I’ve not yet tested other rings like the Ultrahuman Ring or RingConn Smart Ring, which may be better alternatives to Oura than the Circular Slim.

The original Puma Fast-R Nitro Elite turned heads with its eccentric design, which featured a decoupled midsole with separate chunks of foam under the heel and forefoot.

Puma has kept the decoupled design, but made other notable changes such as increasing the stack height and using a new midsole foam. The Puma Fast-R 2 is a bouncy and impressively propulsive racer, especially for the marathon, and stands up well against the best carbon plate running shoes—even if there are some I prefer like the Nike Vaporfly 3 and Nike Alphafly 3.

Puma Fast-R 2 Nitro Elite: Price And Availability

The Puma Fast-R 2 was announced in November 2023 and there was a limited release of the Ekiden colorway I tested in December, with the full launch on February 22, 2024. It costs $260 in the US and £230 in the UK, which is a $10/£10 rise on the price of the original Fast-R. 

How I Tested This Shoe

I've run 30 miles in the Puma Fast-R 2, completing two hard training sessions as well as an all-out parkrun and an easier training run. I’ve also tested Puma’s other carbon plate racers, including both generations of the Deviate Nitro Elite and the Fast-FWD, as well as the original Fast-R.

Design And Fit

The Puma Fast-R 2 has all the usual ingredients of a modern racing shoe, with a high stack of bouncy lightweight foam and a carbon plate running through the midsole, but there are design innovations that make it stand out from the crowd.

For starters, the Nitro Elite foam in the midsole is not a Peba-based material. It is made from aliphatic TPU, which Puma says returns more energy. Most of the best racing shoes use Peba foams so it’s a bold move from Puma.

The first Fast-R had two different foams in its midsole, with a firmer EVA foam for the heel chunk and the Peba-based Nitro Elite in the forefoot. The Fast-R 2 uses the same updated Nitro Elite foam throughout the midsole and it is notably softer under the heel. The new shoe also has a higher stack than the original Fast-R, with the Fast-R 2 standing 40mm tall at the heel and 32mm at the forefoot for an 8mm drop.

Puma has also bucked convention with its carbon PWRPLATE, which extends beyond the midsole to create what looks like an underbite. This design is meant to create extra leverage and propulsion from the plate.

The Ultraweave upper is a lightweight material that has strips of Puma’s PWRTAPE on it to add stability. The heel fin that sticks out from the back of the shoe acts as a heel counter for added support there. I found the toe box fit was good in my normal running shoe size, but the heel design did irritate my Achilles tendon a little if I used the shoe for longer runs. 

A cut-out on the forefoot of the shoe helps to reduce its weight, as does the decoupled midsole, but the Fast-R 2 is still pretty heavy for a racing shoe. It’s 9oz/255g in my UK size 9, which is 0.6oz/17g heavier than the original shoe. Puma suggests the Fast-R 2 is for more powerful runners who benefit enough from the extra propulsion of its design to overcome the weight gain, while those seeking a lighter shoe are better served by the Deviate Nitro Elite 2.

The outsole of the shoe is made from a thin layer of Pumagrip that covers the forefoot, with two sections of rubber at the heel. This grips exceptionally well on greasy and wet asphalt, and Pumagrip has also proved durable for me with Puma’s other racing shoes.

Running Performance

Like the original Fast-R, the Fast-R 2 feels odd and unwieldy when running at easy paces—the two chunks of foam in the midsole feel disconnected. Once you get up to your race paces, however, the ride is smoother and it’s certainly bouncy—much more so than the original shoe.

The midsole foam combined with the plate does produce a highly propulsive ride, and while the shoe doesn’t feel light and nimble it’s certainly fast thanks to the amount of spring it puts into your step. It’s also more comfortable than the original Fast-R, which I found would give me forefoot discomfort if used for long hard runs, something I didn’t experience at all with the Fast-R 2.

My first run in the shoe was an hour-long progression run, doing 20 minutes apiece of 6min/mile, 5min 42sec/mile and 5min 30sec/mile paces. The Fast-R 2 was ideal for this run. The booming bounce of the shoe helped me roll through the session well while the Pumagrip outsole provided reliable traction on a slightly slick all-weather park path.

It didn’t feel like a shoe that would work well for a short race, but when I did a parkrun in the shoe it was surprisingly quick. It doesn’t help the legs turn over quickly, or have the aggressive tip forward I get from the Nike Vaporfly, but the bouncy midsole protects the legs and helps to push you forward. 

I also ran a session of 10 two-minute reps in the shoe, and again I was surprised by how fast and explosive it felt for these shorter efforts. Still,  I preferred wearing it for the longer session—if I was picking a race to wear the Fast-R 2 in, it would be a marathon.

It feels like a shoe that will suit certain runners better than others. If you are a stronger runner with more of a loping stride who puts more force into the shoe, it will deliver more bounce. I’m more of a shuffling runner, especially when tired, and rely on a high cadence more than stride length for speed, so a lightweight shoe like the Deviate Nitro Elite 2 feels a little more natural to me late on in hard runs or races. That said, the Fast-R 2 does feel quicker overall despite this, and I think it’s Puma’s best racing shoe to date.

With regards to the innovative features of the shoe, some work better than others. The aliphatic TPU foam feels very bouncy, though a little firmer than some Peba-based foams like Nike’s ZoomX. The extra-long carbon plate didn’t do a lot for me, aside from making me nervous about jabbing someone when running in a pack; trimming that back to the forefoot of the shoe might save a little weight, which is something the Fast-R 2 could benefit from because it’s among the heavier super-shoes.

Is The Puma Fast-R 2 Nitro Elite Worth It?

The Puma Fast-R 2 is a great racing shoe and a fantastic option for the marathon. I’m not sold on every innovation Puma tried with the shoe, but I do like the new foam and it feels like a shoe that will benefit runners with a longer stride than me.

As with all new carbon shoes, the problem is the competition, especially from long-established favorites like the Nike Vaporfly and Nike Alphafly, which have served runners well for several years. The Nike Alphafly 3 is currently the carbon shoe I consider the best available, and it’s lighter than the Fast-R 2 while delivering the same kind of propulsive feel. The Vaporfly 3 is lighter still and cheaper than the Fast-R 2.

The difference in performance between most carbon shoes is now very slight and the Fast-R 2 is competitive with anything over long distances, but it’s not a shoe that will work equally well for every runner. While Puma’s carbon shoes continue to impress with their innovation, for flat-out performance I’d still rank a few shoes ahead of the Fast-R 2.

The Puma Velocity Nitro and Velocity Nitro 2 were among the best running shoes available, offering great bang for your buck as versatile daily trainers that cost less than most equivalents from other brands.

The shoes became fixtures in my running shoe rotation after I reviewed them, ahead of the more than 100 others I’ve tested since the Velocity Nitro came out. So I’m pleased that the Velocity Nitro 3 is an evolution of the 2, rather than something reimagined. It's an excellent shoe and easy to recommend to runners of all levels, though I wouldn’t shy away from grabbing a deal on the Velocity Nitro 2 instead if you see one.

Puma Velocity Nitro 3: Price And Availability

The Puma Velocity Nitro 3 launched in January 2023 and costs $130 in the US and £110 in the UK. That’s an increase on the Velocity Nitro 2, which is $120/£105, but the third version of the shoe is still cheaper than its rivals from other brands, such as the Nike Pegasus 40 and Adidas Supernova Rise.

How I Tested This Shoe

I’ve run just over 30 miles in the Velocity Nitro 3, using it for a range of training runs, including a 13-mile long run and also a progression run to check its performance at faster paces. I tested the Velocity Nitro and Velocity Nitro 2 extensively, and have tested a range of the best running shoes from other brands.

Design And Fit

The Velocity Nitro 3 is a neutral running shoe with a high level of cushioning: It’s 36mm high at the heel and 26mm high at the forefoot for a 10mm drop. This is a 2mm increase in stack height on the Velocity Nitro 2, though by current standards the Velocity Nitro 3 is not a max-cushioned shoe. Puma has the Magnify Nitro 2 in its line-up for those who want even more foam underfoot.

As with the previous models, the Velocity Nitro 3 has a dual-density midsole with a top layer of Puma's Nitro foam, which is a nitrogen-infused TPEE material and softer and bouncier than the ProFoam Lite EVA foam underneath it. With the extra stack height comes extra weight. The Velocity Nitro 3 weighs 10oz/283g in my UK size 9, which is a 0.5oz/12g increase on the Velocity Nitro 2, though it’s still a fairly lightweight shoe for its category, especially considering its thick outsole.

This outsole is made from Pumagrip rubber and provides outstanding traction on paved surfaces in all conditions, as well as being suitable for light trails. The outsole of the Velocity Nitro 3 is one of its best features and makes the shoe a practical option for winter training.

The shoe has a mesh upper with a lot of padding around the collar. The shape of this padding has been changed, compared with the Velocity Nitro 2 to hold the achilles more from the sides than the back. I found it made for a more comfortable fit around the heel. The shoe fitted well in my usual running shoe size, the same size I’ve used for all generations of the Velocity Nitro.

Puma has added strips of its PWRTAPE to the upper to add more structure and support. The upper is not the most breathable material and some runners have found the past versions of the shoe to be a bit warm when running in hot conditions. I haven’t had this problem with any edition of the shoe, but I don’t think the Velocity Nitro 3 is more breathable than its predecessors.

Running Performance

I used the Velocity Nitro 3 for my Sunday long run, logging a half marathon in just under 90 minutes. My main emotion on that first run was relief that Puma hadn’t made significant changes to one of my favorite running shoes. The Velocity Nitro 3 has the same fluid, comfortable ride as its predecessors, and it feels easy to tick over in the shoe at relaxed paces.

I also did a short run on the same day with the Velocity Nitro 2 on one foot and the 3 on the other. I didn’t notice a major difference in the ride feel of the shoes. The Velocity Nitro 3’s upper holds the foot a bit more securely, and the extra cushioning is welcome for long runs, but mostly the new shoe feels like the old shoe.

