We make it our business to tell readers about notable deals on products we like, and scour the web for legit offers during Black Friday and Amazon Prime Day to help you save money.

But probably the greatest discount out there is available year-round, it’s not restricted to an older model that’s been superseded by a newer release and the product is legitimately life-changing.

The UK government’s Cycle to Work Scheme allows payroll employees to get their hands on any e-bike for commuting and have the cost taken out of their salary in monthly instalments before tax—like a buy now, pay later that you always have the funds to cover. Because it’s taken out of your salary before you’ve paid tax, you save between 28%, 42% or 47%, depending on which tax band you fall in.

There are many Cycle to Work Scheme providers, but Green Commute Initiative is one of the more straightforward and as a social enterprise it’s doing everything it can to get more people cycling—a mission Coach wholeheartedly supports. For instance, it doesn’t charge a 7% fee at the end of the scheme like some traditional providers do, you just make the maximum savings available to you.

It also has a plain explanation of how the scheme works for employees, as well as a more detailed step-by-step guide, because, to be honest, it’s pretty convoluted. But when there’s the chance to save hundreds or even thousands of pounds on a better way to get to work, that’s a minor worry.

Still not convinced? Here are four good reasons for cycling to work on an ebike, informed by my experience of testing a dozen-odd ebikes on my commute.

1. Riding An E-Bike Is Easy

I regularly cycle to work on a normal bike. It’s great and the three subsequent reasons to commute all apply, but it’s not always easy. Hills, wind and the tiredness that builds up after a long week can make some rides a bit of a grind. And even if I take it easy, I sweat enough to warrant a shower and a change of clothes once I arrive at work, which adds time to my commute and bulk to my backpack.

An ebike has none of those problems. Suddenly you just become really good at cycling and cruise into work without breaking a sweat. In fact, I’ve learned to wrap up warmer than I normally would because I’m not working hard enough to raise my body temperature.  Through Green Commute Initiative, you can add clothing to your bike package so you can get the right gear for your commute and make big savings.

I’ve also found that cycling an e-bike to work is the easiest, most reliable way to get into work as you’re far less likely to get caught in traffic or the delays that can plague trains.

2. It’s Healthy

Even though you won’t necessarily get sweaty riding an e-bike, it’s still exercise and you’ll still do yourself the power of good. There’s an aerobic exercise target, recommended by various health agencies around the world, of 150 minutes of moderate activity a week. You really don’t have to work that hard to start racking up the minutes—a brisk walk or riding an e-bike, say—but the benefits you get from clocking up this amount of time doing low-intensity steady state are immense. If there was a pill that could deliver the proven benefits of regular aerobic exercise, you’d pay through the nose for it.

If your weekly commuting time adds up to 150 minutes or more, you’ll be hitting this recommended target without sacrificing any leisure time. And because it’s easy exercise, it won’t leave you too tired to keep up any sport or activity you already do. In fact, you’ll probably end up cycling to that too for a warm-up—that’s what I do.

3. It’s More Environmentally Friendly

While most of our transport infrastructure still runs on fossil fuels, getting around under your own steam will lower your personal emissions and limit pollution. More than that, the more people who cycle, the safer cycling feels. Making a change to your commute can have a ripple effect, inspiring others to travel in a way that’s better for the environment.

4. It’s Good Value For Money

Cycling to work is not free, but there’s every chance it will save you substantial sums of money compared with driving or taking public transport. Obviously, using Green Commute Initiative to access the Cycle to Work Scheme can significantly cut down your initial set-up cost, and you can negotiate with your employer to spread payments to fit your monthly budget. Just make sure to budget for regular maintenance and replacement parts, as well as insurance against bike theft. All customers of Green Commute Initiative have access to special offers on insurance products. I also subscribe to one of the UK’s cycling membership organisations to access liability insurance and legal assistance in the event of an accident.

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. 

Beats has announced two new sets of headphones, including a new line called the Solo Buds, which are the smallest and most affordable in-ear Beats headphones. You’ll have to wait until summer to get your hands on the Solo Buds, which will be available on June 6, but the Solo 4 on-ear headphones go on sale from May 2.

The Beats Solo 4 headphones are the latest generation of the popular wireless on-ear line and offer upgrades in sound quality and battery life, with the latter now being 50 hours. They don’t offer active noise cancellation though, a feature you get on the Beats Studio Pro. The price has stayed the same at $199.99 in the US and £199.99 in the UK, and the Solo 4 headphones come in three colors: matte black, slate blue and cloud pink.

An update to the Solo line is exciting, though a new addition is even more so, and the Solo Buds look like an excellent new option for those who want more affordable in-ear headphones. They cost $79.99/£79.99, which is cheaper even than the Beats Studio Buds. Beats promises no compromises have been made on sound quality.

Along with being cheaper than other Beats headphones, the Solo Buds are also smaller and have the smallest case of any of the brand’s headphones. This comes at a cost, however, in that the case doesn’t contain a battery to charge the buds. The good news there is that the buds themselves last 18 hours on a charge, which is impressive given their small size. You can charge the buds in their case by plugging it into a phone or laptop, and five minutes of charging provides an hour of playback.

The Solo Buds are available in four colors—matte black, storm gray, arctic purple and transparent red. The Solo Buds and the Solo 4 headphones don’t have an IPX water resistance rating, but will be suitable for sports as well as lifestyle use.

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.

Picking the best Garmin watch isn’t easy. The main reason: Garmin itself. The company has many watches in its range and while that means there will almost certainly be one that matches your preferences, it can be hard to find that watch without spending ages researching the differences between the devices.

You can, however, leave all that to me because I’ve tested pretty much every Garmin device that’s been released in the last five years and know the range like the back of my hand. Or wrist, in this case.

Garmin is renowned for making some of the best sports watches and running watches. Whatever your favorite form of exercise, the company has a device for you. I’ve picked out the best Garmin watch for a range of sports, along with my top overall pick that offers the best balance of value and features.

The quick list

Here’s a run-through of the top Garmin watches available in the most important categories. Click on any watch here to jump to its entry in the main list below.

How I Test Garmin Watches

Best overall

The Forerunner 265 is a multisport watch with an AMOLED screen that offers useful training analysis, including Garmin’s readiness rating, on top of accurate sports tracking and smart features. It’s a great all-rounder that will suit you whatever your preferred sport is, and it’s a good smartwatch and general fitness tracker, too.

The price is still high, but the Forerunner 265 is considerably cheaper than top watches like the Forerunner 965 and Fenix/Epix ranges, which offer maps, longer battery life and more durable designs as an incentive to upgrade. If you aren’t fussed about the AMOLED display of Garmin’s training readiness feature, then the Forerunner 255 is a good, cheaper alternative to the Forerunner 265. Explore the differences between the two with my Garmin Forerunner 265 vs Garmin Forerunner 255 comparison.

Read more in my Garmin Forerunner 265 review

Best for running

The Forerunner 165 Music is the brand’s entry-level AMOLED watch and a great option for runners. It provides accurate GPS tracking (though it’s a shame it doesn’t have dual-band GPS as with more expensive Garmin watches), structured workouts and training plans you can follow on the watch, plus music storage and breadcrumb navigation.

If you find the Forerunner 255 in a deal for around the same price as the Forerunner 165 then that would be a strong alternative for those who don’t need or want an AMOLED screen, since the 255 has more insightful training analysis and dual-band GPS tracking. I’ve gone into more detail on the differences between the two in this Garmin Forerunner 255 vs Garmin Forerunner 165 article.

If you’re just starting out with running the cheaper Forerunner 55 is another good option that does the basics well.

Read more in my Garmin Forerunner 165 review

Best for cycling

Assuming you can find it in a sale (usually easy as it’s an older watch), the Forerunner 255 is the best-value Garmin watch, and could be the pick in a number of categories in this round-up. I’ve singled it out for cyclists as a more affordable option that has key features like power sensor support and a multisport mode, which you don’t get on cheaper Forerunners and Garmin smartwatches.

If you want an AMOLED display and training readiness the Forerunner 265 is a possible upgrade, or you could go up to the Forerunner 955 or 965 to get maps as well. You could also save by getting an entry-level watch like the Forerunner 55 and splash out on a Garmin bike computer instead, which is easier to view during rides.

