You know the shoes Ruth Chepngetich and Eilud Kipchoge wear, partially responsible for some of the fastest marathon times ever recorded? Those are called super shoes. They鈥檙e thick-soled, with ultralight, hyper-responsive foam midsoles embedded with carbon-fiber plates. Think of super trainers as the more easygoing but still light and responsive cousins of super shoes. We sliced one open at our gear lab in Colorado to find out what makes them go zoom.

Midsole Foam

At the heart of every super shoe and super trainer is a thick slab of high-tech foam that鈥檚 lighter, softer, and bouncier than any other midsole material to date. It鈥檚 created by a process called supercritical foaming that combines heat, pressure, and liquid gas to infuse bubbles into elastic polymers like PEBA, TPEE, and ATPU. The resulting midsoles deliver plush cushioning and trampoline-like 颅rebound, but are squishy and unstable, requiring a balanced, 颅powerful stride to optimize performance.

Super shoes have full stacks of these soft, bouncy foams. However, many super trainers, like the shown here, use a combination of foams鈥攕ofter on top of firmer鈥攖o provide an energetic feel while delivering the kind of stride-supporting ride more suitable for a training shoe. The step-in feels soft underfoot, but when put through a heel-compression
test used to at the 国产吃瓜黑料 Lab, the Deviate Nitro 3 super trainer was less squishy than all the racers we tested.

Traditional trainers use foams that are firmer and more supportive or are soft but not as bouncy鈥攗sually EVA or an EVA blend鈥攄elivering a more grounded, rolling ride.

Plate

All super shoes have a rigid, curved carbon-fiber plate embedded in the midsole. While many assume that this acts like a spring, research has shown that its role is to moderate the foam鈥檚 squish and channel its rebound, reducing energy loss and facilitating powerful push-offs.

Super trainers also typically have an embedded plate, but one with more flex. While rigid plates provide the most pop, they also dictate how the shoe rolls forward and can negatively alter the stride. A super trainer鈥檚 plate鈥攍ike the one in the Deviate Nitro 3, made of a carbon-composite weave with a forked forefoot shape鈥斅璦ccommodates a wider range of paces and strides and is less prone to bouncing feet in unproductive directions when form deteriorates from fatigue.

Plates differ in flex, shape, and location within the foam. This 颅affects how the foot rolls and interacts with the ground, and each feels different when combined with a runner鈥檚 unique stride.

Rocker

With the thick foam in many of today鈥檚 running shoes, the sole no longer flexes much at the ball of the foot. Instead, the foam鈥檚 height allows designers to cut away mass under the toe, creating a rocker shape. Rather than enabling the foot to flex as it moves through the stride, that shape allows the runner to roll off the toe while the foot remains in a neutral position. The rocker鈥檚 starting point, slope, and relationship to the plate all affect the shoe鈥檚 ride. In our measurements, the Deviate Nitro 3鈥檚 rocker started 8 percent later (closer to the toe) than the rocker on Puma鈥檚 Fast-R Nitro 2 racing super shoe, providing a stabler forefoot stance before rolling forward.

Outsole

A three-millimeter-thick rubber outsole covers more than 90 percent of the forefoot and all contact areas of the heel on the 颅Deviate Nitro 3. This provides better grip and durability than the sole of a racer, which needs to be as light as possible and so has rubber only in small, optimized zones.

Upper

Super-shoe racers have minimal uppers with scant padding and strong, secure grip to hold the foot in place at speed. A super trainer鈥檚 upper is more plush and durable but still lightweight, thanks to strategically placed fabrics that stretch, breathe, or 颅support as needed.

Featured Super Trainer

Puma Deviate Nitro 3听

Weight: 10.1 oz (men鈥檚)
Stack Height: 39 mm (heel); 29 mm (forefoot)
Drop: 10 mm

听

The post What Exactly Is a Super Trainer? appeared first on 国产吃瓜黑料 Online.

At a Glance

• The New World of Stability
• What to Look For in a Stability Shoe
• Beyond the Shoe
• What Shoes We Included
• How We Tested
• Best All-Around: Asics Kayano 31 ($165)
• Runner-up Best All-Around: Brooks Glycerin GTS 22 ($164)
• Best Plush Stability: Puma ForeverRUN Nitro 2 ($150)
• Runner-up Best Plush: Diadora Nucleo 2 ($160)
• Best Firm, Responsive Support: Brooks Adrenaline GTS 24 ($140)
• Runner-up Best Firm Support: Topo UltraFly 5 ($140)
• Most Invisible Support: Altra Experience Form ($145)
• Best Full-Foot Support: New Balance Fresh Foam X 860 v14 ($140)
• Best for Racing: Brooks Hyperion GTS 2 ($140)
• Best for Up-Tempo Days: Saucony Tempus 2 ($160)
• Best for Going Long: Mount to Coast P1 ($160)
• Best for Recovery Days: Hoka Gaviota 5 ($175)

The New World of Stability Shoes

Defining what makes a running shoe a stability shoe is getting increasingly difficult. That鈥檚 a good thing. Not long ago, you could easily identify a stability shoe by its firmer, darker-colored foam underneath the arch side of the foot called a medial post and designed to keep the foot from over pronation, the excessive inward rotation of the rearfoot. On the run, you could tell it was a stability shoe by its stiff, heavy, and controlling ride. Not anymore.

Today鈥檚 stability shoes are well-cushioned, smooth riding, and free from clunky controlling devices鈥攕o much so that they are, for the most part, equally comfortable for neutral runners as for those needing extra support. In place of the stiff medial post, designers are using a variety of less intrusive, more integrated strategies to help runners whose feet stray inward or outward.

It鈥檚 about time, given that the science showing that excessive pronation is rarely problematic and that traditional motion-control methods do little to control excessive motion has been around since the 1990s. But change has come slowly to an industry and a population steeped in the pronation paradigm. While the market for stability shoes鈥攁nd the number of stable shoe models鈥攈as decreased substantially in the past decade, only recently have we started to see major shifts in how a stability shoe looks and rides.

鈥淪tability is a function of so many features, such as sole geometry, stack height, midsole hardness, outsole, upper materials and how they are structured鈥攏ot just medial posting,鈥� says Kurt Stockbridge, product development vice president at Skechers. 鈥淓ach of these levers can be pushed and pulled to make a great stability shoe without it having to look like what we typically picture.鈥�

New stability shoe designs embrace the reality that every aspect of the shoe affects the ride, and the new strategies recognize and work to reduce the instability caused by the shoe itself as it distances the foot from the ground. Even many neutral shoes, not designed for or marketed as stability models, are being built with more stable platforms to compensate for the wobbliness of taller, more cushioned midsoles.

What to Look for in a Stability Shoe

The first, and most important feature to look for in a stability shoe is the width and shape.鈥� When I’m sending patients to the store, I’ll just tell them to look for a straighter lasted shoe,鈥� says Paul Langer, sports podiatrist with Twin Cities Orthopedics and past president of the American Association of Podiatric Sports Medicine. Straight lasted means the arch is filled in so there is a straight line following the edge of the sole from heel to ball, with full support under the arch. 鈥淎 really straight-lasted shoe, you can’t tell if it’s left or right,鈥� says Langer. 鈥淢ost shoes there’s a little bit of a curve鈥攖he less of a curve the more stable the shoe.鈥�

Langer considers this wide platform more important than the denser medial post, which long defined the stability category. 鈥淚f I’m talking about stability, I’m probably talking more about the shape of the shoe than the posting issue,鈥� he says.

The same is true for other stability features like guide rails, frames, plates, or heel counters. 鈥淚 split hairs less about those features,鈥� Langer says, referencing research that shows devices don鈥檛 control or correct overpronation. That said, he doesn鈥檛 dismiss stability strategies, which, he says, can mitigate some of the instability caused by squishing into soft foams. 鈥淪tability shoes don’t correct anything,鈥� Langer emphasizes. 鈥淭hey just might be less unstable than a neutral shoe.鈥�

Related to that squishy foam, Langer also says, 鈥淚 try to help my patients understand that a cushioned shoe is inherently less stable than your bare foot.鈥� Landing with two to three times your body weight on a thick layer of soft foam is, by nature, going to cause that foam to compress unevenly and exaggerate any imbalances. So, even though many shoes are being made with straighter, more filled-in lasts, the height and density of the foam need to be considered.

Finding the combination of cushioning, shape, and stability features that works for you involves running in multiple models and determining what feels best for your foot and stride. This 鈥�,鈥� which includes assessing what shoe provides the most natural-feeling alignment, is the best starting point we have, Langer says.

Emily Stefanski, sports podiatrist at Coastline Foot and Ankle in Connecticut and Rhode Island, and a D1 collegiate distance runner turned marathoner, concurs. 鈥淚 tell patients that it’s what feels best on the foot,鈥� she says. 鈥淚 have my guidelines, what I think is going to work. But that’s not always the case: there are so many factors.鈥�

Beyond the Shoe: Variety and Strength

Keep in mind that even when you find a shoe that complements your stride it . A handful of show that runners have a lower risk of injury when cycling through different pairs of shoes. 鈥淢ore important than finding the perfect shoe is appreciating that your feet need to stay strong and adaptable through having variety in your footwear and allowing your feet to have different stresses and loads,鈥� Langer says. So find a stability shoe that feels right for you as your daily trainer, but also have a minimalist shoe (even if just for walking or yard work), and sometimes run in a low, flexible trainer as well as a cushy, rockered one.

Stefanski also notes, 鈥淚 always try to push to a lot of strengthening.鈥� Coaches, physical therapists, biomechanists, and podiatrists agree that over-pronation and other stability issues usually , and can often be corrected by improving your mechanics throughout the chain from foot to hip. Stafanski says, 鈥淚 believe that we can improve over time and that most people don’t need to be in stability forever鈥攖hey can get out of the stability shoe. It’s how willing are people to do the exercises.鈥�

What Shoes We Included

Given the fluid definition of what makes a shoe stable, the selection criteria for a list of 鈥渟tability shoes鈥� is by nature somewhat arbitrary. We chose to include only models with some sort of structural device or design to influence the foot鈥檚 rotation.

We did not include plated shoes in this guide, although some runners find that the curved plates in super shoes and super trainers provide sufficient stability for their strides. Stefanski says, 鈥淚 have noticed with my hyper-flexible people, putting them into a carbon plated shoe, they’re perfect. They don’t need anything else.鈥� Others, however, find plated shoes exacerbate their instability (and ).

So, consider this a collection of shoes designed specifically for those who need, or want, help with keeping their feet from over-rotating, but recognize that it is not an exhaustive or exclusive list. Other models with wide bases of support and midsole geometries that reduce lateral torque and help guide the foot forward from landing to toe-off may be as stable as one of these models for you.

How We Tested Stability Shoes

After running in dozens of new shoe models this year, I sorted out those with stability features and completed multiple runs in each of them at a variety of distances and paces. Most models were also run in by more than 20 wear-testers who help select and inform the reviews in our best running shoe round-ups.

About me: I鈥檝e been a runner since the late 鈥�70s and a running magazine editor and shoe reviewer since 2000. I鈥檓 the author of , and . Once a 2:46 marathoner regularly doing 50+ mile weeks, injuries and age have reduced my volume by half and slowed my easy training pace. Those injuries have also given me rather complicated stability requirements. My left foot is high-arched and neutral, while my right foot has been weakened by strains and appreciates support. Too much medial support, however, makes my right knee hurt, as it has to pronate inward to off-load stress from a chronic condition. All of the above makes me well suited to test these new, less-prescriptive stability strategies which promise to adapt to the level of support you might need.

Best Stability Shoes 2025

Best All-Around

Asics GEL-Kayano 31

Weight: 10.8 oz (men鈥檚), 9.5 oz (women鈥檚)
Stack Height: 40鈥�30 mm (men鈥檚); 39鈥�29 mm (women鈥檚)
Drop: 10 mm

Stability Strategy: Soft, high-rebound medial post. Wide, flared base. Sculpted midsole.

Last year鈥檚 30th anniversary Kayano displayed the most radical transformation in stability strategy in the industry. For three decades the Kayano kept runners鈥� feet in line using a substantial medial post and a plastic midfoot support bridge. The Kayano 30鈥檚 new stability strategy, retained in the Kayano 31, replaced these firm, controlling devices with clever geometry and new, unobtrusive foot-guidance strategies.

