As someone who lives in the UK, I’ve only really had cause to use the term ‘heat training’ ironically for most of my life. The very idea seems absurd when heading out for a run under cloudy skies in sub-70℉ (21.1℃) conditions, which is what we often call summer.

However, this year the UK is experiencing the longest and hottest heatwave of my life, and as someone who runs every day, adapting to and dealing with the heat has become a real part of my marathon training.

The temperature has been over 80℉ (26.6℃) on many of my runs for weeks, and it’s peaked at around 95℉ (35℃). As a result, I finally had the chance to test the CORE 2, a thermal sensor you can attach to a heart rate chest strap that monitors skin and body temperature and beams the info live to an app and wearables.

This sensor is often used by athletes trying to adapt to the heat, often before having to compete in scorching conditions. That’s not my main aim — hopefully it will have cooled off before the Frankfurt Marathon, which I'm running in late October — but I still found the data useful, and I picked up a lot of new knowledge about how heat affects the body, and there are benefits to heat training even if you plan to race in cold conditions.

Here are five things I learned running with the CORE 2 thermal sensor every day for a month.

Core temperature doesn’t always track with skin temperature

The CORE 2 sensor shows your core and skin temperature live — I added the Connect IQ data field for it so I could see these stats on my Garmin Forerunner 970.

Of these stats, core temperature is a stronger indicator of the state of your body during exercise and rises more consistently in line with effort and heat.

I was surprised to see how much skin temperature could fluctuate and even drop during activities, owing to factors like sweat and wind cooling the skin.

For example, on this 15-mile Sunday long run, my core temperature rose consistently throughout the workout, while my skin temperature dropped, and even during very hard workouts, my skin temperature might not be that high owing to profuse sweating.

I found this all fascinating, and it shows that you need to get in deep and get those core temperature readings to get useful insights into the body during workouts.

That’s not to say skin temperature sensors on wearables are useless — they are important for measuring skin temperature overnight, which can help predict illness and help track the menstrual cycle.

It takes time for the core to cool down after hard runs

On my hardest hot run with the sensor — an afternoon track workout in blazing sunshine — I hit a core body temperature of 101.8℉ (38.7℃). I also hit over 100℉ (37.7℃) on an easy run when the outside temperature was around 95℉ (35℃).

On both these occasions, I wore the sensor for a while after I hit this peak to see how long it takes to come down, and I noticed it took a while, even when I was jogging at an easy pace after the workout for my cool down.

After the workout, it took 50 minutes for my body to drop back down to its normal core temperature, even though I couldn’t feel that heat anymore.

The takeaway for me was to bear that in mind with my recovery and what I have planned straight after workouts. I used a cooling towel after another workout to help me drop my temperature, and it’s hard to beat a shower where you gradually lower the water temperature.

Get under tree cover when you can

I’m lucky enough to live by a big forest and for most of my runs during the heatwave I’ve been heading under tree cover, which I find makes a huge difference.

It was good to see that, backed up by the sensor data, most notably on the 95℉ (35℃) day, when I spent the first half hour on the road with no cover before heading into the forest. My core temperature rose sharply on the road but plateaued once I was in the forest, even though I felt like I was working harder on undulating trails.

The advice for running in the heat is always to do your runs early in the day and ideally in the shade, and using this sensor has driven that point home to me over the past month.

I can do a full hour in 85℉ (29.4℃) heat in the forest and stay in the lowest heat strain zone on the CORE 2 sensor, whereas if I’m exposed on the road, the same pace and heart rate quickly moves me into higher zones.

Easy efforts need to be scaled back

Captain Obvious will be the first to tell you that running is harder in the heat, so you need to adjust your pace, but once again, even as an experienced runner, I found it useful to have that data laid out before me during runs.

I’ve been running for over a decade, and I do know my body so I can run to feel pretty accurately, but I’m not accustomed to heat, and I did find the sensor useful in showing that easy runs needed to be scaled back to actually be easy, especially when the temperature was over 90℉ (32.2℃).

Having the data on my wrist meant that I could see if I strayed out of the lowest heat zone on an easy run and reduce my pace. I saved my heat adaptations for harder run days.

Heat acclimation takes dedication

The best use for the CORE 2 sensor is to monitor your response to heat training and help yourself acclimatize to it, especially ahead of tackling events in hot conditions.

That’s not really what I was using it for — I was just learning about how heat affects the body, and if anything, trying to avoid getting too hot — but I did think that running every day through a heatwave would boost my heat acclimation.

It turns out you have to really focus and work hard to do this, because I’m still ranked a ‘Thermal Rookie’ in the CORE app and only 4% acclimatized, because I have aimed to run under tree cover and early in the day when possible.

Only workouts directly in the sun really moved the needle for me on acclimatization, and if you're aiming to do this, you’ll have to work hard through dedicated sessions in hot conditions to push your body to adapt.

There are reasons to do this kind of heat training even if you plan to race in cool conditions, because it can also help improve things like your VO2max and lactate threshold, so I might start enjoying lie-ins and getting out for my runs in the sun.

More from Tom's Guide

• Rheon running shorts are being used by top road, track and trail runners — I spoke to an expert to find out more about the tech
• I tested shoes from 5 up-and-coming running brands — here are the ones worth your money
• No squats! I just tried this 8-minute chair workout, and it’s perfect for seniors, beginners, and anyone looking to build strength without impact

Every runner is an individual with their own preferences in shoes. Some love super-squishy and soft cushioned shoes, while others prefer ultra-light and aggressively rockered trainers.

It can sometimes be difficult as a reviewer to pick out the best running shoes for everyone as a result, but I try to highlight sneakers that offer a bit more than their rivals in the same category, whether that’s better value, more fun, or a higher level of performance.

The poll feature at Tom’s Guide gives me a chance to get feedback on running shoes in general, and recently, I asked readers to vote on the brand they wear. After counting 380 votes, I was pleased to see a clear winner that aligned with what I’d voted for myself.

Which running shoe brand do you wear?

Asics actually got more votes than the next four brands combined, and for me that isn’t a surprise, because right now the Japanese brand has some of the best options in a wide variety of running shoe categories.

I’ve picked out my favorite Asics shoes below and also gone into why I think Puma is a brand people are sleeping on.

The poll is still open if you want to add your own vote to see if it shifts the results.

My top Asics running shoes

Whether you’re looking for one of the fastest carbon plate racers on the market or a cushioned shoe for easy runs, the Asics line-up has you well covered, and it also boasts the best all-rounder available in my view, which is the Asics Megablast.

The Megablast is very expensive, though, so the alternative most people might prefer is the Asics Novablast 6, one of my favorite shoes of 2026 so far. It’s a great cushioned daily trainer with a bit more punch for faster efforts than other Asics max-cushioned shoes, like the Asics Gel-Nimbus 28, which I found relatively dull on the run.

For race day, Asics has three of the best super-shoes going. I’ve set PRs in the Asics Metaspeed Ray and Asics Metaspeed Sky Tokyo, while some might prefer the Asics Metaspeed Edge Tokyo to the Sky — they’re similarly great shoes, with different ride feels.

Overall, the Sky would be my top pick in this category from Asics, even over the ultra-light Ray, which is pricier and very soft and unstable, so it might not suit everyone.

If you’re heading onto light trails and gravel paths, then the Asics Blazeblast is a shoe I thoroughly enjoyed testing this summer. It’s as comfortable as a cushioned road shoe with an outsole that offers better grip and durability when off-road.

Puma should be more popular

Looking at the rest of the results, the one that really stands out to me is how low Puma ranked. It’s understandable because for a long time Puma was not a force to be reckoned with for road running shoes, but that has all changed in recent years.

They have a smaller line-up than Asics but challenge for the top spot in a couple of key categories of running shoes.

The Puma Fast-R Nitro Elite 3 just edges out the Metaspeed Sky Tokyo as my top racer right now, while the Puma Deviate Pure Nitro is a great lightweight daily trainer to rival the Novablast 6 as perhaps the best new shoe of 2026.

Puma shoes tend to offer good value in general as well, and they crop up in sales regularly, so they deserve to be higher in the rankings in my view.

It was interesting to see "Other" do well — I’ve been testing shoes from a few up-and-coming brands this year, and some have been exceptional, most notably the Dynafish Xiaonian.

Follow Tom's Guide fitness on Instagram for more workouts, routines, tips, and tricks.

More from Tom's Guide

• Rheon running shorts are being used by top road, track and trail runners — I spoke to an expert to find out more about the tech
• I tested shoes from 5 up-and-coming running brands — here are the ones worth your money
• No squats! I just tried this 8-minute chair workout, and it’s perfect for seniors, beginners, and anyone looking to build strength without impact

I was sold on armless sunglasses from my first run using them, simply because the secure fit provided by the cord immediately rules out the biggest problem I have with running sunnies, which is that they bounce or slip down your nose when you get sweaty.

The only reason I haven’t been using the Ombraz Refugio more often since I first tested them is that I prefer to use prescription running sunglasses over contacts, so when the chance arose to try the Ombraz Teton with prescription lenses, I jumped at it.

I’ve run 200 miles in three weeks using the glasses, as well as using them for bike rides, strength workouts and general use. They don’t come cheap, but I’ve been highly impressed with the sunglasses — here are my likes and dislikes.

Like #1: The fit is rock solid and quick to adjust

The best running sunglasses have to provide a reliable fit to be of any use, and it’s not easy to find a design that fits every face using nosepads and sticky or adjustable arms.

Ombraz’s glasses sidestep these issues thanks to the cord that attaches directly to the frame, which you can tighten quickly and easily using the two toggles.

I found that I didn’t need to have the cord that tight for a bounce-free fit, even during my hardest runs. This means there was no pressure on the back or sides of my head, and I never had to push the Teton glasses back up during runs.

If you’re constantly frustrated by sunglasses slipping or bouncing during runs, especially on trails where I find downhills can make otherwise secure sunnies slip, then this armless design could be the answer.

A bonus of not having to constantly adjust the glasses during runs is that you don’t get sweaty fingerprints on the lenses.

Like #2: I haven’t had any fogging during runs

The Teton glasses have large flat lenses that don’t wrap close to the face. This is a downside in some respects, as I’ll come onto later, but it does mean there’s space for air to flow around them.

This means I’ve not noticed any fogging during hot, sweaty runs, even indoors on the treadmill, which can be another common problem with sports sunglasses.

Like #3: Photochromic prescription lenses are ideal for year-round use

I opted for photochromic lenses with the Teton glasses, which isn’t an option with every prescription Ombraz style but is well worth it for me as a runner in the UK who is regularly under tree and cloud cover.

The lenses darken quickly in the sun but are completely clear when running indoors on the treadmill and react rapidly when I train in my local forest, moving from sun to shadow and dappled light.

I’ve been testing the sunglasses during a heatwave and can also vouch for the fact that they are dark enough for me in bright sunlight, but if you are more focused on reducing glare and just blocking out the sun, other lens options might suit you better.

Like #4: They’re easy to pack

The corded style of the glasses means that they pack pretty much completely flat, and they come with a padded pouch to store them in.

I’ve been on a couple of trips while testing the glasses, and they slip easily into the side pocket of my rucksack and can be thrown into a suitcase without fear of damaging the arms, because there aren’t any.

Like #5: The style isn’t too sporty

While I like the look of very sporty wraparound sunglasses when I’m running, they’re not the best to use outside my training, whereas the Ombraz Teton are good-looking sunnies for general use that happen to be great for runs.

They are quite large, which is the case for most of the Ombraz line-up, but I like a larger style with my sunglasses.

Dislike #1: The price for prescription is much higher

Ombraz sunglasses don’t come cheap in general, but the $160 you pay for a standard set of the Teton isn’t really out of line with many top sunglasses brands.

However, if you do want to get prescription lenses, the price rises very sharply. You shop via Lens & Frame Co and the quality of the lenses is great, but the cost of the Teton rises to $420 for standard glasses, $520 for sunglasses, or $570 for photochromic lenses.

This kind of price rise for prescription sports sunglasses isn’t that uncommon, but there are great options I’ve tested that cost a lot less if you don’t need the cordless design, like Zenni Optical’s Zunnies line-up.

Dislike #2: They’re not full wraparound lenses

As I mentioned above, the flat lenses on the Teton mean they are easy to pack safely, but at times on the run, I noticed I had to turn to get a full view of things in my peripheral vision.

I often run on a bike path, for example, and have to turn my head right around to check that no one is coming up behind me, whereas wraparound styles give you a wider field of vision.

Follow Tom's Guide fitness on Instagram for more workouts, routines, tips, and tricks.

More from Tom's Guide

• Forget back pain, this low-impact ab workout builds strong abs in just 3 moves
• I’m a weightlifting coach — 5 ‘old-school’ exercises that still build functional strength and muscle all over
• No squats! I just tried this 8-minute chair workout, and it’s perfect for seniors, beginners, and anyone looking to build strength without impact

The Hoka Clifton is one of the most popular running shoes in the world, which is obviously great news for Hoka, but does come with one notable disadvantage — how do you update a shoe that people already love without risking disappointment?

One answer is to barely update it at all. For me, the Hoka Clifton 11 is very similar to the Hoka Clifton 10, bar some changes to the upper and a slightly softer sock liner.

Hoka clearly did have some big updates to the Clifton in mind this year, but instead of putting them into the Clifton 11, they went into the Hoka Clifton Pro, which launched at the same time.

The Clifton Pro has a new midsole foam that creates a more energetic and fun ride, and for me it’s one of the best running shoes launched so far this year, and the Clifton to go for over the 11, even if you pay slightly more.

For its part, the Clifton 11 remains a comfortable daily trainer for rolling through easy miles, and it’s also great for those who spend all day on their feet for work, but rivals like the Puma Deviate Pure Nitro and Asics Novablast 6 are more enjoyable options, along with the Clifton Pro.

Hoka Clifton 11 review: price and availability

The Hoka Clifton 11 went on sale in July 2026 and costs $155 in the U.S. and £140 in the U.K., making it $10/£10 cheaper than the Hoka Clifton Pro, which launched at the same time.

Some of its key rivals do come in slightly cheaper, notably the equally-popular Nike Pegasus 42 and Brooks Ghost 18, along with the Puma Deviate Pure Nitro.

Hoka Clifton 11 review: design and fit

The Clifton 11 is currently available in 15 colors for the women’s shoe and 13 colors for the men’s shoe. It comes in wide and standard fits — I found the standard shoe fit me well in my normal running shoe size, but Hoka shoes can run narrow so the wide option is welcome.

It’s listed as being slightly lighter than both the Clifton 10 and Clifton Pro at just under 10oz in a men’s size 10. My men’s size 9.5 actually came in at 10.1oz on my scales, but minor variances like this are normal in running shoes.

The Clifton 11 has a drop of 8mm and a stack height of 42mm at the heel and 34mm in the forefoot, which is the same as the Clifton 10 and Clifton Pro.

Upper

The Clifton 11 has a mesh upper that has some minor changes from the Clifton 10, designed to improve the fit and breathability.

I found the fit and feel of the upper very similar to that of the Clifton 10, which is no bad thing. It’s a comfortable upper that’s breathable enough for me in hot conditions, with some padding around the collar that helps to hold the heel securely.

Midsole

The midsole on the Clifton 11 uses a compression-molded EVA foam, as opposed to the more energetic and impressive supercritical EVA foam on the Clifton Pro. It’s the same midsole foam as on the Clifton 10, but the sock liner has been changed to a softer material.