Read more in my Garmin Forerunner 255 review

Best for triathlon

Another old-but-excellent watch, the Forerunner 955 packs in the same excellent multisport features as the newer Forerunner 965 (minus the AMOLED display), and Fenix/Epix ranges, into a lightweight plastic design with an LCD display. It’s a better pick than the Forerunner 255 and 265 for triathletes tackling longer events in particular, since the extra battery life you get from the Forerunner 955 will be handy in an Ironman, for example. It supports all the sensors you need and will automatically transition between sports during multisport events.

The Forerunner 965 does all of the above and has a bright AMOLED display and a titanium bezel, to increase its durability a little, and of course triathletes are well served by the excellent Fenix 7 and Epix ranges, which have more durable designs than the 955 and come in a range of sizes. If you’re sticking to shorter races and don’t need maps, then the Forerunner 255 and 265 watches are also excellent for triathletes. See how the Forerunner 955 stacks up in my comparison of it alongside the Forerunner 255.

Read more in my Garmin Forerunner 955 review

Best for swimming

Most of the watches in Garmin’s range offer a lot to swimmers and if you also do other kinds of activity I’d suggest opting for a more rounded watch, such as the Forerunner 255 or 265, which match the swimming features of the Garmin Swim 2. However, if you just swim the Swim 2 is a cheaper alternative that has all the features you need to track pool and open-water workouts.

It’s a lightweight watch and records swimming-focused metrics, including distance, pace, stroke count, stroke type and Swolf. You can set up and follow swimming workouts on the watch and use it to measure your critical swim speed, which is an indication of your aerobic swimming threshold.

Read more in my Garmin Swim 2 review

Best smartwatch

The Vivoactive line is one of two dedicated smartwatch lines within Garmin’s range, along with the Venu line, but the same smart features are found across a wide array of Garmin devices. These include music storage, NFC payments, notifications and access to the Connect IQ apps store (which is limited compared with the Apple or Google app offerings).

You get all of this on the Vivoactive 5 at a lower price than other smart Garmins, aside from the cheaper Venu Sq watches, which are not as attractive and enjoyable to use in my experience. If you upgrade to the Venu 3 you get a mic and speaker, which is a handy feature in a smartwatch, and you do get better sports tracking and training analysis from the likes of the Forerunner 265, which also has the same smart features as the Vivoactive 5.

Read more in my Garmin Vivoactive 5 review

Best for hiking

Hikers heading on adventures in the great outdoors will benefit from the long battery life of Garmin’s Fenix and Enduro watches, which also have maps to help you navigate. The Fenix 7X Solar has solar panels around the outside of the face to extend the battery life more in sunny conditions, and I’ve picked it out over the smaller Fenix 7S and 7X because it has a built-in flashlight, a handy extra for those who camp in particular.

The newer Fenix 7 Pro range all have built-in flashlights but you pay more for a watch that otherwise isn’t an upgrade on the Fenix 7 range. The Enduro 2 has a flashlight and the longest battery life, but is expensive. A cheaper option for hiking than the Fenix 7X is the Garmin Instinct 2 Solar, which doesn’t have maps, but does have a rugged design, breadcrumb navigation and long battery life. My head-to-head comparison pits the Fenix 7 against the Enduro 2.

Read more in my Garmin Fenix 7X Solar review

The best running watches can do a lot more than track your workouts. Come race day your Garmin watch can help you stay on track and hit your target time, with a variety of features available to help you successfully pace a marathon.

I’ve run the London Marathon six times and used several different approaches when setting up my watch for the race, all of which were designed to keep me on track for my target time. That’s harder than in other marathons I’ve run because the GPS signal goes AWOL running through Canary Wharf and the tunnels on the course.

The simplest way to track your race is with your normal data screens, but I’d suggest adding lap pace to them, rather than current pace. Current pace is particularly susceptible to GPS trouble and will jump around a lot, while lap pace is your average pace for the current mile or kilometer split you’re running and is a more stable number to help you pace your run.

Even with lap pace the GPS problems you encounter in the second half of the London Marathon when running under high buildings and through tunnels can throw your watch off. I take manual splits when passing the mile/kilometer markers to get an accurate number for each to make sure I’m hitting my target pace.

A more advanced setting is to use the distance and time target setting on the watch. On your run page hold the menu button, select training, quick workout (or set a target depending on which model you’re using) and then distance and time. Select marathon distance and put in your target time and you’ll get two new data screens. One shows how far behind or ahead of your goal pace you are, and another gives a predicted finish time plus your average pace and distance remaining. 

The predicted time is handy as long as you take into account the distance your watch has measured compared with the actual distance you have left to run, with GPS inaccuracies included. Check the distance on the watch against a marker when you pass it and add any discrepancy in time to the predicted time on the watch. 

Another Garmin tool you can use is PacePro, which will give you a target time for each mile or kilometer of your race based on the elevation profile of the course, your overall goal and race strategy, as in whether you want to run even splits, or a negative split where you run the second half of the marathon faster than the first. 

I’d advise against this though. PacePro is brilliant but will be rendered near useless by GPS inaccuracy and is most useful on hilly courses like the Boston Marathon where your pace per split will rise and fall with the hills. PacePro can help you stick to target pace in the first half of the London Marathon, which has good GPS accuracy with few tall buildings, but once you hit Canary Wharf inaccurate pace readings will throw it off.

The most complicated and most accurate option you can use is a ConnectIQ app that allows you to correct the distance readings on the watch. I have used one called Peter’s (Race) Pacer to do this (Peter’s (Hi-Viz) Pacer is a simpler app that does the same thing). When you pass a marker on the course, hit the lap button and it rounds the distance measured by the watch up or down to be exact.

So if your watch reads 5.12km at the 5K marker, hit the lap button and it will correct to 5.00km, and then adjust the average pace and other stats on the watch. You can also set a target time with Peter’s Race Pacer and it will tell you how far ahead or behind you are.

I’m hoping Garmin will eventually make this a native feature on its watches—as it is on the Wahoo ELEMNT Rival watch—because Peter’s (Race) Pacer isn’t the most attractive data screen, but it has worked well for me in the past when GPS readings have gone wonky. Just make sure you try the app out in a training run to get used to the info being shown.

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.

Any of the best running watches can help you pace a marathon, as long as the GPS accuracy is on point. By using the lap pace in particular you can judge your pace for each mile or kilometer split and ensure it’s in line with your overall goals, and stop yourself from going out too fast at the start.

However, Garmin’s PacePro tool goes beyond this by offering a pacing guide that’s tailored to your target time, the way you want to run the race and the course you’re going to run. That last part in particular makes it perfect for the Boston Marathon.

That’s because the Boston Marathon route is not the pancake flat course you get at other major marathons like London, Berlin and Chicago. Boston has hills, with the most famous being Heartbreak Hill in mile 20, and you need to judge your effort on the uphill and downhill sections of the course carefully to hit your target time.

With Garmin’s PacePro tool you set the course you’re going to run and an overall target time, then you choose one of three race strategies and how hard you want to run any uphills. The race strategies are even pacing, a negative split (where you run the second half of the marathon faster than the first), or a positive split. 

If picking a negative or positive split, you also choose how much of a difference you want between the two halves of the race. You could start slowly and set yourself up to sprint home, for example, or just aim for a minute or two difference across the two halves. You also select how hard you want to run uphills, but if you ease off you’ll have to make the time up on flats and downhills.

This is the magic of PacePro, in that it will give you target times for each mile or kilometer split of the race based on your preferences, target time and the elevation of the course during that exact split. For example, if you set up a target time 2hrs 50min for Boston, plus a negative split where you take it easy on uphills, you’ll be given your fastest split targets for the downhills that come after the famous Newton Hills, with a slower target for the mile that includes Heartbreak Hill, or any other incline.

This allows you to ease off in the early stages of the race, and on any uphills, knowing that the race plan will have you hitting your overall target time by attacking the easier downhill miles on the course. The Boston Marathon has a lot of downhills, so you can judge how much time to make up in those sections well to allow you to be slower on the uphills.