The platform is wide from heel to toe, and flares even wider under the forefoot. The lateral side of the heel is sculpted out to let it compress more, smoothing and slowing the transition from heel contact to mid-stance. A corresponding bulge on the medial side reduces compression, plus the midsole wraps up along the side of the heel to cradle and subtly support.

Most unique, however, is a pod of softer, lower-density but highly responsive foam under the arch where previous versions had a firm medial post. Asics says this pod鈥檚 softness allows it to compress when loaded, increasing the effective midfoot width, and, because it鈥檚 higher rebounding than the main carrier, it encourages you to resupinate to an effective position as you鈥檙e coming out of midstance.

The thinking behind this new insert stems from research that shows it鈥檚 not the degree of pronation that predisposes a runner to injury but the . So instead of trying to block the foot鈥檚 rotation, the shoe simply returns it quickly to a neutral position.

On the run, I didn鈥檛 notice the rebound under the arch, but I did seem to sense its effect as my foot rolled onto the forefoot feeling upright, centered, and ready for a stable push-off. Overall, the shoe鈥檚 width made the greatest impression, both in terms of luxurious space鈥攚ithout feeling sloppy鈥攁nd the security of landing on and rolling over the generous platform. Despite the 40mm stack height, I didn鈥檛 even feel high off the ground, thanks to the lack of any tippiness, the well-balanced combination of cushion and responsiveness, and the surprisingly flexible forefoot. The ride, though not particularly fast, is smooth with no hint of stiff control, yet both of my asymmetrical feet felt cared for and supported鈥攅specially on longer runs when I started to tire.

The 31鈥檚 new, engineered mesh upper complemented the smooth ride and secured my foot comfortably with plush, but not excessive, padding. Asics also reduced the lateral heel flare, which created some unwanted rotational torque on landing in the Kayano 30, leaving a beveled curve that eased my foot down to the ground even with a heavy heel strike.

Altogether, the Kayano 31 is a shoe that can be worn by nearly any runner and delivers comfort and support that not only stays out of the way but also seems to reduce fatigue.

Runner-up Best All-Around

Brooks Glycerin GTS 22

Weight: 10.7 oz (men鈥檚), 9.5 oz (women鈥檚)
Stack Height: 38鈥�28 mm
Drop: 10 mm
Stability Strategy: Guide rails. Tuned midsole foam. Wide, straight shape.

Last year we named the Glycerin GTS 21 鈥淏est All-Around Stability Shoe鈥� in our larger road shoe round-up for its blend of plush comfort and stable support. The 22nd version combines Brook鈥檚 familiar GuideRails鈥攔aised sidewalls along the top of the midsole on both sides of the rearfoot, firmer on the arch side鈥攚ith something entirely new: tuned midsole foam.

What鈥檚 unique about Brooks鈥� nitrogen-infused tuned midsole, which we , is that it is softer on the outside and firmer on the inside鈥攁 little bit firmer in the heel, a lot in the forefoot鈥攚ithin the same slab of foam. New technology allows Brooks to tune the properties of different sections of a foam midsole during its manufacture.

Carson Caprara, senior vice president of footwear at Brooks, says that they inject two different chemistries into the midsole mold before the supercritical gas-infusion process. 鈥淭hen when it hits the high-pressure nitrogen infusion, the two cell structures act differently,鈥� he explains, 鈥淭he inner cell structures stay pretty small and tight and the outer structures blow up a little bit more and create more softness and forgiveness. It鈥檚 done without seams and ridges. And so, therefore, it just feels more consistent throughout.鈥�

Brooks tunes the foam so that the midsole has a higher percentage of large cells in the heel to cushion landings, then the mix transitions to mostly smaller cells in the responsive forefoot. The result is a ride that feels both softer, as the outer foam cushions and compresses on impact, and firmer, as my weight transfers smoothly onto the forefoot and pushes off. I found my feet felt more protected while simultaneously more connected in the new model than in the Glycerin 21, as I powered nimbly off the ground, and miles went by faster than expected.

The combination of guide rails in the rear, the firmer, tuned foam up front, and a slightly more filled-in shape under the arch, delivered mostly non-intrusive stability from touch down to toe-off. I could, however, feel the pressure of the guide rail under my arch more than in previous versions, especially toward the front where the foam under it firmed up. This was comfortingly supportive for my foot that needs bolstering but felt a bit controlling for my neutral foot. That lack of versatility kept us from naming the Glycerin 22 best all-around, but the stronger support makes it a better choice for those who want the guidance.

Best Plush Stability

Puma ForeverRUN Nitro 2

Weight: 10.7 oz (men鈥檚); oz (women鈥檚)
Stack Height: 38鈥�28 mm
Drop: 10 mm
Stability Strategy: Firmer-foam frame. Wide, straight shape.

Puma鈥檚 nitrogen-infused TPE foam delivers one of the smoothest rides in the business for my stride, deftly decelerating landings and transitioning to a lively toe-off. The ForeverRUN Nitro 2 uses two densities of that foam鈥攁 softer core inside a firmer perimeter frame鈥攖o add stability to the ride without trying to control the foot. Conor Cashin, senior product line manager at Puma, says, 鈥淲e looked at the and we really tried to focus on slowing that speed down but still allowing runners to pronate to a certain extent because it鈥檚 the body鈥檚 natural way of cushioning itself.鈥�

In this updated version, the two foams are co-molded rather than stacked and glued together, making the interaction between them smoother. 鈥淲e were able to bring the soft nitro foam all the way to the ground and all the way through the foot,鈥� Cashin says. 鈥淪o it gives you more cushioning, more responsiveness鈥攁nd then the firm nitro around the foot is where you get that stability control.鈥�

The sole is also significantly wider鈥攑articularly in the midfoot under the arch鈥攆or enhanced stability, and two millimeters thicker, adding to the plushness underfoot. But the engineered, circular-knit upper is where this shoe truly coddles, hugging the heel with a well-padded collar, wrapping smoothly around the foot with a gentle stretch, and locking down the midfoot with light, printed, reinforcing overlays.

On the run, the ride impressed me first for its smooth cushioning (as expected), without anything trying to rearrange my stride. Yet, thanks to the wide stance and firmer rim, it didn鈥檛 feel at all tippy, despite the high stack underfoot. I noticed the frame primarily under my big toe where it felt less squishy when my weight rolled inward, providing a welcome stable base for me to roll forward on and push off from. While the plushness of the shoe makes it well-suited for easy days, the midsole鈥檚 bounce and roll are spry enough to handle tempo runs or pick-ups without holding you back.

Runner-up, Plush Stability

Diadora Nucleo 2

Weight: 9.7 oz (men鈥檚); 7.4 oz (women鈥檚)
Stack Height: 35鈥�30 mm
Drop: 5 mm
Stability Strategy: Asymmetrical geometry. Wide, straight shape. Sidewalls. Responsive foam.

The first thing I wrote on my test summary after a run in the Nucleo 2 was 鈥渟mooth rolling ride鈥攃ushioned and supportive.鈥� The cushioned roll can be credited to the thickness of the foam under the ball and toes (thanks to a low, 5-millimeter drop) that sinks in and lowers the foot gently into the quick, late-stage rocker. The support stems from the push-back of that foam, catching the squish and providing a lively base underfoot.

Stability is created simply with geometry: the wide midsole foam has cut-out grooves along the outside to allow more compression and is filled in under the arch to limit the squish and provide more support. Raised sidewalls on both sides gently cradle and center the rearfoot.

On the run, all I felt was a fullness of foam under the arch side that wasn鈥檛 firm or obtrusive but provided a comforting sense of solidity. The plushly padded upper and gusseted tongue coddled my foot while holding it securely. My only negative note was that the heel flared a bit much on the outside of the heel and created some torque on touchdown when going slow with a strong heel strike.

The Nucleo 2鈥檚 stability guidance is subtle enough a neutral runner wouldn鈥檛 notice it, making this daily trainer versatile enough for all but those needing strong, rotational support. I found myself reaching for this shoe both on days when I wanted comfort and days when I was ready to cruise.

Best for Firm, Responsive Support

Brooks Adrenaline GTS 24

Weight: 8.0 oz (women鈥檚); 10.0 oz (men鈥檚)
Stack Height: 35.5鈥�23.5 mm
Drop: 12 mm
Stability Strategy: Guide rails. Wide, straight base. Firmly responsive midsole.

Way back in 2019, Brooks dropped the dense, full-height medial post on the Adrenaline, its signature stability model, and replaced it with what they call GuideRails, now found on the stability version of all their shoes. These support structures are strips of raised foam on top of the midsole, stretching from the heel up to the middle of the arch on both sides鈥攆irmer on the medial (arch) side to reduce inward roll, and the same density as the midsole on the outer rim to keep the heel from sliding outward. The rails deliver lighter, more cushioned, and smoother support than a full post. Plus, they are less prescriptive, engaging the foot only when needed, thus working for a wider range of runners.

鈥淸The GuideRail] doesn鈥檛 go all the way down to the ground, so it gives the shoe a little bit of play,鈥� says Jon Teipen, principal footwear product line manager at Brooks. 鈥淚t鈥檚 not going to be a firm block on the medial side of the shoe. The more you evert [roll inward], the more the GuideRail will push back on you.鈥�

The updated nitrogen-infused EVA-blend midsole foam on this year鈥檚 Adrenaline is lighter and noticeably softer, but still tuned to support more than squish, giving the shoe a surprisingly peppy feel. An engineered mesh upper provides a secure and comfortable fit, hugging the midfoot with a double-layer reinforced arch panel while staying airy and flexible up front. The 12-millimeter drop, moderate stack height, flexible forefoot, and palpable support under the arch鈥攚hich is more filled-in with a straighter last this year鈥攇ive the Adrenaline 24 the most traditional stable-shoe feel of this group.

Still, unlike the stiff, clunky Adrenalines of old, I found the ride smooth and nonintrusive, with just a bit of supportive rearfoot cradling. Both the cushioning and support seem to shine most when landing on my heel and rolling through the stride, but the connected ride also responded nicely when I picked up the pace and stayed on my toes. With this versatility and dependable support, I could easily wear the Adrenaline as my daily go-to trainer.

Runner-up Best Firm, Responsive Support

Topo UltraFly 5

Weight: 9.9 oz (men鈥檚), 8.0 oz (women鈥檚)
Stack Height: 30鈥�25 mm
Drop: 5 mm
Stability Strategy: Medial post. Wide forefoot with big toe flare. Low drop. Straight shape.

Topo鈥檚 long-run shoe combines traditional features like a medial post with a minimalist-inspired design. The palpable stability in the UltraFly 5鈥檚 ride stems mostly from its wide forefoot (flared under the big toe), low, 5mm drop, and moderate stack of relatively firm, responsive foam. And, yes, a wedge of firmer foam lies under the arch to reduce compression and rotation. But it is only half the midsole height at its thickest under the arch, and tapers off as it reaches forward to the ball of the foot and back to the heel. Combined, the midsole provided a gentle, full-foot feeling of solidity as my foot rotated inward, without blocking any natural movement.

On the run, what stood out most was the generous forefoot width: the upper allows enough splay to wear full CorrectToes comfortably and the base is wide enough underfoot for a confident stance and powerful toe-off without any tippiness. That athletic stance is enhanced by the ride of Topo鈥檚 lightweight, responsive ZipFoam that gives way just enough to ease landings while keeping ground contact quick and responsively connected. The midfoot-foot-hugging upper complimented the openness of the forefoot and let me relax in the luxury without fear of sliding.

It鈥檚 not the sveltest shoe, but it rides lightly even while protecting and supporting. Every time I wore it I felt my stride quicken and my awareness of my stride sharpen, making me more efficient as the run went on. My toes and feet engaged and my posture got taller. No matter how tired I was when I started (and I loved these on recovery days when feeling beat-up), I was always sad to end my runs in the UltraFly 5.

Most Invisible Support

Altra Experience Form

Weight: 9.6 oz (men鈥檚), 7.8 oz (women鈥檚)
Stack Height: 32鈥�28 mm (men鈥檚); 30鈥�26 mm (women鈥檚)
Drop: 4 mm
Stability Strategy: Guide rails. Wide forefoot. Low drop. Straight shape.