Overall, the setup feels similar to the Clifton 10, and I think Hoka could have introduced the ProGlide+ foam from the Clifton Pro into the Clifton 11 and made that a bigger update rather than introducing a second Clifton into the line-up.

Outsole

The Clifton 11 uses Hoka’s Durabrasion rubber to cover the forefoot and heel on the bottom of the shoe. It has gripped well for me throughout testing and there are no signs of wear and tear yet, despite me using the shoe on dirt trails for most of my runs.

Hoka Clifton 11 review: running performance

I used the Clifton 11 for a mix of daily training runs at easy and steady paces, with my longest run in the shoe being just over 10 miles.

Throughout testing it felt very familiar to me, as someone who has ran extensively with the last few models of the Clifton. It has a soft, mellow ride feel that’s great at easy paces, with the mild rocker profile of the shoe helping to ease you from heel to toe smoothly.

At faster paces, the limitations of the midsole foam are more apparent, in that it doesn’t give a lot of energy back when you’re trying to push. This is the main difference from the Clifton Pro for me, which does offer more energy return, while also being comfortable and smooth.

During testing, I did a short run wearing the Clifton 11 on one foot and the Clifton Pro on the other, and extra resiliency and bounciness of the Pro was noticeable. The Clifton 11 is softer at the heel, but lacks the spring off the forefoot you do get from the Pro.

I did enjoy my easy runs in the Clifton 11 and it gets the job done as a daily trainer for racking up miles, but there are certainly rivals that do the same job more enjoyably thanks to livelier midsole foams, while also being more versatile with regards to their performance at faster speeds, with the Novablast 6 and Puma Deviate Pure standing out on this front.

The Clifton has long been a popular pick for people who are on their feet all day at work and I still think the Clifton 11 will do this job very well. It’s great for walking too, just like past models of the shoe.

Should you buy the Hoka Clifton 11?

The Hoka Clifton 11 does all the things I expect a Hoka Clifton to do, being a comfortable option for easy runs that will suit a wide variety of runners, as well as walkers.

However, it doesn’t feel as up-to-date as the best shoes in its area, which are using livelier midsole foams that are bouncier and more fun, and the killer rival might well be the Clifton Pro, which I think is worth the $10 upgrade.

The Asics Novablast 6 is lighter and performs better at faster paces for me, while still being just as cushioned as the Clifton 11. The Puma Deviate Pure has a lower stack, but it’s still comfortable and much lighter and faster than the Clifton 11.

Compared to other very popular options, I do favor the Clifton 11 over the Nike Pegasus 42 and Brooks Ghost 18, both of which are firmer, heavier, and less cushioned and smooth. The Novablast 6 or Clifton Pro would get my vote over the entire trio, however.

I run often, but I wouldn't class myself as "a runner," so I write this hands-on with the Adidas Kaphiros sports glasses with some trepidation. I don't want to anger the Adidas lovers among us, but I've got some likes and dislikes when it comes to testing the Kaphiros this summer.

The Kaphiros is a rimless sport shade that is lightweight and offers unobstructed views, as I can attest. And if you're looking for the best running apparel to finish off the summer, the sports glasses are a strong contender for several reasons. However, there were a few issues I had when wearing the glasses, and no, it wasn't down to sizing.

If you're interested, find out what I liked and disliked below, plus whether or not I think they're worth the $154 price tag.

What I liked

They sit well

For those who don't know me, I have a notoriously small head. Sunglasses aren't the easiest running apparel for me to wear at the best of times, but when I'm running, I find sunglasses extremely difficult to wear. Either they don't fit, or they limit my view and distract me, so I always end up whipping them off and going for the "squint and hope for the best" option instead.

The Kaphiros are designed for fluid movement and agility. I had no problems running in the glasses, though they did bounce up and down (to begin with) on my nose, which seemed to rectify itself the sweatier I got. Perhaps I had unlocked some sort of hidden suction feature?

They're flexible without feeling cheap (they're not cheap), with adjustable nose pads, rubber grips and temples for a personalized fit; the result is a secure, lightweight pair of sports glasses that actually allow me to focus on the road ahead. And that's because, unlike traditional lower borders found on frames, the Kaphiros eliminates this in favor of downward sight, which means you can check your terrain and your sports watch.

They offer brilliant protection and uninterrupted vision

As I mentioned, they're rimless, which gives you an unobstructed, expanded field of vision. When running, situational awareness is key; whether you're on the roads or the trails, blind spots are dangerous. The Adidas Kaphiros feel expansive, and I could see my route along the coast really clearly. This was on tricky terrain, which I followed up with a woodland effort and a regular road route, all of which went without issue.

The sunglasses use PowerVizn technology for the lens tints and mirror coatings, which helps enhance contrast and regulate light transmission. I loved wearing them in the bright sunlight, and I felt like they were properly protecting my eyes, especially as they use a wraparound design and block out a lot of intrusive light.

The lenses also feature HD optics with dual-sided hydrophobic and oleophobic coatings. If you, like me, haven't heard those terms before, it helps make the glasses repel water, sweat and dirt or smudging. They're also built to be durable, but only time will tell on this one.

What I didn't like

They pick up smear marks

The Adidas Kaphiros uses a specialized ventilation system with integrated holes along the temples to help increase airflow along the inner lens and prevent fogging. I can't really speak on this one yet, but I will update this hands-on a little further down the line.

I mentioned above that the dual-sided coatings should eliminate smudges and marks, but even with the lightest of touches, my sunglasses were absolutely covered in fingerprints and dirt. Given the design and color of the glasses, it's extremely noticeable and not easy to rub off, either.

I experienced some bounce and slide

This is a bit of a cheat, as they did eventually settle on my face, but initially I found that even with the snug and comfortable fit, the glasses bounced up and down on my nose. Now, is this down to it being a men's model, or would this happen anyway?

The Kaphiros sunglasses feature fully adjustable temple and nose pads, and the rubber grip interior should ideally prevent the frame from bouncing or sliding. I'm a pretty sweaty person when I exercise, and although the glasses did stop bouncing during the runs, they continued to slip here and there, the sweatier I got.

The temple design isn't built for hair

Lastly, let's talk briefly about the temples (the arms of the sunglasses). They have a slightly rugged design, which enhances grip and helps them to sit snugly over your ears. Great, I hear you say, although if you have hair on your head, adjusting your glasses or taking them off just isn't fun.

For those of you with short (or no) hair, this won't be a problem, but for anyone else, it's quite annoying. In fact, it actually hurts. It's a small but fair gripe, I think.

Verdict

I went for these glasses because, in my view, they're unisex, if you get your sizing right. The temples need a little work for anyone with hair, and they pick up a little too much grease on the lenses for my liking, but that said, I love the design, and the quality of the Kaphiros is brilliant, especially if you want to see clearly when running along uneven terrain. Plus, they look very, very good.

Are they worth $154? Annoyingly, I'm just not sure. I plan to update this hands-on once I've spent some time with them during the winter months, but if you want a pair of sports glasses to throw on during a sunny run, you can't go far wrong. It's just whether or not that price tag is scary for you.

Follow Tom's Guide fitness on Instagram for more workouts, routines, tips, and tricks.

More from Tom's Guide

• I tested shoes from 5 up-and-coming running brands — here are the ones worth your money
• Rheon running shorts are being used by top road, track and trail runners — I spoke to an expert to find out more about the tech
• I ran 10K with the Galaxy Watch Ultra 2 and my trusty Apple Watch Ultra 2 — here's 3 things Samsung did better (and 1 it didn't)

I've been wearing an Apple Watch to track my runs ever since I ditched Fitbit a few years ago, and I've settled into a good rhythm with one of the best Apple Watches, the Apple Watch Ultra 2, since 2024.

However, before considering a potential upgrade to the rumored Apple Watch Ultra 4 (if it breaks cover), I wanted to see what Samsung's latest — the Samsung Galaxy Watch Ultra 2 — had to offer. So I borrowed the press sample loaned to the Tom's Guide fitness team, strapped it to my right wrist (I wore the Apple Watch on my left) and clocked up my usual 10K (6-mile) run.

The watches are unerringly similar: both sport a rugged design, a shortcut button (Action Button on the Apple Watch, Quick Button on the Galaxy Watch) for starting an exercise quickly and dual-frequency GPS for accurate location tracking.

Of course, one run isn't enough to say whether one is better than the other, but there were a few things that immediately stood out about Samsung's effort. Before we get to them, here's the data each watch captured.

As you can see from the table above, there are some discrepancies in a few areas, which I can explain. I tend to mix running with calisthenics training and aim to complete 100 push-ups during each run.

On the Galaxy Watch Ultra 2, I had auto-pause enabled, which kicked in every time I dropped down to rattle off some push-ups. That explains the difference in duration, distance, pace and cadence (since the Apple Watch Ultra 2 just kept rolling), but I'm not sure why the active calorie count is so different between the two.

Leaving the stats behind and progressing on to good old-fashioned subjectivity, here are three things I really liked about the Galaxy Watch Ultra 2 and one where my trusty Apple Watch Ultra 2 still wins out.

3 things Samsung did better

The bright screen

Samsung has given the Galaxy Watch Ultra 2 a 1.52-inch Super AMOLED display with up to 5,000 nits of peak brightness. The company is known for making display tech, and over the course of the run I was constantly impressed with how legible the display was. It adjusted smoothly between sunlight and shade, and I never had to worry about glare on the screen.

Literally and figuratively, the Galaxy Watch Ultra 2 outshone the 3,000-nit LTPO OLED screen on my Apple Watch Ultra 2. When you couple this with the fact that Samsung's workout display shows fewer metrics in a larger font size, it means the Galaxy Watch Ultra 2 wins the glance-ability contest.

I also like how your current heart rate zone is displayed with a rainbow color scale at the bottom, which pops on the AMOLED screen. While you get more pixels on the Galaxy Watch Ultra 2 (502 × 410 vs 498 × 498 pixels on the Apple Watch Ultra 2), this didn't make as much of a difference to me as the brightness.

The strong haptics

Apple calls the haptic technology inside the Apple Watch (and iPhone) the "Taptic Engine". But based on my run with both watches, I'd rate the horsepower inside the Galaxy Watch Ultra 2 as higher.

I haven't done a teardown of each model, so I can't say for certain which vibration motor is larger or stronger, but I felt that buzz on my right wrist plenty more than the one on my left. I think it's important too, since I rely on the haptics to alert me to each kilometer I cover. It's not as much of a necessity on a small run, but if you're getting to half-marathon or marathon territory, it becomes indispensable.

Even without haptics, the Galaxy Watch Ultra 2 called out my splits and pacing from the built-in speaker. It was loud enough (albeit a little robotic) to hear comfortably without ever having to raise my wrist. I disabled this same feature (called Voice Feedback) on my Apple Watch Ultra 2 a long while ago, so I don't have a comparison from this run. But I'll make sure to re-enable it again on my next one to see if the Apple Watch Ultra 2 can hold up in this regard.

The comfortable strap

It seems like a small thing to mention, especially since they're interchangeable, but the bundled Marine Band attached to the Galaxy Watch Ultra 2 has caught my attention. Samsung sells this separately for $90, and in my experience, it's an extremely comfortable strap that sat snugly on my wrist during the run.

It didn't slide around when I started to sweat thanks to the channel on the underside that encourages airflow. My Apple Watch Ultra 2's Trail Loop band, by comparison, was drenched in sweat by the end of the run.

While I never wore Samsung's original Marine Band, this latest version reduces the weight by 10g (0.35oz) by, among other things, switching the keeper from titanium to rubber.

Overall, the band is slimmer and as a result more flexible on the wrist. Even if you don't plan on upgrading to the Galaxy Watch Ultra 2 from the first generation, I'd encourage looking into this strap as a purchase. It uses Samsung’s Dynamic Lug band attachment system and fits the original Galaxy Watch Ultra just as well.

I have an affinity for chunky watches, so the Galaxy Watch Ultra's 47.4 x 47.4 x 12.1 mm dimensions don't bother me — but it's definitely a watch I'd rather wear for running than for sleeping.

1 thing it didn't like

Apple's Digital Crown still reigns

It's been hot this summer. Like, really hot. But I live in the U.K., where a lot of the time it's cold and/or rainy. This can often necessitate wearing gloves while out running, hiking, or cycling and if there's one thing I've learned, it's that physical controls always win out where gloves are concerned.

During a run, if I want to raise or lower the volume of my audio or scroll through my metrics, nothing beats the tactile feeling of Apple's Digital Crown. The tiny little grooves etched into the metal can be felt through running gloves, and you don't even need to look at the Apple Watch to use it.

Samsung has given the Galaxy Watch Ultra 2 a Touch Bezel feature you can activate in the settings, letting you run your finger around the edge of the display to scroll through the watch's functions. There are some vibration haptics that accompany this, but it's just nowhere near as easy or as satisfying as Apple's solution.

Even a physical rotating bezel as you'd find on a dive watch would have been better. I haven't used this feature in the heavy rain or snow, but I can't see it faring as well as the Digital Crown when you need to interact with your smartwatch with cold, numb fingers.

Final thoughts

Coming away from a single run with the two watches, there's no question the Galaxy Watch Ultra 2 is the superior device. It's brighter and more performant with greater storage and a longer battery life.

It also undercut the Apple Watch Ultra 2 at launch with a price of $699 to Apple's $799 (the current price of the Apple Watch Ultra 3), so it wins out if you're on a budget, too. Of course, you can currently find the Ultra 2 at a reduced price since it's been usurped by the Ultra 3, but for the sake of comparing apples to...err...apples? Samsung wins on price.

But it's not a complete victory. For instance, I like that the summary of your run stays up longer on the Apple Watch Ultra 2 than it does on the Galaxy Watch Ultra. Also, while the Galaxy Watch Ultra 2 is a good-looking timepiece, I'm not entirely sold on the square-circle hybrid case design.

My final takeaway is to see what the Apple Watch Ultra 4 holds if and when it launches in a couple of months. Then I'll decide whether to keep my affinity with Apple going for another year or jump ship over to Samsung's side for future workouts.

What's your wearable of choice for recording your activity? Let me know if you prefer Apple or Samsung (or split the difference and go with Garmin) in the comments below.

More from Tom's Guide

• I trekked the Cascade Mountains with the Apple Watch Ultra 3 vs Garmin Instinct 3 vs Samsung Galaxy Watch Ultra 2 — this is the one I'd take on my next hike
• Garmin Cirqa vs Fitbit Air vs Whoop vs Oura Ring: Our fitness experts are helping you pick the perfect fitness tracker
• I walked 4,000 steps with the Apple Watch Ultra 3 vs Samsung Galaxy Watch Ultra 2 — and the winning margin was razor-thin

I’ve been running for over a decade and I’ve tried all kinds of different equipment, nutrition and training routines to help improve my performance. The truth is, we’re lucky to be living in an age where boundaries are being pushed on every front.

The best carbon plate running shoes, combined with high-carb strategies based on advanced gels, have both been instrumental in improving the performance of elites and amateurs alike; if you follow pros across track, road and trail events, you might also have clocked some distinctive running shorts, too.

Rheon Labs tech has been used in shorts made by Adidas, Soar and now Kiprun to boost the benefits that can be obtained from compression, with eye-catching results from athletes using the tech, including Australian sprinter Gout Gout breaking Usain Bolt’s U20 world record for 200m in April this year.