During the race the PacePro screen will show your target time for the exact mile or kilometer split you’re running, plus your current split pace, how much distance is left in the split and the total time you are ahead, or behind, your overall goal.

You will need to use a Boston Marathon route within the Garmin Connect app to get a PacePro strategy, but these are easy to find in the app or on the website by searching for Hopkinton, the town where the race starts. There are several Boston Marathon routes to pick between and you can use them to create your PacePro strategy and then send it to your watch. 

The routes are all slightly longer than the exact marathon distance, because they are probably created from the routes people actually ran—it’s hard to run the perfect racing line at a big marathon because of the crowds.

Most of Garmin’s current range is compatible with PacePro, even if the watch doesn’t have maps or breadcrumb navigation as a feature. The Garmin Forerunner 55 is the cheapest watch to have the feature, and you can be assured that any more expensive watch launched in the past couple of years will also have it. You can check if your watch is compatible on the Garmin website by typing it in and selecting your watch.

Garmin’s PacePro tool is useful for lots of races, but is best for hilly courses and also those that don’t spend much time in the center of big cities with tall buildings, because the GPS accuracy that dictates the pacing info on the watch is affected when you’re in the heart of London or New York, for example. It’s perfect for the Boston Marathon as a result, and may well be just the thing for getting you up and over Heartbreak Hill still on course for your PR.

How To Set Up PacePro For The Boston Marathon 

1. Go to Training & Planning>Courses
2. Search for Hopkinton and select a Boston Marathon course from the list
3. Click ‘create a PacePro strategy’
4. Pick your target time or pace
5. Choose between mile and kilometer splits
6. Choose your race strategy and uphill effort
7. Check the individual splits to see if they make sense for you, then hit save
8. Send the route to your device

You can find the PacePro strategy in the training and workouts section of the running app on your watch. Make sure you select it before you start the race. You can also create a PacePro strategy on the watch for any route you have saved on there, but it’s easier to do it in the Garmin Connect app or on the website.

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.

No one really wants to hear this, but running shoes are terrible for the environment. One of the biggest reasons why is that they’re difficult—and therefore uneconomical—to recycle, so they’re either sent to landfill or incinerated.

A few brands have made strides to improve this situation and one of the main players is Asics, which began to print the carbon footprint of its shoes on insoles last summer.

Today, Asics announces the Asics Nimbus Mirai, a performance running shoe designed to be returned and recycled. It goes on sale on April 12 in limited quantities in limited markets, to better manage the untested process of taking the shoes back to be recycled. The shoes cost $180 in the US, £180 in the UK and €200 in France and the Netherlands, making it more expensive in the US (and as expensive in the UK) than the popular Asics Nimbus 26 cushioned shoe.

What Makes This Shoe Different?

The development that enhances the ability of the shoe to be recycled is a new one-piece upper and glue that melts away at high temperatures, leaving the material of the upper unaffected and able to be recycled. 

In 2021, Coach spoke to Dr Mark Sumner—a lecturer at the University of Leeds School of Design who specializes in sustainability—about recycling running shoes and he highlighted the elements of running shoes that are particularly problematic. “What makes it hard to recycle shoes is you've typically got a complex mixture of different materials,” he says, and that’s before you get to the bonding methods. “This makes it difficult to deconstruct, to extract those individual materials to try and work out how you can recycle them.”

Asics’ tests show that 87% of the upper can be turned into usable polyester material. It intends to collect returned Mirais then share with its recycling partner TerraCycle, which acts as a broker, moving them on to recycling centers.

It’s a first step, but Rohan van der Zwet, senior product marketing manager for Asics EMEA, said that the aim is to be able to say, “all our shoes can or should return because we can repurpose most parts”. While he couldn’t say when Asics would achieve that, his horizon was a few years.

What’s It Like To Run In?

Asics isn’t the first brand to launch a more recyclable shoe, or one that is designed to be returned, but we haven’t tested a more sustainable shoe that can match the performance of the best running shoes—that’s been the upshot of our testing of the On CloudNeo and AllBirds Tree Dasher 2.

That looks to be the case again here, although Asics is confident enough of its performance that it’s placed the Mirai in its popular Nimbus line of cushioned shoes. 

“In terms of pure shock absorption technology, the current Nimbus [26] would win,” says Van der Zwet, “but this is still up there. That’s why we were able to give it the Nimbus name because it’s still a comfortable shoe to run in.”

Where Can You Buy The Asics Nimbus Mirai?

In the US, the Mirai will be available in Asics stores, online from Asics as well as in the following specialty stores:

• A Runner's Mind, CA 
• Athletic Annex, IN 
• Big Red Running, CO 
• Charm City Run, MD 
• Farley Enterprises, VA 
• Fleet Feet Rochester, NY 
• Gazelle Sports, MI 
• Mill City Running, MN 
• Naperville Running Co, IL 
• Palmetto Running Company, SC 
• Playmakers, MI 
• Potomac River Running, VA 
• Road Runner Sports Shop, NJ 
• Running Logistics LLC 
• Skinny Raven Sports, AK 
• Sope Creek Enterprises, GA 
• The Exchange Running, TN 
• Three Amigos Running Co.

In Europe the shoe will only be available in three Asics stores and won’t be sold online.

• Paris, France 
• Amsterdam, Netherlands 
• London (Oxford Street), UK

It’s a big day for Nike Pegasus fans. Along with the announcement of the latest version of the regular shoe, the Nike Pegasus 41, the Nike Pegasus Premium has been revealed. This is an all-new addition to the Pegasus line with a different midsole set-up to the Pegasus 41 that will be available in spring 2025.

The most eye-catching part of that midsole is the full-length, visible Air Zoom layer. Nike has used Air Zoom units in many versions of the standard Pegasus, including the Pegasus 41, but these have been small, flat pods concealed in the midsole. New tech has allowed the brand to create the sculpted Air Zoom layer in the Pegasus Premium, which curves in line with the foot.

There’s also a layer of Nike’s best foam in the midsole, the springy ZoomX used in the Nike Vaporfly and Alphafly racing shoes, plus some ReactX foam at the heel. The combination of the Air Zoom layer and two foams in the midsole should create a bouncy ride.

In comparison, the new Nike Pegasus 41 has a full ReactX foam midsole that contains a couple of Air Zoom pods, one under the heel and one under the forefoot. There’s no ZoomX foam in the Pegasus 41, and the Pegasus Premium will probably be the lighter shoe, too.

The Nike Pegasus Premium is not to be confused with the Premium version of the current Pegasus, which is very similar to the standard Nike Pegasus 40, just with exclusive upper designs that cost a little more.

The combination of materials and inclusion of ZoomX will have some, including myself, hoping that the Pegasus Premium might act as a long-awaited successor to the popular Nike Pegasus Turbo, which was surprisingly discontinued after just two generations. 

Nike did release the Pegasus Turbo Next Nature two years ago, but this used recycled ZoomX and didn’t match the ride of the original, which was one of the most versatile and enjoyable daily trainers at the time. If the Pegasus Premium can reproduce that, it could be one of the best running shoes available.

The upgrades in the midsole of the Pegasus Premium lead me to believe that it will cost more than the Pegasus 41, but Nike is yet to give the price for either of the new shoes, nor an exact release date. The Nike Pegasus Premium is set to launch in spring 2025, while the Pegasus 41 will come out in June.

The Nike Pegasus 41 is coming this June, and it looks to be one of the most significant updates to the popular shoe line in years, with a completely redesigned midsole. Nike is also launching a new version of the shoe—the Nike Pegasus Premium—to give runners more options than ever within the Pegasus franchise.

Nike has used its React foam as the main material in the midsole for the last few versions of the Pegasus, but is updating this to ReactX with the Pegasus 41. ReactX is softer and delivers 13% more energy return than standard React, and is also more environmentally friendly, reducing the carbon footprint of a pair of midsoles by 41%.

The Nike InfinityRN 4 was the first shoe to use ReactX foam in its midsole when it came out last year and while I found the new foam softer and bouncier, the InfinityRN 4 was a heavy shoe and I wasn’t a big fan overall. 