All Altra shoes achieve stability through a balanced, low-drop platform combined with a wide toe box that lets your foot spread out and supports your stance naturally. This allows the brand to use soft, bouncy foams, rather than stiff platforms and rigid control devices鈥攍ong before other companies began playing with geometry.

The stability model of their new 4mm drop line, the Experience Form, also has guide rails on both sides of the heel. This elevated rim, higher on the arch side, is the same density as the rest of the midsole, creating a cradling effect that gently resists rotation without any controlling pressure. A straight-shaped base, with the arch filled in more than other Experience models, provides a full-foot supportive platform. The engineered mesh upper is clean and simple, but secure and comfortable, gripping the heel and midfoot and staying out of the way of the toes.

I found the Experience Form鈥檚 ride soft but responsive, less squishy and bouncy than many of today鈥檚 shoes thanks to a moderate stack height of CMEVA. The shoe feels light and nimble, encouraging quick ground contact and a fast roll off the toe that has both a gentle rocker and a smooth, natural flex. The stability features were completely unobtrusive and invisible on the run, but footplants felt connected and supported whether striding easily or pushing the pace. Whatever the pace planned for the day, I often found myself doing pick-ups before I was done, and enjoying the combination of light, quick responsiveness, connected comfort, and subtle support.

Best Full-Foot Support

New Balance Fresh Foam X 860 v14

Weight: 10.7 oz (men鈥檚), 8.6 oz (women鈥檚)
Stack Height: 35.5鈥�27.5 mm
Drop: 8 mm
Stability Strategy: Angled plate with dual-density midsole. Wide, straight base.

All of the embedded plates popular in today鈥檚 running shoes function mostly to stabilize the squish and rebound of thick stacks of soft and responsive foam. While most plates, such as those found in marathon-racing super shoes, focus on directing and enhancing forward roll and push-off, some serve primarily to moderate lateral roll, like Skechers鈥� winglet and H plates, or the midfoot wings on the plastic plate in the Saucony Endorphin Speed.

The plate in New Balance鈥檚 completely remade 860, which replaces a traditional firm medial post, takes rotational guidance a step further. The semi-flexible EVA film, first seen in the Vongo, is sandwiched between two foam layers (soft over firm), and angled so it is higher on the medial, or arch side, and lower on the lateral side. This results in a bottom wedge with more firm foam under the arch side, and a top wedge that puts more soft foam on the outer, landing side. The plate also has hexagonal cutouts that reduce its rigidity on the lateral side but is solid on the medial side. Both the wedges and the cutouts help create a soft, smooth landing and slow the inward foot rotation without creating a clunky transition or compromising cushioning.

The 860 v14鈥檚 plate isn鈥檛 just about defining that angled wedge, however, says Paul Zielinski, senior global product manager at New Balance. Research in their lab revealed that midsole foams stretch under force when the foot is pronating far or at high velocity. The plate, Zielinski says, 鈥淎llows for the foam to be a little more structured, and not stretch or shear as much. Working in combination with the two different midsole hardness foams, this system is helping stabilize the structure of the platform so the foot feels guided all the way from heel to toe.鈥�

Additional midsole foam under the forefoot due to a lower heel-toe drop, a beveled heel, and an increased rocker profile provide a smooth rolling transition from midfoot to toe-off.

On my foot, the plate and dual-density foam provided the strongest full-foot rotational support of any shoe in this group. While the midsole was soft underfoot, and delivered a light, cushioned and smooth ride, my feet pronated very little. The control didn鈥檛 irritate my neutral left foot, but, fairly quickly, I could feel the bones in my right knee-that-must-pronate start to rub as it wasn鈥檛 tracking inward at all, and the tendons around my right ankle hurt after runs from fighting against the firmer wedge of the midsole.

With its strong medial support, the 860 v14 is not quite as versatile for neutral runners as some other options in this guide, but it鈥檚 a solid choice for those who want to slow pronation velocity in a shoe that delivers a smooth, comfortable transition from landing to toe-off.

Best for Racing

Brooks Hyperion GTS 2

Weight: 7.6 oz (men鈥檚), 6.9 oz (women鈥檚)
Stack Height: 31.5鈥�23.5 mm
Drop: 8 mm
Stability Strategy: Rearfoot guide rails. Low-profile midsole with quick-rebounding foam.

The second version of the speedy Hyperion GTS is updated with a slightly thicker stack of a new nitrogen-infused EVA-blend midsole compound, which Brooks says is lighter weight and more responsive than its predecessor. That felt true on the run: the foam seemed to push back even while compressing, and rebounded impressively, making the ride lively and inspiring me to pick up the pace.

Like other GTS models in the Brooks line, the Hyperion GTS 2 features stabilizing guide rails along the sides of the heel and midfoot鈥攁 raised extension of the midsole foam on the outside, a firmer foam piece on the arch side鈥攖o help reduce heel shift and rotation for runners whose stride strays excessively inward or outward, especially towards the end of their run as a result of fatigue. I didn鈥檛 notice them at all on the run, except for a lack of any rearfoot tippiness. More significant was a feeling of stable connectedness from the lower-profile midsole, relatively wide base, and lack of squish, enabling quick strides and stable push-offs.

That ground feel isn鈥檛 at all minimal, however. The foam cushions smoothly and delivers a comfortable ride at any pace, making them suitable as a daily trainer for someone who doesn鈥檛 prefer a tall, squishy feel underfoot, now nearly ubiquitous in the industry. But most runners will appreciate Hyperion GTS 2 as a light, springy, non-plated, up-tempo trainer and racer that doesn鈥檛 beat your feet up and gently supports as necessary in the later miles. Bonus is the new, airy mesh upper.

Best for Up-Tempo Days

Saucony Tempus 2

Weight: 8.2 oz (women鈥檚); 9.4 oz (men鈥檚)
Stack Height: 33鈥�25 mm
Drop: 8 mm
Stability Strategy: Over-under frame with strategic placement of complementary foams

The Tempus lies at the sharp end of the stability spectrum, delivering a lively ride that made me feel nimble, bouncy, and fast鈥攜et still providing foot guidance and support. The shoe鈥檚 secret lies in its midsole, which features ultralight, high-cushioning, and maximum-rebounding鈥攂ut usually unstable鈥擯ebax foam at its core, here surrounded by a denser, more supportive EVA frame.

Using a firmer frame to control a softer foam鈥檚 squish is not new or unique. Most models with frames, however, surround the bottom of the full shoe with firmer material. While this provides a stable stance, it makes landings harsher and can accelerate the foot鈥檚 movement as it impacts the edge of the sole and rotates inward. The Tempus, however, employs a unique over-under frame that sits atop the soft Pebax in the heel, bridges the full midsole height under the arch, then dives under the Pebax in the forefoot and runs along the bottom edges up to the toe.

The magic of this frame is that by putting the Pebax on the bottom at the heel, its softness works to reduce the instability caused by the shoe. On impact, it compresses and deforms, rounding the edge of the sole and creating a smooth, gentle transition as the foot rolls inward and forward. Meanwhile, the firmer frame that surrounds the top of the heel wraps the foot and keeps it centered on the platform. The full-height frame under the arch slows the foot鈥檚 rotation and supports as needed. Up front, you feel the Pebax鈥檚 cushioning and rebound directly underfoot, while the firmer foam on the bottom adds a bit of rigidity to the rocker for quick-rolling toe-offs.

The updated engineered mesh upper on version 2 holds the midfoot more securely, enhancing the connection between foot and shoe and the shoe鈥檚 ability to perform at speed.

On the run, not only did the Tempus provide one of the snappiest, most-fun rides of the group, it also seemed best at managing my varied stability needs. The soft Pebax on the bottom of the heel let both feet stay in a natural, supinated position on landing without torquing me inward like several of the shoes with stiffer flared heels did. As my foot rolled inward, the shoe provided my more-mobile right foot effective, but almost undetectable, support while I transitioned over the arch to the stable toe-off, yet didn鈥檛 block the pronation I needed for my knee. Meanwhile, my neutral left foot didn鈥檛 feel any control or clunkiness, just the smooth, comfy, responsive Pebax underfoot.

The Tempus is narrower than other stability shoes in the heel and midfoot鈥攔elying on the firmer frame rather than more foam for arch support鈥攂ut spreads out as wide as any in the forefoot. It鈥檚 also low enough up front to provide the ground feel necessary for a solid, propulsive push-off, and flexible enough to allow a natural roll at any pace or stride angle. The shoe felt responsive and fast at any pace, but the subtle support was always present, and the farther I ran, the more I appreciated the shoe鈥檚 guided roll and side-to-side stability.

The Tempus can be a peppy daily trainer or a solid marathon shoe for someone who wants the bounciness of Pebax with some foot bolstering during the long miles, and it is an excellent long-run training shoe for someone who plans to race in a carbon-plated super shoe.

Best for Going Long

Mount to Coast P1

Weight: 9.9 oz (men鈥檚 size 9, women鈥檚 size 10.5)
Stack Height: 37鈥�27 mm
Drop: 10 mm
Stability Strategy: Guiding geometry and midsole insert. Arch wrap. Centering insole.

Mount to Coast is a new brand specializing in building shoes for ultra-runners. But my experience in the shoes leads me to believe that you can enjoy and benefit from them without running all day.

The P1, Mount to Coast鈥檚 stability model, has the same nitrogen-infused, PEBA-based midsole found in their , delivering a soft, bouncy, and flexible ride that feels more connected than the 37-millimeter heel might suggest. The responsive foam, tuned firmer than the PEBA found in super shoe racers, provides soft contouring underfoot, then firms up quickly to deliver a tactile ground feel. The resulting smooth ride feels almost minimalist in allowing natural foot motion and ground sensitivity鈥攚hile still dampening harsh landings.

The shape also feels inspired by minimalist design, echoing the foot with a snug heel and secure wrap of the instep, opening up to a flared forefoot鈥攑articularly under the big toe鈥攑roviding roomy space and a stable platform for a fully-splayed foot. That stability is enhanced by an s-shaped insert of flexible plastic that extends from the outside midfoot to under the big toe, providing added support under the natural path of forefoot rotation. Mount to Coast鈥檚 research indicates that reducing excess forefoot rotation is more important than correcting the heel rotation that most stability shoe design focuses on, and that their device not only improves foot alignment but helps activate the arch muscles.

Running in the P1, the shoe delivered a smooth, natural heel-toe transition, and I could feel a subtle extra firmness under the ball, which helped my foot achieve a stable stance and push-off. More noticeable, however, was the dual-zone insole that centered and cradled my heel, and the arch wrap built into the upper and tied into the lacing that made my foot feel like it was expertly wrapped with athletic tape鈥攈ugging, supporting, and moving with the changing shape of my foot through the stride.

The flexible P1 stayed out of the way when I picked up the pace, but it didn鈥檛 feel like it was reducing the effort like some rockered models do. At all-day paces, however, it helped me quickly fall into a comfortable, efficient rhythm that churned out miles so comfortably and easily that I inevitably extended my runs in the shoe as long as time allowed.

Best for Recovery Days

Hoka Gaviota 5

Weight: 9.1 oz (women鈥檚); 10.9 oz (men鈥檚)
Stack Height: 34鈥�28 mm (women鈥檚); 36鈥�30 mm (men鈥檚)
Drop: 6 mm
Stability Strategy: Softer-foam H-Frame. Wide, straight shape. Sidewalls.

Despite their high stack heights, Hoka鈥檚 shoes have always had inherent stability from their wide platform, low drop, and cockpit-like cradle surrounding the heel as it sits down into the top of the midsole. For years their stability models have also used a 鈥淛-frame鈥� to provide more rotational control. This firmer-density foam reinforced the midsole at the full height of the arch side of the shoe and wrapped around to the lateral side on the bottom edge.

The redesigned Gaviota 5 retains the wide geometry and raised sidewalls, but swaps the J-frame for a new H-frame. This layer of less-dense foam lies on top of the midsole and surrounds the perimeter of the shoe with a connective piece across the middle鈥攆orming a figure eight shape. As the foot sinks into this layer, it nests deeper in the foot frame created by the sidewalls of the more stable, but still cushioned, bottom layer. Hoka says the H-frame allows them to use softer foams than before to deliver inherent stability while enhancing cushioning, especially close to the foot.