I’ve tested Rheon tech in Soar and Kiprun shorts and tights, including running my fastest marathon, and there’s more on my experience below, but first, here’s the low-down on the tech from James Willmott, product developer at Rheon Labs.

What is Rheon?

Rheon is a strain-rate-sensitive material, which means it’s soft when it’s not needed but stiffens when required. According to Willmott, it’s a bit like custard.

“When you put your finger slowly into custard, it sinks in, but if you impact it very hard, then it stiffens up,” says Willmott.

“The other example is wet sand. If you were to just stand still, you'd sink, but if you run, then you can run along the surface of the wet sand.”

The material was developed by Rheon Labs founder Dr. Dan Plant, who initially looked at using it in protective equipment.

In running shorts, Rheon is used as a film and applied as a pattern, and it stiffens when more impact is put through the muscles covered by the material, such as when your foot lands.

What are the benefits of Rheon tech for running?

Shorts with Rheon tech have been used by elites across track, trail and road events, including Adidas’ elite marathoners and sprinter Gout Gout.

“The material itself essentially controls muscle movement,” says Willmott. “When you look at a sprinter running head-on straight at you, you see their muscles wobbling from side to side. That’s wasted energy, so Rheon helps control that and limit the muscle acceleration.

“Based on those controlling and limiting the muscle vibrations, you get benefits like less fatigue, less muscle damage, and more proprioception — the ability to feel how your muscles are moving.”

Boosting the benefits of compression

These benefits are similar to those gained from wearing compression garments, something I’ve done for many years as a fan of half tights.

Rheon takes those benefits to another level by offering a higher level of compression that would be comfortable to wear in a material that's always stiff.

“To make compression garments that control the muscles even more, you have to just make them tighter and tighter and tighter, so they become more and more uncomfortable to wear,” says Willmott. “You’re trying to squeeze into something which is effectively two sizes too small.

“The benefit of the Rheon material is that at rest, it's not that stiff. You're not adding much compression to a garment. If you just were to slip it on and stand in it, it shouldn't be unbearable to stand in.

“Then precisely when you need the support; when you're engaging the material and your muscles are moving from side to side, that's when it stiffens up and gives you the support.”

The level of muscle control Rheon tech offers has been measured using an accelerometer and it offers roughly 39% more than wearing regular shorts without compression and over 20% more than using compression shorts without Rheon.

What’s it like to run in Rheon shorts?

I’ve tested the Soar Rheon Trail Race Shorts, which come in at a cool $340, and the new Kiprun Rheon Trail Run 900 half tights, which are £39 (around $52).

Both are high-storage half tights, which makes them ideal for long runs and races as you can carry the gels and drinks you need in the pockets around the waist.

I used the Soar shorts when running my fastest marathon at 2:24 for the Loch Ness Marathon, a hilly course with a lot of downhill in the first half. It’s a fast course, if you can manage that downhill without your quads getting wrecked, and I feel like the shorts helped on that front. I also ran my half marathon PR wearing the shorts.

Recently I’ve been using the more affordable Kiprun shorts regularly in training, and while it’s a hard benefit to quantify, they do give me a bit more confidence when maintaining hard efforts, and I like to use them for the first workout of double run days, hopefully keeping my legs fresher for the second session.

I also used Kiprun’s Rheon tights for a lot of trail running last winter and again felt they benefitted me by limiting the impact during downhills — my DOMS wasn’t so bad the next day.

The shorts aren’t going to be a shortcut to improved performance, but with the price of half tights that use the tech coming down, I do think they’re worth a try for runners seeking to maximize their performance in every way they can.

More from Tom's Guide

• Forget back pain, this low-impact ab workout builds strong abs in just 3 moves
• I’m a weightlifting coach — 5 ‘old-school’ exercises that still build functional strength and muscle all over
• No squats! I just tried this 8-minute chair workout, and it’s perfect for seniors, beginners, and anyone looking to build strength without impact

The Cloudmonster 3 might be the quintessential On running shoe, showcasing the brand’s distinctive pod design and delivering what I consider to be a classic On ride, which is a little firmer than you get from most sneakers these days.

Building on the success of the original Cloudmonster, On has expanded the line-up to include the Cloudmonster Hyper super-shoe over the past two years, and right now there are actually three Cloudmonster models to consider — the Cloudmonster 3, Cloudmonster 3 Hyper, and Cloudmonster 3 Hyper LS.

The Cloudmonster 3 is the classic On daily trainer, while the Hyper models are super-trainers designed to be lighter and more versatile, at a higher price.

I’ve run a lot of miles in all three shoes, and for me, the Cloudmonster gets better and better as you rise through the ranks, but there are pros and cons to each model, which I’ll expand upon in my On Cloudmonster 3 vs On Cloudmonster 3 Hyper comparison.

On Cloudmonster 3 vs On Cloudmonster 3 Hyper: Price and availability

The On Cloudmonster 3 is the cheapest version of the shoe and costs $190/£180. The price rises to $220/£210 for the On Cloudmonster 3 Hyper, while the On Cloudmonster 3 Hyper LS is $280/£270.

On Cloudmonster 3 vs On Cloudmonster 3 Hyper: Design and fit

The Cloudmonster 3 is available in 18 colors and there’s a wide option of the shoe. There are five colors of the Cloudmonster 3 Hyper and four of the Cloudmonster 3 Hyper LS.

All three shoes fit me well in my normal running shoe size, but the Cloudmonster 3 Hyper LS uses On’s Lightspray upper technology, which means you can’t adjust the fit. If you have high arches or a wide foot, it might not work as well for you as the standard uppers on the Cloudmonster 3 and 3 Hyper.

All three shoes have a 6mm drop, but the stack height rises with the price. The Cloudmonster 3 is 35mm at the heel and 29mm at the forefoot; the Cloudmonster 3 Hyper is 39.5mm at the heel and 33.5 at the forefoot; and the Cloudmonster 3 Hyper LS is 45mm at the heel and 39mm at the forefoot.

Conversely, the weight drops. In my US men’s size 9.5 the Cloudmonster 3 weighs 10.7oz; the Cloudmonster 3 Hyper is 9.5oz; the Cloudmonster 3 Hyper LS is just 7.6oz.

Upper

The Cloudmonster 3 and Cloudmonster 3 Hyper both have conventional, comfortable uppers that hold the foot well and proved breathable enough for me during testing.

Things get spicier with the one-piece LightSpray upper on the LS model, which makes the shoe a lot lighter, but also means you can’t adjust the fit.

I know several runners who struggle with this upper, but I love the fit and feel of LightSpray myself, which I find holds the foot well and is comfortable for long distances.

Midsole

The midsole of the Cloudmonster 3 features a triple layer of On’s CloudTec pods made with Helion foam.

It’s CloudTec all the way up in the shoe, whereas with the Hyper models, CloudTec is used as a frame on the bottom of the midsole, with On’s Helion HF foam used for the top layer.

This springy, PEBA-based foam is what makes the Hyper models super-trainers, creating a more versatile ride and a lighter design overall.

Outsole

All three shoes have podded outsoles with all of the pods around the heel and forefoot covered by a thick layer of rubber. Durability shouldn’t be a concern with any of the shoes, and they all gripped well for me during testing.

On Cloudmonster 3 vs On Cloudmonster 3 Hyper: Running performance

I’ve run over 30 miles in each of the Cloudmonster shoes, and nearly 50 in the Cloudmonster 3 Hyper LS, which for me is the pick of the bunch, if you don’t mind its high price and fixed fit.

The standard Cloudmonster 3 is the firmest of the trio, with the full CloudTec midsole doing a good job of absorbing the impact of running, but not providing much energy return.

I found it worked best for easy runs, where the rockered shape of the shoe helped me to roll through my footstrike, but it lacked the punchy feel I like for faster efforts.

The Cloudmonster 3 Hyper is a step-up on this front thanks to the Helion HF foam in the midsole. It’s a softer, more comfortable shoe, and worked well for long, easy and steady runs in my testing.

It’s still not ideal for faster workouts, though, which is where the Cloudmonster 3 Hyper LS clearly excels compared to the other models.

The LS model is lighter and springier, and I loved doing tempo runs in it in particular. It also has the biggest range of the three shoes for me — it’s great for very easy runs, but you can push to your fastest speeds in interval sessions too, I found.

All three shoes handle easy runs well, then the ride gets softer, springier and more versatile as you move from the Cloudmonster 3 to the 3 Hyper and to the 3 Hyper LS.

On Cloudmonster 3 vs On Cloudmonster 3 Hyper: Verdict

The On Cloudmonster 3 is a solid, good-looking shoe that will handle your easy runs and works well for lifestyle use, and it comes in the widest variety of colors at the lowest price of the trio.

I think it’s worth stepping up to a Hyper model for running, though. The Cloudmonster 3 Hyper is a better daily trainer that can pick up steady runs and is brilliant for long efforts in particular; it also looks great for general use in my opinion — I wear it all the time for this, months after I finished testing it.

The Cloudmonster 3 Hyper LS is the best running shoe of the three and one of the most versatile and impressive super-trainers available from any brand.

It’s prohibitively expensive, however, and the fit won’t work for everyone. The On Cloudmonster 3 Hyper hits the sweet spot of the line-up overall, but if you can try on the LS model and like the fit, it might be worth paying the extra to get such a great all-rounder running shoe.

I’ve been testing running shoes for a long time, and for most of that period, when I tried a sneaker from a completely new brand, it rarely hit the standards set by more established companies like Nike and Asics.

That makes sense — the biggest brands have been making running shoes for decades and have huge research and development budgets, along with a vast amount of feedback from runners who’ve used them.

However, in the past year or so, I’ve found that up-and-coming brands have been a lot more successful launching excellent sneakers on their first or second attempt, and I’d go as far as to say that some of the best running shoes of 2026 have come from these companies.

I’ve tested a lot of shoes in 2026 from upstart and well-established brands alike, and if you’re interested in trying something new, these are the five I recommend.

R.A.D

R.A.D started as a gym-focused brand but quickly expanded into running shoes and has launched a trio of sneakers for daily training.

The R.A.D Mallow is a max-cushioned trainer, while the R.A.D Synth is a lighter, lower-stack option at a lower price.

However, the pick of the litter is the R.A.D UFO, a springy super-trainer with a wild design and a delightfully fun ride.

The Mallow and Synth are solid but didn’t do much to draw me to R.A.D over many existing shoes, but the U.F.O is a bit special and bodes well for the future of R.A.D running.

Dynafish

Chinese brand Dynafish has been making waves in the running shoe community thanks to the Xiaonian super-trainer, which runners have been finding ways to get on their feet through marketplace sites like AliExpress.

Now available directly in the U.S. through smaller retailers, the Dynafish Xiaonian is an outstanding daily trainer that competes with top super-trainers like the Asics Megablast while costing half as much.

The Xiaonian is especially good for the kind of long workouts and progression runs you do during marathon training, and has stuck around my own rotation for that purpose since testing.

It’s worth seeking out, and I’m excited to see what comes next from Dynafish, and hopeful that future shoes will be easier to buy in the U.S. and U.K.

Mount to Coast

Mount to Coast entered the running shoe market in 2024, mostly focusing on ultra-long-distance running shoes, and has earned a loyal following through innovative designs that use impressive midsole foam and offer a more adjustable fit.

The shoes don’t have the flashiest designs in terms of looks or ride feel, but they’re comfortable, durable and a strong option for those racking up the biggest mileage.

I tested the Mount to Coast C1 this year and found it an enjoyable and versatile daily trainer that’s more stable than many super-trainers.

Tracksmith

Tracksmith has been well-known for the high standards of its running apparel for a long time and has made a move into the running shoe market over the past couple of years with its Eliot line.

The first two models in the line — the Eliot Runner and Eliot Racer — are solid, but they weren’t shoes I counted among the very best in their categories; the new Tracksmith Eliot Ryder does match up well with the most impressive max-cushioned daily trainers available.

It’s comfortable, light for such a cushioned shoe, and looks good for casual use too. It’s one of the best cushioned options I’ve tried so far this year, though as ever with Tracksmith, you do pay a premium for the stylish design of the Eliot Ryder.

Kiprun

This is a bit of a cheat, because Kiprun has actually been around for a while, but the Decathlon-backed brand only launched properly in the U.S. in April this year, so they could well be new to you.

Kiprun has released some of the best road and trail running shoes I’ve tried this year, and though they’re even more attractive in the UK and Europe, where they undercut most rivals, it’s still worth checking them out in the U.S.

The two models I recommend trying first are the Kiprun Kipstorm Tempo, a plate-free super-trainer that can handle almost any kind of run, and the Kiprun Kipride Max, a max-stack cushioned shoe that offers a great blend of comfort and bounce.

More from Tom's Guide

• Forget back pain, this low-impact ab workout builds strong abs in just 3 moves
• I’m a weightlifting coach — 5 ‘old-school’ exercises that still build functional strength and muscle all over
• No squats! I just tried this 8-minute chair workout, and it’s perfect for seniors, beginners, and anyone looking to build strength without impact

Gravel running shoes are on the rise, and the Asics Blazeblast is the latest release to slip into this category of all-terrain sneakers that combine the comfortable cushioning of road shoes with grippy outsoles designed to handle light trails.

In this case, the Blazeblast shares a lot of design features with the popular Asics Novablast road running line, offering a more substantial outsole than both the Asics Novablast 6 and the TR version launched alongside the Asics Novablast 5.

I found it an enjoyable, versatile shoe that proved the ideal companion for a trip away where I didn’t know what surfaces I would be running on, offering comfort and grip on roads and dirt tracks while also being a good walking shoe.

The Blazeblast won’t replace one of the best trail-running shoes for truly tricky terrain, and isn’t quite as lively and fun as top road shoes like the Novablast 6, but it’s a handy jack-of-all-trades that might suit some runners down to the ground.

Asics Blazeblast review: Price and availability

The Asics Blazeblast went on sale in August 2026 and costs $155 in the U.S. and £140 in the U.K., which is the same price as the Asics Novablast 6 road shoe.

It’s a little cheaper than other top gravel/road-to-trail shoes I’ve tested, like the Salomon Aero Glide 4 GRVL and The North Face Altamesa 500 v2.

Asics Blazeblast review: Design and fit

The Blazeblast launched in three colors, including the Black/Sandstorm design I tested, which I think is a pretty good-looking shoe for general use alongside your runs, which is always a handy bonus.

I found the Blazeblast fit me well in my normal running shoe size, the same size I use across the Asics road and trail line-ups.

It weighs 9.7oz for a US men’s size 10, which is pretty light for such a cushioned shoe with a full outsole, even if it’s not a featherweight.

The Blazeblast has an 8mm drop and a high and wide stack of foam in its midsole. The exact stack height specs haven’t been given, but it looks to be over 40mm at the heel and similar to the Novablast road shoe.

Upper

The Blazeblast has a lightweight woven upper that has much more in common with a road running shoe than a trail shoe.

Full trail shoes tend to have a lot of protective overlays to add structure and a firmer toe bumper to guard against stubbed toes, but while the Blazeblast does have a slightly thicker section over the toes, it’s still flexible and soft.

I found the upper comfortable on all my runs, including a 15-miler in warm conditions, and the lack of extra structure and protection wasn’t missed on the gravel trails, dirt paths and roads I ran on.

Midsole

The Blazeblast’s midsole is made from Asics’ FF Blast Max foam, which is the material used for the entirety of the Novablast 5 midsole and most of the Novablast 6.