I’m hoping that the ReactX foam is integrated into the Pegasus without making the 41 substantially heavier than the Nike Pegasus 40. Along with the ReactX foam the Pegasus 41 has two Air Zoom units in the midsole, one under the heel and one under the forefoot, which should help keep the weight down and add more pop to the ride. 

Nike has also updated the upper on the Pegasus 41, which is designed to be lighter, more breathable and more comfortable than the one of the Pegasus 40, with an internal band wrapping around the midfoot to ensure a secure fit.

There is also an EasyOn version of the Pegasus 41, and a winter version that has a waterproof upper with a Gore-Tex liner. Nike is also launching the Pegasus Trail 5, and the Pegasus Premium, which uses a mix of Air Zoom, ReactX and ZoomX materials in its midsole.

The price of the Nike Pegasus 41 is still to be confirmed, along with an exact release date beyond the month of June.

The Nike Alphafly is one of the best carbon plate running shoes and probably the hardest one to get hold of. It has previously been available on two different occasions in the UK so far, but in limited quantities that sold out in hours.

If you missed out, or just fancy picking up another pair, this is your pre-spring marathon chance. The yellow Volt colorway went on sale again at 8am BST on Thursday April 11 on the Nike UK website.

It’s not going to be a cheap purchase—the Alphafly 3 is one of the most expensive racing shoes ever, costing £284.99, but it does deliver a high level of performance. I’ve run 125km in the shoe now and rate it as the best Alphafly yet, with a bouncy, fast ride that’s great for any distance. My Nike Alphafly 3 review goes into more detail. This is also likely to be your last chance to buy the Alphafly 3 before the London Marathon, if you’re hoping to have it on your feet for that.

The Alphafly 3 is certainly great, but it’s not actually my favorite carbon racing shoe right now. I’ve tested pretty much all of the racers released by major brands in recent years and my top pick is the Asics Metaspeed Sky Paris—it costs £220 and is in stock in most sizes on the Asics website. 

Having run more than 100km in both the Alphafly 3 and Metaspeed Sky Paris, it’s the latter I’m planning on lacing up for the London Marathon. If you don’t want to wait for Thursday, or miss out again on the Alphafly 3, the Asics super-shoe is a strong alternative.

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 Nike Alphafly 3 originally launched in early January when a white ‘proto’ colorway of the shoe sold out in rapid fashion. It’s since been made available in a yellow Volt colorway in other parts of the world, where it promptly sold out in hours again, so you’ll need to move fast to grab the shoe when the Volt color goes on sale in the US today.

It’s no surprise that the shoe is selling out so fast, despite its $285 price. It’s one of the best carbon plate running shoes and was used by Kelvin Kiptum to set the marathon world record last year at the Chicago Marathon. If you’re lining up a PR attempt at the upcoming Boston Marathon or London Marathon, this might well be your last chance to get the shoe in time.

To do so you’ll need to be a Nike member—it’s free and easy to sign up—and then be ready to hit buy when the shoe goes on sale. The Nike website says this will be at 3pm GMT+1 (UTC), which is quite a confusing way to give the time on the US site, so here’s the time the shoe will be on sale in each US time zone:

• GMT+1 (UTC): 3pm
• ET: 10am
• CT: 9am
• MT: 8am
• PT: 7am
• AKDT: 6am
• HST: 4am

Good luck getting hold of the shoe, but if you miss out then don’t despair, I’ve tested almost all of the best carbon plate racers available and right now there is one I prefer to the Alphafly 3, which is the Asics Metaspeed Sky Paris. There are no time concerns with the Asics either, it’s on sale right now and cheaper than the Alphafly 3 at $250. 

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.

I’m usually pretty active with running, cycling and strength training generally featuring in my week. However, pregnancy changed things somewhat. I took it very easy for my first trimester—mostly because I felt nauseous unless I was eating toast.

By my second trimester the nausea had passed and I wanted to do more exercise, but didn’t know where to start. Without guidance from a qualified prenatal fitness expert, it’s hard to know what’s safe in pregnancy and what could potentially injure you (simply coughing while lying in the wrong position would send me into spasms of round ligament pain). I scoured the timetable at my gym but there were no pregnancy-specific fitness classes. I began weekly pregnancy yoga at my favorite yoga studio, started swimming once a week and occasionally doing some very gentle running. But most days I didn’t move much, and I still felt pretty sedentary.

So when I had the opportunity to test and review online fitness program The Bump Plan I was keen to give it a go. Offering a combination of Pilates-style strength training and cardio workouts, the subscription-based fitness platform caters to those trying to conceive, as well as those who are pregnant and postpartum. You can join at any point, even late in your pregnancy or after having your baby.

How Much Does The Bump Plan Cost?

Membership costs £35 per month, with a discount if you pay for six months (£180) or a year (£240) upfront. When you sign up you have the option to buy a £15 starter pack that includes a Pilates ball and resistance band—other than a mat, that’s all the equipment you need for the classes.

What Do You Get With The Bump Plan?

The Bump Plan gives you six workout videos to complete in a week, with the same videos to repeat weekly before you get a new set of videos (these currently change at weeks 12, 18, 24 and 30). Six workouts per week may sound like a lot, but they are all 20 to 30 minutes long, so I found them easy enough to slot into my day, and together they add up to the 150 minutes of moderate-intensity exercise per week recommended for pregnant women (and indeed all adults aged 19-64) by the UK government.

All the videos are created and led by Hollie Grant, an award-winning Pilates instructor and personal trainer, and were recorded while she was pregnant. In each of the videos, she is at more or less the same stage of pregnancy as the viewer. I found this immensely helpful—everything felt all the more achievable and encouraging thanks to a feeling of being in the same boat, plus Grant’s down-to-earth teaching style and her frank discussions of the physical challenges of pregnancy were very welcome.

Weeks 18-24 of the program gave me access to two 20-minute Pilates sessions, three cardio-Pilates sessions and a 10-minute stretching session. Each workout also contains a short pelvic floor exercise session at the end. I know how important it is to do pelvic floor exercises but (confession) I never actually do them unless I’m being told to, so having them scheduled into my workouts was ideal.

There’s also a weekly live class, led by Grant, that you can join as part of the program. It was nice to catch a glimpse of some of the other prenatal mamas following along, and it was also good to be able to connect with Grant before and after the class and ask any pressing questions. These workouts are recorded (minus the chit-chat) and become bonus workouts available alongside your weekly workouts.

The Bump Plan also offers more than just workouts. In the education hub section of the website, subscribers also get access to a library of articles by qualified health experts, as well as video interviews and recorded webinars on topics ranging from pelvic girdle pain and sciatica to hypnobirthing, cesarean sections, and baby and toddler first aid. I found it an informative and helpful place to explore and learn more about issues that are often little discussed—there’s even an expert interview that tackles “the post-birth poo”!

Members can also access weekly live clinics with experts including a women’s health physio and a lactation consultant, where you can ask questions.

What Are The Bump Plan Workouts Like?

By the time I began the program during my 19th week of pregnancy, I was doing a small amount of mostly low-impact exercise. Plus I was dealing with the demands of work and family life, with a six-year-old keeping me on my toes. But, I still felt like I was missing some form of more structured exercise that raised my heart rate, and I felt rather feeble and got tired easily. Usually I felt shattered in the evenings, even when I’d barely left the house.

When I began the workouts, I found them very manageable—they’re not too long and there’s an emphasis on keeping effort levels moderate and not getting too out of breath. The videos I followed had no dynamic movements: all cardio was low impact.

There were a lot of squats though—at my stage in the second trimester the program focuses on strengthening your legs and glutes to help with proper posture and support for your back, as well as preparing you for an active labor. I really felt it in my quads and hamstrings after the first couple of workouts. But when I returned to those same videos in the second week, my muscles coped fine and I had no soreness afterward. By the third week I was progressing as suggested by holding a light pair of dumbbells for many of the exercises.

The six workouts for the week felt well-planned, targeting different areas of the body in the safest possible way. There are lots of modifications on offer for those experiencing symptoms such as pelvic girdle pain, or ways to take it down a notch if you’re getting too out of breath.