On the run, the frame was all but invisible, its presence only noted by a feeling of centeredness as I sunk into the forgiving footbed. It is enough, however, combined with the ample width and secure hold of the flexible-but-not-stretchy creel jacquard upper, to keep the well-cushioned shoe from feeling at all tippy. While it doesn鈥檛 make any pretense of reducing inward rotation, the full-foot stability kept both of my feet and knees feeling safely coddled no matter how long I ran.

The post The Best Stability Shoes for Every Type of Run (2025) appeared first on 国产吃瓜黑料 Online.

I鈥檓 getting ready for my first marathon in the fall, and I am trying to dial in my kit. I keep hearing about these 鈥渟uper shoes鈥� people use for racing, but they鈥檙e expensive, and I don鈥檛 know if I should switch to something new for race day. Do I need to buy a super shoe to run my best? 鈥擭ewbie Distance Runner

Dear Newbie,

Super shoes are no doubt attractive. The lightweight racers with ultra-bouncy foam and embedded carbon plates have been shown to enable some athletes to reach higher speeds with less effort.

Could a super shoe help you run slightly faster and easier than you would in a standard trainer or racer? Yes. Probably. Maybe. It鈥檚 complicated.

If you鈥檙e a sub-seven-minute-mile marathoner, you鈥檝e established serious training habits and built a strong, athletic stride. And in that pace range, the research says you鈥檒l likely get a 3 or 4 percent improvement in running economy from the shoes. This is why no elite runner would toe the line in anything but a super shoe.

But as a first-time marathoner, do you need that edge? Will it be impossible for you to accomplish your goals without these shoes鈥� performance-enhancing benefits? No, absolutely not. And there are some good reasons why you might not want to invest in a super shoe.

Research on the benefits for slower runners is mixed. One data analysis of slower marathoners showed time improvements鈥攅ven greater than among faster runners鈥攁fter adopting super shoes. In contrast, a controlled study revealed that the slower the runner, the lower the boost in running economy, with 9:40-mile runners seeing only about 1 percent improvement.

Still, any help is appreciated in the marathon, and some experts believe that the real advantage may have more to do with the shoes鈥� ability to reduce muscle breakdown and fatigue than with improvements in efficiency. If super shoes make finishing strong more likely, they might be worth the $250-plus price tag.

Be aware, however, that nearly a third of the slower runners in the same study showed a decrease in running economy鈥攖he shoes made running harder, not easier. Other studies have found even greater variability in runner response.

This is partially due to the fine-tuned bounce and roll of a super shoe鈥檚 midsole and plate. Every runner鈥檚 stride is unique and interacts with the shoe differently. When we staged a 国产吃瓜黑料 Online鈥�with three runners comparing 16 different super shoes head-to-head鈥攚e found that a shoe that felt magical to one runner often went clunk on another.

Even if a shoe seems good when you are fresh and running strong, it might not be what you want on your foot when you start to tire. Super shoes exacerbate any stride imbalances because of a trampoline-like action that magnifies all forces and movements, for better or worse. Can you maintain the even posture and powerful push-off that a super shoe requires over 26.2 miles? A tall, wobbly platform isn鈥檛 what anyone wants when doing the marathon shuffle. For slower, first-time marathoners, the risk of a super shoe impeding their efforts may not be worth the meager potential reward, especially at these prices.

If you decide to go with a super shoe, be sure to test out multiple models to find one that enhances your natural gait rather than changing it or, worse, fighting against it.

Regardless of what you choose for race day, remember that the first rule of marathoning is to dance with the one who brought you: if in doubt, go with old friends鈥攜our favorite tried-and-true trainers. Nothing different. Nothing new. Any change opens you up to the possibility of blisters, an altered stride that causes you to fatigue faster, even injury. If you want to wear a specialty shoe, start using it far enough in advance that you鈥檝e adapted to it by race day. Gradually add miles over eight to twelve weeks, building up to several solid marathon-pace runs and at least one long run.

Marathon success depends far more on factors like how well you trained, how well you hydrate and fuel, and how the weather gods treat you than on which shoes you wear. In the end, the best shoes are the ones that get out of the way and quietly let your fitness shine.

Have a question of your own? Send it to us at deargear@outsideinc.com.

The post Do You Actually Need Super Shoes to Run Your Best? appeared first on 国产吃瓜黑料 Online.

The marathon is an arduous, complex physical and mental test鈥攐ne that has never ceased to fascinate me even after I’ve run 26 of them. But I admit that actually watching a marathon isn’t that fun, even at the Olympics.

We see a group of runners go stride-for-stride for a little over two hours as the lead pack dwindles under the painful pace. Runners who fall off the front seem to disappear entirely. It matters little, except for personal pride, if they drop out, or hang on for 13th or 25th place.

Equally out of sight are the dozens of runners who make up the middle and back of the pack, and are never in contention to win. We see these athletes only as they straggle across the finish line during the anticlimactic half hour after the medals are settled. All of the attention is on the few athletes battling for medals.

I have a plan to make every participant in a marathon count, to make every position change significant and interesting, to make every runner a hero. It’s an idea that’s already widely used in running. My plan to fix the marathon is to transform it into a team event that employs the meets.

In cross country鈥攖hat fall sport where gangly high schoolers run 3.1 miles around golf courses or rural parks鈥攕even runners from each school represent their team. When the gun goes off, everyone starts together. Runners finishing in the top 10 or 15 (depending on the size of the meet) earn individual medals. But these awards are secondary to the team competition. To determine team placings, officials add up the finish position of the top five runners from each school, and the school with the lowest cumulative number wins.

Under this competition format, every runner matters. It’s just as important if the slowest runner on a team moves up two places from 45th to 43rd, as it is if the fastest one advances from third to first. No team can win due to the merits of its star runner. Every participant, from first to last, has to perform well for the team to succeed.

Runners back in the pack, in fact, often have the chance for much larger point swings: a top-10 finisher may get passed by three or four if she slows by 20 seconds, a mid-pack runner could easily slip back, or pass, 15 to 20 places in the same time.

Here’s my plan: we create a national team score for the Olympic marathon. Sure, we still award medals to the three individuals who cross the line at the front. But we also pay attention to how the runners behind them fare, by offering medals to the nations with the cumulative lowest score determined by each runner’s number placing.

Runners who fell off the lead would need to gut it out all the way to the finish鈥攖hey wouldn’t dare abandon the race and jeopardize a team medal. Team scores鈥攚hich would be displayed as current standings throughout the race as runners pass checkpoints鈥攚ould become more competitive as the race went along, bringing the importance of slower runners into focus.

I鈥檇 love to see the field expand to seven from each country, or at least five; currently there are just three. But even with three runners per country you could organize a dramatic team competition. I recently re-watched the 2020Tokyo Olympics women鈥檚 race and applied my competition concept to the event. Only five points separated the top-three nations: Germany, Australia, and Japan.

Kenya, meanwhile, did not reach the podium.Sure, Kenya’s runners placed first and second, respectively, but its third runner dropped out, eliminating the country from contention. Alas, it was the same fate for the U.S. team鈥攐ur runners were third, 17th, and DNF.

The Tokyo Olympic Marathon would have produced an edge-of-your-seat team competition. Germany鈥檚 first runner placed sixth, Japan鈥檚 eighth, Australia鈥檚 tenth. Each nation’s second runners were similarly close: Germany’s 18th, Japan’s 19th, Australia鈥檚 23rd. With team totals standing at Germany 24, Japan 27, and Australia 33, the third runner from Australia crossed in 26th for a total score of 59.

As I tallied the score, I realized that a really compelling battle was brewing between each nation’s final runner. This was going on long after the Kenyans had finished first and second. Germany and Japan鈥檚 third runners were running two places apart in 31st and 33rd, respectively. Germany, in the lead after the first two runners, just needed to hang on to get gold with 55 points. If Japan鈥檚 runner could have passed one competitor, the team would have tied with Australia for silver. If she could have passed four runners, including the German, Japan would have won gold. In the end, the gold medals would have been decided by who finished in 30th place.

In a normal Olympic marathon, whomever finishes 30th is totally inconsequential, just a blurry face in the background as TV cameras focus on the winner. But with my Olympic marathon concept, running fans would need to cheer on every runner and fixate on every position change. We’d yell and scream during each dramatic moment when a runner crossed the line and hugged his or her teammates.

Just imagine this scenario. In my opinion, this would make the Olympic marathon as exciting as a high school cross country meet, which if you’ve ever attended one, you know is an edge-of-your-seat affair. And it might transform the Olympic marathon into a race you need to follow, from the first finisher to the last.

The post How I鈥檇 Get Runners and Viewers More Excited About the Olympic Marathon appeared first on 国产吃瓜黑料 Online.

With the new year approaching, running shoe brands have started previewing the models they鈥檒l roll out out in 2024. The new crop shows lots of promise, with advanced materials and innovative designs delivering versatile shoes that are smoother-riding, faster, more comfortable, and more durable than ever. Here are some of the models that we鈥檙e most excited about running in when they鈥檙e available in the coming months.听

Topo Specter 2 ($165)

Slated for May 2024

I was leery when Topo鈥攁 brand that started out making second-generation, slightly more cushioned minimalist models鈥攍aunched the high-stack, well-cushioned Specter in 2022. But the shoe won me over because it maintained the stable ground feel I expect from the brand while delivering bouncy, lively cushioning. Topo achieved this by encasing a Pebax footbed in a firmer EVA frame that kept the foot rolling forward, not sideways. Even I admitted, however, that the frame sacrificed some of the exciting boing delivered by full-Pebax midsoles.

Last year, Topo delivered a full-Pebax shoe, the Cyclone 2, which avoided squishiness and instability by having a lower stack height and wide platform underfoot. I fell instantly in love, and it is now my favorite Topo鈥攐ne of my favorite running shoes ever, in fact.

Now Topo has announced a new Specter, which will also have a full Pebax midsole, but maintains its high stack height. It even gains two millimeters, making it a whopping 37 millimeters in the heel, 32 in the forefoot鈥攏ine millimeters higher than the Cyclone 2. Despite the thick stack of soft, bouncy foam (the same density as in the Cyclone 2), and the lack of a plate to control that foam, Russ Stevens, product manager at Topo, says I won鈥檛 be wobbling or wallowing in them due to their geometry. 鈥淭he heel is quite wide and you鈥檙e almost sitting down inside the midsole platform,鈥� Stevens says. 鈥淪o when you鈥檙e landing, you鈥檙e not rocking side to side鈥攜ou roll nicely through the gait cycle. It does a great job of feeling light and responsive while still providing that stability.鈥�

While I鈥檒l have to experience it to believe it, I have been impressed with other recent models that create stability through geometry. I also prefer not to have a rigid plate in a training shoe because of injury risk and loss of foot strength. Stevens added another good reason why they went plateless: 鈥淲e wanted to make sure that this shoe stayed fast, light, and responsive regardless of pace. By putting a plate in the shoe, we were concerned that we had to dictate the pace that the shoe was best at, because you have to tune the plate to an ideal runner. By keeping the plate out of it, it made the shoe more democratic.鈥� Plus, omitting the plate saves some weight鈥攖he shoe comes in at only 7.6 ounces.

Even a cushion-leery curmudgeon like me can鈥檛 help getting excited about the promise of a shoe with Topo鈥檚 fit鈥攕nug from heel to arch with plenty of toe room鈥攁nd the bounce of a full stack of super foam that stays in control through clever geometry. I鈥檓 eager to run in the new Spectrum to see if they pulled it off.