It’s a soft foam but not so squishy as to be unstable, and gives a little pop off the toes at faster speeds, though it’s not as lively and responsive as the FF Turbo Squared foam Asics added to the forefoot of the Novablast 6.

Outsole

Flip the Blazeblast over, and you’ll find a big difference in its design compared with the Novablast, which is the full AsicsGrip outsole with 2.5mm lugs.

These lugs are quite broad and flat to deliver a smooth ride on roads and flat trails, but give a little extra bite on softer ground and loose surfaces like gravel, while also being more durable than the minimal outsole designs you find on most road shoes these days.

Asics Blazeblast review: Running performance

I’ve used the Asics Blazeblast for a variety of runs on a variety of surfaces during my testing, taking it away as my main holiday walking and running shoe on a summer trip.

For the most part, I’ve run at easy paces on the road, dirt trails and gravel tracks, but I’ve thrown in some faster sections too as part of my regular daily training.

I’m a fan of the Novablast line, and the Blazeblast certainly feels similar to the Novablast 5 in particular. It’s soft and comfortable over long distances, and has a bit of chutzpah when you go through the gears to faster paces, though it’s not a true speedster.

It’s a shame that Asics didn’t opt to replicate the midsole of the Novablast 6 in the Blazeblast, though, because the extra energy return from the FF Turbo Squared foam in the forefoot of the Novablast 6 would have been welcome in the Blazeblast too.

The outsole does provide more grip on light trails than a standard road shoe, but almost more important than the grip is the fact that it will boost the durability of the Blazeblast if you spend a lot of time on gravel paths in particular, which can wear down softer road shoe outsoles quickly.

I wouldn’t opt to take the Blazeblast onto technical trails though. It’s a bit too soft and unstable for jagged rocky paths, and doesn’t have the grip for soft, muddy ground.

Keep it on lighter trails though, and it’s a very enjoyable shoe to cruise around in, and it also performs well on pure road runs in my experience. The outsole still grips and doesn’t really detract from its comfort.

Should you buy the Asics Blazeblast?

The Asics Blazeblast is a really good running shoe and a handy one to have around, but not an absolute essential for me.

Its versatility is a great strength, and if you want one shoe for everything and spend a lot of time on gravel paths, it’s worth considering, but there are more specialized shoes that outperform it.

If you rarely hit the trails, then the Asics Novablast 6 or Hoka Clifton Pro are better cushioned road running shoes for me, with livelier midsole foams. I’ve used them on light trails too, and they work fine there, though won’t be as durable.

Similarly, if you spend all your time on the trails and want a shoe more capable of exploring technical terrain, especially in the mountains, the Hoka Speedgoat 7 would be a better buy.

There are also a couple of all-terrain shoes I personally rate a little more highly than the Blazeblast, namely the Salomon Aero Glide 4 GRVL and The North Face Altamesa 500 v2, both of which have more energetic midsole foams.

I’m excited to see this area of the running shoe market continue to develop, though, as someone who seeks out dirt tracks to run on whenever possible. If the next Blazeblast uses the midsole setup of the Novablast 6, it will be a strong contender for the gravel shoe crown.

The best carbon plate running shoes all share the same purpose: to help you run more efficiently at high speeds, but they don’t all do this in the same way.

I love ludicrously light and aggressive super-shoes myself, like the Puma Fast-R Nitro Elite 3 and Asics Metaspeed Sky Tokyo. Still, they’re not the most durable or practical option for anything other than race day, and many runners find them too unstable and uncomfortable for longer events too.

The On Cloudboom Strike 2 is a super-shoe that offers more comfort and stability than its rivals, and even if it’s not the lightest and fastest racer I’ve tested, it still performed well for me across a variety of hard training runs.

It won’t be the perfect racing option for runners seeking the absolute fastest shoe they can strap on, but the balanced ride of the On Cloudboom Strike 2 might hit the spot for marathoners looking for a more controlled ride that’s still fast enough to chase PRs.

On Cloudboom Strike 2 review: Price and availability

The Cloudboom Strike 2 launched in July 2026 and costs $250 in the U.S. and £230 in the U.K., which actually makes it one of the more affordable super-shoes on the market, though you can get cheaper options by shopping for older models in sales.

It’s one of two new On racers, sitting beneath the On Cloudboom Strike 2 LS in the brand’s line-up. The LS version has a one-piece LightSpray upper that makes the shoe considerably lighter, but it’s also considerably more expensive at $310/£300.

On Cloudboom Strike 2 review: Design and fit

The On Cloudboom Strike 2 is currently available in three colors, with bright green and purple designs joining the white and yellow model I tested in the lineup.

I found that the shoe fit me well in my normal running shoe size. It’s a bit tighter around the toes than other On shoes, but you would expect that in a racing shoe. The traditional upper is not as light as On’s LightSpray material, but does allow you to adjust the fit, and some people find the brand’s LightSpray shoes difficult to get on.

My US men’s size 9.5 Cloudboom Strike 2 weighs 7.2oz, and judging by On’s stats, the LS model would be 1-1.5oz lighter than this. The standard shoe is certainly pretty light, but many top carbon racers are under 6oz.

The shoe has a 5mm drop and stack height of 39.5mm at the heel and 34.5mm at the forefoot to match World Athletics regulations, which limit racing shoe stacks to a maximum of 40mm.

Upper

The Cloudboom Strike 2 has an open-weave upper made from quite a stiff material. It’s breathable and lightweight, and I had no problems with comfort during my testing of the shoe.

I’m a fan of On’s LightSpray uppers, which I’ve tested on the original On Cloudboom Strike LS and On Cloudmonster 3 Hyper LS, but they don’t fit every foot perfectly, so the more adjustable design of the standard Cloudboom Strike 2 will create a better fit for some.

Midsole

The Cloudboom Strike 2 has a dual-density midsole that uses two layers of the brand’s springy PEBA-based Helion HF foam that sandwich a curved carbon plate (called a Speedboard here).

That’s all quite standard for a racing shoe, but what is novel about the Cloudboom Strike 2 is the CloudTec Sphere geometry, where channels have been cut into the midsole to increase the rebound you get from the foam.

There’s also a large cutout in the middle of the midsole that runs the length of the shoe and shows off the carbon plate from beneath, which helps to reduce weight.

Outsole

It’s rare to see a lot of rubber on the bottom of a racing shoe, with most brands opting for minimal patches in the heel and forefoot to reduce weight, so it’s a pleasant surprise to see the fuller outsole coverage you get on the Cloudboom Strike 2.

This does add a bit of weight but will improve the durability if you’re using it for a lot of training alongside racing, and the Cloudboom Strike 2 has also gripped well for me throughout testing.

On Cloudboom Strike 2 review: Running performance

I’ve run 45 miles in the On Cloudboom Strike 2 so far, doing a series of workouts in the shoe on the track and road, as well as some light trails. Those workouts have included short, all-out reps and longer stints at my half marathon and marathon race paces.

Most of my runs in the shoe have been fast, since it’s a racing shoe first and foremost, but I also did an easy-to-steady progression run to see how it feels at slower paces.

The ride is more subtle than with many carbon shoes that have very soft, springy foams or highly rockered midsole shapes. The Cloudboom Strike 2 does have a bouncy feel, but it isn’t exaggerated, so it feels a little more natural to run in.

It’s certainly quick, too, and makes holding fast paces feel smooth and controlled. I did a series of 2km reps in the shoe at around 5:15/mile pace and 60-second reps at sub-5/mile pace, and it turns over quickly and gives the added "pop" off the toes you expect from a super-shoe.

That said, it doesn’t feel quite as fast as my favorite super-shoes, which are lighter and more explosive. The Cloudboom Strike 2 is more balanced and feels better than those shoes at slower paces, but for all-out performance I’d opt for something like the Puma Fast-R 3 myself, and I look forward to testing the lighter Cloudboom Strike 2 LS.

However, the more stable, natural feel of the Cloudboom Strike 2, coupled with its extensive outsole, means that it’s a shoe that I’d be happy to use for lots of training as well as racing. I even found it a good option for fast runs on light trails because it’s not as soft and wildly rockered as some rivals.

Should you buy the On Cloudboom Strike 2?

If you just want the fastest super-shoe on the market, I don’t think it’s the On Cloudboom Strike 2. The Puma Fast-R 3 and Asics Metaspeed Sky Tokyo top my list, or the Mizuno Hyperwarp Pure if you’re looking for a short-distance speedster in particular.

I also think the LS version of the shoe will be a speedier option thanks to its lighter upper, even if the midsole and outsole are the same as on the standard Cloudboom Strike 2.

However, if you need a bit more stability and comfort in your racer, and prefer a more natural ride, the Cloudboom Strike 2 is a strong option, alongside the Puma Deviate Nitro Elite 4.

Both shoes are good options for regularly fast training as well as race day, and are at the more affordable end of the super-shoe spectrum, with the On being more comfortable and bouncy, while the Puma is lighter.

The carbon plate shoe market is crowded, but I do think the Cloudboom Strike 2 fits a profile some runners will be looking for, especially for longer events like marathons.

When I first started testing the best treadmills, all I cared about were the biggest specs on the sheet. Things like top speed, max incline, and motor horsepower.

These are all very important, for sure, but having used a variety of home treadmills for long periods over the past decade or so, they’re not the features that have made the biggest impact on my enjoyment of a machine.

When you’re running on a treadmill regularly, it’s all about ease-of-use, and I’ve tested machines that excel on this front, and some that don’t, instead putting barriers up to make it harder to run.

So if I were looking to buy a home treadmill today, there are a few features I’d now consider dealbreakers that wouldn’t have occurred to me before using one regularly for several years.

Here are six questions I’d ask when looking for a treadmill.

How fast does the treadmill start?

If I’ve carved out some time to run, I want to spend that time running, not navigating my way through a series of increasingly annoying sub-menus on a treadmill console or, even worse, having to wait for a software update.

Ideally, a treadmill will have some kind of quick-start option with manual buttons, but if I do have to fire up an app or use the console, it should still take less than 30 seconds to get the belt moving so I can start running.

As someone who often uses a treadmill to fit in a run while my toddler has a nap, time is precious, and too many expensive treadmills in particular throw way too many options and menus at you before you can actually start running.

The Bowflex Treadmill 10 I’ve used for many years is brilliant in many respects, but not this one, and I’ve often started my runs on it in a mild fury at how long it’s taken to get going.

Is it easy to use without an app subscription?

This is tied to my first question because if you have to fire up an app on the treadmill every time you run, it does add time and software updates to the mix.

Beyond the extra time, if your machine relies heavily on an app to function, the odds are you’ll be paying a significant monthly fee to get the most out of it, so it’s important to know what you get from the machine without paying this fee.

If you’re buying something like the Peloton Tread, you’ll go in knowing that the app subscription is a big part of what it offers, but with machines from brands like Bowflex and NordicTrack it’s less clear how reliant they are on the JRNY and iFit apps baked into them.

You could easily end up using a treadmill for five to 10 years, and may well not want to be paying a subscription for all of that time, so check what features you get without subscribing.

Does it have manual controls?

Bright touchscreens that display all your stats and control the treadmill are fantastic at the start of a run, but after 45 minutes of running, they can become harder to use without smearing sweat all over the screen and inadvertently triggering the wrong controls.

Manual controls for speed and incline are a must for me, and ideally there will be some shortcut buttons to certain speed and incline settings you can use for fast changes during interval workouts.

Does it have a truly foldable design and is it portable?

Big treadmills are great if you have a lot of space and never have to move them, but as someone who has twice had to wheel a huge, very heavy treadmill around my neighbourhood with a friend, getting stuck in a narrow alley at one point, it is handy to have a more portable machine.

Also check how foldable the machine actually is, because that term is used a lot and often means you can lift the belt a little bit, which slightly decreases the floor space used by the machine while making it take up more space in every other way.

Many treadmills now fold completely flat, which is fantastic for storing them under something, or even against a wall (do properly secure them to that wall to avoid catastrophe), and also makes them easier to move around the house.

I think it’s actually worth sacrificing in some key areas like top speed or even belt size to get a machine that takes up less space, but that will depend on your situation with how much space you have to play with.

Does it have Bluetooth connectivity for third-party apps?

Lots of treadmills now come with fitness platforms baked in, or partner apps to link to, which is all very well, but I think being able to link the machine with any app you want is important.

For example, I like to use Zwift to track my treadmill runs, and having a treadmill that speaks directly to the app is easier and more accurate than using a footpod or my running watch to send my stats to Zwift.

This kind of Bluetooth connectivity was a very rare feature when I started testing treadmills, but should now come as standard given the amount of training apps out there you might want to link up with.

How large is the running belt?

This is a big feature, and one most people probably know to check, but still worth flagging up. How long and wide is the running belt on the treadmill you’re looking at, because this directly affects how comfortable it is to use the machine regularly.

I’m 6ft tall and a pretty fast runner, but have a fairly short stride length for my height and can get away with using shorter belts, but feeling cramped on a machine, or even anxious about hitting the front or sides of the treadmill, can really wreck the enjoyment of a run.

A small belt is usually the biggest drawback of cheaper, more foldable machines, but you can strike a balance. The most spacious machines offer 60in x 20in belts or bigger, but I’ve been fine running regularly on treadmills with 50-55in long and 17-18in wide belts.

More from Tom's Guide

• I'm a smartwatch reviewer, and here's my Apple Watch Series 12 wish list — three upgrades I want, and one I don't
• Leaked Apple Watch 12 design change is the opposite of an upgrade — and that has me worried
• Samsung Galaxy Watch Ultra 2 needs these 3 upgrades to convince me to switch from my Apple Watch Ultra 3

Now and again, a running shoe comes from nowhere to become a word-of-mouth sensation, and right now there is probably no hotter shoe with highly invested runners than the Dynafish Xiaonian.

Given that many runners will never have even heard of Dynafish, that’s quite different to the last couple of shoes I’ve seen become so popular in the running shoe community, which are the Adidas Adizero Evo SL and the original Asics Superblast.

Those were new lines launched with relatively little hype to become instant favorites that reshaped the running shoe landscape, but were made by two of the biggest brands in the industry, and were available to buy everywhere.

In contrast, the Dynafish Xiaonian comes from an unheralded Chinese brand and until recently was only really possible to get through marketplace sites like AliExpress.

The Xiaonian is now available to buy directly in the US, but only through small retailers like HobbyJogger and ShopNings, and while it’s still good value at $130-$150 through those sites, it’s not as cheap as you can get it through marketplace stores.

I was excited to try the Dyanfish Xiaonian, so I bought it for £97 (around $127) from AliExpress to ship to the UK. The shoe arrived about 10 days later, and it absolutely lived up to the hype.

Here’s why I think it’s one of the best running shoes you can get right now.

It’s extremely light but still highly cushioned

My men’s size 10 Dynafish Xiaonian weighs just 7.6oz despite 41mm of cushioning at the heel and 34mm at the forefoot.

It’s not an extremely stripped-back design, with lots of foam in the midsole, some padding on the upper and generous rubber coverage on the outsole, so the lightweight design doesn’t detract from its comfort as a daily trainer, while making the shoe great for speedwork.

There are very few non-carbon plate racing shoes that offer a similar balance of weight and cushioning, with even other lightweight options I love, like the Adidas Evo SL and Puma Deviate Pure Nitro, being heavier with less foam underfoot.

The foam and rocker deliver a fast ride

The key feature in almost all running shoes is the midsole foam used, and Dynafish has created a winner with the supercritical TPEE material in the Xiaonian.