I found the live workouts a particularly worthwhile addition. Having got to know Grant through the videos it was motivating to interact with her live and do some different exercises. In the live sessions I attended there were options for more dynamic movement if you wanted it.

I asked Grant why the live classes involved dynamic exercises, while the recorded classes do not. “Version one of the Bump Plan was filmed five years ago while I was pregnant with my daughter and back then the guidance was that you should avoid impact while pregnant,” says Grant. “But since then there has been so much research done and new guidance published. And awareness of the fact that actually impact is fine during pregnancy as long as your pelvic floor is comfortable with it, and you're comfortable with it. Baby is completely cushioned and safe.”

“I refilmed the Bump Plan while I was pregnant with my son [who is now one year old], and it's just about to go live in a few weeks,” says Grant. “You’ll get more workouts, they change more regularly and they’re more challenging. I do encourage you to jump and bounce around as long as it's comfortable for you. And there’s loads of information about pelvic floor strength. Things like pressure management in the core, all sorts of things like that. So if you want to be challenged, you can be.”

Is The Bump Plan Worth It?

Within a week of starting the plan I felt stronger and more energetic. I could go on a long walk without feeling heavy and exhausted by the end, and I could carry my bike up the steep front steps to my house with confidence. Three weeks into the plan (and halfway through my pregnancy) my glutes, legs, core, chest, arms and shoulders feel stronger, and even as my bump seems to expand by the day I feel better equipped for the movements and challenges of daily life. I’m getting fewer back twinges and I’d even say my mood is more stable.

I’ve found that having a schedule of six short workouts a week is really helping me stay more active. It’s a challenge to get them all done but because each one is only 20 or 30 minutes long, fitting one in nearly every day feels achievable, and I don’t beat myself up if I miss a couple of sessions here and there. The workouts themselves feel like they’re making a difference and yet they’re never too taxing.

The videos do get slightly repetitive after a while and I would prefer to have a wider range of videos to choose from or for the videos to change more often, and I’d like the option to include more dynamic moves in the workouts, but these changes are on their way, with the Bump Plan update planned for mid April 2024.

Grant herself is very available and responsive to subscribers, encouraging people to email with questions, or stay and chat at the end of live sessions. There’s also an active closed Facebook group where she’ll respond to comments. With her enthusiasm and openness, it’s like having your own cheering squat rooting for you.

I think it’s absolutely worth paying the monthly subscription, and I’m intending to keep following the program for the rest of my pregnancy and beyond—the postnatal program sounds excellent too, with different videos depending on whether you had a vaginal birth or C-section. Progression to the next phase is entirely dependent on when you feel ready.

There’s a week’s free trial to see if The Bump Plan is right for you before committing. But if you don’t fancy paying a monthly subscription and you’d rather devise your own workouts along the same lines, it’s worth reading Grant’s book, The Bump Plan, (£16.99 / $22.99) published in 2023. It equips you with the knowledge of what kind of exercise is safe and most beneficial at every stage of pregnancy and why, and has examples of suitable workouts.

As always when trying something new, especially when pregnant, it’s important to check with your healthcare professional to be sure that this kind of exercise is safe for you.

Sign up for a free trial of The Bump Plan on the website.

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.

Garmin has rolled out a free software update to many of its watches, including the Garmin Fenix 7 and Epix 2.

The headline new feature is automatic transitions during multisport activities such as triathlons and duathlons. When using these modes, compatible Garmins will sense when you transition between swimming, cycling and running, and automatically record the transition and switch your data screen to the correct sport mode.

This is a feature that is already available on Wahoo and Apple sports watches, and it means you won’t have to remember to hit any buttons during your transition. If you’re worried that the watch might transition incorrectly, there are methods to undo it, like long-pressing the lap button, and you can also turn the feature off and manually transition.

Another feature in the update is a new database of over 10,000 running tracks being added to watches, which will be used when you select track mode for your runs. The database means you won’t have to calibrate the watch by running a few laps to get accurate distance data during your run—the watch will already know you’re at a track. 

I use track mode regularly on my Garmin and the highly-accurate distance data makes it easier to pace long reps. Not having to calibrate a new track will be a small but useful quality-of-life improvement.

As will another new feature—Lap Undo. If you hit the lap button by mistake during an activity you have eight seconds to undo it by pressing the down button (bottom left). This only works for manual laps for now, you can’t undo automatic laps or use the feature when following a structured workout on the watch.

Other new features included in the update are a jump rope activity mode, and Garmin’s sleep coach, which recommends the amount of sleep you need that day based on sleep history and your activity levels. The watch will only recommend between seven and nine hours of sleep, so it’s not going to suggest wild changes to your routine, but it might be a useful prompt to sleep more when training a lot.

Which Garmin Devices Receive This Update?

The following devices receive all of the new software features detailed above:

• Garmin Fenix 7
• Garmin Fenix 7 Pro
• Garmin Epix 2
• Garmin Epix Pro
• Garmin Enduro 2
• Garmin Forerunner 255, 265, 955 and 965
• Garmin Tactix 7
• Garmin Tactix 7 AMOLED
• Garmin Marq 2
• Garmin Quatix 7
• Garmin Quatix 7 Pro
• Garmin D2 Mach 1
• Garmin D2 Mach 1 Pro

The Garmin Venu 3 and Vivoactive 5 already have the sleep coach feature, and gains the jump rope activity. 

The Garmin Lily 2 has the jump rope activity added. 

The new Garmin Forerunner 165 will soon receive all the updates, bar the multisport automatic transition feature.

How To Download The New Software 

These features have been available as part of Garmin’s public beta testing program, but will now be rolling out across all compatible watches automatically. 

Software updates automatically when your device connects to the Garmin Connect app, but this may not happen immediately. The Garmin website states that it may take a few days.

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.

The On Cloudmonster Hyper has arrived and it looks like a shoe to get excited about, with a dual-density midsole that contains a thick wedge of On’s Peba-based Helion HF foam as well as the brand’s signature CloudTec pods.

On has billed it as the ultimate daily trainer, combining a high level of comfort and protection for your legs during high mileage weeks, while also having enough pop for faster runs thanks to the bouncy Helion HF in the midsole.

I wasn’t all that enamored of the On Cloudmonster 2, but the Cloudmonster Hyper has already impressed me more after just one run, and its versatility will make it one of the best On running shoes for those seeking cushioning and a bit of speed.

The price is very high though, with the Cloudmonster Hyper costing $219.99 in the US and £210 in the UK. That’s very expensive for a daily trainer, and a high price even for a super-trainer that uses the foam from On’s carbon plate running shoe, the On Cloudboom Echo 3.

For my first run in the On Cloudmonster Hyper I took it out for an easy hour the day after a half marathon race, so I was on tired legs. The shoe did feel comfortable and I was surprised at the pace I was running at for an easy effort level and low heart rate, and the midsole certainly has more bounce than On’s other cushioned shoes, like the Cloudeclipse and Cloudmonster 2.

I’m not sure the layer of Cloudtec pods on the bottom add much though. They’re heavier than the Helion HF foam and firmer, and the way the pods and the rubber on the bottom of them hit the ground creates a ‘slappy’ feel at times.

This firmer layer will help make the shoe more stable, which is needed with Peba-based foams, especially as the Cloudmonster Hyper doesn’t have the carbon plate of the Cloudboom Echo 3 to stabilize it. Removing this stiff plate makes it more comfortable and suitable for daily training, although you lose the propulsive boost of a plate.

I picked up the pace for short periods on my run in the shoe and you do get more bounce from the midsole when you do so, but I’m not convinced it will be a great option for faster training sessions, partly because it’s pretty heavy at 9.5oz/270g. I’ll do some fast runs in it for our full review to check on that though.

My first impressions of the shoe are that it should be a great daily trainer for high mileage runners, who also have a faster shoe in their running shoe rotation for sessions. The price is prohibitively high, however, especially when there are excellent options available for less, like the Saucony Endorphin Speed 4 if you are happy to train in a nylon-plated shoe, or the Hoka Mach 6 and New Balance Rebel v4 if you’d rather go plateless. 