This means it remains a versatile shoe. The Velocity Nitro 3 doesn’t have any kind of plate—the Deviate Nitro 2 is the plated super-trainer in Puma’s range—but the dual-density midsole delivers a responsive ride for faster runs. It’s not one I’d use for all-out track sessions because it’s heavier and less aggressive than the shoes I use for those, but the Velocity Nitro 3 handles tempo runs and fartlek intervals. It would also be a good marathon running shoe for those who aren’t using a carbon plate running shoe.

The Pumagrip outsole remained as reliable as ever during my testing, which included runs on wet and slushy paved surfaces, as well as on a canal towpath and in my local forest. The Velocity Nitro 3 is pleasingly practical in this regard. There are daily trainers with more exciting rides and higher stacks of softer foams, but the Velocity Nitro 3 is a more reliable and stable option when I’m running on cambered paved surfaces or light trails just as much as flat asphalt. The grip is welcome during winter.

Is The Puma Velocity Nitro 3 Worth It?

The Puma Velocity Nitro 3 is a good option for runners of all levels and worth its fairly modest price. I would pick it up to use as a cushioned daily trainer in my running shoe rotation, mainly using it for easy and long runs, but it has the versatility for faster runs too, and is a good all-rounder for those who use one pair of shoes at a time. 

The Velocity Nitro 3 is not only cheaper than most similar shoes from other brands, like the Nike Pegasus 40, Adidas Supernova Rise and Saucony Ride 17, but also more enjoyable to use for a range of runs. Those are all good shoes, but I prefer the ride feel of the Velocity Nitro 3, and it also has a better outsole.

The Asics Novablast 4 provides sterner competition as a more cushioned and bouncy option that’s also lighter than the Velocity Nitro 3. The Novablast 4 is more expensive and its outsole is not as impressive, but it’s a solid alternative to the Velocity Nitro 3 if you want more cushioning underfoot.

The Velocity Nitro 3 is not a major upgrade on the Velocity Nitro 2, so if the older shoe is available at a lower price I’d get it instead to do the same job. The extra cushioning on the Velocity Nitro 3 is no bad thing, especially on longer runs, and may help the shoe retain more bounce over its lifespan, but I didn’t notice a big change to the ride of the shoe.

The New Balance FuelCell SC Elite line has changed a lot with each generation and the SC Elite v4 is a significant update on the 3, with a new midsole foam and redesigned geometry. It’s heavier than previous models but the new foam delivers more bounce, and the SC Elite v4 is undoubtedly a fast shoe.

It’s hard to say where it sits among the best carbon plate running shoes, however. The SC Elite v4 is a great marathon running shoe, and its high level of comfort may make it more inviting to slower amateur runners than other super-shoes. But on pure performance I rate other racers more highly, including the Nike Vaporfly and Alphafly 3.

New Balance FuelCell SC Elite v4: Price And Availability

The New Balance SC Elite v4 goes on sale on February 1 and will cost $250 in the US and £260 in the UK. It’s a little more expensive than the SC Elite v3 and costs more than some notable carbon plate shoes including the Nike Vaporfly 3.

How I Tested This Shoe

I’ve run 30 miles in the SC Elite v4: a 90-minute long run, a track session doing threshold mile reps and a 10-mile progression run. I have also tested the three previous models of the shoe, and most of the best carbon plate running shoes available from all brands.

Design And Fit

Although it’s still called FuelCell, the foam in the midsole of the SC Elite v4 is different to the FuelCell found in previous versions of the shoe, and across New Balance’s range in general. It’s a Peba-based foam that is the material used in most of the best racing shoes, and it’s lighter and bouncier than foams used in the SC Elite line before this.

The shoe has a full-length carbon plate running through the midsole, and a rocker profile to speed up the transition onto your forefoot with each stride—though this rocker felt less dramatic to me than the one on the New Balance SC Elite v3.

As is the case with most carbon shoes, the SC Elite v4’s stack height is 40mm at the heel, the maximum allowed in road races according to World Athletics regulations. The stack is 36mm at the forefoot for a 4mm drop, which is lower than most super-shoes, though the rocker on the shoe means the drop felt a little higher to me.

At 8.6oz/243g the SC Elite v4 isn’t a weighty shoe, but it is a little heavier than many carbon racers. It’s also heavier than the previous versions of the shoe, perhaps because New Balance has increased the amount of foam underfoot.

The upper is made from a lightweight, breathable mesh. The collar and tongue have minimal padding, and so I have concerns that the heel collar in particular has the potential to rub. I heel-locked the shoe because it felt loose at the back on my first run and haven’t had any problems since. Otherwise, the shoe fitted well in my usual running shoe size.

There’s a deep cut-out running along the middle of the bottom of the shoe that shows off the carbon plate, but aside from that there’s pretty good rubber coverage on the outsole, with strips at the back and most of the forefoot covered. I found the SC Elite v4 gripped well in the rain, even on a greasy track surface.

Running Performance

The SC Elite v4 delivers in the way you’d expect a chunky carbon super-shoe to. It’s bouncy and, while it’s not the lightest, once you get up to race pace it feels comfortable to hold that pace for long periods thanks to the springy foam and propulsion from the plate.

On my first run I did 14 miles in 90 minutes, including a five-mile pick up at around 5min 50sec/mile pace. I was running on tired legs after an XC race the day before and the shoe felt comfortable and helped me to push to faster paces. 

It felt like a big shoe though, especially when running into the wind. It doesn’t tip you onto your toes as quickly as other carbon shoes, with the pace coming from the bouncy foam. It’s also not the most nimble of shoes, instead shining on long straights on flat asphalt and then feeling cumbersome when rounding corners at speed.

For me the speed sweet spot in shoe was half marathon to marathon pace, and I enjoyed using it for a track session running six mile reps at 5min 30sec/mile pace, with 400m recovery in 95 seconds. The session ended up being 7.8 miles in total where I averaged my marathon pace of around 5min 42sec/mile. The shoe felt brilliant throughout, helping me to cruise through the reps and maintain a good pace through the float recoveries.

It was also comfortable for a long warm-down after that session, which is not always the case with carbon shoes. I think the SC Elite v4 is one of the more comfortable carbon racers and more approachable for slower runners than shoes like the Vaporfly. This was also true of the SC Elite v2, which had a softer, less aggressive ride than the SC Elite v3.

For pure speed over short distances, I prefer the more rockered ride of the SC Elite v3 and, indeed, the SC Elite v1, though the SC Elite v4 is the bounciest version of the shoe yet and the fastest for longer races. I’ve found that the shoe grips well in wet conditions, since I’ve been unfortunate enough to do most of my runs in the shoe in the rain. It’s not too unstable despite the high stack of soft foam, with the central cut-out on the underside of the shoe helping to keep you centered rather than rolling to either side.

Is The New Balance FuelCell SC Elite v4 Worth It?

Competition in the super-shoe market is stiff and since it’s unlikely that most runners will buy more than one or two expensive carbon plate running shoes, it’s hard to recommend buying a shoe that I don’t rate as highly as others.

The New Balance SC Elite v4 is a fantastic racing shoe, especially for the marathon, but I’d use the NIke Vaporfly 3 or Nike Alphafly 3 ahead of it. I also believe other shoes, like the Asics Metaspeed Sky+, Saucony Endorphin Elite and Mizuno Wave Rebellion Pro, are more impressive racers.

Much comes down to personal preference, though, and the SC Elite v4 will undoubtedly help you run fast in races. It’s a more comfortable option than most carbon shoes and, like the Saucony Endorphin Pro 3, it’s a shoe I’d recommend as a first carbon option if you’re concerned that shoes like the Vaporfly will be too aggressive and unstable. 

Overall, my first recommendation to most runners seeking a racing shoe would be to try one from Nike, especially since the Vaporfly is cheaper than the SC Elite v4.

The CrossFit box I train at is like a R.A.D One showroom. Everywhere you turn there’s a new colorway; one coach owns seven pairs. The community has voted with its feet, so I decided it was time to get in on the action and test a pair. I wasn’t disappointed. 

The shoe was immediately comfortable and, although I found it didn’t match the stability around the heel of the Nike Metcon 9 or Inov-8 F-Lite G 300 for lifting, it more than made up for this during metcons with its springy and supportive SwellFoam midsole. Given WODs are (arguably) the defining feature of CrossFit training—and I think this shoe handles them better than any other—there’s a strong case to be made for saying this is the best CrossFit shoe. 

R.A.D One: Price And Availability

If you’re buying from the brand’s website, the shoe costs $150 in the US and £130 in the UK. It’s also available from Rogue Fitness. To my knowledge, the shoe is rarely discounted, but it’s built to last so you could argue it’s a long-term investment. 

Long-time owners I’ve spoken to have had no problems with wear and tear, with the knit-like mesh upper, midfoot bumpers and TPU midsole wrap standing up to the rigors of rope climbs and whatever other new movements Adrian Bozman pops in the next CrossFit Open (see: wall walks). 

How I Tested This Shoe

I wore this shoe for all my CrossFit training over the course of two months: five to six times a week, 90 minutes per session. These sessions tended to feature a strength and/or Olympic weightlifting element, gymnastic skill work, a WOD and accessory lifts. 

Design And Fit

The first thing to make clear is that, in my eyes, the R.A.D One is a beautiful shoe. It’s designed to hold its own in the gym and on the street, and does so on both counts—especially when you consider the functional but undeniably clunky look of rivals like the Nike Metcon 9. 

It’s not a case of style over substance. The construction of the shoe is based around three principles: performance, plyometrics and lifting. The SwellFoam EVA midsole is lightweight, springy and supportive, making it a welcome metcon companion when tackling high-volume burpee box jumps. 

There’s also a TPU “stability cage” that flares around the outsole to provide firm foundations when lifting and protect the shoe from damage during rope climbs. The knit-like mesh used for the upper promises to be breathable and durable, and the sole features herringbone grooves for grip on gym floors. 