It’s clearly very light and delivers a high level of energy return during faster runs while also being soft enough to feel comfortable at easy paces.

I also enjoyed the pronounced rocker design on the shoe during my testing, though this might not be for everyone. It really helps to throw you forward with each stride and gives the Xiaonian a smooth feel, especially at fast paces.

It’s as versatile as super-trainers that cost twice as much

I love do-it-all running shoes that excel at a wide range of paces, but you often have to pay big money to get the best all-rounders. The Asics Megablast, Adidas Hyperboost Edge or Asics Superblast 3 are all versatile super-trainers that cost $200 or more, for example.

The Dynafish Xiaonian feels every bit as versatile to me and will set you back at most $150, and likely a lot less, depending on where you get it from.

I’ve done 1km reps in the shoe at sub-5min/mile pace, tempo runs and a whole lot of easy running in the shoe, and it felt great throughout my testing. It’s pretty stable for a lightweight, high-stack shoe too.

I’d say it’s at its best for faster efforts, especially long workouts or progression runs, but the Xiaonian can handle pretty much anything you throw at it.

There’s a full outsole and it’s built to last

It’s fair to say that whenever you come across a bargain in any product area, there’s always a fear that the build quality won’t be up to par, but that’s not the case with the Xiaonian.

I’ve run 60 miles in my pair with no signs of wear and tear, and the feel of the midsole has only improved so far, becoming a little more flexible.

The shoe also has a lot of rubber on the outsole, which is surprising for such a light shoe. Often super-trainers have minimal rubber coverage to reduce weight, but the Xiaonian’s outsole should last and has gripped well for me on roads and light trails.

Should you buy the Dynafish Xiaonian?

If you prefer to stick with more accessible shoes, then the Adidas Evo SL or Puma Deviate Pure Nitro would be good options instead of the Dynafish Xiaonian, and the Evo SL is often on sale these days, so it offers good value.

I expect Chinese shoes from brands like Dynafish and Li-Ning to become more and more popular and indeed more accessible. Steph Curry's mega-deal with Li-Ning will certainly help make them more well-known.

If you're happy to shop through smaller sites or marketplace platforms like AliExpress, the Xiaonian is well worth trying now, though. It's not quite as cheap as it was a few months ago because it's already becoming well-known, but it still undercuts most running shoes while out-performing them.

• Apple Watch Ultra 4: All the design, health, and battery life rumors so far
• I walked 4,500 steps with the Fitbit Air vs Apple Watch SE 3 — and I'm surprised by the winner
• Exclusive: Can an Apple Watch actually spot perimenopause? I sat down with Apple to find out more about its new Women’s Health features

The Hoka Clifton is one of the most popular running shoes available, rivaling the likes of the Brooks Ghost and Nike Pegasus for name recognition.

It’s also a shoe that needed a big update, in my opinion. The Hoka Clifton 10 was a solid but unremarkable daily trainer that risked falling behind rival shoes that use livelier midsole foam.

This big update arrived not in the Hoka Clifton 11, which seems very similar to the Clifton 10, but in a new addition to the line called the Hoka Clifton Pro.

The Clifton Pro is a considerable upgrade on the standard model thanks to a new midsole foam and rocker geometry, and I thoroughly enjoyed my runs in the shoe during testing thanks to its comfortable, smooth ride.

I wish this were simply the Clifton 11, though, because Hoka doesn’t need both shoes in its line-up and putting Pro in the name writes performance checks the Clifton Pro can’t cash. It rivals the best running shoes for comfort on easy, steady runs, but lacks the versatility of a super-trainer, which you might expect from a "Pro" model.

Hoka Clifton Pro review: Price and availability

The Hoka Clifton Pro launched in July 2026 and costs $165 in the U.S. and £150 in the U.K., which is $10/£10 more expensive than the Hoka Clifton 11.

It’s also a little pricier than the Asics Novablast 6, which I’d consider a key rival as one of the best cushioned daily trainers I’ve tested this year. But the Clifton Pro is cheaper than the Nike Vomero Plus, which I consider another standout option in this category.

Hoka Clifton Pro review: Design and fit

The Hoka Clifton Pro is currently available in seven colors, including the white-and-orange design I tested.

I found that it fit well in my normal running shoe size, the same size I’ve used for all Hoka shoes in the past. There are wide models of the Clifton Pro available too.

The shoe actually has the same stack height and drop as the Clifton 11. It has an 8mm drop and stands 42mm tall at the heel and 34mm at the forefoot (in a men’s US size 10).

In my US men’s size 9.5, the Clifton Pro weighs 9.5oz, which is pretty light for a highly-cushioned daily trainer like this, though it’s actually a tad heavier than the Clifton 11.

Upper

The Clifton Pro has a mesh upper that’s proved breathable enough during my testing during a heatwave here in the UK.

There’s ample padding around the heel for the shoe to fit comfortably and securely, and it didn’t feel oppressive to me during my runs.

Midsole

The main upgrade on the Clifton Pro compared with the Clifton 10 and 11 is the ProGlide+ midsole foam, which is a supercritical EVA material, as opposed to the compression-moulded EVA on the Clifton 11.

This foam makes the Clifton Pro bouncier on the run than the standard Clifton, and it also has a more aggressive rocker profile than its cheaper counterpart, which makes for a smoother ride, especially at faster paces.

While EVA foams were the standard in running shoes for a long time, it’s worth saying that most brands have moved on to livelier materials like PEBA, TPEE and aliphatic TPU even in their daily trainers.

This does make the Clifton Pro look a little outdated on paper, but in general I don’t really care too much what a midsole foam is made from myself, as long as it feels good on the run, and the Clifton Pro certainly feels good on the run.

Outsole

The Clifton Pro has a segmented outsole design, but a generous layer of the brand’s Durabrasion rubber does cover most of the bottom of the shoe.

It has gripped well for me on roads and light trail runs, though I’ve yet to test it in the wet because of how dry the weather has been near me this summer.

Hoka Clifton Pro review: Running performance

On paper, the Hoka Clifton Pro doesn’t look all that exciting. It’s not built to be a super-trainer like the Asics Superblast 3, isn’t amazingly light or plated, and uses EVA, which is almost a dirty word among running shoe geeks these days.

However, Hoka has a history of making shoes that look a bit underwhelming on paper but impress in the real world, with the excellent Hoka Mach 7 being just the latest example I’ve tested, and I’ve loved my miles in the Hoka Clifton Pro.

The new ProGlide+ midsole foam combined with Hoka’s reliable rocker geometry creates a ride that’s very smooth and enjoyable at easy paces and works well when pushing to steady or tempo speeds as well.

I found cruising in the shoe to feel almost effortless at times, and when I did a 90-minute-long run in the shoe one Sunday after a tough double workout day, it was protective and comfortable without feeling big or cumbersome, which some max-stack shoes can do when I’m really tired.

It’s not a super-trainer like the Asics Megablast, lacking the speedy feel I like to tackle my fastest workouts, but the Clifton Pro is an excellent daily trainer for your easy, steady, and long runs, and it’s good for walking as well.

Should you buy the Hoka Clifton Pro?

The Hoka Clifton Pro hits the spot as a cushioned daily trainer that’s protective, comfortable and fun to run in.

It’s one of the strongest options in this area, in my opinion, and would be a good all-rounder for runners who prioritize, or work well in rotation with, a faster shoe for workouts, which is how I’d use it.

There’s no need to have both it and the Clifton 11 in Hoka’s line-up, in my opinion, especially given how close in price the two shoes are. The Clifton Pro is an upgrade worth making to do the same job for runners, and I do wish Hoka had simply launched it as the Clifton 11 and kept the price at $155.

The Asics Novablast 6 is a stern competitor, because it’s cheaper and a little livelier at faster paces, making it a more versatile daily trainer. I’d lean towards the Asics myself to make the saving.

If you want an even springier feel on your runs and even more cushioning, the Nike Vomero Plus is a great cushioned shoe, and though it’s more expensive than the Clifton Pro, it regularly appears in sales.

Running sunglasses are more than just a fashion statement — they actively protect your eyes, and unlike your regular sunglasses, they won’t bounce around your face while doing so. I’ve worn the same pair of sunglasses for the past four months, clocking over 100 miles in them, and here’s they're my go-to all year round.

The glasses in question are the Adidas Kentro sunglasses, which come in a range of different colors to suit every style. I used them for the very sunny London Marathon in April, and have been wearing them during the heatwave as I train for the Frankfurt Marathon this fall.

They stay put

As mentioned above, good running sunglasses won’t slide up and down your nose as you clock up the miles. The Adidas sunglasses have a large nose pad that keeps them firmly in place, and I’ve never had any issues with them moving, even after 26.2 miles.

Despite wrapping around your face, they never went foggy either when I stopped at traffic lights.

They stopped my squinting headaches

I hadn’t quite realised how much I squint on the run until I invested in a good pair of running sunglasses. Constant squinting against the sunlight, even if you’re wearing a running cap, can result in tension across your brow muscles. On a long training run, this persistent strain can cause a tension headache.

Running sunglasses can help filter this light and help you keep your facial muscles relaxed. Eliud Kipchoge said his secret is smiling on the run, as it keeps the body relaxed and can help you run more efficiently. While Kipchoge didn’t say anything about wearing shades, for me, blocking out the sunlight helped me stay focused on my run.

The mirrored lenses protect my eyes from the sun

Lastly, the real reason to invest in a pair of running sunglasses is to protect your eyes from UVA and UVB rays. Prolonged exposure to the sun can damage your eyes, so if you spend a lot of time outdoors, sunglasses are a must. A wrap-around lens can also block debris on trail runs, protecting your eyes from scratches.

While the mirrored lenses on my Adidas Kentro sunglasses had mixed reviews with my mates, I love them and wouldn’t be without them for summer miles.

Not for you? Check out our round-up of the best running sunglasses here. You don’t have to spend a fortune, but keeping your eyes as protected as your skin is a must, whatever you’re training for.

More from Tom's Guide

• Forget pricey new running shoes — I would get these last-gen Hoka, Saucony and New Balance at a steep discount instead
• One product has powered every marathon world record since 2018, and it’s not a carbon plate running shoe
• Garmin Fenix 8 vs. Garmin Fenix 8 Pro: should you upgrade?

There's yet another heatwave hitting the UK and US right now, and unlike my colleagues, I'm a fair-weather runner, so it's officially too hot for me to run outdoors.

But my once-a-week cardio sessions are non-negotiable, so I've turned to the gym and the best treadmills instead. I'm not really a commercial gym user, but if you do have access to a treadmill at home or a local gym, I recommend hopping on and giving this 20-minute running HIIT workout a try.

You'll move between paces, including walking, jogging, and running, and deal with inclines, flat roads, and some speedwork. It's helping me stay on top of cardio without sweltering in the sunshine, and I'm very grateful for it.

Don't worry, if you're not much of a runner, this whole routine is beginner-friendly. You get to set the pace of your walks, jogs, and runs, and I'll only ever give you guidelines or recommendations.

What is the workout?

• Warm-up block, 5 mins: Spend 60 seconds at walking pace; this should be something you could comfortably maintain for 30 minutes uninterrupted. Next, spend 2 minutes at jogging pace; you should be able to hold a conversation. Increase incline to 6% and maintain jogging pace for 60 seconds, then drop the incline to flat road and hit your run pace for 60 seconds.
• Incline block, 7 mins 30 sec: Walk for 30 seconds, jog 30 seconds, sprint 30 seconds. Next, jog 90 seconds at 6% incline. Drop to a walk for 90 seconds at 9% incline. Jog 60 seconds at 6% incline, then maintain jogging for 30 seconds at 9% incline. Finally, walk for 60 seconds on a flat road.
• Speed play, 7 mins 30: Jog for 60 seconds, sprint for 30 seconds, then jog for 30 seconds, all on a flat road. Sprint again for 30 seconds, then jog for 30 seconds and drop down to a 30-second walk. Repeat from the top.

Let's take a look at a popular way of measuring effort, which will help you determine your pace without a coach: rate of perceived exertion, or RPE. This will help you work out where you sit for a walk, jog and run out of 10 (10 being your absolute maximum output).

For a walk, as briefly mentioned, it should be something you could maintain happily enough for 30 minutes or so — think a 3-4/10. Your jogging pace is around a 5-6/10; you can still have a conversation with someone next to you, but you're exerting a little more effort.

Your run pace is more like a sprint, think between 7-9/10. This should be a hard effort that you can only maintain for a short time.

The inclines are 6 and 9%, but these are only guidelines, so you can adapt these to your ability. If you're unable to hit the specified times at your given pace, it could be worth making some adjustments.

As you push through the inclines, slightly lean your weight forward without rounding your back, as this will help you engage your glutes. Generally, uphill climbs engage more of your back body, like the lower back and hamstrings, so just be sure to brace your core as you walk, jog, or run to protect your spine.

During the faster running efforts, use your arms to help with forward propulsion, and keep your strides even as you strike the treadmill. Try to avoid crossing your arms over the front of your body, as this reduces efficiency, and also avoid running too far back or forward on the running belt.

Pace yourself properly because fatigue will set in, so you need to think about keeping something back during the warm-up. This is about building speed, power and endurance, so try to keep some energy in the tank for those final rounds.

Follow Tom's Guide fitness on Instagram for more workouts, routines, tips, and tricks.

More from Tom's Guide

• Forget running and swimming — study finds this sport adds 10 years to your life
• I thought power walking was weird — here's what happened when I tried it 30 minutes a day for one week
• No Weights Needed: Build Strength and Tone in Just 20 Minutes with This 5-Move Routine

I like highly cushioned sneakers, which is a good thing right now because most of the best running shoes have max-stack designs with over 40mm of foam packed into the midsole.

However, there are times when I long for a nimbler, more direct feel on the run, and the Skechers Aero Razor offers exactly that. If you’re not a fan of big running shoes, it’s a shoe you definitely need to know about.

It’s incredibly light and has a sleek, fast ride thanks to the rockered midsole and lively midsole foam, but the Aero Razor is still pretty comfortable on easy runs in my experience.

Some will find it a bit too direct and lacking in cushioning, but the Aero Razor is a surprise standout of the year so far for me, and a rival to some of my favorite shoes like the Puma Deviate Pure Nitro and Adidas Adizero Evo SL.

Skechers Aero Razor review: Price and availability

The Skechers Aero Razor launched in February 2026 and costs $140 in the U.S. and £135 in the U.K., a good price that puts it up against some of the best value running shoes available, like the Adidas Evo SL and Puma Deviate Pure.

Skechers shoes also seem to have a happy habit of dropping in price more regularly than other running brands, so the Aero Razor could be even better value — it’s available for $119 at Amazon right now, for example.

Skechers Aero Razor review: Design and fit

The Aero Razor is currently available in four colors, including the black design I tested. I went with my normal running shoe size in the Aero Razor and had a good fit, but it’s a fairly narrow sneaker that fits closely around the toes, so if you have a wide foot, it would be worth trying before buying if you can.

Compared to most daily trainers on the market, the Aero Razor is lighter and has a lower stack height. It has a 4mm drop and stands 36mm tall at the heel and 32mm at the forefoot, and weighs just 7.1oz in my US men’s size 10.

This light, lean design lends itself more to speed training, but there’s still enough cushioning on the shoe for easier efforts.

Upper

The Aero Razor has a minimal mesh upper that aims to be lightweight and breathable rather than being especially padded.