New Balance Fresh Foam X Balos ($200)

Slated for August 2024

Early Fresh Foam shoes from New Balance like the circa-2015 Zante were responsive, nimble, and rather firm, as befitted fast shoes of the day. I recall many pleasant up-tempo training miles in them. Through the years, the line has lost its speedy heritage and morphed into super-soft models that the brand admits are made more for wearing 24/7 than for logging serious miles. This shoe is a return to high-performance training, executed in a new way in this age of super foams. 鈥淲hat we wanted to do was to bring a super trainer into Fresh Foam,鈥� says Constanza Campos, global product manager for performance running at New Balance.听

What makes the Balos stand out is the Peba-based foam (the first use of the industry-leading midsole material in the Fresh Foam line), and the shoe鈥檚 unique geometry. The forefoot is aggressively rockered, like most fast models today. The Balos goes one step further with significant heel camber as well, which, combined with the malleable Peba foam and the gound-contact EVA outsole (remember the Beacon?), promises super-smooth landings and a seamless, fast-rolling ride from touchdown to toe-off. Like the Topo Specter, the Balos won鈥檛 have a prescriptive plate, allowing for each runner鈥檚 preferred movement pattern during training miles. High sidewalls and a wide base should keep the foot centered on the platform as you compress and rebound off the sole.

Rounding out the package is a comfy and secure upper. 鈥淥ur inspiration was to create a crossover between racing and training,鈥� Campos says. 鈥淪o we wanted the lightweight, the breathability, the technicality of a racing shoe, but with the comfort of a training shoe.鈥� Centering the fit is a stretchy, gusseted knit tongue that Campos calls, 鈥淐razy nice.鈥�

It鈥檚 easy to imagine putting in comfortable long miles and bouncy tempo runs in this 9.2-ounce trainer when it comes out in August.

Puma Fast-R Nitro Elite 2

Slated for February 2024

Two years ago, I named the first Puma Fast-R Nitro Elite as one of the shoes I was most excited to try in 2022 because of its decoupled sole, which allowed the heel and toe to move independently (and made it look 眉ber-cool). That shoe did indeed deliver a unique ride, but the different midsole compounds鈥擯ebax in the forefoot, EVA in the heel鈥攎ade the decoupling feel somewhat disjointed. This second version has the same foam under both ends, promising to smooth out the ride, plus Puma introduced new materials and innovations that have me salivating to try this one on the roads as well.

The second version of the Fast-R got upgrades in both elements that define super shoes: the foam and the plate. Todd Falker, the brand鈥檚 head product line manager, says they went to the lab and asked, 鈥淔or the last seven years, everyone has said Pebax is the best thing in the industry. What is the next best thing?鈥� And the materials lab had an answer: Aliphatic TPU, a polymer, which, in membrane form is often for its lightweight durability. As Falker describes it, this new compound retains all the bounciness of TPU in a lighter, more consistent foam, with more energy return than Pebax (they measured the Aliphatic TPU at 93 percent). Plus, it has endurance. 鈥淚t is as strong at mile 25 as at mile one, or through a few hundred miles,鈥� Falker says. 鈥淵ou get consistency in performance; the foam doesn鈥檛 degrade like others do.鈥� The Aliphatic TPU delivers a similar squish-and-rebound trampoline effect as Pebax, but Falker says it feels a bit firmer underfoot, more bounce than squish, which I personally appreciate.

The Fast-R 2鈥檚 new plate is unique because it extends past the toe, sticking out from the midsole like the tip of an impertinent tongue. Falker says the patented design will add length to each step. 鈥淥ur researchers have shown that it saves about 50 steps over the course of a marathon,鈥� he said. Whether or not that will hold true for every runner, it will be intriguing to experience what Falker claims is the 鈥渓ongest and most aggressive plate in the industry.鈥澨�

The next best thing in foam, coupled with a step-saving plate鈥攚hat鈥檚 not to get excited about? I鈥檒l use them sparingly but will certainly be trying them out when they鈥檙e available at retail in February.听

Mount to Coast R1 Racer ($180)

Slated for April 2024

Every year we see several new brands try to break into the crowded running space. One that caught my eye this year was this clean-looking model designed for racing ultramarathons on the track. The oddly-named Hong Kong-based brand says their designs are rooted in a biomechanics lab where they can optimize the shoes’ ergonomic fit and long-run comfort and support. I don鈥檛 have a track ultra on my schedule any time soon, but I am interested in trying this shoe for several reasons.

First is the plateless, moderate-height (28/22mm) Pebax midsole with a PU insert under the highest-pressure areas that, combined, promises a smooth, bouncy ride with staying power. 鈥�They are made of very durable materials,鈥� says Victor Zhang, head of sourcing at Mount To Coast. 鈥淭hey may last over 1,000 miles.” That鈥檚 an impressive claim, but they鈥檝e got the ultrarunner testing to prove it.

Second, I love the decoupled closure system, with traditional laces on the top half of the eyelets, and a separate quick-pull lace on the bottom. I鈥檝e long felt that it makes sense to be able to tighten these parts of the shoe separately, as the tension needs on the instep鈥攚here you want to lock the fit down鈥攁nd ball鈥攚here you need room for splay鈥攄iffer at all times, and even more so when the foot swells as you鈥檙e going long. This design makes it easy to dial in the different zones, and to quickly adjust the lower half tension when needed.

I also got to step into a pair of the R1s at The Running Event in late November, and can attest to the comfort of the shoe鈥檚 ergonomic fit: both the upper and the sole matched my foot shape, holding and supporting invisibly. A few running steps revealed a lightly cushioned, firmly responsive ride (reminiscent of the Tracksmith Eliot Runner, but with a better fit), that made me want to head out the door in them. I鈥檒l have to wait for the April 18 release date before I can see if they live up to their promise on the long run.

Adidas Terrex Agravic Speed Ultra ($220)

Slated for April 2024

Lots of people have been eager to try this shoe, ever since Tom Evans wore a prototype to victory at the 2023 Western States 100. After having a chance to see and feel a production model, I鈥檓 even more excited about taking them out on my trails and dirt roads.

What impressed me most about the shoe is that it appears to be designed to act as an extension of the foot, rather than as a platform to land on and roll off of, like many max-cushioned models. The shoe鈥檚 shape is foot-like from heel to toe: the heel is rounded where you roll onto it, and relatively narrow, avoiding the rotational torque from the long levers created by flared soles鈥攚hile your foot sits inside high sidewalls to ensure you stay centered. The shoe鈥檚 midfoot is even narrower and can flex rotationally, letting the rear- and forefoot act independently as you encounter uneven footing. The forefoot, however, widens out dramatically鈥攍ike the human foot鈥攅nabling a stable, engaged stance.

Inside the midsole, the 鈥減late鈥� is actually four rods that act independently鈥攍ike foot bones鈥攁nd are made of Pebax in its firm plastic mode as you鈥檇 find in sprint spike plates. These rods splay closer to the outside edges of the forefoot than the ones on Adidas鈥檚 road models, providing more stability. They are also semi-flexible and responsive, to allow adaptation to technical terrain and add to the pop of the push-off.

The midsole itself is a thick (38鈥�30mm) stack of Lightstrike Pro, a Peba-based foam used in Adidas鈥檚 top-end Adizero marathon racing models. Based on my experience with those shoes, I believe the foam will translate well to the trail, as it provides plenty of bounce but not as much squish as other super foams, delivering more of a smooth, highly responsive roll than a soft trampoline鈥攕o it won鈥檛 be bouncing you sideways on a trail.

Given their stack height, I probably won鈥檛 use them for truly gnarly terrain, where I鈥檓 much more comfortable being close to the trail (see the Brooks Catamount Agil), but I can鈥檛 wait to take them on long tempo runs on moderate trails when they鈥檙e available after April 15.

Brooks Catamount Agil ($180)

Slated for January 2024

Many runners seem to be fine running trails on high-stack shoes, as evidenced by the proliferation of max-cushioned trail models on the market today. I鈥檓 not one of them (which probably stems from having broken a bone in my foot when I rolled it over on a root while wearing a tall, squishy trail shoe). As a former (and sometimes current) minimalist, I鈥檝e reluctantly learned to appreciate more cushioning and rebound on roads and smooth trails, but when I鈥檓 navigating rocky and rooty terrain I want to feel the trail and be able to react quickly and agilely. So I鈥檓 pleased when a company introduces a shoe that is svelte and nimble.

The original Brooks Catamount training shoe already had a moderate stack height (31鈥�25mm) and a flexible, articulated plate that gave it a stable feel and a lively ride. But, the brand says, Brooks鈥� athletes asked if they could get a lighter, more flexible shoe to race in. Ask and ye shall receive: meet the Catamount Agil.

The new model keeps you closer to the ground while promising to still provide a lively underfoot feel by using a thin (26鈥�18mm) layer of Brook鈥檚 most responsive foam, DNA Flash V2, a nitrogen-infused EVA-TPU blend found in their marathon-racing super shoes. The Agil has a new split, articulated, flexible Pebax plate that adds pop without losing proprioception, and gains deeper lugs for sure-footed foot-plants when moving fast and changing directions鈥攂ut weighs in nearly two ounces lighter than the Catamount.

I love the Catamount (it will stay around, getting an updated upper for version 3 in 2024) and plan to keep wearing it for daily miles on long trail runs. But I鈥檓 itching to dance across rocky ridges, descend gnarly switchbacks, and bounce up boulder-strewn ascents in the Catamount Agil when it comes out in January.

The post The Running Shoes We鈥檙e Most Excited to Try in 2024 appeared first on 国产吃瓜黑料 Online.

Next time you watch a group of elite runners, pay attention to their arms. You鈥檒l see that invariably鈥攔egardless of how high they carry their arms or what their hands do during the swing鈥攖hey all drive their elbows far back with each stride. This characteristic of good runners is more universal than any type of footstrike or leg swing mechanics.

Driving your arms backward shifts your balance more upright and forward, so that your feet can land closer beneath your body and push backward. Keeping your arms back also helps ensure that your movement and force all travel in a forward and backward direction; if your arms stay in front of your body, they鈥檒l tend to swing back and forth across the midline, misdirecting motion and wasting force in sideways and rotational movements.

Elbows Back

Keeping your arms back can do more for your footstrike than thinking about where your feet are landing. Where and how you land depends largely on the strength, mobility and mechanics of your hips, legs and feet, and, if altered without improving the underlying mechanics, usually ends up creating an unnatural, less-efficient stride.

Your arms, however, are not weight-bearing, so their movement can be more easily modified. They do, however, affect balance and cadence, and subconsciously influence what your legs and feet do. Thus, many who work with runners on their stride increasingly are finding cuing arms the most effective way to get people to start moving more efficiently.

The main thing they advise is to get your elbows back.

鈥淔or years now, I鈥檝e been teaching runners that a compact arm swing is the number-one 鈥渜uick fix鈥� to improve their running form, especially if they want to stop over-striding,鈥� says and founder Golden Harper, who conducts clinics on running form around the world. 鈥淲hile distance running, if your elbows come forward past your hips, that tends to pull your foot out in front of your body, causing an excessive heel strike or over-stride. Driving the elbows back improves running posture by driving the chest forward, opens up the airway, and propels the body forward.鈥�

Physical therapist and form researcher Abby Douek of says she鈥檒l often start with the arms. 鈥淲hen I鈥檓 working with somebody on cues for running form, 90 percent of my form correction is arm swing,鈥� she says. 鈥淚f your arms are out in front of you, your trunk starts to bend at your waist. If your trunk is bent at your waist, you鈥檙e sitting into your hip flexors, which means you鈥檙e not using your glutes and you鈥檙e going to overuse your hamstrings.鈥�

RELATED: On the Beauty of Great Running Form

As far back as the 1950s Olympian Gordon Pirie advocated consciously stopping the forward motion of the arms to cue a quicker, backward-driving stride. 鈥淕et your feet back onto the ground as quickly as possible,鈥� he wrote in ”听This can be achieved by strong arm-stopping, which causes the foot to land quickly but lightly on the ball/front of the foot.鈥�

Coach Andrew Kastor says the one thing he typically yells in a race, where the runner can only hear and implement something simple, is, 鈥淓lbows Back!鈥� When you drive your elbows back, he says, it cues the legs to drive backwards. This is particularly key later in a race when you tend to lose power. Drive your arms back and your legs will follow.

How to Swing Your Arms Effectively

How do you know if your arms are swinging effectively? One simple cue is to pay attention to your hands. If, while looking forward at the road ahead, you can see your hands during the full stroke while you run, you鈥檙e probably carrying them too far forward. They should disappear below and behind your peripheral vision on each back swing.