I tested a US 11, which is my regular size. I found it ran slightly small, which was fine for me but may be worth considering if you’re close to the boundary between sizes.

Is The R.A.D One Good For WODs?

During CrossFit WODs and any other HIIT-like training, the R.A.D One truly comes into its own. It’s lightweight and breathable, and helped me feel nimble transitioning from shuttle runs and machine work to weighted exercises like devil press and dumbbell snatches. 

The springy SwellFoam midsole adds to this, providing a welcome layer of cushioning during box jumps without being so thick that stability is sacrificed. The comfort meant it was easy to forget I was wearing shoes at all, with no unwanted movement of the shoe throughout the varied workouts I subjected it to. 

If you’re after a new shoe for the next CrossFit Open or an upcoming competition, I think this (or the TYR CXT-1, if you have narrow feet like me) should be at the top of your list.

Is The R.A.D One Good For Resistance Training?

Making a CrossFit shoe can be like mixing a cocktail. Ingredients include the ability to support wearers through lifting heavy, running short distances and doing any number of exercises mid-metcon. The thing is, the thick midsole stack on running shoes will make these shoes bad for lifting. On the other hand, the unforgiving sole of a dedicated weightlifting shoe is going to feel unpleasant during even a slow-paced jog.

The features oppose one another, and striking a compromise is hard. That’s why the R.A.D One can fail to be the best CrossFit shoe for lifting but still be the best CrossFit shoe overall for most people. To be clear, it’s still a fine shoe for shifting heavy weights; I was able to squat, clean, snatch, jerk and deadlift happily while wearing it thanks to the flared “stability cage” around the outsole and its modest-yet-effective midsole cushioning.

I’ve found other CrossFit shoes like the Nike Metcon 9 or Inov-8 F-Lite G 300 have been built with more of a lifting bias. Their wider outsoles and firmer heels offer superior stability when catching a snatch. However, I found these competitors provided a much firmer ride during WODs, which could feel clunky during high-intensity workouts. 

Is The R.A.D One Good For Running?

A CrossFit shoe caveat: I don’t think any should be worn for distances of 5km and above. That’s what the best running shoes are for (a market the newer R.A.D R-1 is currently targeting, if you’re on the hunt for a chic new pair). 

What I would expect from a CrossFit shoe is for it to keep me comfortable during short efforts that crop up during CrossFit workouts—I’d see the two one-mile efforts at either end of the hero WOD “Murph” as the upper limit for distance here. And to that end, the R.A.D One performed excellently. 

As with the high-intensity workouts, I found the midsole delivered a surprising amount of support and bounce which belied how thin it is. The upper offered a sock-like fit that never threatened to cause pinch points or rubbing, and the breathable mesh-like material kept my feet cool. 

I was impressed by how well the shoe locked my heel down. This is something that has let me down on shoes like the Nike Metcon 9 and Under Armour Tribase Reign 5. Wearing both shoes, I felt some unwanted movement around the heel when running and rowing.

Is The R.A.D One Worth It?

The R.A.D One isn’t a cheap shoe, but it is a very good one. And, considering that after a few months of use the only signs of wear are some scuffs around the toe, I’d say they’re built to last. 

That’s why, if you’re a true CrossFitter, I think it’s worth investing in a pair. Hell, even if you’re a cardio-curious bodybuilder or general gym-goer looking for a stylish, versatile shoe, it’s probably worth it. The only exceptions are those whose training has a heavy running bias (the On Cloud X 3 may serve you better), dedicated weightlifters or long-time metcon fans. 

These last two groups will want either a purpose-built weightlifting shoe or a CrossFit sneaker that leans further towards stability than mid-WOD support, such as the Nike Metcon 9 or Inov-8 F-Lite G 300.

The Arc’teryx Norvan LD 3 GTX is an excellent waterproof trail-running shoe that I found comfortable over long distances in particular. The outsole provides reliable traction on a range of terrains, and the waterproof upper can be a godsend in cold and wet weather.

It is expensive, however, and some of the best trail-running shoes with waterproof uppers are cheaper, like the Saucony Peregrine 13 GTX and Puma Voyage Nitro 3 GTX. Unless you’re tackling a lot of extremely long runs, those other shoes will probably prove better value than the Arc’teryx.

Arc’teryx Norvan LD 3 GTX: Price And Availability

The Arc’teryx Norvan LD 3 GTX launched in summer 2023 and costs $200 in the US and £180 in the UK. This is a big step up on the price of the standard version of the shoe without a waterproof upper, which is $165/£150. It’s also considerably more than other great Gore-Tex trail shoes, such as the Saucony Peregrine 13 GTX which is $160/£140.

How I Tested This Shoe

I’ve run 33 miles in the Norvan LD 3 GTX, including a couple of two-hour long runs in the Pentland Hills in Scotland in freezing temperatures. I’ve run on a mix of terrain, such as deep mud, rocks and grass, with some steep climbs and descents on waterlogged trails. I’ve also tested a range of the best trail-running shoes from other brands, including waterproof options. 

Design And Fit

The Norvan LD 3 has a mesh upper with added protection from a toe cap and other reinforced sections to protect your feet and provide abrasion resistance. There is a Gore-Tex liner under the upper to make the shoe waterproof.

Even with the waterproof liner, the upper is comfortable and flexible, and I found it was a good fit in my usual running shoe size. The padded heel holds your foot securely on uneven ground, and there’s enough room in the toe box for it to be comfortable on long runs and when pounding down hills. The midsole is made from a blend of EVA and Polyolefin foams, and it’s well balanced—comfortable over long distances but not squishy or unstable on rocky ground. The stack height is 29mm at the heel and 23mm at the forefoot for a 6mm drop.

Arc’teryx has used a Vibram Megagrip outsole on the shoe, with 4mm lugs that grip well and create a smooth ride on flatter, harder ground. There is bite to the lugs too, so you can stray onto softer ground without problems, though I slipped around in deep mud when wearing the shoe. At 10.5oz/297g in my UK size 9, the Norvan LD 3 is light considering the lugged outsole and waterproof liner, and it felt nimble to me when running/hiking up hills.

Running Performance

My testing of the Norvan LD 3 GTX coincided with a winter trip to Scotland, which was fortunate because the waterproof upper was invaluable on trail runs in freezing conditions. I did two long runs in hills, running on asphalt, grass and rocky ground, with large frozen puddles to contend with. The upper kept my feet warm and dry right up until the last mile of the second run, when I tried my luck with a puddle deep enough for water to come in over the collar of the shoe. That’s one point against waterproof uppers, of course, and if you’re crossing rivers on your runs then water will get stuck inside the shoe.

Before then I had happily splashed through a lot of water, including running down a rocky path that had essentially become a shallow river. My runs would have been significantly less enjoyable in a non-waterproof shoe because my feet would have been cold and wet almost from the first mile.

The shoe gripped well on icy trails, and I was comfortable coming down fast descents on grass—if it wasn’t too muddy. When I hit muddy stretches, the lugs weren’t deep enough to provide reliable traction and I had to slow right down. The trade-off is that the lugs were comfortable on the long road stretches I had on one run. Admittedly, they slipped on hard, icy patches, but that’s a problem for basically any trail shoe without specialist studs.

On both long runs the midsole was comfortable and I didn’t have any stability problems with the shoe, even on jagged ground. On a shorter run when I picked up the pace it felt a bit big and heavy; this isn’t a shoe I’d pick for short distance races up to 10K, but the comfort is there for longer runs.

Is The Arc’teryx Norvan LD 3 GTX Worth It?

If you want a waterproof trail-running shoe the Norvan LD 3 GTX is up there with the best, and would be my pick if you wanted a waterproof shoe for very long runs. Mind you, it’s a great long-distance trail shoe, period. So, if you’re not convinced by the need for a waterproof upper, the standard version is a cheaper option.

The Saucony Peregrine 13 GTX costs less and is also a great shoe with a Gore-Tex upper. I found that the Peregrine offered better grip than the Arc’teryx on soft ground, though it’s not as comfortable when moving from road to trail. The Norvan LD 3 GTX has a more cushioned feel for long runs.

Another contender is the Puma Voyage Nitro 3. I’ve tested only the standard version of the shoe, but you can get it with a Gore-Tex upper for less than this Arc’teryx. The Puma is a good all-round trail shoe with excellent grip, though it’s less comfortable than the Norvan LD 3 for long runs on harder ground.

Withings is the dominant force in the hybrid smartwatch market, which is partly because of how good its watches are and partly because it’s a niche market other brands have largely left alone. The Garmin Vivomove range provides rivals, but the style and battery life of the Withings’ watches set them apart.

The Withings ScanWatch 2 is now the top option for those who want a hybrid that combines analogue looks with health and fitness tracking. It’s one of the best fitness trackers available and an upgrade on the original ScanWatch, although that and the ScanWatch Light still have appeal as cheaper options.

Withings ScanWatch 2: Price And Availability

The ScanWatch 2 launched in August 2023 and costs $349.95 in the US and £319.95 in the UK. Withings also has the cheaper ScanWatch Light in its range, which is $249.95/£229.95, though it doesn’t offer the advanced health tracking of the ScanWatch 2. External competition mainly comes from the Garmin Vivomove range, which is cheaper, and better for sports tracking, but not as advanced on the health tracking front.

How I Tested This Watch

I’ve been wearing the Withing ScanWatch 2 for six weeks, tracking all my daily activity and sleep in that period. I have also tested the Withings ScanWatch and a range of the best fitness trackers and best sports watches from other brands.

Design And Hardware

The Withings ScanWatch 2 comes in 38mm and 42mm sizes, with black and white faces with a silver bezel available in both, and then two extra colors in the 38mm: blue with a gold bezel, and sand with a gold bezel.

I tested a 38mm watch with the black face and loved its simple, elegant design. It’s small and light, and sits snugly against the wrist. The silicone wristband it came with has been comfortable to wear at all times, including workouts, and there’s a range of bands made from other materials you can buy from Withings and third parties.