There is some padding around the heel, and I found it comfortable enough, but in general it has a less plush feel than most daily trainers.

Midsole

The Hyper Burst Pro midsole foam is a nitrogen-infused aliphatic TPU material, which means it is light and energetic. It’s the kind of foam used by a lot of my favorite shoes right now, so I was excited to see Skechers use their version of it on the Aero Razor.

In the forefoot of the shoe is Skechers’ H-Wing plate, which adds stiffness to the shoe to speed up the transition from heel to toe without being as heavy and stiff as a full plate.

A pronounced rocker, called Hyper Arc, also works to roll you onto your forefoot rapidly, whether you’re cruising along at an easy pace or going all out in a workout.

Outsole

For a lightweight shoe, the Aero Razor has an impressive outsole, which is made from Goodyear rubber. Most of the heel and forefoot are well covered, and the shoe has gripped well for me even during runs on light trails.

Skechers Aero Razor review: Running performance

It’s been a couple of years since I last tested a Skechers running shoe, but in the past they have impressed me with their lightweight designs, and that’s definitely true of the Aero Razor.

Where past Skechers running shoes sometimes fell short compared with other brands was in the foam used in the midsole, but the Hyper Burst Pro in the Aero Razor is very good.

It delivers a lot of energy return at faster paces, and when combined with the fluid rocker and the nylon H-Wing in the forefoot, the shoe has an effective, efficient ride for workouts in my experience, whether it’s intervals or tempo sessions.

There are some foams I still find a bit more lively, such as the Lightstrike Pro used in the Adidas Evo SL or the FF Turbo Squared used in the Asics Megablast, but Hyper Burst Pro is an impressively energetic material to find in a running shoe at this price.

I also found the Aero Razor to be just about comfortable and supportive enough for a long easy run in my testing; while it wouldn’t be my first choice for that kind of run compared with a more cushioned shoe, it’s versatile enough to handle it.

However, if you are a runner who values comfort highly, the Aero Razor might be a bit too direct for your taste, and you’d need to pair it with a more cushioned shoe for your easy runs.

Should you buy the Skechers Aero Razor?

The Skechers Aero Razor will suit some runners down to the ground, and if you’re a fan of lightweight, lower-stack daily trainers, it’s one of the best options on the market.

It’s a bit of a throwback to shoes like the early models of the New Balance Rebel, and it’s also well-priced and likely to feature in sales regularly.

If you would prefer a more cushioned option, the Asics Novablast 6 is an outstanding running shoe that isn’t quite as quick as the Skechers, but more comfortable and stable, and still lively at faster paces.

Aside from perhaps not being cushioned enough for the mass market, the Aero Razor’s other problem is the rollcall of brilliant rivals in its category, which include the Adidas Evo SL and Puma Deviate Pure, two shoes that are also lightweight and versatile, but also a little more cushioned and comfortable.

I still rate those shoes a little more highly, and the Hoka Mach 7 is another fun, versatile daily trainer to consider, but the Skechers Aero Razor is in great company simply by being competitive with them, and this bodes well for the future of the line.

Unless you’ve been sleeping under a rock (or spending your free time scrolling Strava), you’ve probably seen the viral churning-butter-while-running trend. It looks pretty simple — grab a carton of heavy cream, pour it into a Ziploc bag, add some salt, and head out for a run. In theory, by the time you return, you’ll have churned butter, ready to spread on your toast.

I’ve seen this trend all over my Instagram and TikTok for the past few months, so now I’m back training for another marathon. I decided to give it a try. In a heatwave, of course. I have some thoughts.

How to do it

I’m based in the UK, where heavy cream is known as double cream. But here’s where it gets slightly more complicated: in the US, heavy cream contains at least 36% fat, whereas double cream in the UK is richer and thicker, containing around 48% milk fat.

I’m no dairy expert, but I didn’t know if the higher fat content would make it easier or harder to make butter. According to Google, it would have been easier, and probably the better choice, but alas, my local store is in a black hole with no phone signal.

Instead, I grabbed two pots of whipping cream, which have the same 36% fat content. The next morning, pre-run, I put both of these into a Ziploc bag, sprinkled some salt in, then placed this bag inside another bag, inside my running backpack. What could possibly go wrong?

Right now in the UK we're experiencing a heatwave, with the temperature of my run a warm 32 degrees Celsius, or 89 degrees Fahrenheit. This might not sound like much to my readers on the other side of the pond, but I challenge you to exist in a world without air conditioning.

For anyone who cares, I was running in the excellent Asics Novablast 6 running shoes and tracking the run on my Garmin Forerunner 170.

I ran 10 miles with heavy cream in my backpack, and yes, it made butter (sort of)

I really wasn’t convinced this was going to work, and it sort of didn’t. I checked my cream/butter every few miles, and at three miles, I was still carrying cream. At five miles, the cream looked a lot thicker, and I was convinced I was on the way to having churned butter. By eight miles, it was thicker still, but I realized the second carton of whipping cream was probably too much.

Yet it seems all of this pulling the Ziploc out of my running backpack and putting it back in was where I went wrong. Both bags split at mile eight, and I had cream (or butter, you decide), running down my back and legs for the final mile and a half (I stopped early, for obvious reasons).

When I got home, I didn’t have anything resembling the butter you’d form into a block, like my runners on TikTok. I definitely had butter, but in the loosest sense of the word. Either way, I managed to spread it on some toast and have it for my breakfast. Once I’d put my entire outfit and backpack in the washing machine, that is.

My takeaway? This was a cool experiment, but next time, I’ll just grab some butter on my way home.

More from Tom's Guide

• I'm a personal trainer who works with clients over 50 — these are the 3 mobility exercises I never skip
• After 60, this is the 10-minute routine I use with my clients to stay strong, mobile and independent
• 'I’m a Pilates instructor, and I recommend these 5 core exercises to help older clients build strength and improve posture'

Skechers are the shoe of the summer. Not only does this brand make lightweight, breathable trainers, you'll also find memory foam sandals and running shoes to keep you light on your feet all summer long.

Even better, Skechers are on sale from £24 at Amazon right now. There are lots of options to go through, so if you're having trouble deciding, I've picked out 7 of my favourite discounts to save you some time and cash.

Short on time? My #1 recommendation is the Skechers Go Walk Joy on sale from £24. This is a hugely popular shoe on Amazon with a 4.5 star rating and over 95,000 reviews under its belt. Shoppers love them because they're lightweight, flexible and extremely easy to wear — plus you get soft 5Gen cushioning to support your feet.

Note: prices vary depending on the size and color you select. To find the best deals, check out any different color options available in your size.

Quick Links

• shop Skechers deals at Amazon
• Skechers Go Walk Joy Cushioning Sneakers (Women's): was £59 now from £24
• Skechers On-The-Go 600 Glistening Slide Sandal (Women's): was £44 now from £28
• Skechers Go Walk Max (Men's): was £59 now from £29
• Skechers Arch Fit Arcade-Meet Ya There Sneaker (Women's): was £69 now from £51
• Skechers Max Cushioning Elite 2.0 (Women's): was £114 now from £61

Editor's Choice

New photos have emerged of Princess Kate completing the National Three Peaks Challenge here in the U.K. to raise funds and awareness for the Royal Marsden Cancer Charity. The Three Peaks Challenge involves climbing the three highest mountains in the U.K. in 24 hours — that’s Ben Nevis, Scafell Pike, and Snowdon.

While this is an impressive achievement in itself, when the photos dropped, the fitness editor in me was wondering what gym gear a Royal chose to wear to such an adventure. The answer was a pair of North Face shorts, which have since gone viral, and what looks to be an Apple Watch Series 11 to track her challenge.

I test running gear for a living, and while I haven’t worn Princess Kate’s exact shorts, I have hand-picked three other tried and tested pairs I swear by for my summer miles.

Where can you buy Kate Middleton’s shorts?

The shorts themselves are the Women’s Summit Series Pacesetter 3-inch Shorts by The North Face in the color iron clay. Middleton paired these with a navy blue t-shirt and a Fjallraven baseball cap.

3 other pairs of women’s running shorts I swear-by

I spend a lot of time testing running gear on the run and know exactly what I’m looking for in running shorts. I want them to be lightweight and airy, with enough pockets to store all my essentials. Here are three other pairs I rate.

If you are heading out on a hike like Princess Kate, you can also check out the best hiking boots to grab too.

Where to buy if you're in the UK:

More from Tom's Guide

• The best running shoes in 2026 — our top picks, tested by 3 runners
• After 60, this is the 10-minute routine I use with my clients to stay strong, mobile and independent
• 'I’m a Pilates instructor, and I recommend these 5 core exercises to help older clients build strength and improve posture'

As a general rule, whenever a brand goes big on the changes made to the upper of a new running shoe, you can be pretty sure it’s going to be very similar to the previous model.

The Brooks Ghost 18’s key updates are an enhanced upper with a new tongue and air mesh fabric, and it does indeed feel a lot like the Ghost 17 on the run.

It’s a shoe that prides itself on reliability and durability, so sticking to the familiar feel of past models isn’t a bad thing, but for me, the ride feels a little outdated compared to livelier, lighter daily trainers like the Asics Novablast 6, and if you are a committed Ghost fan, the Ghost 17 offers better value in sales.

Brooks Ghost 18 review: Price and availability

The Brooks Ghost 18 launched in June 2026 and costs $150 in the U.S. and £135 in the U.K., the same price as its predecessor, though the Ghost 17 is now widely available for $109 in sales.

It’s a good value shoe, but that price puts it up against some of the best running shoes on the market, including the Novablast 6, Puma Deviate Pure Nitro and Saucony Endorphin Azura.

Brooks Ghost 18 review: Design and fit

The Brooks Ghost 18 is currently available in 11 colors and two widths. It fits me well in my normal running shoe size, the same size I’ve used on all the past models of the Ghost I’ve tested.

It’s a relatively low-stack and high-drop shoe by modern standards, standing 36mm tall at the heel and 26mm at the forefoot for a 10mm drop. Most cushioned daily trainers now have 40mm of foam at the heel, at least, and a 6-8mm drop.

At 10.7oz in my US men’s size 10, it’s a fairly heavy shoe, too, though that’s partly down to the fact it has a thicker rubber outsole than most shoes, which will help with durability.

Upper

The Ghost 18 has a new two-color air mesh upper with a flat knit tongue that has pillowy chunks of padding.

It’s a comfortable upper designed to improve the fit compared with the Ghost 17, lessening the risk of heel slippage, though I had no trouble with the upper on the Ghost 17 myself.

Midsole

The midsole of the Ghost 18 is made from Brooks’ DNA Loft v3 foam, which is a nitrogen-infused EVA material.

It’s a well-balanced foam that provides comfort without being too soft or unstable, but it’s not very responsive at faster paces, and the DNA Tuned foam used in Brooks’ Glycerin shoes is an upgrade for comfort and energy return.

Outsole

The Ghost 18 has an extensive outsole with a thick layer of RoadTack rubber covering most of the bottom of the shoe.

It’s a great outsole for grip and durability, though the thickness of the rubber does dull the feel of the midsole foam and adds weight to the shoe.

Brooks Ghost 18 review: Running performance

I tested the Ghost 18 with a variety of training runs, including a 90-minute run covering around 12.5 miles, plus some shorter easy, steady runs.

Having run in the past few models of the Ghost, the Ghost 18 delivered a very familiar feeling on the run. It’s cushioned at the heel, with a snappy ride owing to the fact it’s not very rockered, and it’s naturally stable thanks to the firm-ish midsole foam.

I found the shoe performed best at easy paces, though it’s not as bouncy and cushioned as some daily trainers like the Nike Vomero Plus.

When I pushed to faster paces, the Ghost 18 felt heavy and a bit clunky. It doesn’t really support fast running all that well, and I’d pair it with a faster shoe in a rotation. It’s not as versatile as many livelier daily trainers available around the same price.

The Ghost 18 is a very good walking shoe, though, and comfortable to have on your feet all day, which isn’t always the case with softer, more rockered running shoes, and it works well for gym workouts, too.

Should you buy the Brooks Ghost 18?

The Ghost 18 delivers the usual positive attributes you expect from the line, being comfortable, durable and stable, but doesn’t really improve on the Ghost 17, which I would get instead if you are keen to stick with the Ghost line.

If you’re willing to shop around, then I’d get the Asics Novablast 6 ahead of the Ghost 18. It’s more cushioned, lighter and I found it more fun to run in at any pace.

For those who don’t want a max-cushioned shoe, the Puma Deviate Pure Nitro and Hoka Mach 7 are versatile, lightweight options that I love using for a variety of runs.

It seems that Brooks does know that a lighter, more exciting Ghost is needed to compete with these shoes, and the new Brooks Ghost Amp could be that shoe, but I’d have liked to see the updated foam introduced on the Amp brought to the mainline Ghost 18, which is not a standout option in 2026.

I first saw the Puma Deviate Pure Nitro under embargo at The Running Event in Texas in late 2025 and immediately marked it down as a shoe to look out for in 2026.

That’s because it has similar characteristics to some of the best running shoes I've tested. It’s lightweight, highly versatile, and available for a reasonable price, all of which reminds me of shoes like the Adidas Adizero Evo SL, Hoka Mach 7 and Asics Novablast 6.

When I finally got my hands on the Deviate Pure to test, it lived up to my high expectations — it’s light, comfortable, stable and fairly speedy, and it impressed me on long runs in particular.

In my Puma Deviate Pure Nitro review, I’ll cover the pros and cons of the shoe and compare it to rivals in its price bracket, like the Adidas Evo SL.

Puma Deviate Pure Nitro review: Price and availability

The Puma Deviate Pure Nitro launched in June 2026 and costs $150 in the U.S. and £130 in the U.K., a price that puts it among a cluster of excellent running shoes, like the Evo SL and Asics Novablast 6.

Puma Deviate Pure Nitro review: Design and fit

The Deviate Pure is currently available in five colors, including the white and red design I tested.

As someone who is generally between two sizes, I usually get the best fit by going for the smaller one with Puma shoes, and that was the case with the Deviate Pure. It’s quite a long and narrow shoe.

The shoe has a stack height of 38mm at the heel and 30mm at the forefoot for an 8mm drop, which means it’s not as maxed out as many daily trainers with stacks over 40mm.

It’s still well-cushioned, though, and impressively lightweight at just 7.7oz in my US men’s size 9.5, which is considerably lighter than Puma’s other trainers like the Velocity Nitro 4 and Deviate Nitro 4.

Upper

The Deviate Pure has a mesh upper with plentiful padding around the collar at the back of the shoe, and some on the tongue as well.

It’s an impressively comfortable upper for such a lightweight shoe, though not quite as breathable as some shoes with more open materials, especially around the toebox.

Midsole

The Deviate Pure has a midsole entirely made from Puma’s NitroFoam. In this case, it’s the nitrogen-infused PEBA version of the foam, as opposed to the nitrogen-infused ATPU version, which is found in shoes like the Velocity Nitro 4.

It’s a lightweight foam with a soft feel and some bounce, though not as lively and responsive as the ATPU version of NitroFoam in my view.

Outsole

Puma shoes always offer good grip thanks to the brand’s PumaGrip rubber, which is used generously to cover most of the bottom of the Deviate Pure.

The shoe gripped well for me on both roads and light trails, and despite the fact the Deviate Pure is built to be a very light shoe, the layer of rubber used on the outsole is pretty thick and should prove durable.