Even the Asics Superblast is cheaper, and it's lighter and that has so far set the gold standard for high-stack super-trainers without a plate. The On Cloudmonster Hyper will have to really impress over further testing to convince me it’s worth the money.

If you want to use your training time as effectively as possible, add these beginner treadmill workouts to your gym routine. They’re both designed by Fran Bungay, head coach for the Training Today App and Goal Specific Coaching, and use the incline and speed settings on a treadmill to program interval runs that will get you fitter and help you lose weight.

While you can just step onto a treadmill and run at a steady pace for your workout, you’ll get more out of short sessions in particular by doing intervals which raise your heart rate and effort level, and burn more calories.

How To Do These Beginner Treadmill Workouts

Bungay has put together two beginner treadmill sessions to try, one with intervals based on speed and one on incline. You’ll be using the 1-10 RPE scale (rate of perceived exertion) to judge your effort, where 10 is maximum effort. This might feel hard to judge at first, but whatever you do will result in a great workout and you’ll get more adept at judging your effort levels over time.

Each workout begins with a warm-up and ends with a warm-down. Don’t skip either of these.

The main workout involves sections of work and recovery intervals. The instructions for each section are written as “5 x 1min at 8/10 RPE, 1min walk recovery”. This means you do five sets of the following: run for one minute at an effort level of 8/10, then recover for one minute while walking.

Beginner Interval Treadmill Workout

Do the entire workout with the treadmill set at a 2% incline.

Warm-up

5min walk 

5min building up to jogging to finish at around 6/10 RPE 

Workout

5 x 1min at 8/10 RPE, 1min walk recovery

3 x 2min at 7/10 RPE, 1min walk recovery

5 x 1min at 8/10 RPE, 1min walk recovery

Warm-down

2min at 6/10 RPE

2min at 5/10 RPE

1min walk 

Beginner Incline Treadmill Workout

Warm-up

Set the incline to 2% for the warm-up

5min walk 

5min building into a jog to 6/10 RPE

Workout

Aim for 7/10 or 8/10 RPE during the work periods, as you get fitter you might want to increase the pace on the lower incline section.

3 x 1min at 6% incline, 1min at 2% incline, 1min walk recovery

3 x 2 min at 4% incline, 2min at 2% incline, 1min walk recovery

Warm-down

2min at 6/10 RPE

2min at 5/10 RPE

1min walk

Find out which treadmills are worth buying with my guide to the best treadmills.

The Forerunner 255 and Forerunner 165 are among the best sports watches and offer better value than most devices in Garmin’s range. The Forerunner 255 is a full multisport watch with more training analysis features than the Forerunner 165, which is cheaper and has a bright AMOLED display as its star feature.

Forerunner 255 vs Forerunner 165: Price And Availability

The Forerunner 165 launched in February 2024 and there are two models: the 165 Music and standard 165. The Forerunner 165 is $249.99 in the US and £249.99 in the UK, and the Forerunner 165 Music is $299.99/£289.99.

There are also music and non-music models of the Forerunner 255, which launched in June 2022, and they come in two sizes. The Forerunner 255 is $349.99/£299.99 and the Forerunner 255 Music is $399.99/£349.99, with the smaller 255S variant available at the same price with both models. As an older watch, however, the Forerunner 255 is usually available for much less than its list price.

How I Tested These Watches

I tested the Forerunner 165 Music and Forerunner 255S Music for my reviews on Coach, using them for several weeks to track my workouts, general activity and sleep. I usually run 50-80 miles a week, as well as doing regular yoga and some strength sessions and bike rides. I tested the watches for heart rate accuracy against a Polar H10 chest strap and for GPS accuracy against the Garmin Epix 2 or Garmin Epix Pro, both of which I’ve found accurate for GPS distance and pacing.

• Garmin Forerunner 165 review
• Garmin Forerunner 255 review

Design

The main difference in design is obvious as soon as you look at the two watches. The Forerunner 165 has a 1.2in AMOLED display while the Forerunner 255 has Garmin’s traditional memory-in-pixel LCD (1.1in on the Forerunner 255S and 1.3in on the Forerunner 255).

I prefer the AMOLED display, which is more vivid and easier to read inside and when under tree or cloud cover. In bright sunlight the screens offer equal visibility, though overall the AMOLED is superior—making the Forerunner more engaging and enjoyable to use as a general watch, outside of training.

The Forerunner 165 comes in only one size, with a 43mm case. The Forerunner 255S has a 41mm case, and the Forerunner 255 a 46mm case. Both watches have a plastic build, but the screen is stronger on the Forerunner 255, using Gorilla glass, whereas the Forerunner 165 features chemically strengthened glass.

The watches have the same sensors, including a barometric altimeter, and use Garmin’s Elevate V4 heart rate sensors. They can connect to external sensors using Bluetooth and ANT+, but the Forerunner 255 can connect to cycling power sensors, something that isn’t available on the more running-focused Forerunner 165. The Forerunner 255 also provides more accurate dual-band GPS tracking, which isn’t available on the Forerunner 165.

Sports Tracking And Training Analysis

The Forerunner 165 tracks a range of sports, including open-water swimming and the other parts of a triathlon individually, but it doesn’t have a multisport mode where you can record a full triathlon, including your transition. It’s more of a running watch, while the Forerunner 255 is a full triathlon watch.

You can also display more information during activities on the Forerunner 255, which allows up to six data fields at once on screen, whereas the max you can show on the Forerunner 165 is four. The Forerunner 255 offers more analysis, including Garmin’s training status, which provides insight into whether your training is balanced and productive. Both watches lack the Forerunner 265’s training readiness feature.

You do still get some useful training insights from the Forerunner 165, which will tell you how your workouts benefitted your aerobic or anaerobic fitness and give a VO2 max estimate, plus estimated race times for 5K, 10K, half marathon and marathon events.

GPS And HR Accuracy

One big difference between the watches is that the Forerunner 255 offers dual-band GPS tracking, whereas the most accurate mode on the Forerunner 165 is all-systems-on, which uses multiple satellite systems at once. In my testing the GPS accuracy of the Forerunner 165 was good and mostly comparable to that of the Garmin Epix Pro. However, dual-band tracking on the Forerunner 255 is more reliable when in tough GPS conditions, such as when running under tall buildings or tree cover. It reduces battery life, though, and the accuracy of the Forerunner 165 is good enough to judge your runs.

The optical heart rate accuracy was comparable across the watches, which is to say it’s not something I’d rely on entirely. It was mostly OK, especially in warm conditions, but I often saw heart rate readings that were incorrect when compared to a chest strap. If you’re intending to use heart rate in workouts, or to use the training analysis on the watches to shape your training plans, I’d link one of the best heart rate monitors to the watches for peace of mind.

Battery Life

The difference in battery life isn’t huge, especially if you set the 165’s screen to raise-to-wake rather than always-on, though the standard Forerunner 255 is the longest-lasting watch in watch mode and during activities. The smaller Forerunner 255S still slightly outlasts the Forerunner 165.

With the screen always-on I found the Forerunner 165 lasted four or five days when running daily, while the smaller Forerunner 255S lasted six days on a charge.

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.

Most of the best carbon plate running shoes stick to a similar design, so when one bucks the trend it’s always an interesting development. The Altra Vanish Carbon 2 launches on March 27, 2024 and offers runners who prefer a zero-drop shoe a high-performance option for race day.

The same was true of the Altra Vanish Carbon, but I didn’t find that it delivered the propulsive speed required from a top super-shoe. Altra has made significant updates to the Vanish Carbon 2 to improve its performance, while retaining the key features of a more naturally foot-shaped toe box and a zero-drop stack height that’s the same at the heel and forefoot.

The Vanish Carbon 2 has a full-length carbon plate, rather than just the half plate used in the original. The new shoe also has more foam in the midsole, with the stack height being increased from 33mm to 36mm to create a more comfortable and bouncy ride.

The foam used has also been updated. It’s still called EGO PRO, but it’s now lighter and more pliable, according to Altra. I found the original shoe lacked bounce compared with others, so hopefully the midsole updates deliver that springy feel you want on race day.