On the top half of the analogue screen is a small, circular monochrome screen. This lights up when you raise your wrist or press the button on the watch, and you can scroll through it to see daily activity stats, or start a workout or health measurement, such as an electrocardiogram (ECG). Notifications are also displayed on this screen, but since it is only 0.63in, you’ll be waiting a while for a message to scroll across.

There’s a dial on the bottom half of the watch that shows progress towards your step goal. I’d prefer the option to show progress towards another goal like active minutes or calories, since steps feel a bit old hat, but people do like steps.

The ScanWatch 2 has a 5ATM waterproof rating, so you can be confident taking it swimming or into the shower, and also has a optical heart rate sensor and an altimeter. It can measure your skin temperature, take an ECG and track blood oxygen saturation—features that separate the ScanWatch 2 from the cheaper ScanWatch Light.

Health and Activity Tracking

The ScanWatch 2 tracks steps, calories, elevation and distance throughout each day, along with your heart rate and skin temperature. The skin temperature tracking is a new feature for the watch, and shows your temperature zones during workouts plus variations on your normal baseline, which you can see on a dial on the watch.

There’s more to come here, including temperature zones throughout the day and recovery temperature after a workout, which Withings says will arrive late in 2024. I also hope Withings makes it easier to track the temperature readings over time because it’s not readily available in the app yet. I had COVID while wearing the watch and a fever of 102°F, but I couldn’t see my temperature over time in the app—something I could do when I had COVID while wearing an Apple Watch.

The watch can take ECG and SpO2 (blood oxygen) measurements, and you can set high and low heart rate notifications. Irregular heart rate notifications will also be available in the future, as with overnight heart rate variability. That the watch launched without these features isn’t great, especially heart rate variability, which Withings says has been delayed until the end of 2024. It’s a feature already widely available on other sports watches and fitness trackers.

I found step tracking was accurate on the ScanWatch 2, or at least comparable to the results I got from the Garmin Epix Pro sports watch on my other wrist. The Withings tended to underestimate steps, but not by much.

Sleep Tracking

Aside from the lack of HRV tracking, the ScanWatch 2 is a good sleep tracker that offers plenty of detail on your night’s rest. This includes a graph of your sleep stages and a rating of the depth, regularity and duration of your sleep, as well as seeing your overnight blood oxygen saturation. You can track any breathing disturbances you experience in the night, but turning this on reduces battery life.

It’s hard to be sure about sleep tracking accuracy, but the ScanWatch 2 was hit and miss for me. There were many nights it tallied up well with the reading of an Oura ring, which I rate highly for accuracy, but the ScanWatch 2 regularly overestimated how well I slept. Nights when I was disturbed by my baby, and one when I stayed up late socializing, both got too high a rating, and the night when I had a fever with COVID went untracked by the watch.

The ScanWatch 2 is a good sleep tracker overall, yet the lack of more detailed recovery tracking using HRV is a shame on a health-focused watch such as this. It feels like an area where Withings could compete with the likes of Whoop and Oura, but perhaps it would hit the battery life on the watch too hard to do more comprehensive sleep tracking.

Sports Tracking

You can track workouts on the ScanWatch 2 by starting them manually, which means you can then see live stats during your session, though these are not easy to scroll through and read on the small screen. There’s no built-in GPS for outdoor activities, though if you start the workout on the watch manually and carry your phone with you, it will use your phone’s GPS for distance and pace tracking and provide a map of your activity afterwards. The watch detects and tracks workouts automatically.

The heart rate tracking during workouts was almost always incorrect, unfortunately, especially during runs where the readings were too high compared with a chest strap heart rate monitor. 

It’s not a watch that keen athletes will use to record and guide their training, because its sports tracking is basic. The automatic tracking is handy to have running in the background as a general record of your activities, though it often said I had gone for a cycle when I’d been pushing a stroller.

You get a VO2 max estimate from the ScanWatch 2, which the watch calls your fitness level, and the body temperature readings during workouts are mildly interesting at first, though I quickly stopped checking them. If I was training in a much hotter country than the UK they may be more useful for ensuring you don’t spend too long in the “high” temperature zone, rather than in the “warming up” or “performance” zones.

Battery Life

Long battery life is a central selling point of Withings’ watches, and the ScanWatch 2 delivers on this front. The 30-day listed battery life seems achievable. I only had to charge it once in six weeks with fairly heavy use—although there are a lot of features that will see that number come down significantly. If you turn on the breathing tracking at night it reduces the battery life, as does turning on notifications with vibrations. If you track a lot of workouts on the watch, rather than using the automatic activity recognition, it reduces battery life to more like 10-15 days, though this is still impressive.

Smart Features

There aren’t many smart features on the ScanWatch 2, which is unsurprising given the small screen and long battery life. You get notifications from your phone and can choose the exact apps that send these to your watch, which is useful, but there are no music controls, NFC payments or even a weather forecast.

Is The Withings ScanWatch 2 Worth It?

The Withings ScanWatch 2 is the best hybrid smartwatch, but there are cheaper options that offer most of its key features for less, such as the Garmin Vivomove series—which includes watches that are better sports trackers—and Withings’ ScanWatch Light. 

Those watches don’t offer the advanced health tracking of the ScanWatch 2, though, which are probably of more use on a hybrid watch than sports tracking. If you want the latter then you’re better off getting one of the best sports watches with a bigger screen and built-in GPS.

It’s a similar story if you want real smarts. The ScanWatch 2 doesn’t get close to matching the features of the best fitness smartwatches, like the Apple Watch Series 9, which has an app store, NFC payments and music storage.

The ScanWatch 2 doesn’t try to compete on those fronts, of course, but it’s just a way to show that it’s a niche watch with appeal only to those who want the analogue look. Within that niche, it’s the best you can get, but it’s not without problems, not least the fact that Withings launched it without many advertised features that have still not arrived on the watch.

The Adidas Supernova Rise is built to fill a gap in the Adidas running shoe range, which has long lacked a good daily trainer to rival something like the Nike Pegasus 40. The Adidas Ultraboost and even Adidas Ultraboost Light are too heavy to fill this role, while shoes in the Adizero range like the Boston have traditionally been seen as more speed-focused options (though the Boston 12 is an excellent daily trainer, in my opinion).

It’s a good shoe and a strong alternative to the Pegasus in particular, but I never quite clicked with the Supernova Rise and don’t rate it among the best running shoes. It’s a jack-of-all-trades shoe, but there are more accomplished all-rounders available.

Adidas Supernova Rise: Price And Availability

The Adidas Supernova Rise costs $140 in the US and £130 in the UK. It’s cheaper than many of the best Adidas running shoes, with the Boston 12 costing $160/£140 and the Adidas Ultraboost Light $190/£170, but in line with the price of similar daily trainers like the Nike Pegasus 40 or Saucony Ride 17. I received my review sample of the Adidas Supernova Rise from SportsShoes.

How I Tested This Shoe

I’ve run 32 miles in the Adidas Supernova Rise, using it for a mix of runs, including a 13.5-mile long run and a couple of progression runs. I have used an Adidas Supernova in the past, though it was a much heavier shoe, as well as several generations of the Adidas Ultraboost and Boston shoes, and a wide range of the best running shoes from other brands.

Design And Fit

The Supernova Rise introduces a new Peba-based midsole foam from Adidas called Dreamstrike+. Adidas’s best foam remains the Lightstrike Pro material used in its Adizero shoes, but Dreamstrike+ is a bouncy foam. The shoe has a stack height of 36mm at the heel and 26mm at the forefoot for a 10mm drop, and weighs 10.1oz/287g in my UK size 9, which is fairly light for a cushioned trainer.

As with many of the shoes in the Adizero racing range, the Supernova Rise has rods in its midsole, but the Support Rods used are wider and softer than the EnergyRods in shoes like the Boston 12, and geared towards stability as much as providing extra pop. The mesh upper is well padded at the heel and tongue, and I found the Supernova Rise had a comfortable fit in my usual running shoe size. This is one area where it improves on the Boston 12, which has a thin racing upper that isn’t comfortable.

The Supernova Rise doesn’t have a Continental rubber outsole, which is often a stand-out feature of Adidas shoes, but the Adiwear rubber used has gripped reliably for me on wet paved surfaces. It looks to be a durable outsole, with no signs of wear and tear after 30 miles.

Running Performance

On paper, the Supernova Rise looks like a winner, and I hoped it would feel a lot like the Boston 12 but with a more comfortable upper for easy runs. However, while I think it’s a versatile daily trainer, I didn’t love the Supernova Rise for any of the runs I did in it.

The Dreamstrike+ foam is well balanced—in that it’s pretty comfortable but has bounce for faster runs—yet it doesn’t feel like a super-foam, and Adidas’s Lightstrike Pro delivers greater energy return. I also found the forefoot wasn’t that comfortable over long distances or when doing faster runs. The stack height at the front of the shoe isn’t that high, and the Dreamstrike+ feels thin and dull there, whereas it is bouncier and more cushioned at the heel where the stack is 10mm higher.

The Supernova Rise works as an all-rounder, though. On a long, slow 13.5-mile run there was enough cushioning for it to be comfortable, and the shoe felt nimble on faster runs too, when I was running around 5min 55sec/mile pace. 

It ticks the boxes it aims to tick as a daily trainer, and fills this role better than many shoes on the market in the same category, but I have preferred other shoes for same job such as the Puma Velocity Nitro 2, Hoka Mach 5, Asics Novablast 4 and New Balance Rebel v3. The Nike Pegasus 40 and Saucony Ride 17 are both less versatile, for me, but more comfortable for easy runs than the Supernova Rise.

I also think the Adidas Boston 12 is more enjoyable for every kind of run, as long as you can get a comfortable fit from the thin upper. Adidas might class the Boston as a speed shoe, but I consider it among the best all-rounders going, and it’s not much more expensive than the Supernova Rise.

Is The Adidas Supernova Rise Worth It?

The Supernova RIse is a good daily trainer and if you find the Boston 12 too lightweight and racy for daily training, it’s the best all-rounder in the Adidas line-up. It also stands up well against rivals from other brands, though I prefer several other shoes myself.