Douek cues runners to touch their waistband with each stride, ensuring that the arm is driving back and opening up behind the body. Harper says to focus on keeping your elbows behind your hips听and only pumping your arms back, not forward. 鈥淏ack is an active motion; forward is just a recovery or passive motion,鈥� he says.

In his book, , Olympic medalist Meb Keflezighi says he looks at his shadow听and makes sure he can see the bright triangle of light between his torso and upper and lower arms.

A more aggressive strategy comes from Tom Miller, exercise scientist, masters coach, and author of . Miller recommends carrying a two-foot-long, half-inch-thick PVC pipe across your back, held in the crook of each elbow, to keep your shoulders back and your arms from driving forward. The posture is a bit exaggerated, as it doesn鈥檛 let your arms recoil as far forward as they usually would even with an effective arm carriage, but it is great for mandating that you drive back rather than forward, and creates a revealing a shift in posture and balance.

Miller suggests using the pipe for the first half-mile of an out-and-back run, leaving it in a secure place, then picking it up for the last half-mile to reinforce the posture when you are fatigued. Or, if running in a group, pass it around on the run, using it for three to five minutes every few miles.

Miller also recommends making an elastic harness that wraps over your shoulders and loops through your thumbs to keep your arms high and elbows back. Harper, one of Miller’s pupils from a young age, iterated on the idea to create the an updated design that is simple, effective, and comfortable enough to use consistently, even during speed workouts or races.

Release May Be Required

You may, however, need to do more than retrain habits to get your arm to swing behind you and maintain that posture comfortably throughout a run.

鈥淕etting your elbows back is often inhibited by tight chest and shoulder muscles,鈥� says Laura Bergman, sports rehab specialist. 鈥淭he problem is, no matter how much you concentrate on it, the tissue is shortened. I can give you all the exercises in the world, but you鈥檝e got to release that tissue.鈥�

RELATED: Want to Get Fit? Keep Your Running Simple and Consistent.

To correct this, you need to the muscles in the front of the body鈥攃hest, sides, shoulders and arms鈥攁nd strengthen the muscles in the back.

鈥淚 don鈥檛 think everybody needs an actual physical therapy intervention,鈥� Douek says. 鈥淏ut most people need foam rolling and a daily stretching routine for shoulders and back, because we are so forward as people鈥攐ur shoulders are forward, our heads are forward.鈥�

Getting that forward-hunching posture pulled back puts us back in balance鈥攁nd brings us closer to the light, smooth stride of those in the front of the pack.

—

Jonathan Beverly is 国产吃瓜黑料’s senior running gear editor and author of .

The post Want to Run More Efficiently? Focus on Your Elbows. appeared first on 国产吃瓜黑料 Online.

The first running shoes were created roughly 50 years ago. Compared to running shoes today, nearly everything has changed. Outsoles are thinner, lighter, and more durable; midsoles are far more cushioned and responsive; and uppers are no longer leather but crafted of thin, breathable, engineered mesh or knits. One element, however, has remained essentially the same: laces. Today鈥檚 shoes, by and large, still use a long, thin cord crisscrossed across the instep to tighten the upper over the foot.

With all the technological advances elsewhere in shoe design it鈥檚 hard to believe that no one has come up with a more effective way of securing and holding the foot than by yanking laces through eyelets and tying them in a complicated bow that we learned when we were in preschool. Not only is the method cumbersome and imprecise, but it is also unreliable, coming undone at inopportune times far too often.

Truth be told, new tech has been developed but not widely adopted. Designers have tried various and or . Others have gone with pull-cord designs like the Salomon Quicklace system, where you tighten the shoe by pulling on a thin, slick lace and securing it with a clip. While all improve convenience, it comes at the cost of control and comfort for many runners.

One prominent alternative gaining traction is the BOA fit system that uses a ratcheted dial to pull thin laces through guides to tighten the upper. Having tried several trail shoes outfitted with BOA fit systems, I鈥檒l admit I am a fan. In my experience, the BOA system addresses many of the limitations of traditional laces: tightening is convenient and smooth, with micro-adjustments dialed- and locked-in with precise clicks. And, rather than the traditional top-of-the-foot web of laces buffered by a padded tongue, the BOA system tightens panels鈥攃ustom-designed for each shoe model鈥攖hat wrap around the foot and hold it comfortably and securely.

Besides convenience and comfort, a new study鈥攖hat was, it鈥檚 worth noting, funded by BOA and carried out by the BOA-sponsored Performance Fit Laboratory鈥攕uggests that better lacing can also improve performance. A published by Frontiers in Sport and Active Living details the study that revealed improvements in stability, agility, and speed on a technical trail when wearing a shoe outfitted with the BOA PerformFit Wrap closure system over the identical shoe with traditional lacing. Despite the conflict of interest and some inherent limitations in the methodology, the study seems sound, and the results are intriguing.

In designing the study, the researchers chose to assess performance in an actual trail-running setting rather than inside a lab. Thirty runners (15 male, 15 female) ran a one-mile loop of a technical trail in Red Rocks Park near Denver, Colorado four times鈥攖wice in a pair of La Sportiva Cyklon with the BOA wrap system and twice in the identical shoe retrofitted with traditional top-of-the-foot laces鈥� in randomized, counterbalanced order. During each run, scientists used accelerators and gyroscopes, pressure-sensitive insoles, heart-rate monitors, and GPS trackers to gather biomechanical metrics on the runners. After the test, participants answered questions on the shoe鈥檚 fit and performance on each section of the trail.

I was curious who tied the laces and who controlled the tension on both laces and BOA fit system, so I asked Dan Feeney, the BOA-employed biomechanics PhD who directed the study. He said that, in keeping with the 鈥渆cologically valid conditions鈥� of the study, they let runners lace their shoes to their preference. 鈥淭his is more representative of what runners will experience in the real world, so we prefer to test that way,鈥� Feeney said.

When the numbers were crunched, the wrap-equipped shoe was shown to increase ankle stability (reducing the velocity of inward rotation) by five percent, improve heel hold by two percent, and improve running speed on all sections of the trail (uphill, downhill, and level) by one percent鈥攚ith no increase in effort. In addition, the test runners rated the wrap shoe a better choice for each section of the trail, and said it fit better and inspired more confidence.

Feeney wasn鈥檛 surprised by the results, crediting the improvement to the superior fit of the engineered wrap.

鈥淭he overlapping panels鈥� configuration that we designed specifically holds the foot differently from laces,鈥� he said. 鈥淭he targeted hold over the instep using a wider panel enables force to be spread over a wider area, reducing pressure points. This enables superior fit by pulling the heel back into the heel pocket and ultimately providing better foot-shoe coupling.鈥� This better hold, Feeney believes, is what improved the runner鈥檚 stability and helped them to run faster.

Given my experience with BOA-equipped shoes, I too wasn鈥檛 surprised that they provided a better hold, but I wouldn鈥檛 have predicted the improved speed. It does make sense, however, that not slipping around in a shoe would make each stride more effective. Granted, a one percent improvement isn鈥檛 much, but, as we鈥檝e learned with four percent, going faster without increasing effort is a path to PRs.

Before we get too excited, consider that the real-world structure of the study reduces control of all the variables and the likelihood that results can be reproduced. The paper also acknowledges the limitation that everyone involved in the study was aware of what type of lacing they were testing at all times, which could bias the results.

Even with the limitations and biases, however, this study is a reminder鈥攊n a world obsessed with the propulsive properties of foam and plates鈥攖hat a shoe is a complete system and every element, even fit, affects performance. Rather than increasing midsoles to dangerous heights, perhaps designers could spend more energy improving the connection between the shoe and the foot.

BOA has made a good start, although there are some drawbacks. One limitation on the Cyklon and other one-dial shoes is the inability to vary the tension on different parts of the foot. With traditional laces, I can leave the lower eyelets loose while tightening those closer to the ankle鈥攁lbeit clumsily and imprecisely. The BOA dial, in contrast, tightens the entire system at the same rate. While the independent wrap panels are designed to optimize the force on each section, they don鈥檛 allow for individual foot-shape variations and fit preferences (except on shoes with two BOA dials, where each tightens a different set of panels wrapping the top and bottom of the instep鈥攁 significant improvement in the technology in my opinion). BOAs are also more expensive than laces, and, admittedly, they look geeky and out of place if you鈥檙e wearing your running shoes for anything other than running, which most people do with their road shoes.

So it may be some time before we see BOAs on anything but high-performance trail shoes. But on my morning run today, as I re-tied my laces for the second time and still felt unhappy with the tension, I longed for a day when I could dial in the fit on all my shoes.

The post Can Better Shoe Lacing Make You Run Faster? BOA Thinks So.听 appeared first on 国产吃瓜黑料 Online.

The advent of supershoes has transformed the running shoe world in every category, none more than the class of shoes that used to be called lightweight trainer-racers. Rather than low, flexible, relatively firm shoes, the majority of up-tempo shoes now have a thick stack of light, bouncy foam with a curved carbon or plastic plate embedded in the midsole. Shoes without a plate are now defined by its absence. But concerns continue to grow about injury risk in carbon-plated shoes, and a growing number of models are eschewing the high-stack-with-plate trend and reviving the simple up-tempo shoe category with modern touches.

Besides not having a plate, these shoes share other characteristics. Like supershoes, they all feature advanced midsole foams that are ultra-light and hyper-responsive. Unlike supershoes, however, they all have relatively low stack heights and tend to be built on wider platforms, both of which enhance their stability. They also all have a flexible forefoot (rather than a rigid, rockered one), svelte uppers that have just enough structure to hold the foot in place, and price tags that run around $100 less than their supershoe siblings.听

The Problem with Plated Shoes

If plated super racers and trainers are indeed super, allowing you to run faster with less effort, why would anyone want anything else? The answer has two seemingly contradictory parts: 1) to avoid the excess stresses and accompanying injuries that supershoes can cause, and 2) to allow the natural training stresses that supershoes reduce, in order to build stronger, more robust feet and lower legs.

The problems start with supershoes鈥� thick, bouncy, sole that propels you forward, but can also throw you sideways. 鈥淩unning in supershoes is a much less stable environment,鈥� says Jay Dicharry, physical therapist, biomechanical researcher, and professor at Oregon State University. 鈥淚f you have really good alignment and foot and ankle control, you might be OK, but if not, a supershoe will greatly magnify your instability. You鈥檒l wind up with a considerable increase in stress鈥攁nd if you have something borderline, it might push you over the threshold.鈥澨�

Amol Saxena, a leading sports podiatrist in Palo Alto, California, also points out issues with the prescriptive rigidity of the plates. 鈥淭he problem with the carbon-plated shoes is that your foot is individualized, and the carbon plate is not,鈥� Saxena says. 鈥淪o if the shape or length of your metatarsals line up differently than where it has to bend, or your plantar fascia is less flexible, you can get stressed in those areas鈥攖hat鈥檚 why people are breaking down. I鈥檝e had people break or tear things just .鈥� The more flexible plates found in many super trainers reduce some of this stress, but these shoes are still tuned to optimize specific strides and don鈥檛 let the foot move freely in its preferred patterns.

has also shown that running in supershoes changes your form: It decreases your cadence, increases stride length and peak vertical forces, and alters foot mechanics. All these add stress to joints. 鈥淲hen you put a supershoe on, you basically have a trampoline,鈥� Dicharry says. 鈥淚t鈥檚 going to compress and rebound, and creates a different rate of loading to muscles and joints.鈥� While no studies to date directly demonstrate that supershoes cause injury, evidence links them to , , and other foot and lower-leg issues.听

Paradoxically, while supershoes鈥� unstable platform and rigid plates can add excessive stress, their performance-enhancing rebound can also remove some of the training load. Supershoes , reducing the work they have to do and making running easier in the short-term, but simultaneously removing some of the stimulus for your body to adapt and grow stronger in the long-term. 鈥淚f you run in supershoes exclusively, you鈥檙e going to end up with a bunch of deficient runners prone to injury鈥攔unners with less springy tendons, weaker tendons, and lower bone density,鈥� Dicharry says.