Puma Deviate Pure Nitro review: Running performance

I racked up a lot of miles in the Puma Deviate Pure Nitro over a three-day period that included an easy-to-steady progression run, a double workout day with one session doing long reps and the other shorter sprints, and a 12-mile recovery run the day after.

Versatility is the key strength of the Deviate Pure, and that’s what I was aiming to test with this variety of runs.

However, some runs were better than others. The shoe was perfect for the easy-to-steady run, offering comfort, stability and easy paces, and then plenty of pop for the steady section; I also loved it for the long recovery run I did — it’s more comfortable and supportive than most similarly lightweight shoes.

I was less impressed with its performance in the workout where I did longer reps, aiming to hold my half-marathon pace. The midsole foam isn’t as responsive as some, and the Pure isn’t very rockered or stiff, so it doesn’t push you forward and off your toes as well as plated trainers or a shoe like the Adidas Evo SL.

During that workout, I actually swapped to the Evo SL halfway through and found it a better shoe for holding a fast pace over the intervals.

Later that day, the Pure impressed me more during a workout, running short intervals of 60 seconds, because it’s such a light shoe, it supports those kinds of sprints.

Despite mild shortcomings at speed, the Deviate Pure impressed me greatly during my runs, and I think it’s a versatile trainer that will suit a wide range of runners well.

Should you buy the Puma Deviate Pure Nitro?

The Puma Deviate Pure Nitro is a great jack-of-all-trades running shoe; it handles most types of runs well, though I’d personally pair it with a faster option in a running shoe rotation to handle workouts and races.

If you’re someone who likes to have a few shoes on the go that excel for different runs, you’ll probably have a shoe that does each run better than the Deviate Pure, but as an all-rounder, it’s up there with the best available.

It’s not as fast as a shoe like the Adidas Evo SL, but it is more comfortable and stable, and it’s not as cushioned as a shoe like the Asics Novablast 6, but it is lighter and speedier.

The trio is great as all-rounders, and which you should opt for depends on what your priority is, but for the Deviate Pure to be competitive in such illustrious company shows what a great shoe it is.

As a keen marathoner who’s always looking for ways to improve my PR, I take great interest in what the best runners in the world use when tackling the event, and one product has taken all the attention in recent years as world records have tumbled.

The best carbon plate running shoes are used by all elite runners and most keen amateurs these days, with their lightweight, springy designs helping to improve running efficiency.

These so-called super-shoes have been controversial because their impact on the sport has been so dramatic, but they’re not the only recent innovation that has helped elites and amateurs smash world records and PRs.

Swedish sports nutrition brand Maurten’s energy gels and drinks have been used by every World Marathon Major winner since 2017, and to set every new marathon world record since 2018.

Sebastian Sawe used them when he ran the first sub-two hour marathon at the London Marathon in April, consuming an astonishing 115g of carbs per hour during his run.

There are a lot of energy products available so Maurten’s dominance among elites is remarkable. In contrast, carbon racers from a wide variety of brands have been used to win races and set records.

To find out more about how and why pros use its hydrogel drinks and gels, I spoke to Joshua Rowe, head of sports tech at Maurten.

How do Maurten’s hydrogel products work?

The difference between Maurten’s gels and drinks and other brands’ products is the hydrogel technology used by Maurten, which changes how the carbs enter your body, putting less stress on the stomach.

“Hydrogel technology is not new technology in the sense that it came from the medical industry,” says Rowe. “It’s classed as a drug delivery system.

“The stomach is really acidic. It's designed to kill bacteria. The problem with that is if you end up ingesting a really acidic drink, which tends to be the case in the nutrition industry, it enters an acidic environment and it creates a bit of a boiling pot. That’s where athletes get GI issues. They feel sick, they bloat."

By forming a hydrogel Maurten's gels and drinks bypass the stomach entirely and enter the small intestine at a faster rate. At that point the hydrogel degrades and the carbohydrates are released to be absorbed.

“The Kenyans put it the best way," says Rowe. "They say it's the ‘disappearing drink’.”

How many carbohydrates are elite runners using in races?

“I would say nowadays they’re all having an aggressive intake, getting close to 90g per hour,” says Rowe. “If we look at like Sabastian [Sawe], there's some that are getting close to 115g to 120g.”

Are there downsides to consuming so many carbs in races?

Compared to cyclists in particular, runners tend to take on a lot less fuel during long activities, and one of the reasons for that is simply that it’s harder to consume carbs during runs than bike rides.

“The biggest difference runners have compared to cyclists is that because there's more muscle movement and more muscle recruitment when you're running, more blood flow is diverted away from your stomach,” said Rowe. “That's why a lot of runners have stomach issues.

As Rowe explains it, the blood flow is going into the muscles, plus blood needs to go to the skin to help expel heat. That means any internal organs that don't really need the blood almost go into a hibernation state, and that's what happens with the stomach.

So when you consume a large amount of carbs, your stomach can struggle to process them because it's in this slowed-down state. The hydrogel helps with this, as it delivers the carbohydrates effectively even when there's not much blood flow going to the stomach.

Should amateurs try to copy this high-carb strategy?

High-carb running is all the rage right now, but amateurs might not get as much from the strategy and simply copying the likes of Sawe it isn’t necessarily the smart approach.

“Just because the elites have this much it doesn’t mean that if you go to have that much you're going to get the same performance benefits,” says Rowe.

“A really high powered car, when it's pushed at max, will drain all of its fuel really quickly. Say a Formula 1 car is fully optimised to be able to burn fuel very quickly and very fast.”

That’s the elites, and we mere mortals are usually not quite as well optimized, which means even if we consume 100g of carbs we might not be able to process and use that amount.

How do you train your gut to handle high amounts of carbohydrates during runs?

If you are keen to optimize your fuelling and increase your carb intake, you need to train your guy to handle it.

“If you practise consuming carbohydrates frequently during the build up to the marathon you will optimize your uptake and you'll get more comfortable ingesting like the intake you need to have,” Rowe said.

“Where a lot of people go wrong is they just do a couple of long, easy runs and test a couple of gels, but the problem is with that is that intensity is a really important factor, and so is frequency."

Lots of runner practice their fueling strategy on easy runs, which is useful, but those runs are not as intense as race day when it can feel harder to take a lot of gels or energy drinks because you're pushing so hard.

To counter this Rowe makes his athletes practice feuling at race intensity, and also at the same frequency as they will be consuming carbs on race day.

“If you plan to have a gel every 5km or 7km, in training that might mean you might take it every 30 or 35 minutes," Rowe said. "But then on race day, it might be every 20 or 25 minutes. So it feels like quite a lot. People need to practise the frequency as well.”

You should treat your gut training like your regular training, building up over time to ensure you can handle the carbs you plan to consume on race day.

Carbon shoes vs carbs; which is more important?

Carbon plate running shoes have been seen as the driving force behind elites and amateurs getting faster in recent years, especially with regards to the marathon, but could high-carb strategies be just as important?

Shoes will always steal the focus with the general public; indeed when Sawe ran his record at the London Marathon it was in the brand-new Adidas Adizero Adios Pro Evo 3, the first carbon super-shoe to weight under 3.5oz.

However, Rowe suggests elite athletes rate the importance of advances in nutritional just as highly, and that importance is borne out by the science.

“If you're doing a lot of good training and using nutritional products in your training, it's the same effect as the carbon shoes," Rowe said. "It helps with recovery. It helps you run quicker. It makes you feel better.

“Then we get to race day and there is some research being published that if you compare a 60g carbohydrate intake to 100g or 120g, it equates to a 3% improvement in running economy.

“We talk about shoes having a 3-4% increase in running economy. It's the same as having a good carbohydrate intake."

If you're fuelling well during long events, it can also help you avoid the dreaded 'wall', which used to be the most common factor in derailing runners late in marathons.

“What hitting the wall really means is when your body transitions from using carbohydrates as a fuel source to utilising fats as a fuel source," said Rowe. "That's because your body needs to work harder to break down fats than carbohydrates.

“Now athletes are able to ingest so many carbohydrates, it’s almost that the wall's not really a thing anymore. So it’s a combination. The shoes can help, but your body needs to be able to be fully primed and utilizing carbohydrates to allow you to do that.”

More from Tom's Guide

• Forget pricey new running shoes — I would get these last-gen Hoka, Saucony and New Balance at a steep discount instead
• Coros Pace 4 vs Coros Pace 3 vs Coros Pace Pro: Which is the best Coros watch for you?
• Garmin Fenix 8 vs. Garmin Fenix 8 Pro: should you upgrade?

The Asics Novablast has quickly cemented itself as one of the most popular running shoes on the market, beating out long-running favorites like the Nike Pegasus and Hoka Clifton to be the most tagged shoe on Strava in 2025.

Given the Asics Novablast 5 is so popular, Asics might have hesitated to make big changes to the Novablast 6 for fear of offending existing fans of the shoe, but instead the brand pushed ahead and made some telling improvements.

The result is that the Asics Novablast 6 is one of the best running shoes I’ve tested this year, and it's an easy one to recommend to all kinds of runners thanks to its comfortable, versatile design.

Asics Novablast 6 review: price and availability

The Asics Novablast 6 was unveiled in May 2026 and goes on sale globally on 1 July, costing $155 in the U.S. and £140 in the U.K., a $5 price rise on the Novablast 5.

It enters a very crowded area of the market where it competes with classic daily trainers like the Nike Pegasus 42 and Hoka Clifton 10, as well as popular new shoes like the Adidas Adizero Evo SL and Saucony Endorphin Azura.

Asics Novablast 6 review: design and fit

The Novablast 6 will launch in 11 colors, including the Rose Dust design I tested. It fits me well in my normal running shoe size, the same size I’ve used for all past Novablast models.

It’s a high stack shoe, standing 41.5mm tall at the heel and 33.5mm at the forefoot for an 8mm drop, but it weighs just 9.2oz in my US men’s size 10, which is impressively light for such a cushioned shoe.

Upper

The Novablast 6 has a comfortable woven upper with a lot of padding around the collar and a stiff internal heel counter to add stability at the back of the shoe.

I had no problems with the fit or feel of the upper during my runs. It held my foot securely and comfortably throughout testing, including long runs and workouts.

Midsole

The biggest update to the Novablast 6 is found in the midsole, which now features a ‘puck’ of Asics’ FF Turbo Squared foam under the forefoot, with the rest of the midsole being made from the FF Blast Max.

FF Turbo Squared is the energetic foam used on the Asics Megablast, and its addition makes the Novablast 6 lighter and livelier than its predecessor, and better at faster paces in particular.

Outsole

Unreliable grip in wet conditions has been a minor but persistent weakness with past Novablast models, so it’s good to see that Asics has addressed it with the Novablast 6, which uses ASICSGRIP rubber in the forefoot to improve the traction of the shoe, alongside durable AHAR LO rubber at the heel.

I had no trouble with grip during my testing of the Novablast 6, and both types of rubber are holding up well, with no signs of wear after 40 miles of running.

Asics Novablast 6 review: running performance

As a big fan of the Asics Megablast, I was excited to see that the foam from its midsole had been added to the Novablast 6, which is a much cheaper and more accessible shoe.

While there’s only a small chunk of FF Turbo Squared in the Novablast 6, it makes a big change to the ride of the shoe, which is more energetic than the Novablast 5 and performs better during fast runs in particular.

I liked the Novablast 5 a lot, but it was a shoe that I only really used for easy and steady runs, whereas the Novablast 6 retains the same comfort at the heel while increasing the energy return in the forefoot to make it a shoe that’s great for tempo and threshold runs alongside easy efforts.

During my testing, I used the Novablast 6 for a wide variety of runs and enjoyed it for almost everything — it’s not ideal for all-out intervals or races, but can handle all your other training runs.

I even did a short run wearing the Novablast 5 on one foot and the Novablast 6 on the other to check the difference, and there’s notably more punch from the forefoot on the new shoe.

It’s still not as impressive an all-rounder as the Megablast, but it’s $70 cheaper and a more stable and comfortable shoe. I’d recommend the Novablast as a great option for new and experienced runners alike, whereas the Megablast is harder to suggest buying, given the high price.

Should you buy the Asics Novablast 6?

The Asics Novablast 6 is definitely a shoe worth considering, whether you need a daily trainer to use for all your runs or a cushioned sneaker to pair with faster shoes in your running shoe rotation.

I like it more than long-running rivals like the Nike Pegasus 42 and Brooks Ghost 18, which are less cushioned, heavier, and have duller foams in the midsole.

If you don’t mind the extra cost, then the Asics Megablast is even lighter and more versatile, and if you prefer lower-stack running shoes, the Adidas Adizero Evo SL is a great daily trainer around the same price as the Novablast 6, though less stable.

Other strong alternatives include the Hoka Mach 7 and Kiprun Kipstorm Tempo, which are great daily trainers that lean more towards speed than the Novablast 6, and so are a little less comfortable.

The Novablast 6 excels on many fronts and is up there with my favorite new shoes of the year so far. It’s comfortable, versatile, and even looks pretty good with jeans, depending on how you feel about the angular midsole design.

London Marathon Events (LME) announced on Friday, June 19, that the TCS London Marathon 2027 will expand into a two-day event. Taking place on Saturday, April 24 and Sunday, April 25, 2027, this one-off format will allow 100,000 runners to cross the iconic finish line on The Mall over the course of the weekend.

London Marathon Events has said this is a “one-off format change.” Runners on both days will take on the same 26.2-mile route from Greenwich to Westminster. The double event allows more runners than ever to take part, helping meet the demand for places after 1.33 million people entered the ballot for the 2027 race.

The results of the ballot will be announced in July, with successful runners randomly assigned to either the Saturday or the Sunday race. Participants will not be allowed to take part in the in-person event on both days.

The elite women, elite female wheelchair athletes, championship, and 'good for age' women will lead the mass event one day, with the elite men, elite male wheelchair athletes, championship, and 'good for age' men leading the mass event on the other.

The TCS London Marathon 2026 proved to be one of the most historic editions in the race's history, with Kenya's Sabastian Sawe becoming the first athlete to run a sub-two-hour marathon in a competitive race, crossing the line in 1:59:30. Even more astounding was the fact that he wasn't alone in this victory, with Ethiopia's Yomif Kejelcha finishing second in 1:59:41.

History was also made in the women's race, with the elite course record being broken by Kenya's Joyciline Jepkosgei, who crossed the finish line in 2:15:37.

The 2026 event was also the largest London Marathon recorded, with 55,000+ runners crossing the finish line.

Hugh Brasher, CEO of London Marathon Events, said: “The 2027 TCS London Marathon Double is our most ambitious evolution to date – a once-in-a-generation one-time-only reimagining of what a marathon and city-wide celebration of activity can be.

“By expanding to 100,000 runners across two days, we’re opening the door for more people, more charities and more communities to take part in the world’s greatest marathon. We believe that more than £150m can be raised for good causes and the UK economy will have a £400m social and economic benefit."

I've run the London Marathon 5 times: Here's why this news matters

Being successful in the London Marathon ballot 11 years ago changed the course of my life forever. Training for and running my first marathon helped me overcome an eating disorder that had plagued my teens. Running has transformed my mental health, and has been a constant in my life ever since. It also ignited a life-changing love for running, which has led me to my current role as Fitness Editor at Tom's Guide, but also pushed me to cross the finish line of five more races.

Kathrine Switzer famously stated, "If you are losing faith in human nature, go out and watch a marathon" and she wasn't wrong. Every time I run 26.2 miles, it changes me, and allowing more runners to experience the magic of London on marathon day is, without a doubt, fantastic news.