If you pick it up I doubt you’ll be disappointed, especially if you can find it in a sale nearer the $100 mark because it works well for a range of runs. I just found it a bit of let-down given the promise it offered, and wished that rather than introducing a new foam that’s not quite as good as Lightstrike Pro, Adidas had instead popped the Supernova Rise’s comfortable upper on top of the excellent midsole of the Boston 12. 

A Japanese firm that specialises in making scales, Tanita was the first to bring a body fat scale to the consumer market. It now sells an array of consumer and professional scales, including many body composition scales that don’t need to be used with an app.

The BC-401 is a smart scale that can be used with or without its accompanying app. One of the scale’s main selling points is its small footprint, although users who have a large footprint themselves may find it awkward to use if their feet hang over the edges of the platform (Tanita says this won’t affect readings).

The BC-401 offers the usual metrics, including visceral fat (the dangerous fat around your organs) and basal metabolic rate and metabolic age, though I wasn’t convinced about the accuracy of this last one.

Tanita BC-401 Smart Scale: Price And Availability

The BC-401 scale has an RRP of £72 in the UK. It’s not currently available in the US. You can buy it from third-party retailers, including Amazon, or directly from Tanita’s UK website.

Design

At first glance, the BC-401 smart scale is different from other scales I’ve tested. For a start it’s rectangular, rather than square, with metal sensor pads, a large screen and several touch buttons in the middle. The result is less clean-looking and modern than many other smart scales on the market.

It’s considerably smaller than all the other smart scales I’ve tested (8.5in x 12.4in x 1in; 217 x 316 x 27mm), which could make it an attractive option for those with limited floor space. The scale comes in black or white and takes 3xAAA batteries, and connects via Bluetooth to the MyTanita app.

Using The Scale

When setting up, you can enter your details either by using the app or directly on to the scale during set-up, if you’re opting to go app-free. 

The scale offers the following metrics, which are shown on the screen of the scale itself and in the app: weight, body fat percentage, muscle mass, visceral fat, total body water, basal metabolic rate, metabolic age, physique rating, bone mass and BMI.

Physique rating is Tanita’s own way of telling you your body type, and it can flag if you have high body fat for your frame and muscle mass. You could probably tell anyway from the body fat percentage reading, though, so I’m not convinced it’s that useful. The scale remembers up to five different people, and it has an athlete mode and a guest mode and can be used for children (the metrics given are weight, BMI and fat percentage).

While you’re standing on the scale during a weigh-in, the screen shows each measurement in turn, denoted by a symbol. Unfortunately, these symbols are tiny and not always that easy to understand, though you can see in the comprehensive guide that comes with the scale what each symbol means.

Using The App

The MyTanita app is straightforward to navigate, with your data shown in graph form in the My Measurements section. You can swipe through the different metrics and tap the information button for a look at how you compare with other men or women in the same age bracket. You can also toggle between three tabs along the bottom Trend Chart (where the graphs are), Measurement and Results, which gives you detailed data from each weigh-in.

Frustratingly, you can’t just stand on the scale with the app open and wait for the app to record everything. You need to go to the Measurement tab and then tap Start Measurement, which seems unnecessarily fiddly. It does, however, give you the option to subtract the weight of your mobile phone or your clothes. You’ll need to enter their weight yourself, though.

According to the instructions, the scale should be able to record up to 10 sets of data without the need for the app, sending it to the app next time you open it, but this didn’t work for me. The scale showed the data when I stood on it, but that data wasn’t then sent to the app. You can feed the data through to Google Fit and Apple Health, but it’s not compatible with other apps.

Accuracy

I tested the scale with free weights and found it accurate, weighing in increments of 0.1kg, where other scales offer increments of 0.05kg.

I compared my results for three body composition metrics (fat percentage, bone mass and visceral fat) with those of three other scales: the Withings Body Smart, Renpho Body Fat and Xiaomi Mi Body Composition Scale 2.

The Tanita’s body fat percentage reading came out on the lower end of the scale: 24.1%, compared with 27.0%, 29.7% and 32.9% (Withings, Renpho and Xiaomi respectively). The Tanita gave my bone mass as 2.2kg compared with 3.7kg, 2.34kg and 2.05kg from the other scales. My visceral fat was logged at 3.0 compared with 1.9, 5 and 5 (all on a scale of 0-20).

The most wildly off-the-wall reading from the Tanita was my basal metabolic age. It had me as 26, which given I’m 41 made me laugh out loud. The other scales put me two to four years younger than my actual age.

My conclusion from these figures is that home smart scales vary in their findings. While we can’t be entirely sure how accurate any of these metrics are, as long as the scale is consistent it can become a useful tool.

The BC-401 seems consistent, although it did log changes in almost everything every day, indicating with an arrow on the scale’s screen where the result had increased or decreased. I thought it unlikely that my muscle mass had increased by a whole kilogram from one day to the next, which the scale declared it had.

Is The Tanita BC-401 Worth It?

I liked the way the Tanita BC-401 didn’t take up too much room in my bathroom, but its small size means those with larger-than-average feet may find it uncomfortable to stand on. It also looks dated and busy with all the buttons, the grey screen and the electrodes.

Stylings aside, it’s a useful scale that works well, with an app that’s easy to use and offers just the right amount of context from your data. It lost points for its slightly fiddly weigh-in process and I did have concerns about the accuracy of some of the metrics, such as basal metabolic age. 

If you’re set against having a scale that requires an app to use it, the BC-401 could be one to check out. However, Tanita makes other cheaper scales that do away with apps altogether, such as the BC-731.

If you do want to use an app for more in-depth analysis, then you have plenty of other options to choose from. I’d be tempted to pay a little more for the Withings Body Smart—it offers a seamless experience, connects via Wi-Fi and is more attractive to look at. And if you like the idea of a small scale, the Renpho Body Fat does everything the Tanita does, for around a third of the price.

The Asics Gel-Nimbus 25 was a substantial update for the Nimbus line and so the Gel-Nimbus 26 was always likely to receive a relatively modest update. Asics has mostly stuck to the same max-cushioned design of the 25, with a new outsole designed to improve grip, and a tweaked upper modifying the fit.

Given that the Gel-Nimbus 25 was one of the best cushioned shoes available, I expected these minor changes would only more firmly establish the 26 as a top option. However, I’ve found the new outsole on the shoe “slappy”—distractingly noisy when it hits the ground—and the Gel-Nimbus 26 is less comfortable than the 25, which means I’d recommend trying to find a deal on the older shoe myself.

Asics Gel-Nimbus 26: Price And Availability

The Asics Gel-Nimbus 26 will be available from January 15, 2023 and costs $160 in the US and £180 in the UK. The US price, while expensive, is on par for a max-cushioned shoe that’s at the top of Asics’s training range. However, the UK price is above par, and a £5 rise on the list price of the Gel-Nimbus 25.

How I Tested This Shoe

I’ve run about 50 miles in the Asics Gel-Nimbus 26, using it mostly for easy runs, along with one 90-minute long run and a hard interval workout. I have also tested the past two versions of the Asics Gel-Nimbus line, along with a range of the best running shoes from other brands.

Design And Fit

The big change Asics made with the Gel-Nimbus 25 was to increase the stack height and turn it into a max-cushioned shoe. The midsole on the Gel-Nimbus 26 is mostly the same, with a big chunk of FF Blast Plus Eco foam and a little PureGel under the heel, but the stack height is 0.5mm higher than on the Gel-Nimbus 25: 42mm at the heel, 34mm at the forefoot.

This keeps the drop at 8mm, the same as on the previous version of the shoe, but the weight has increased slightly with the Gel-Nimbus 26. It weighs 11.2oz/318g for my UK size 9, compared with 11.1oz/315g for the Gel-Nimbus 25 in the same size.

Asics has made adjustments to the upper on the new shoe, which features redesigned eyelets to create a more secure hold around the midfoot. It’s an engineered knit upper with a stretchy tongue. I found that the shoe fitted well in my usual running shoe size, but didn’t notice an improved fit or more comfort compared with the Gel-Nimbus 25.

The most noticeable change with the new shoe is the outsole, which is now a blend of Asics AHAR and ASICSGRIP materials, with the aim of creating a better grip than with the Gel-Nimbus 25. I found the Gel-Nimbus 25 a bit slippery on greasy paved surfaces when I first used it, but didn’t have any substantial problems with grip after that. The Gel-Nimbus 26 is tackier on slick paved surfaces.

However, this improvement in traction doesn’t come without a cost. The new rubber on the outsole is firmer and I found I could hear the shoe hitting the ground more; it’s less comfortable under the forefoot as a result of this.

Running Performance

For the most part, the Gel-Nimbus 26 performs like the Gel-Nimbus 25 on the run: It’s a great cushioned cruiser for easy and long runs. The ride is soft and comfortable, but not squishy in a way that makes the shoe feel unstable, and the slight rocker profile helps to roll you through your footstrike.

It’s at its best for slowly ticking off long runs and easy daily training runs, but it’s too heavy for fast sessions. I used it for one hard workout while on vacation, since I didn’t have a speedier shoe to hand, pushing through two miles in 11 minutes, followed by timed intervals and another hard mile.

It didn’t feel great for this, not only because it’s a heavy shoe designed for slow runs, but also because I started to feel significant forefoot discomfort because of that slappy ride. I also noticed this a little on an easy long run, though it only became pronounced during the session when I was running hard and putting more force through the shoe.

I haven’t experienced this discomfort with the Gel-Nimbus 25 on any of the several long runs I’ve done in the shoe, though I haven’t done a fast session in it. I think the new outsole on the Gel-Nimbus 26 reduces its comfort, marginally—though what it takes away there, it gives back in improved grip.

Is The Asics Gel-Nimbus 26 Worth It?

Early in my testing of the Gel-Nimbus 26 I considered it only a small improvement on the 25, in that it was the same with slightly better grip. I’d have recommended getting the older shoe in a deal as a result. Now that I’ve done more running in the new shoe, I’m clearer about why I feel the Gel-Nimbus 25 takes precedence. I found it more comfortable, as well as being the better-value option.