The solution is to wear a variety of shoes in your training. 鈥�It is good to use different stack heights and flexibility,鈥� Saxena says. 鈥淧lated shoes should be a training tool as well as for races鈥攂ut how much depends on the runner.鈥� You want to train some in the shoes you鈥檒l be racing in, to let your body adapt to their unique stresses and stride patterns. But training in more flexible, less-bouncy shoes has been shown to and build the strengths you need to handle the unstable rebound of supershoes. 鈥�If you want to run in super shoes you need to put the work in to show up with stable parts,鈥� Dicharry says.

How We Tested

Fortunately, I don鈥檛 find training in these shoes a chore. They may not be performance-enhancing racers, but they are light, nimble, stable, and make my feet feel connected, engaged, and alive.

After having run in dozens of shoe models released this spring, I selected those that fit in the category and ran in a different shoe every day for six weeks鈥攐n asphalt, concrete, and dirt roads. I did at least one daily run and speed workout in each, ranging from 100-meter pickups to VO2-max intervals to tempo runs. Despite their similarities, each shoe has a slightly different ride and significantly different fit, so it鈥檚 worth trying out a few before buying. All of these models will serve as an excellent trainer for easy daily runs, interval workouts, tempo runs, and occasionally going long.听

Best Non-Plated, Flexible, Speedy Shoes

Topo Cyclone 2 ($150)

Weight: 5.5 oz (women鈥檚), 6.9 oz (men鈥檚)
Stack Height: 28mm heel / 23mm forefoot (5mm drop)

The Cyclone 2 epitomizes the modern lightweight trainer with a simple, thin layer of industry-leading, super soft-and-bouncy Pebax foam underfoot. The ride is soft on landing, then compresses and rebounds for a responsive, stable, connected ground feel during stance and push-off. The breathable mesh upper is adequately padded for longer outings, but stays out of the way, moving with the foot and complementing the flexible freedom underfoot. There鈥檚 ample room for splay in the forefoot, so much so that the hold seemed a bit sloppy to me when turning over quickly at 5K pace or faster. But the extra room felt luxurious to me at every other tempo, making me want to wear them just about every day.

Read our full review of the Topo Cyclone 2

|

HOKA Cielo Road ($160)

Weight: 7.5 oz (men鈥檚-unisex)
Stack Height: 33mm heel /30mm forefoot (3mm drop)

Like the Topo Cyclone 2, the HOKA Cielo Road is built around a simple, soft, flexible slab of Pebax foam. But the HOKA sole is thicker (seven millimeters more in the forefoot) making the ride squishier and bouncier, although still far more grounded than any supershoe and most other HOKA styles. The open mesh, minimalist upper and medium-width last provide racing-shoe security, congruent with the ride, which feels tuned to faster paces. The shoes performed best for me when I was up on my toes, lifting my knees and driving hard into the ground to engage the foam鈥檚 explosive rebound.

|

Saucony Freedom 5 ($150)

Weight: 7.3 oz (women鈥檚), 8.4 oz (men鈥檚)
Stack Height: 27mm heel / 23mm forefoot (4mm drop)

The Freedom 5 is also built around a Pebax midsole, but its thin slab is denser than others in the test, such that it rebounds from the moment you step down on it, delivering a firmly responsive ride that keeps ground contact quick and lively. The feel isn鈥檛 harsh, however, as the foam contours around your sole鈥檚 high spots before bouncing you back into the air. With the lowest stack height of the test and no sloppy squish, this is the most stable of the lot and the best for bridging from runs to gym workouts. The upper鈥攁 breathable, flexible mesh with little stretch over a foot-hugging, gusseted tongue鈥攁lso contributes to the sure-footed agility. I appreciated this shoe鈥檚 quick response during speed workouts and dynamic drills, and they provided comfortable support on urban walks. Saucony鈥檚 lightweight Kinvara 14 offers a softer, more flexible, non-plated ride, although it isn鈥檛 as stable or peppy.

|

Brooks Hyperion ($150)

Weight: 6.8 oz (women鈥檚), 7.6 oz (men鈥檚)
Stack Height: 30mm heel / 22mm forefoot (8mm drop)

The Hyperion鈥攁n update of the Hyperion Tempo鈥攃ombines speedy turnovers with smooth stability. The nitrogen-infused, EVA-based midsole doesn鈥檛 compress and rebound as much as other superfoams. Instead, it lightly cushions on impact, then catches the foot and rolls it quickly and smoothly forward off the flexible toe. I felt like I got off the ground faster in these shoes, making me feel light and nimble. The airy, minimally-padded, warp-knit upper wraps the midfoot securely while giving the toes plenty of freedom. A moderately wide platform and the firmer foam make the ride inherently stable, but those wishing for more can get the GTS version, which adds guide rails around the heel, bumping the weight up half an ounce. Brooks’ Hyperion Max has the same foam in a slightly higher stack with a toe-off that rocks more than flexes.

|

Altra Vanish Tempo ($190)

Weight: 6.9 oz (women鈥檚), 8.2 oz (men鈥檚)
Stack Heights听33mm heel to toe (zero drop)

With no drop in thickness from heel to toe, the Altra Vanish Tempo has, by far, the most foam under the forefoot of any shoe in the test, making it ultra comfortable鈥攂ut threatening to be squishy. What saves the shoe from instability is the lively responsiveness of the nitrogen-infused foam that feels almost elastic as it molds and pushes back underfoot, as well as the relatively wide base, which, although narrower than the traditional Altra footshape, still supports a full-foot stance and splay. The zonal, engineered-mesh upper helps with stability as well, securely locking down the heel and midfoot while not impeding airflow or movement of the arch and toes. An early-stage rocker keeps the stride rolling quickly forward while the sole flexes enough to engage the toes on push-off. I found that the midsole鈥檚 softness combined with the rocker action let the forefoot sink enough to camouflage the zero-drop geometry, making the shoe feel simply well-balanced, smoothly comfortable, and delightfully snappy.

|

Tracksmith Eliot Runner ($198)

Weight: 8.0 oz (women鈥檚), 9.2 oz (men鈥檚)
Stack Height: 33.5mm heel / 24.5mm forefoot (9mm drop)

While the Eliot is rather standard in several areas鈥攎edium-to-narrow width, traditional nine-millimeter drop, moderate weight鈥攊t shines when it comes to ride. With a super-thick, soft Pebax sockliner over a denser Pebax midsole, the shoe feels simultaneously plush and responsive. The firmer midsole keeps strides quick and peppy while still smoothly cushioned, making the Eliot suitable for everything from intervals to long runs. The engineered mesh upper holds the foot and breathes well, but concedes some weight savings to retro, synthetic suede around the heel collar, the eyelets, and the midfoot sash. But those stylish details expand the shoe鈥檚 versatility to include casual wear.听

Read our full Review of the Tracksmith Eliot Runner

Nike Pegasus 40 ($130)

Weight: 8.5 oz (women鈥檚), 10.2 oz (men鈥檚)
Stack Heights: 33mm heel / 23mm forefoot (10mm drop)

The venerable Pegasus has joined the masters ranks at 40 years old. This classic feels like an aging runner who hasn鈥檛 lost a step but has a greater appreciation of creature comforts these days. It鈥檚 the heaviest shoe in the test, but those few extra ounces are well spent on the well-padded, two-layer upper, and a moderate layer of durable React foam (a TPE-EVA-blend). It also has the highest heel-toe drop, a retro 10 millimeters, that not only spares the Achilles for those who need relief from the stress of supershoes but also makes the forefoot thin, flexible, and easy to roll off. That roll, combined with the pneumatic boost of compressed-air ZoomAir pods under the ball of the foot, makes toe-offs surprisingly spry. I found that the React foam felt soft underfoot but didn鈥檛 displace enough to get squishy, and delivered a smooth ride that swallowed easy miles and perked up during speed repeats.听

|

Under Armour Velociti 3 ($130)

Weight: 7.0 oz (women鈥檚), 8.8 oz (men鈥檚)
Stack Heights: 30mm heel / 22mm forefoot (8mm drop)

The Velocity 3 delivers ultra-smooth landings and transitions, thanks to the lack of an outsole, the rounded heel edges, and the rubbery, flexible, Olefin-based Flow midsole foam (tuned softer than on previous versions and with four additional millimeters underfoot). A well-padded heel collar and engineered flat-knit upper lock down the foot without it feeling constrained. Although it bends easily in all directions, the shoe is surprisingly stable given the wider stance and how quickly the foam firms up on compression. I found the ride a pleasant combination of plush and peppy, with a soft initial feel underlaid with a fun, super-ball-bouncy rebound, and I appreciated it equally on uptempo runs and easy recovery days.

|

Puma Liberate NITRO 2 ($120)

Weight: 5.2 oz (women鈥檚), 6.9 oz (men鈥檚)
Stack Height: 28mm heel / 23mm forefoot (8mm drop)

Thin, light, and flexible, the Liberate NITRO 2 fits and runs like a minimal racer of old, but nevertheless delivered surprisingly comfortable cushioning. Puma鈥檚 nitrogen-infused EVA-blend provides a noticeably smooth ride, feeling almost viscous鈥攁s if flowing between pressure points underfoot as I moved through the stride and pushing back when I powered off. The mono-mesh upper and lightly-padded heel collar and tongue hold the foot securely with little stretch, and, combined with the lower-volume shape and eyelets that extend far down toward the toes, create a snug, aggressive fit that is race-ready, but not very accommodating for wider feet or those who prefer more toe splay.听

|

NB FuelCell Rebel v3 ($130)

Weight: 6.2 oz (women鈥檚), 7.4 oz (men鈥檚)
Stack Height: 27.5mm heel / 21.5mm forefoot (6mm drop)

The exceptional fit makes this sleek shoe stand out: A stretchy, gusseted tongue wraps the midfoot inside a lightweight, engineered knit upper, holding the foot snugly while moving like skin. Like all FuelCell shoes, the nitrogen-infused TPU-EVA-blend foam feels super soft on step-in, but compresses to a springy platform during a running stride. I felt bogged down if I fell into a slow, rolling, heel-striking stride, but bounced along spryly when I stayed tall and forward-balanced, either turning my strides over quickly (and not compressing the foam much), or pushing off powerfully so the sole pushed back. The low stack height and flexible forefoot keep the Rebel more grounded than its max-height siblings, but look elsewhere if stability is a top priority.

|

The post Why Carbon-Plated Running Shoes Can Lead to Injury, and 10 Speedy Alternatives appeared first on 国产吃瓜黑料 Online.

Runners need more help than ever wading through the bewildering array of footwear choices and finding the right shoes for them. Gone are the convenient categories of yore: neutral, stability, and motion control鈥攁nd good riddance, as science has shown they don鈥檛 do what they had promised. But what we鈥檙e left with is vague advice: find shoes that feel right for you. That鈥檚 sound, but it doesn鈥檛 give any guidance on where to start the search.

Ideally, every runner would have the chance to run in every shoe to find those few that give their feet wings and fill their hearts with joy. But that鈥檚 impossible for most of us. The reality is more like dating: we pick one that looks nice or comes with a recommendation from a friend and hope we鈥檙e compatible. If the relationship falls flat, we try a different one.

A new shoe company called Vimazi is trying to change that. The company鈥檚 proposition? We should choose our shoes based on how fast we run. The brand鈥檚 seven models (all $175) are sorted by the pace you would typically use them for, ranging from the Z20 (tuned for a 4:30 to 5:30 minute per mile pace) to the Z80 (tuned for running 12:00 to 15:00 minutes per mile). Vimazi鈥檚 founders, Scott Tucker and John Zilly, claim their shoes are 鈥渟cientifically engineered for maximum performance within a pace zone.鈥�

Defining a Pace-Optimized Shoe

What does it mean to optimize a shoe for a certain pace? Don鈥檛 ask Tucker and Zilly that unless you鈥檝e set aside several hours for the answer. After three long conversations, complete with whiteboard diagrams, a deep-dive into physics, calculus, and a bit of Einstein鈥檚 special theory of relativity (I kid you not), I understand their thinking enough to roughly explain their strategy.

At the core, Vimazi optimizes each shoe for different paces by tuning the relative softness of the midsole foam in the heel and forefoot. These densities are strategically calculated and strictly controlled (they introduced new measuring protocols at the Asian factory to get the fine tuning required between each model).