As with the Vanish Carbon, the new shoe has a long forefoot rocker, which I found made it feel like a low-drop rather than a zero-drop shoe because of the way it rolls you onto your toes. The Vanish Carbon 2 has a wider upper that allows your toes to splay on the run, as opposed to the more tapered toe boxes you get with most running shoes that cause some runners discomfort.

One thing yet to be confirmed about the new shoe is whether Altra has changed the outsole material. The hardened EVA used on the original wore down quickly and compromised its durability, so hopefully a more hardy outsole rubber is in place with the Vanish Carbon 2.

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.

It doesn’t have to cost thousands of dollars to create an excellent home spinning setup, especially if you pick up a bargain like this deal on the Echelon Smart Connect Bike, which has been reduced by more than 50% in the Amazon Big Spring Sale.

That brings the price of the bike down from $500 to just $239.99, and while you do have to factor in the cost of an ongoing subscription to the Echelon app to unlock guided spinning classes ($39.99 a month, or $399.99 a year), it’s still a great value option compared with the likes of Peloton.

The Echelon Smart Connect Bike doesn’t have a built-in screen, but you can use the app to watch classes on your own smartphone or tablet using the mount on the handlebars. It’s a compact bike that runs quietly, so will work for small spaces, and impressively sturdy and stable for a cheaper option.

While it doesn’t match the user experience of the best spin bikes which cost north of $1,000, the Echelon Smart Connect Bike is a great home training option and this is a major saving that’s worth grabbing if you’re keen to get fit at home.

And while we haven’t reviewed this model, we’ve tested two other exercise bikes and three other home cardio machines from Echelon so can vouch for the brand.

The Amazon Spring Sale has started and there are some great running shoe deals available, whether you’re looking for a comfortable cushioned shoe or a carbon plate running shoe to set PRs in.

I review running shoes and have tested hundreds of pairs of shoes in recent years, and so I know which shoes included in the sales are actual bargains, and which are worth avoiding. I’ve also checked the best running shoe discounts from the Amazon sale against prices elsewhere, and found better deals on a couple of shoes.

With all that in mind, here are the top running shoe deals available in the Amazon Spring Sale, plus info on where you can get the shoes for less if there is a better deal available.

For more great options, read my selection of the best cheap running shoes.

Asics Gel-Nimbus 25

The Asics Gel-Nimbus 26 came out earlier this year but I found that the updates to the new shoe were minimal, with upper tweaks and a new outsole that improves the grip slightly, but also makes the ride of the new shoe slightly less comfortable compared with the Gel-Nimbus 25. The Asics Gel-Nimbus 25 is available in lots of colors and sizes for $119.95 in the Amazon sale, a 25% reduction that is matched on the Asics website. However, Footlocker has the shoe for less, reducing it to $99, though there are fewer colors and sizes available.

Brooks Glycerin 20

Like the Gel-Nimbus 25, the Brooks Glycerin 20 is another comfortable cushioned shoe that’s great for newer runners, and those who want a shoe that protects the body well on long runs. The Brooks Glycerin 21 recently came out and I do think the new shoe is an upgrade, with more foam in the midsole and a lighter overall design, but the Glycerin 20 is still a great shoe and reduced by $50 to $109.95 in the Amazon sale. There are plenty of sizes and colors available in the sale, and that’s the best price I can see for the shoe, though Brooks does match the 31% discount if you’d prefer to shop direct.

New Balance FuelCell SC Elite v3

The SC Elite v3 is a last-gen carbon plate running shoe, but even though the New Balance SC Elite v4 is a better shoe, in my opinion, the older one remains a very fast racing option and it’s available at a big discount in Amazon’s sale. The price varies with size and color, but if you can find one that fits you for under $170 it’s a deal worth considering, and I’ve not seen a better deal on the shoe elsewhere.

Adidas Ultraboost

Amazon has reduced the Ultraboost 23 in its sale, with the exact price changing depending on the size and color you pick. However, I would urge you to instead head to the Adidas website and pick up the Ultraboost Light in its sale instead. The 50% discount you get is bigger than the Amazon saving on the UB23 and the Ultraboost Light is a better running shoe than the UB23, while having a very similar design for casual wear.

If you’ve been shopping for one of the best smart scales to track your body composition, but don’t want to spend big bucks, now is a great time to buy. Amazon is having its Big Spring Sale, and I’ve sorted through the deals to work out which is worth your time. 

My top budget smart scale pick from among the many scales I’ve tested is the Renpho Smart Body Fat Scale, a compact Bluetooth scale that offers all the body composition metrics you could dream of, from body fat and bone mass to visceral fat (the dangerous fat around your organs), and it will even calculate your metabolic age. 

A fraction of the price of many top-end models from the likes of Withings and Garmin, the Renpho scale is usually great value at its MSRP, and it’s now available in the US at 31% off, for under $25. Amazon UK is selling it with a slightly smaller 17% discount, but it’s still a steal at less than £20.

I tested this scale over a period of several weeks and found it easy to use and the measurements it gave were consistent. The app in particular impressed me, setting out my data in an easy-to-read color-coded format that showed exactly where I had room for improvement. 

The scale is light and compact, so didn’t take up too much room in my bathroom. There’s a WiFi-connected version that costs a little more but I found the Bluetooth one connected easily and recorded my data quickly (faster and with fewer issues than the Xiaomi Mi Body Composition Scale, for example).

It’s possible to share some of your body composition data with Apple Health, Fitbit App, Google Health, Samsung Health, and there’s an app for the Apple Watch. It was easy to link the Renpho app to Apple Health and the Fitbit app on my phone, and data appeared in those apps.

If you’re looking for a smart scale and don’t want to spend a fortune, the Renpho Smart Scale is definitely worth considering, especially at this price.

I’ve tested most of the current crop of CrossFit shoes, and whenever anyone asks for a top budget option I point them in the direction of the Puma Fuse 2.0. The shoe is exceptionally comfortable with a wide, stable base for lifting, and a responsive midsole for all your burpee and box jump needs. 

With an MSRP of $100 it’s already great value, but with as much as 52% off in the Amazon Big Spring Sale it’s a total steal.

The women’s shoe can be picked up from $47.80, and you can find the men’s shoe for as little as $58.06 (costs vary as Amazon’s convoluted shoe-selling system changes the price depending on the style and size you go for). 

The Puma Fuse 2.0 was comfortable straight out the box. My first time wearing it was at a Puma event hosted by WIT Fitness in London, where top CrossFit athletes Joshua Al-Chamaa and Chandler Smith subjected me to a pair of 15-minute AMRAPS. 

After however many rounds of toes-to-bars, dumbbell clean and jerks, squats, push-ups, lunges and 400m runs, my feet felt remarkably fresh—the rest of my body, not so much. 

The Fuse 2.0’s soft upper feels more like a sock than a shoe, molding to the shape of my foot and providing a locked-in fit around the heel. 

It also has some nifty CrossFit-specific features such as raised rubber guards around the midfoot for rope climbs, a handstand push-up-proof TPU bumper on the heel and a wider forefoot for added balance during Olympic lifts. 

It’s brilliantly springy too. The midsole proved responsive during plyometric exercises, helping me feel light on my feet during speedy metcons. So much so that my pair has now become my go-to shoe for padel. 

As with most shoes, there are a couple of areas for improvement. There are better shoes out there for straight-up lifting: squats, deadlifts and cleans all felt good, although I experienced a bit of compression in the heel when shifting weights of 220lb and up.

I was also concerned about the shoe’s durability at first. Within a month of wearing them, the heel lining had worn through, however this hasn’t affected their performance and I’m still wearing them regularly one year on. 

Overall this is a really easy-to-get-along-with CrossFit shoe at a very reasonable price—even more so now it’s been knocked down in the Amazon Big Spring Sale. 

The Amazon Big Spring Sale has arrived and it features some great Garmin deals on the best sports watches. I’ve been testing and reviewing Garmins for several years and have tried all of the watches on sale, and the standout pick for me is the Garmin Forerunner 255.

There are two sizes of the watch and two models—one with music and one without—and all of them are discounted in the US. The top model in the range is the Garmin Forerunner 255 Music (or smaller 255S Music), which has music storage as an extra feature that will be worth having for anyone who owns wireless headphones but doesn’t like to run with their phone.