There are many other great cushioned shoes you should look at, with the Puma Magnify Nitro 2 and Brooks Ghost Max being similarly comfortable shoes that are cheaper than the Gel-Nimbus 26. The Saucony Ride 17 is another good shoe that is more versatile than the Gel-Nimbus 26 because it has more pop for faster runs. 

I also suggest checking out the Asics Novablast 4, which is cheaper and lighter than the Gel-Nimbus 26 and a better all-rounder, and proved just as comfortable during my testing. 

The Asics Novablast 4 is the best version of this shoe yet, even though it loses some of the bounce of previous iterations. The ride is tamer, but smoother, and I found the shoe a great all-rounder and one that’s particularly enjoyable for longer runs.

It’s up there with the best running shoes and reasonable value too, though on that front there’s a case for finding a deal on the previous model, which is a good shoe itself and likely to pop up in sales regularly now the Novablast 4 has launched.

Asics Novablast 4: Price And Availability

The Asics Novablast 4 costs $140 in the US and £135 in the UK, the same price as the Novablast 3. The price is in line with other daily trainers like this, and similar to rivals like the Nike Pegasus 40, Adidas Supernova Rise and Saucony Ride 17.

How I Tested This Shoe

I’ve run around 32 miles in the Asics Novablast 4, using it for a mix of training runs, including a 13-mile long run, an interval session and a progression run. I have also tested the past three generations of the shoe, as well as a range of the best Asics running shoes and daily training options from other brands.

Design And Fit

Asics has made changes to the upper, midsole and outsole of the Novablast 4, and while they’re all minor, they add up to make the shoe feel different to the Novablast 3. The most minimal change is in the upper, which is now made from a woven material and is meant to be more breathable. It’s a comfortable upper that holds the foot well, and the shoe fits well in my usual running shoe size, but that is true of the Novablast 3 as well.

More notable changes are found in the midsole and outsole. The latter now offers slightly better grip, and while the Novablast 4 is still not an outstanding shoe for wet paved surfaces—Adidas and Puma in particular offer road shoes with better outsoles—I didn’t slip too much in the shoe even on greasy all-weather paths.

The midsole is now made from FF Blast Plus Eco foam, rather than the standard FF Blast Plus used in the Novablast 3. It’s not the most eco-friendly of foams, since only 20% is made from bio-based materials. But it is nice and bouncy, and Asics promises even more energy return.

With a stack height of 41.5mm at the heel and 33.5mm at the forefoot, the Novablast 4 has an 8mm drop and is slightly higher and wider than the Novablast 3. This has increased the weight, with the new shoe 9.5oz/270g in my UK size 9, compared with 9oz/257g for the Novablast 3. It’s still a light shoe given its stack height, and didn’t feel heftier than the Novablast 3.

Running Performance

While I thought the Novablast 3 was a good shoe, I found that the bounce I got from the midsole dulled after a few runs, and I didn’t find it as enjoyable an all-rounder as many other reviewers, preferring to use it only for easy runs.

Although it’s less springy than the Novablast 3, I’ve found the Novablast 4 a more versatile shoe. The ride is smoother and the foam is firmer, which gives a more responsive ride that I found helped me pick up the pace in the shoe.

For my first run I did a session running 20 x 60sec on, 30sec recovery, before going into a parkrun pacing a friend to a sub-20min. The Novablast 4 felt smooth and lively on the short reps, running around 5min 20sec/mile pace, and cruising through the parkrun felt great in the shoe.

The next day I did a hilly half-marathon long run in the shoe and again I was impressed with its versatility. It was comfortable and protective when running at an easy pace, but lightweight enough to not be a burden when ascending hills, or when speeding up in the last few miles of the run.

It wouldn’t be my go-to pick for all-out speedwork, or hard long runs aiming for race paces, when I’d use a plated racing shoe or super-trainer, but it can do those runs if you don’t have a running shoe rotation. The Novablast 4 is great for anything at slower paces, especially long, relaxed runs.

I’ve also found the bounce from the midsole, while less noticeable than the springy feel of the Novablast 3 initially, is more long-lasting. The Novablast 3 would lose some of its lively feel over the course of long runs while the Novablast 4 is more resilient.

Is The Asics Novablast 4 Worth It?

The Novablast 4 is a great daily trainer and good value at its list price. For me, it’s an improvement on the Novablast 3, though if you can find the older shoe available at a substantial discount it’s the better-value pick, since the difference between generations is not night and day.

There are other great options in this category, like the Puma Velocity Nitro 2, which is cheaper than the Novablast 4 and has a better outsole, though it’s less cushioned. The Nike Pegasus 40 is another strong option, as are the Adidas Supernova Rise and Saucony Ride 17, but I prefer the ride feel of the Novablast 4 to those shoes and find the Asics more versatile.

If you don’t mind paying the extra $60, the Asics Superblast is also worth looking at. It does everything the Novablast 4 does, but a little better, thanks to the bouncier FF Turbo foam in the midsole. The Superblast is expensive though, and so the Novablast 4 is better value.

Bob Schrupp and Brad Heineck are two of the most famous physical therapists on the internet. With 4.94 million followers on their YouTube channel and 60 years of combined experience, the Minnesota-based duo have become a popular online resource for DIY injury treatment. 

Bob and Brad also sell equipment to help with physical therapy and sports recovery, and since 2020 have been producing a range of massage guns. The heavy-duty D6 Pro and lightweight Air 2 Mini are the most recent arrivals in its seven-strong line-up of massage guns, but it’s the brand’s flagship, first-generation model, the C2, that I’ve put to the test, to see if it deserves a place on my list of the best massage guns. 

Bob and Brad C2 Massage Gun: Price And Availability

The C2 is priced in the middle of Bob and Brad’s range of massage guns at $109.99 in the US and £89.99 in the UK—less than the top-of-the-range X6 Pro ($219.99/£139.99) but more than the UNI ($79.99 /£69.99). Expect to pay less than the list price, and the Bob and Brad site seems to have a permanent reduction. If not, check third-party retailers such as Amazon and Walmart, or wait until a sales event such as Black Friday when massage guns are almost guaranteed to be reduced.

Design

On first inspection, the C2 felt very familiar. It’s remarkably similar to the Renpho R3 Mini Massage Gun, right down to its weight (both 680g), top percussive speed (both 3,200 percussions per minute), identical head attachments (five) and like-for-like gray carry case.

Like the R3 Mini, the C2 massage gun is a compact, lightweight and portable device. It weighs just 30g more than Therabody’s category-defining Theragun Mini, yet has a greater top speed than the sector-leading Theragun PRO—3,200 PPM versus 2,400.

The C2’s sleek silicon handle and rear-positioned power button mean it sits comfortably in my palm and is easily operated one-handed.

The Bob and Brad C2 comes in a hard shell carry case along with its five head attachments, a USB-C charging cable and a user manual. The user manual has simple picture-led instructions on how to use the device on different muscle groups, including which head attachment best suits which body part. 

Disappointingly, given Bob and Brad’s extensive library of massage gun tutorial videos, the C2 doesn’t have a companion app like that offered by Therabody and Hyperice to ensure you’re using your device effectively. For that you’ll need to use the brand’s YouTube channel, which results in a somewhat disjointed experience.

Performance

In use, the C2 is noticeably quieter than some of its rivals, emitting a 55dB hum, akin to that of an electric toothbrush (though 10dB louder than the Renpho). It’s a marked contrast to the Theragun Mini and PRO’s aggressive and intrusive rattle, and makes for a calmer, more relaxing massage experience.

Without an app to guide me, I tended to go freestyle when using the C2 before a home workout or when addressing tight lower back and shoulder muscles at my desk. For the latter goal, I found the gun’s flat and bullet heads mostly hit the spot, especially around my shoulder blades which can seize up from hours spent pushing a mouse around my desk. But to prime bigger muscle groups, like my glutes and quads, the C2 fell short. 

Yes, it delivers an impressive top speed, but in this game speed isn’t everything. A massage gun needs to strike the right balance of force and amplitude (the depth each percussion penetrates into the muscle) to effectively boost circulation, and on both counts I found this gun lacking.

I’m also yet to find a device with attachments that can rival Theragun’s perfect balance of give and take. The C2’s felt either too hard and plasticky, or too lightweight, like being rubbed up the wrong way by a ping pong ball. 

Battery Life

Four LEDs at the foot of the handle indicate battery life, which can be topped up using a USB-C charger. This often-overlooked feature makes the C2 compatible with most power cables used for modern mobile phones, tablets and laptops—very handy if you misplace the charger.

The C2’s battery life isn’t listed on the Bob and Brad website, though it notes that it takes 210 minutes to recharge fully. My sample held its charge for well over a week of everyday use—and for several weeks when I returned to use it a couple of months after its initial unboxing. 

The C2, just like Renpho’s R3, automatically shuts off after 10 minutes of use, presumably to prevent overuse and/or overheating.

Is the Bob And Brad C2 Massage Gun Worth It?

The C2 offers an impressive array of features, from its top-speed percussion and lightweight and portable dimensions to its reliable battery life at a great price well south of $100. If you’re choosing between the Bob and Brad C2 and Renpho R3 Mini, they’re virtually indistinguishable, so the Bob and Brad wins by being cheaper. 

That said, if you’re after more than a desk massage and have the budget, I’d direct you to more impressive massage guns such as the Theragun Mini and Pro, as well as the Hyperice Hypervolt 2 Pro with heating attachment. All three offer advantages and deliver more tangible benefits to your overall health and fitness.

Launched four years ago, the Garmin Swim 2 was the brand’s second attempt at a dedicated swimming watch. As well as a sleeker, more contemporary design and a color screen, it added cycling, running and cardio tracking—making it an attractive option for swimmers looking to dabble in cross-training without investing in a triathlon watch.