Tucker, who has degrees in physics and atmospheric sciences as well as decades of experience in the shoe industry, claims he can calculate the exact forces and timing of impact for each pace range. Using these calculations, Vimazi tunes the density of the heel to compress as smoothly and maximally as possible, while adding a forefoot 鈥渇ast-pod鈥� insert that is slightly firmer, to support the greater forces of propulsion and minimize energy loss at push-off. With more speed comes greater forces, so models designed for faster runners are tuned firmer than those for slower ones.

It鈥檚 important to note that within their definition of 鈥渙ptimal,鈥� Vimazi founders鈥� first assumption is that running shoes exist to provide cushioning. 鈥淲e started with the belief that cushioning is a good thing,鈥� says Tucker. 鈥淗aving that belief, we want to dissipate energy in a smooth way so that the peak force at any instant is less鈥攑lus make it so the shoe doesn鈥檛 feel mushy. What we have done is applied engineering to the problem to solve the smoothing out of the deceleration on impact, as opposed to ballparking it, which is what is done otherwise.鈥�

Complicated Calculations

It鈥檚 not, however, quite that simple. Calculating the forces of a running stride requires knowing more variables than simply pace, said the two biomechanics experts I talked with about the pace-tuning concept. Not everyone agreed on exactly which variables are necessary to know the intensity, timing, and location of stride forces, but all鈥攊ncluding Tucker鈥攃oncur that you at least need to know weight, cadence, and stride length. Vimazi鈥檚 sort is based solely on running speed, so none of these variables are known, requiring Tucker and Zilly to make some generalizations about runners at different paces.

Since the runners鈥� weight is unknown, Tucker says, 鈥淲e made the assumption that runners in the Z20 are lighter than the runners in Z70s. So the Z20 fast-pod is not as much firmer as you may have expected because we adjust for weight.鈥� If, however, you鈥檙e a larger runner who cranks out fast miles, or a featherweight who runs slowly, this will change the force calculations and may make a shoe supposedly tuned to your pace less than optimal.

Then there鈥檚 cadence. Cadence and stride length combine to create speed, but those who take more frequent steps put less force into the ground with each footfall. Not knowing the runner鈥檚 cadence, Tucker says that they used 180 steps per minute for all runners at all paces, thus assuming greater stride lengths, and forces, for those going faster.

That鈥檚 a problem, says Bryan Heiderscheit, co-director of the University of Wisconsin鈥檚 Neuromuscular Biomechanics Lab, because cadence not only often varies for runners going the same speed, most runners also change both their cadence and their stride length when speeding up. 鈥淥bviously step rate changes with speed,鈥� Heiderscheit says. 鈥淚t is highly, highly associated with speed.鈥�

Geoff Burns, physiologist at the U.S. Olympic Training Center in Colorado Springs and biomechanics researcher, concurs with Heiderscheit that cadence can vary significantly for runners moving at the same pace, and that . Burns adds that runners also differ in ground contact time and flight time at the same pace鈥攚hich changes the timing and amount of peak forces as their feet interact with the shoe.

Tucker acknowledges that if your cadence varies significantly from 180 steps per minute that your forces will also vary from his calculations, and might make a shoe they鈥檝e designed for a different pace more optimal. I, for example, tend to run in the high 160鈥檚 at a nine-minute-per-mile pace, thus putting more force into the ground with each step than a runner who strides at 180 steps per minute at this pace. As a result, the Z50 (supposedly tuned to 7:15鈥�8:45 pace) feels better than the Z60 (geared for an 8:30鈥�10:30 pace). This doesn鈥檛 surprise Tucker, who would consider me an outlier.

Beyond concerns about cadence and weight assumptions, Burns raises even larger concerns about the Vimazi calculations. While he admits you can estimate the overall peak force of a runner鈥檚 stride at mid-stance over the whole foot, he says that even if you had all the variables you couldn鈥檛 calculate the specific forces at one point in the shoe because of individual variability in how people move through the stride.

鈥淔orce compression through a foot strike is very much like a fingerprint,鈥� Burns says. 鈥淲hen you watch compression through a shoe, it is different for every person.鈥� Trying to tune the heel and toe of one shoe for all runners moving at a given pace is impossible, he says.

Burns also questions the Vimazi assumption that making the foam firmer is more beneficial for runners at faster speeds. This may have been true for older foams, he says, but today鈥檚 bouncy, highly-resilient foams have proven to be effective at fast speeds even when they are very soft and compressive.

Vimazi uses a traditional EVA-based foam, primarily because its density can be tuned more accurately. But, Tucker says, 鈥淣ot using Pebax or other foam didn鈥檛 mean that the result we got was worse鈥攚e get the same performance in our design, in terms of cushioning and efficiency at propulsion, regardless of polymer.鈥� Tucker allows that different foams have a different feel, which may affect how you interact with the shoe, but he believes the foam is irrelevant when it comes to performance. 鈥淚t鈥檚 density that matters, not the polymer,鈥� Tucker maintains. Burns strongly objects. 鈥淭hat makes sense only if we lived in a world without any other polymer,鈥� he says.

Putting Them Through Their Paces

Equations, assumptions, and beliefs aside, what matters is how the shoes perform.

I tested five of the seven models鈥攁ll but the Z30 (5:15鈥�6:45 pace) and Z80 (12:00鈥�14:00 pace)鈥攐n daily runs of three to six miles, plus all together in one session where I ran a half mile in each shoe back to back, hitting a range of speeds from a jog to a sprint, noting at what speed they felt best for my stride and how they felt at their optimized speed.

Overall, the faster-tuned models felt better at faster paces and slower-tuned ones rode smoother when running slower鈥攁nd each felt best roughly in the pace ranges they are advertised for. I wasn鈥檛 sure, however, whether that was due to the underfoot tuning of the foam or the differences in geometry and upper construction as I moved up the array of models.

As the intended pace range gets slower, Vimazi gradually increases the stack height (from 25 to 30 millimeters), the drop (from four to six millimeters), the platform width, heel counter structure, and stiffness of the upper. The reason, says Zilly, is that slower runners, 鈥渢end to run fewer miles and have less fitness physiologically鈥攕o we make a wider platform for them, and add stability, which adds weight. We make the call that that is something a large percentage of those runners like in their shoes.鈥� It鈥檚 a common tactic, but one that may or may not hold true if you are, for example, a slower runner who likes a more minimalist construction.

For me, the Z40 and Z50鈥檚 less-structured, comfortable uppers made me gravitate toward them regardless of the ride. They鈥檙e made of a smooth, stretchy mesh with small lateral overlaid stripes and a flexible, molded heel. In the Z60 and Z70 the overlays are thicker, making the upper stiffer, and the heel is wrapped with a rigid plastic external counter鈥攁ll of which reduced the comfort and natural movement for my foot. On the other end, the Z20鈥檚 upper is a thin, non-stretchy mesh that wraps the foot tightly. It felt appropriate for the high-speed turnover and powerful strides that the shoe is made to support, but made me feel squeezed onto a too-narrow platform.

The Z50 also felt best underfoot when running my usual easy pace of 9:00-9:30 minutes/mile, even though the Vimazi optimization says that pace means I should fall squarely in the Z60鈥檚 range of 8:30鈥�10:30 minutes/mile, not the Z50鈥檚 7:15鈥�8:45. On my feet, the Z50 rolled nicely through the stride and delivered a combination of cushioned comfort and ground feel that felt natural and enjoyable. In contrast, the Z60 felt mushy to me and lacked the responsive ground feel; it felt like I was struggling to get into the air with each stride.

This can be explained by my lower cadence at this pace than assumed by the Vimazi calculations, as discussed above, and, I鈥檓 guessing, may also be because I鈥檓 a lighter weight than assumed for my pace (Vimazi didn鈥檛 reveal their weight ranges, but I鈥檓 slower these days mostly because I鈥檓 older, not heavier). Interestingly, the Z50s still felt best to me when I dropped the pace to low 7鈥檚 and even down into the 6鈥檚鈥攁gain likely explained by my cadence, which goes up 20 or more steps per minute at those paces. The faster-tuned Vimazi models also turned over nicely at quicker paces, but, for my stride, felt firmer and less smooth than the Z50s.

The Bottom Line

Overall, all of the Vimazis have a soft, but not squishy heel, and a slightly firmer forefoot that still has some impact-smoothing cushioning (think a with a slightly more responsive forefoot). Runners who like a more traditional underfoot feel of smooth, non-bouncy damping will appreciate the Vimazi ride鈥攕ome models more than others.

Which model will feel best to you seems to depend on your weight, cadence, stride mechanics, and preferences in cushioning, geometry, structure, and fit鈥攁s much as it does your pace. Vimazis are worth checking out for their unique ride, and their pace ranges provide a place to start your exploration, but it鈥檚 likely you still will have to try on a variety of models and assess what feels best for you, just like the rest of the shoes on the market.

The post Will These Pace-Tuned Kicks Change How We Buy Running Shoes? appeared first on 国产吃瓜黑料 Online.

Something magical happens when runners transmit energy through their feet to the ground, and some of that magic rubs off on their shoes. Over time, as the runner becomes fitter, faster, and more confident, the shoes become associated with this transformation, and simple rubber, foam, and fabric take on a mystical glow.

So it is that a pair of 1994 Reebok Racer X鈥檚 sit on a shelf in the back of my closet鈥攅ven though I haven鈥檛 worn them in more than 20 years. The uppers are stained from Gatorade spills, finish-line puke, and bloody toes. The outsoles are embedded with the dust of Central Park paths and European streets, and the forefoot tread is almost completely worn off. But these shoes are, to me, objects of reverence.

I found the svelte road racers on the closeout rack at Paragon Sports on Union Square in New York City the year I turned 30. I was living in Manhattan at the time, and working at NYU, but mostly running. I lapped Central Park each morning before work, coached speed workouts with Bob Glover and the New York Road Runners club, and spent weekends either going long or competing.

I鈥檇 been a runner since high school but always believed my strength was in endurance, not speed. Steady training amid talented running partners, however, revealed that I could go relatively fast as well as long. The Reeboks, pure racers suitable for distances no longer than ten kilometers, were an indicator of this newfound prowess.

Soon after I got them, I ran a 4:54 mile in a Fifth Avenue Mile citizen鈥檚-heat qualifying event. It was the first time in my life I鈥檇 broken five minutes. The shoes, now associated with my success, acquired their first hint of magic. Over the next five years I wore them sparingly, reserving them for races when I was primed for peak performance, days that would redefine the paces I thought possible and alter my self-image.

When I first broke 17 minutes in the 5K, I wrote in my journal: 鈥淩unning faster than I ever have before made me feel taller, stronger, less eager to please鈥攊t erased a little more of the small, weak, nerdy adolescent that always tried too hard.鈥� A few weeks later, I ran a personal record of 35:02 in a New York 10K and placed an unprecedented sixth overall, including first in my age group. The Reeboks carried me through these transformative moments and retained those parts of my soul I鈥檇 poured into the efforts that created them.

The final race I recall running in the Reeboks was a 10K in Carvin, France, not far from Brussels, where I was living in 1999. I had set a goal of 鈥渟ub-35 by 35,鈥� and the race, two weeks before my 35th birthday, was the last chance I鈥檇 have. My magic shoes delivered: I scorched a 34:36 on a flat course through narrow, cobbled streets.

One year later, I accepted the job of editor in chief at Running Times, which took a sizable bite out of my training time, and then I became a father, which reduced it even more. Before I knew it, I was too old to threaten any of my PRs, and the Reeboks languished ever deeper in the back of the closet.

When I take them out now, they seem ridiculously retro. The upper has heavy suede overlays; the midsole is a surprisingly firm, thin layer of EVA. I try them on and feel the familiar pop in my stride, though I鈥檓 aware that no amount of residual alchemy could grant me the paces I used to run. Their power was always to reveal speed, not create it.

Still, I鈥檒l hold on to my retro Reeboks to remind me of a time when I was young and fast. When I toe the line today, I happily wear a pair of modern racing shoes with a smoothly engineered mesh upper, lively superfoam underfoot, and an embedded plate. As ever it鈥檚 training that creates the magic, but technological wizardry never hurts.

The post Why I Still Hold On to My 29-Year-Old Racing Shoes appeared first on 国产吃瓜黑料 Online.