Although an older watch, the Garmin Forerunner 255 Music remains one of the best value options available, especially at the reduced price of $299.99 (or $249.99, if you don’t need the music feature). It’s a full multisport watch for runners and triathletes with accurate dual-band GPS tracking, and offers useful training insights to help you improve.

The newer Garmin Forerunner 265 has an AMOLED screen plus Garmin’s training readiness feature, but it’s a lot more expensive (you can read more about the differences in my Garmin Forerunner 265 vs Garmin Forerunner 255 comparison). The recently-released Garmin Forerunner 165 is around the same price as the Forerunner 255 and has an AMOLED screen, but doesn’t have a multisport mode or dual-band GPS tracking.

The Polar Grit X2 Pro has been unveiled, and the updates Polar has made should see it compete with the best sports watches on the market. The AMOLED watch has a durable design tested to military standards and is packed full of the best features Polar has to offer.

These features include topographical maps with turn-by-turn directions from Komoot (the ability to sync with Strava routes is also on the way), dual-band GPS tracking with a new signal-boosting antenna under the watch’s bezel, and a handy built-in flashlight.

Many of these features were introduced on the Polar Vantage V3, which came out in late 2023, but the Grit X2 Pro sets itself apart with some unique features such as vertical speed and average ascent speed—useful stats for those running and hiking in the mountains.

The Grit X2 Pro comes preloaded with maps for Europe and the US, with other regions available to download for free, and it will show a breadcrumb trail of your route during activities, a useful feature for retracing your steps that has been strangely absent since Polar first launched maps on the Vantage V3.

The 1.39in AMOLED touchscreen is the same dimensions as the display on the Vantage V3, while using sapphire crystal to be more durable than the Vantage’s gorilla glass display. It will be a major upgrade for the Grit X2 Pro and the battery life on the watch is still strong despite the new display. The Grit X2 Pro will last up to 10 days in watch mode and offers 43 hours of activity tracking in its performance mode using dual-band GPS, with an eco training mode extending the battery life to 140 hours.

There is also a built-in compass on the watch and an array of sensors to track things like your heart rate and blood oxygen saturation. The Grit X2 Pro can also take an ECG (though it’s not medically certified) and measure your skin temperature.

The Polar Grit X2 Pro will be available to pre-order on the Polar US and Polar UK websites from today until Tuesday, April 2, with the watch then going on general sale on Wednesday, April 3. 

The standard steel version of the watch comes in black or gray and costs $749.90/£649, while the titanium Polar Grit X2 Pro Titan is $869.90/£749. 

The Garmin Forerunner 955 is available at a great price in the Amazon Big Spring Sale, with a $100 discount available on what is one of the best sports watches. Garmin is also offering the deal directly, which is handy as stock is already low on Amazon.

 While the Garmin Forerunner 955 is an older watch and has been superseded by the Garmin Forerunner 965, it is still up to date with Garmin’s key features. The main difference between it and the 965 is the AMOLED screen on the latter, so if you’re happy with the LCD screen of the 955, which does help to boost battery life, then the older watch is the better value pick.

That’s especially the case when it’s reduced by $100, so it’s no surprise that the stock is already low on Amazon. If you’re looking for a great multisport watch in the sales and want maps on board to help with navigation, this is the best deal I expect to see.

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.

One of the biggest new features that has come to wearables over the past couple of years is heart rate variability (HRV) tracking, and using this to gauge the stress on your body and how ready it is to exercise.

The Oura ring was the first device I tested to really make this “readiness” measurement useful, tracking your HRV overnight and using it, along with other factors, to give a readiness score every morning so you can judge if you should do a hard workout. It’s also used across many of the best sports watches, especially high-end models from Garmin, with its training readiness score tying together lots of activity and recovery stats, including HRV.

However, getting an Oura ring or a Garmin that gives you this data is expensive, and they might not be giving you perfect data anyway, especially since Garmin watches have a habit of overestimating time asleep.

I’m currently in the middle of a marathon training block for the London Marathon, and I’ve been testing several methods of tracking my readiness at the same time—an Oura ring (3rd generation), the training readiness score from a Garmin Epix Pro watch, and the HRV4Training app (App Store and Google Play).

With the ring and the watch I wear them overnight and they give my readiness score in the morning, using an average of my HRV measured overnight set against my baseline, which takes several weeks to establish.

You also need to set a baseline with the HRV4Training app, but the measurements are done differently—you take it in the morning using the camera on your phone (you can also link a chest strap heart rate monitor if you prefer). You hold a finger over the camera and the flash is used to take a reading of your heart rate and HRV.

This morning HRV measurement needs to be consistent to get the most useful information from the app, with the advice being to take the measurement first thing, sitting up in bed. It takes a minute as standard, but you can set the measurement to take longer, which might make for a more accurate reading. Even a minute sometimes proved a bit tricky for me if woken up by my kids, but I was able to fit it in at the same time each morning.

Along with the measurement, the app asks you to fill out a short questionnaire regarding your recent training, any muscle soreness or mental fatigue, and whether you drank alcohol the night before. You can link apps such as Strava to the HRV4Training app to pull your training in automatically.

After you finish the questionnaire you are given your HRV score and advice on whether it is within your baseline, and whether you should proceed as planned with your training that day, or limit how hard you work.

It’s a simple app to use once you get the knack of positioning your finger on the camera correctly, and I have found the readings and advice to be comparable to the data from the Oura ring. I also like the questionnaire, which makes you aware of your alcohol intake in particular, and the fact the measurement is taken in the morning makes it feel directly applicable to my upcoming training that day.

The HRV4Training app is a lot cheaper than the best watches and wearables to give readiness info, and the fact you don’t have to wear a watch or even a ring overnight will appeal to some people. It costs $9.99/£9.99 as a one-off fee, though there is a pro version that gives you access to a web platform for more insights into your measurements.

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.

The Asics Metaspeed Sky Paris and Metaspeed Edge Paris will be available to buy from Monday March 4, with both shoes priced at $250/£220, which is the same price as the Asics Metaspeed Sky+ and Metaspeed Edge+ in the US and an unexpected £5 drop in the UK.

It’s been almost two years since Asics launched the previous versions of the Metaspeed Sky and Edge, and though both are still competitive with the best carbon plate running shoes, the changes made to Metaspeed Paris shoes will hopefully help them challenge for the top spots.

The main update to both shoes is a new foam in the midsole, which is now made from Asics’s FF Blast Turbo Plus foam, a lighter and bouncier material than the FF Blast Turbo used in the Sky+ and Edge+ shoes.

Asics has also made the new shoes lighter by around 0.8oz/22g, which should make them the lightest carbon plate running shoes on the market, aside from the barely-available Adidas Adizero Pro Evo 1. Along with the new midsole foam, a lighter and more breathable Motion Wrap 2.0 contributes to the drop in weight. Asics has also adjusted the carbon plates in the shoes in a bid to improve performance.

As with previous generations of Metaspeed shoes, the differences between the Metaspeed Sky Paris and Metaspeed Edge Paris relate to the type of runner they are aimed at. The Sky shoes are designed for bounding runners who mostly speed up in races by lengthening their stride, while the Edge shoes are for those who mainly increase their cadence in races. 

The geometry of the shoes are tailored to each running style. The carbon plates are positioned differently within the midsole foams, though the drop of both the Sky Paris and Edge Paris is now the same at 5mm, whereas in the past the Sky shoes had a lower drop.

I am definitely a cadence runner, but have always enjoyed using the Metaspeed Sky more than the Edge, and I set both my 10K and half marathon PRs in the Sky shoes, so I wouldn’t say the stride and cadence labels should completely determine your choice. However it’s certainly an interesting idea and some other brands now have two carbon shoes that seemed tailored to different running gaits.

The Asics Metaspeed Paris shoes are cheaper than many other carbon options, and if they can improve upon the performance of the excellent Metaspeed Sky+ and Edge+ they will be an exciting new option for runners seeking PRs to consider.

Find out more about each shoe on the Asics UK website.

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.