Its specs made it look like it could challenge its significantly more expensive rivals. As well as recording and logging swimming metrics in the pool or open water (via GPS), it tracked general fitness such as steps and calories burned like the best of them, while offering features (phone notifications, calendar reminders) common on other smartwatches.

But, years on from its release, does it still hold its own among the best swimming watches or has it been knocked into the slow lane by newer, flashier alternatives?

Garmin Swim 2: Price And Availability

The Garmin Swim 2 was released in October 2019 and costs $249 in the US and £219.99 in the UK. The next cheapest smartwatch in Garmin’s range that features similar pool and open-water swimming capabilities is the Instinct 2 ($299.99/£249.99), while its most affordable triathlon watch is the Garmin Forerunner 255 ($349.99/£299.99). The Coros Pace 3 and Polar Ignite 3 offer a multisport alternative for a similar price.

How I Tested This Watch

I’ve used the Garmin Swim 2 as my main watch for four weeks, which has included two 1,500-2,000m swims a week in a 50m lido and 25m indoor pool. I also tested the Swim 2 in open water and put its workout functions through their paces while completing pool-based drills and training sessions. I have experience with some of the best triathlon watches, including the Garmin Forerunner 955 Solar, which I used alongside the Garmin Swim 2 to check its accuracy.

Set-Up And Design

The Swim 2 has a 1.04in glass color display enclosed in a robust plastic case with a silicone strap. While on the small side compared to other smartwatches and fitness trackers, its bright backlight makes the screen easy to see at a glance, and it’s also clear when used in the pool.

You navigate the watch using five buttons that are on the sides of its base. Each button performs a different function in general smartwatch mode and during an activity, and while it is quite intuitive, there are small labels on the screen to make its functionality that bit easier.

As with other Garmin watches and bike computers, setting up is straightforward. Out of the box, you’re prompted to download the Garmin Connect app (available on Google Play and the Apple App Store) and connect to your smartphone via Bluetooth. From here, it’s possible to set up preferences, such as Do Not Disturb timings (the hours when you won’t receive notifications on the watch), while Garmin Connect is also the place where you’ll be able to delve into activities and keep track of your general fitness metrics and sleep score.

Swimming Features

The Swim 2 is packed with all the swimming features you could possibly want. Distance, pace, stroke count, stroke type and SWOLF (score that measures your swimming efficiency) can be displayed on the watch mid-activity and analyzed post-swim, while the built-in heart rate monitor logs the intensity of effort and how hard you’re working.

In practice, the Swim 2 correctly analyzed the type and number of strokes when I was swimming lengths, but it wasn’t 100% accurate on distance and, therefore, pace. On several occasions when completing a general endurance-focused swim, it over-estimated the number of lengths I’d swum, slightly skewing the average and fastest paces in the process. While this is an issue I’ve encountered with the Garmin Forerunner 955, I expected closer to 100% accuracy from a dedicated swimming watch.

When completing drills or equipment-based sessions, the Swim 2 fared much better. After syncing a workout I’d created via the Garmin Connect app, the watch seamlessly took me through the steps during each stage and at no point cut an interval short. In open water, it appeared to log activities accurately via its built-in GPS (well, as accurately as the Garmin Forerunner 955), and the only issue I found was the drain this caused on the battery. When used for pool swims, the Swim 2 lasted around a week between charges, though open-water swims required more frequent charging.

Fitness Tracking And General Features

One of the biggest upgrades to the Swim 2 over its predecessor was the addition of running, cycling and cardio logging. In testing, it was fine for the basics, but fell short on the more advanced metrics that you’d get on a multi-sport watch, or even a newer smartwatch.

For running and cycling it tracked heart rate, distance and pace/speed in line with the Garmin Forerunner 955, but the inability to add a power meter as another sensor limits its multi-sport potential. Also, it doesn’t have a separate triathlon activity mode, which means you’d have to get creative with the watch if you wanted to use it for an event.

Its general features are passable compared with other, newer models. Smartphone syncing is limited to messages and calendar notifications (no Garmin Pay here), while its small screen makes it more of a pager than something you could read a full email on.

Is The Garmin Swim 2 Worth It?

The Garmin Swim 2 does what it’s designed to do well, will elevate your swimming training to new data-fueled heights, and has the benefit of the user-friendly Garmin Connect interface. 

At its price, the Swim 2 is an affordable option relative to the rest of Garmin’s range, particularly if you’re only after a way of tracking time in the pool or open water.

Unfortunately, its general fitness and smartwatch features haven’t aged well outside the water, and I’d want more from a modern smartwatch—particularly with cross-training on my workout agenda. You’ll get more for your money by plumping for the new Coros Pace 3 or Garmin Instinct 2.

The US-based technology company Wyze makes home security equipment and smart tech. The Scale X is the only scale it sells, and is itself an update to its original Wyze Scale. It’s budget-friendly, looks great and comes in black and white versions. However, can such an affordable scale perform as well as the best smart scales on the market?

Wyze Scale X: Price And Availability

The Wyze Scale X costs $33.99 in the US and is available from Wyze and Amazon. Wyze doesn’t sell the scale in the UK, and though British customers will find the scale on Amazon UK, the price is £79.

Design

A classy-looking 12in (30cm) square of tempered glass with rounded corners, the Scale X comes in black or white. It’s free of the metal electrodes that feature on many budget smart scales, but it does have a small raised plastic nub in the middle. The screen is sharp and clear, in the black version I tested at least, although white numbers on white glass might not be as easy to read.

The Scale X has some updates on the original: It now has luggage, pet and baby weighing modes, has a longer battery life and is compatible with more health apps, including Fitbit. The weight range is 11lb-400lb (5kg-180kg) and it can recognize up to eight users.

It takes four AAA batteries, which come with the scale. If you want to change the unit from lb to kg you need to open the battery cover and press a button inside it, which is fiddly.

What Does The Wyze Scale X Do?

The scale provides 13 metrics: weight, body fat percentage, muscle mass, muscle mass percentage, body water percentage, lean body mass, bone mass, protein percentage, visceral fat, BMR, metabolic age, BMI and heart rate. 

Only weight and body fat percentage are displayed on the scale; the rest are shown in the app. Some of the data may not be of obvious interest (want to know your body’s protein content, anyone?) but some of it is useful. You’ll want to know how much visceral fat you have, for example—that’s the dangerous fat that builds up around your organs. The wide range of metrics helps build up a picture of how healthy you are, inside and out.

The scale connects to the app via Bluetooth, rather than Wi-Fi. Usually, I find Bluetooth scales more likely to have connection problems: They can fail to register data without the app open and take longer to register my data when I step on the scale. This wasn’t the case with the Wyze Scale X. It was remarkably quick to set up and pair, and was able to reliably register weigh-ins without needing to have my phone to hand or the app open. 

The scale is compatible with Apple Health, Google Fit and Fitbit. As a Fitbit user I’m happy about this because most smart scales don’t share directly to Fitbit and you need to use a third-party app. The Renpho Body Fat Scale is the only other scale I’ve used that feeds data directly to Fitbit. Weight and body fat percentage are the only metrics that sync to Fitbit, while if you’re using Apple Health, you get weight, body fat percentage, BMI, lean body mass and heart rate.

Using The App

The Wyze app is easy to navigate and if you have any Wyze smart devices, like home security cameras, it’s all part of the same app. On the app, the scale has its own main page where each of your latest metrics is presented in a list. When you tap on an individual metric, you get your reading on a visual slider with an informative paragraph that explains what the measurement refers to. It’s simple and gives you a basic visual indication of where you could improve. I’d have liked more context and in-depth analysis here, along with tips on improving my score.

A section called Trends allows you to plot your data on a series of graphs. You can toggle between timeframes to see a week, a month, a year or all time. Again, there’s a lack of context, of healthy ranges and comparisons to others in your category, which results in a less-motivating experience than with other apps. I found the Renpho, Xiaomi and Withings apps more encouraging.

The app features baby, pet and luggage modes for easy weighing, and you can take a heart rate reading from here. This is done by placing your finger over the camera on your phone, rather than through your feet on the scale (unlike the Withings scale, which takes heart rate readings via your feet). This seems gimmicky—I’m not sure of the point of having a random spot heart rate reading.

Accuracy

I tested the scale with free weights and it was accurate, weighing in increments of 0.1kg, where other scale manufacturers (Renpho, Withings, Xiaomi) offer increments of 0.05kg.

While my weight tallied up closely with readings from other scales, there was more variation in the other data recorded. I compared metrics gathered at the same time on the same day from five smart scales including the Wyze. The other four comprised the mid-range Tanita BC-401 and Withings Body Smart Scale, and two budget options, the Renpho Smart Body Fat Scale and Xiaomi Mi Body Composition Scale 2.

The Wyze gave me a body fat percentage of 30%, which was at the higher end of the range from the other scales I was using. The Tanita put me at 24.1%, the Withings gave me 27.0%, the Renpho 29.7% and the ever-pessimistic Xiaomi put my reading at 32.9%. 

The Wyze Scale put my bone mass at 2.5kg, compared with 2.2kg (Tanita), 3.7kg (Withings), 2.34kg (Renpho) and 2.05kg (Xiaomi). My visceral fat was logged at 3.0 compared with 3.0 (Tanita), 1.9 (Withings), 5 (Renpho) and 5 (Xiaomi), all on a scale of 0-20.

You can see there’s variation in these readings, and no real way of telling which of them is most accurate. None of the Wyze Scale’s readings struck me as way off, though.

Is the Wyze Scale X Worth It?

The Wyze Scale X is a good-looking smart scale that performs well considering its list price, and for a Bluetooth scale it’s remarkably free of lags and connection issues. The app is easy to use but lacking in context and advice compared with those of other scales. If you’re in the US, and you don’t much care about having extra info in the app, then it’s a no-brainer for this price, but those in the UK should look elsewhere for better value. 

The Renpho Body Fat Scale performs well and is available for a similar price. It’s slightly smaller and lighter, and not quite as good-looking, but has more context in the accompanying app. If you’re willing to spend more, the Withings Body Smart is an excellent scale that performs smoothly and has lots of info in the easy-to-navigate app.

The Saucony Ride 17 is not a carbon copy of the Saucony Triumph 21 but it certainly has a lot in common with Saucony’s top cushioned cruiser, which suggests the Triumph 22 will feature significant updates when it comes out in 2024.

For now, the Ride 17 is the best cushioned running shoe available from Saucony’s range because it’s so similar to the Triumph 21 but cheaper. It’s not as light and versatile as the previous Ride models, although it is a comfortable workhorse that will handle your daily training well.

Saucony Ride 17: Price And Availability

The Saucony Ride 17 launched in November 2023 and costs $140 in the US and £135 in the UK, which is considerably cheaper than the Triumph 21, which is $160/£170.

How I Tested This Shoe

I’ve run 35 miles in the Saucony Ride 17, using it for a mix of daily training, including an easy long run and an interval session. The last Ride I tested was the Ride 15, and I’ve also reviewed each of the past nine versions of the Triumph line, along with a range of the best cushioned running shoes from other brands.

Design And Fit

The big change to the Ride 17 is that it now has a PWRRUN+ midsole and sockliner, instead of using the PWRRUN foam on the previous versions of the shoe. The change makes the Ride 17 softer and bouncier than its predecessors, but also contributes to it being heavier: The Ride 17 weighs 10.8oz/306g in my UK size 9, whereas the Ride 15 (I didn’t test the 16) was 9.1oz/258g.

The Ride 17 has a stack height of 35mm at the heel and 27mm at the forefoot, giving it an 8mm drop. This differs from the 10mm drop of the Triumph 21, which is 37mm at the heel. The Ride 17 is also wider than the Triumph 21, especially around the midfoot, which will make it more stable.

I found that the Ride 17 fitted well in my normal running shoe size, the same size I’ve used for Saucony shoes for years. The mesh upper is comfortable and breathable, but I’m not a fan of the fabric eyelets used, after ripping one of them open the first time I used the shoe. Take care not to yank the laces too hard.

There is good rubber coverage on the bottom of the shoe and I’ve had no problems with grip on wet paved surfaces during my testing of the Ride 17 during the UK winter. The rubber used is also durable, and I’d expect the Ride 17 to be long-lasting thanks to the PWRRUN+ midsole material, which has proved durable in other shoes I’ve tested.

Running Performance

On the run, the Ride 17 feels like the Triumph 21, which is not unexpected given the similar materials used. The PWRRUN+ midsole is comfortable, though not especially soft or squishy, so it’s quite a naturally stable shoe.

I ran with the Ride 17 on one foot and the Triumph 21 on the other to compare the two and they feel alike, with the only noticeable difference being that the Triumph 21 is more nimble. In becoming more like the Triumph 21, the Ride 17 now feels different from older Ride models. It’s softer and heavier, and less versatile as a result, although it is more comfortable for easy runs.

There’s enough bounce in the PWRRUN+ midsole that you can use the Ride 17 for faster running, yet to me it felt too big and heavy to be enjoyable for speedwork. If you have a running shoe rotation the Ride 17 would slip in as a cushioned option for easy runs, but it is a good all-rounder for newer, or heavier, runners.

Is The Saucony Ride 17 Worth It?

The Saucony Triumph 21 is an excellent shoe and the Ride 17 is similar but much cheaper, so it’s worth weighing up a purchase if you’re looking for a cushioned daily trainer. I still slightly prefer the feel of the Triumph 21, though, because it’s lighter. 

It will be interesting to see what happens with the Triumph 22 and whether Saucony uses the lightweight, bouncy PWRRUN PB foam from its Endorphin shoes to make the Triumph a clear upgrade over the Ride once again.

If you’re a long-term fan of the Ride line then the Ride 17 may not be to your taste, since it’s softer, heavier and less versatile—the Nike Pegasus 40 or Puma Velocity Nitro 2 could prove better alternatives as lighter daily trainers.

However, the Ride 17 will probably have broader appeal thanks to the new, more comfortable design, and if you’re a fan of the Triumph line you can now get a similar experience at a lower price. The Ride 17 is also one of the best beginner running shoes as a protective, cushioned option with enough versatility to do a mix of training in.

The Nike Alphafly 2 was not a hit with everyone. Although I loved it, the chunky design meant many runners steered clear and stuck with the original Alphafly or Nike’s Vaporfly, or one of the best carbon plate running shoes from other brands.

I find it hard to believe that the Nike Alphafly 3 will split opinion in the same way because it’s pretty much the perfect modern racing shoe. It’s the lightest Alphafly yet, but still bouncy, and fast over any distance—though especially good for longer events. The Nike Vaporfly 3 is the only shoe I rate as highly, but even then the Alphafly 3 would be my pick for a marathon.

Nike Alphafly 3: Price And Availability

The Nike Alphafly 3 will officially launch in its Prototype colorway on 4 January 2024. It costs $285 in the US and £285 in the UK, making it one of the most expensive carbon plate running shoes.

How I Tested This Shoe

I’ve run 40 miles in the Nike Alphafly 3, using it for several hard training runs and 5K and 10K races. I have also tested each previous version of the shoe, running sub-2hr 30min marathons in both, as well as every generation of the Nike Vaporfly and most of the best carbon shoes available. I’ve not tested the Adidas Pro Evo 1 yet, which may be one of the few shoes able to hold a candle to the Alphafly 3.

Design And Fit

Compared with the Vaporfly, to which Nike has only made minor adjustments with passing generations, the Alphafly has been significantly updated with each version. The Nike Alphafly 2 was a heavier, more stable shoe than the first Alphafly, and even bouncier for me, though the added weight and size meant some runners felt it lost the magic of the original.

Nike has trimmed that weight down with the Alphafly 3, which is the lightest version of the shoe. My UK size 9 weighs 7.7oz/220g, whereas the Alphafly 2 was just shy of 250g in the same size, and the Alphafly was around 230g.

The first two versions of the shoe had cut-outs in the midsole separating the ZoomX foam at the heel and the Air Zoom pods at the forefoot but the Alphafly 3’s midsole is continuous, which creates a smoother transition from heel to toe. The shoe has an 8mm drop, with a stack height of 40mm at the heel and 32mm at the forefoot.

As with all Nike racing shoes, the light and exceptionally bouncy Peba-based ZoomX foam is central to the Alphafly 3’s success. The Alphafly line differs from the Vaporfly by having Air Zoom pods under the forefoot along with ZoomX, which are firmer and return more energy than the ZoomX foam alone.

The Alphafly 3 has a carbon fiber plate running the length of the shoe, and has been widened on the medial side to increase stability. There is a large cut-out running down the center of the shoe to reduce weight, which shows off the plate in the midsole.

Nike has tweaked the Atomknit 3.0 upper on the shoe, redesigning the lacing system to have integrated eyelets. Nike’s laces are among the best on racing shoes, with a bobbly design that ensures they stay tied. I found the Alphafly 3 fitted well in my usual running shoe size, the same size I’ve used on the previous versions of the shoe.

One problem runners had with the previous Alphafly shoes was that they created pressure around the arch. Nike says it has taken steps to reduce this with the Alphafly 3, but I didn’t have those problems with the Alphafly 1 and 2, so I can’t say I noticed a difference with the 3.

The Fast Shot rubber outsole has minimal coverage at the heel, but the forefoot is well covered and I found the Alphafly 3 gripped well on wet runs, even when running fast. Unlike the Vaporfly 3, which showed wear and tear on the outsole after 30 miles, I’ve seen no signs of wear on the Alphafly 3 so far, and Nike says its testers got a minimum of 200 miles of use out of the Alphafly 3.

Running Performance

I had huge expectations of the Nike Alphafly 3 and it has met them. It’s an outstanding racing shoe and I loved using it for a range of fast runs, including two races running a 5K in 16min 23sec and a 10K in 33min 19sec.

The ride feels less squishy and bouncy than the Alphafly 2, but the transition onto your forefoot is noticeably faster and you still feel the propulsion from the plate and Air Zoom pods. The Alphafly 3 is lighter and nimbler than its predecessor too, which helped me to keep turning my feet over late on in races, and when doing hill reps.

I’ve run with the Alphafly 2 on one foot and the Alphafly 3 on the other, and done the same with the Vaporfly 3 and the Alphafly 3, and the new shoe feels like a mix of the two older ones. It has the aggressive transition of the Vaporfly, with the extra pop from the pods under the forefoot of the Alphaflys.

I found that the Alphafly 3 felt best for me when cruising at speed, so in the first half of races or during a steady 10K run at around my marathon pace. It feels like the Alphafly, in that you can lock in to a fast pace and holding it feels almost effortless.

For me, it then doesn’t feel quite as nimble as the Vaporfly 3 when pushing to very fast paces or late in races, when I tend to shorten my stride and increase my cadence. The Alphafly 3 still feels great for this, but it’s best when you are in control and bounding along. 

Runners with a bouncier stride than my shuffle will probably enjoy the shoe even more than me for shorter, faster events, but it feels ideally suited to the marathon when it will help you roll efficiently through the distance at your race pace, whatever that might be.

Is The Nike Alphafly 3 Worth It?

The Nike Alphafly 3 is the best carbon plate running shoe I’ve tested for longer events, and only the Vaporfly 3 can rival it for shorter events. It’s expensive, but the best shoe you can get if you want one racer to conquer all distances, and the durability looks good for a super-shoe, certainly better than the Vaporfly 3.

The Adidas Adizero Pro Evo 1 may rival the Alphafly 3—elite runners will be battling it out in the two shoes throughout next year, I’m sure—but I’ve not tested it yet. The Adidas shoe also costs an absurd $500/£450 and is meant to only last one or two races, so the Alphafly 3 is undoubtedly better value.

If you didn’t like the Alphafly 2, but loved the original, the Alphafly 3 will be more to your taste. Really, it’s hard for me to imagine a runner who won’t enjoy using the shoe for racing unless they object to the idea of carbon plate shoes in general.