Whether other Marathon Majors will follow suit remains to be seen, but I imagine they will, making marathon doubles a common occurrence in the racing calendar. Hopefully see you on the start line next April!

More from Tom's Guide

• Not the Fenix 9 — this is the new Garmin watch I want to see in 2026
• Coros Pace 4 vs Coros Pace 3 vs Coros Pace Pro: Which is the best Coros watch for you?
• I wore an Apple Watch and a Garmin for the London Marathon: Here’s which came out on top

The Asics Gel-Kayano is one of the most popular and long-running stability shoe lines on the market, and even as a neutral runner I've enjoyed the past few models of the sneaker.

Asics has made some big changes to the latest model of the Kayano compared with the Asics Gel-Kayano 32, with a new midsole setup that aims to produce stability while allowing your foot to move naturally.

It’s a well-cushioned shoe and comfortable, if not the softest. It’s stable too, but I found the Asics Gel-Kayano 33 a little heavy on the run and the ride isn’t as smooth and fun as it is with the best running shoes I've tested.

It gets the job done for easy runs, but it’s expensive and lacks versatility, and there are some stability shoes I prefer like the Hoka Arahi 8. I think fans of the Kayano line might be best served by picking up the Gel-Kayano 32 on sale.

Asics Gel-Kayano 33 review: price and availability

The Asics Gel-Kayano 33 launched in June 2026 and costs $170 in the U.S., and £180 in the U.K., a high price but one that’s in line with other top stability shoes like the Nike Structure Plus and Saucony Hurricane 25.

Asics Gel-Kayano 33 review: design and fit

The Asics Gel-Kayano 33 is available in 10 colors for the men’s and women’s shoe, and there are wide and extra wide models available too. I tested the shoe in my normal size and had a good fit, with plenty of room around the toes and a secure hold around the heel and midfoot.

It’s a well-cushioned shoe and although Asics hasn’t confirmed the exact stack height of the Gel-Kayano 33, it’s around 40mm at the heel and has an 8mm drop.

My US men’s size 10 weighs 11.1oz, which is not unusually heavy for a cushioned stability shoe like this — it’s similar in weight to past Gel-Kayano models and the Nike Structure Plus — but it’s certainly not a lightweight option.

Upper

The Asics Gel-Kayano 33 has an engineered mesh upper with plentiful padding around the collar to increase its step-in comfort.

It’s a good upper that held my foot securely and comfortably during runs and while it’s not the most breathable around the back of the shoe — in hot conditions the padding absorbs a lot of sweat — it is lightweight and more breathable around the forefoot.

Midsole

The big changes to the Gel-Kayano 33 are found in the FluidSupport midsole, which uses two different foams as well as a small slab of PureGel under the heel.

It’s a dual-density setup with a softer top layer made from FF Blast Max foam and a firmer bottom layer made from FF Blast Plus foam.

This design should bring a combination of both spring and stability, with the latter aided by sidewalls of foam to cradle the foot. However, while I found the shoe stable, it didn’t deliver a lot of spring.

Outsole

Asics uses a mix of ASICSGRIP and AHARPLUS rubber on the bottom of the Gel-Kayano 33, which gripped well for me in wet conditions. The rubber feels firmer at the heel and I’d expect good durability from the outsole, with no signs of wear and tear so far.

Asics Gel-Kayano 33 review: Running performance

I did five runs in the Asics Gel-Kayano 33, with all of them done at a mostly easy pace, with some steady sections just to see how the shoe felt at anything faster than plodding pace.

The ride is steady, supportive and quite forgettable. I expected the new midsole to feel softer and bouncier than the Gel-Kayano 32, but the Gel-Kayano 33 is quite firm. The FF Blast Max foam, which has a bit of bounce when used in the Asics Novablast 5, has been dulled by the firmer bottom layer.

It’s comfortable and supportive — the redesigned midsole still delivers a stable ride, which is the main point of the Gel-Kayano 33 line — but I was hoping for a livelier ride, or at least a bigger change from the Gel-Kayano 32.

The Asics Gel-Kayano 33 still performs well as a protective stability shoe and holds its own against the competition in this part of the market, and I’m sure it will be very durable and good for walking as well as running, but it didn’t leave a lasting impression after my runs.

Should you buy the Asics Gel-Kayano 33?

The Asics Gel-Kayano 33 is a reliable stability running shoe that will also be comfortable for long periods of standing and walking, but it doesn’t offer a better ride than its predecessor for me, and I’d look to pick up the Gel-Kayano 32 on sale instead.

Outside the Asics line-up, the Nike Structure Plus has a similar feel to the Kayano but a little more bounce from its midsole, while the Saucony Hurricane 25 is another stable option with a smoother ride feel, though it’s also pretty heavy.

The Hoka Arahi 8 is a lighter, smoother and less cushioned stability option that I prefer for daily training, and it’s also a bit cheaper, as is the Puma ForeverRun Nitro 2, which is another highly-cushioned stability shoe.

While I didn’t expect as soft and springy a ride from the Gel-Kayano 33 as you get from neutral sneakers, because it is designed to offer stability as a priority, I did hope the new midsole setup would create more of a difference to past models.

It’s fair to say Adidas and running are having a bit of a moment. The sub-2-hour marathon barrier was broken for the first time by an Adidas athlete running in an Adidas shoe that weighs less than a bar of soap.

Record-breaking super shoes aside, Adidas has been rolling out shoes for us mere mortals that are still fun to go fast in or just enjoy the ride, while still squeezing in some of its most groundbreaking and innovative technologies.

While I’ve not stepped foot inside of the Adidas Adizero Adios Pro Evo 3, here are three Adidas running shoes I have laced up that I think deserve their flowers.

1. Adidas Adizero Evo SL

The Evo SL is arguably as important a running shoe as the Evo 3, because it’s everywhere and for good reason. This is the running shoe I wear the most because it can do a bit of everything. It also looks great, which means you can keep it on when you’ve ticked off a speed session in them.

Adidas’ Lightstrike Pro midsole brings the bounce and liveliness to help them come alive at faster paces without needing a carbon plate. They feel great for comfortable daily runs, and this is a shoe you could stick on for a race, or you’ve got a speedy Parkrun on the agenda.

The Evo SL has now spawned new versions, including one with a woven upper. I think the OG Evo SL is the standout one and is always a joy to get out running in it.

2. Adidas Adizero Adios Pro 4

The Pro Evo might be the talk of the town right now, but we shouldn’t ignore the other carbon racer Adidas has in the ranks; that’s not too shabby. That’s the Adidas Adizero Adios Pro 4. While carbon racers can be pricey, this is one of the more affordable top-tier options you can now pick up for a far more budget-friendly price. In return, you’re still getting a nice, lightweight shoe with a very breathable upper and Lightstrike Pro foam that’s both soft and springy. Match that up with Adidas’ carbon energy rods and your faster paces, and being in the Pro gets fast and lively quickly. Whether you’ve got more focused speedwork to tackle or need something to cruise at target marathon pace in training, the Pro 4 remains a beaut of a shoe.

3. Adidas Adizero Evo SL ATR

The Evo SL ATR takes the already great Evo SL and sticks a bit more outsole on it. That doesn’t turn it into an all-out trail shoe. It does make it better equipped to handle wetter and muddier routes. Matching up the Continental rubber with 1.5mm lugs gives you that extra reassurance underfoot that you’re not going to be slipping and sliding around. The upper is also a breeze to wipe down when you’ve had to tackle more challenging conditions. It includes all the same shoe ingredients that make it a standout Adidas shoe. The Lightstrike Pro still brings the enjoyable bounce with a ride that’s versatile enough to let you mix up the paces. I’d say it takes a few runs to get that same great Evo SL feeling, but you will get it plus that tougher, grippier outsole.

More from Tom's Guide

• Forget pricey new running shoes — I would get these last-gen Hoka, Saucony and New Balance at a steep discount instead
• Coros Pace 4 vs Coros Pace 3 vs Coros Pace Pro: Which is the best Coros watch for you?
• Garmin Fenix 8 vs. Garmin Fenix 8 Pro: should you upgrade?

The North Face Altamesa 500 v2 arrived on my doorstep unexpectedly the week before I was due to travel to north Portugal for a family vacation, and the timing could not have been better, because they were the only running shoes I took on holiday and proved perfect for the task.

I knew I was going to be near some trails on the trip, but didn’t know what the terrain was going to be like, so I needed a versatile trail shoe that could also handle road runs and be comfortable for walking and traveling.

The Altamesa 500 v2 ticked all those boxes superbly well, and they’re certainly among the best trail-running shoes for those sticking mostly to tamer terrain, like myself.

They’re now my go-to trail shoes, and are actually comfortable enough to use for runs done exclusively on the road as well. Just be wary of running in deep mud or narrow, rocky tracks, where the wide design, shallow lugs and high stack of the Altamesa 500 v2 aren’t ideal.

The North Face Altamesa 500 v2 review: price and availability

The TNF Altamesa 500 v2 launched in spring 2026 and costs $170 in the U.S. and £135 in the U.K., and though it isn’t cheap, it’s a more affordable alternative to the plated Vectiv Enduris 4 and Summit Vectiv Pro 3 shoes in the TNF line-up.

Some notable road-to-trail rivals are cheaper, however, such as the Hoka Challenger 8 and the New Balance Hierro v9, which are both $155.

The North Face Altamesa 500 v2 review: design and fit

The Altamesa 500 v2 is currently available in five colors in each of the men’s and women’s shoe, and fit me well in my normal running shoe size, with a lot of room around the toes to give them room to swell on very long trail runs.

It’s listed as having a stacked height of 36mm at the heel and 30mm at the forefoot for a 6mm drop, but this might not include the insole, because it looks and feels like a higher-stack shoe than that.

Despite being so well cushioned, the Altamesa 500 v2 only weighs 10.2oz, which is surprisingly light for a trail-running shoe with a thick outsole.

Upper

The Altamesa 500 v2 has a hardy mesh upper that breathes well in the forefoot and has a reinforced toe cap to protect your feet from stray rocks and roots.

There’s a pull tab on the back of the shoe and some padding around the collar, but not so much that it felt too hot during my runs in the sun.

It’s not as structured and protective as some trail uppers, but I found it comfortable throughout my runs and it held my foot securely when running downhill or on uneven ground.

Midsole

The midsole in the Altamesa 500 v2 is made from TNF’s Dream foam, which is a springy nitrogen-infused TPU material.

It’s a soft and comfortable foam but rebounds quickly so it doesn’t feel too unstable on trails, and combined with the rocker shape of the midsole it delivers a fun, bouncy ride that shines on flatter trails.

There’s no plate in the midsole of the Altamesa 500 v2, either to protect the feet from rocks or deliver a more propulsive ride. For that you can look at the Vectiv shoes from TNF.

Outsole

The Surface CTRL rubber outsole on the shoe has 4mm lugs that are mostly chevron-shaped and quite broad.

It’s shoe designed to grip on harder terrain and be comfortable for road runs alongside trails, so it doesn’t have the deeper lugs required to bite into deep mud.

The North Face Altamesa 500 v2 review: running performance

I ran around 35 miles in five days in the Altamesa 500 v2 while on vacation, mostly on hard-packed dirt trails but with several longer stints on rocky ground, and one run done entirely on the road.

Throughout my runs it proved to be exceptionally comfortable thanks to the Dream midsole, and as someone who’s not used to doing a lot of hilly running, the Altamesa 500 v2 protected my legs well on the downhills in particular.

It’s not just a comfortable foam either. You get a lot of energy return from the Dream midsole, and when you’re on flatter, runnable terrain the rocker and springy foam deliver a very enjoyable ride at slow and steady paces.

Despite being a big shoe, the Altamesa 500 v2 isn’t too heavy either, and when I attempted to speed up a couple of climbs it didn’t feel too cumbersome.

However, when I was running on narrow, rocky trails where my landing spots were smaller and often involved the edge of rocks, the large, wide design of the shoe was a drawback. It’s not very agile or as stable as a firmer shoe, and I had to be careful when descending in particular.

It’s not built to be a shoe that will handle technical mountain trails, and though you can pick your way through short, tricky sections well enough in the Altamesa 500 v2, it’s best kept on milder terrain where you get the most from the bouncy midsole.

The grip was mostly good for me in dry conditions, though when running on large, flatter rocks it doesn’t cling to them as securely as sneakers with a Vibram MegaGrip outsole in my experience.

Should you buy the The North Face Altamesa 500 v2?

The North Face Altamesa 500 v2 are not the cheapest running shoes out there (although they are actually good value in the U.K.), but if you’re all about comfort and mix up your runs between roads and light trails, I think they’re the top option on the market I’ve tested.

If you want a more versatile trail-shoe that can handle more technical tracks but is still comfortable, I was impressed by the Kiprun Kipsummit Max when I tested it, while the Hoka Speedgoat 7 offers a firmer and more agile ride that’s better suited to narrow, technical trails than the Altamesa 500 v2.

The Hoka Challenger 8 and New Balance Hierro v9 are two other strong road-to-trail options with highly cushioned designs. Both are good, but I prefer the springier ride feel of the Dream foam in the Altamesa 500 v2, so have it as my top road-to-trail pick right now.

There are so many great carbon plate running shoes available now that testing than can start to feel a little repetitive. World Athletics regulations limit these shoes to one plate and a maximum stack height of 40mm, with the result that many shoes have converged on a similar design and feel.

This is not the case with the Saucony Endorphin Elite 3, however, which uses an incredibly soft and springy foam in its midsole to create a ride feel unlike almost any other shoe on the market.

It’s very fun to run fast in the shoe as a result, but the soft midsole won’t suit everyone — I prefer a firmer, snappier ride in my racer — and it makes the Endorphin Elite 3 unstable, though it's an improvement on its predecessor with regards to stability.

In my Saucony Endorphin Elite 3 review I’ll compare it to the best carbon plate running shoes available, and explain the pros and cons of its super-soft design.

Saucony Endorphin Elite 3 review: Price and availability

The Endorphin Elite 3 launched in June 2026 and costs $290, making it one of the most expensive carbon plate running shoes on the market.

Saucony also has the cheaper Endorphin Pro 5 in its lineup, which is a more stable carbon plate racing shoe that costs $240 but lacks the springy IncrediRun foam used in the Elite 3.

Saucony Endorphin Elite 3 review: Design and fit

The Saucony Endorphin Elite 3 launched in four colors, including the white design I tested. I found that it fit me well in my normal running shoe size, with a dialed-in racing fit that’s fairly close around the toes without being too tight.

As with most carbon racing shoes, it has stack height in line with World Athletics limits, standing 39.5mm tall at the heel and 31.5mm at the forefoot for an 8mm drop.

It weighs 7.9oz in my US men’s size 10, which is light but not especially so for a carbon plate racing shoe these days. Most super-shoes I test are under 7oz in my size, and there are some astoundingly light options like the Adidas Adizero Pro Evo 3, which is under 3.5oz.

Upper

The lightweight mesh upper has a bootie-style fit that I found hugged the foot securely and comfortably.

It’s a flexible material that breathes well in hot conditions, and while it does allow for some lateral movement on the run, the upper held my foot securely enough for fast efforts.

Midsole

The Endorphin Elite 3 uses the same IncrediRun midsole foam introduced on the Saucony Endorphin Elite 2, but removes the medial side cutout and adds foam around the heel and lateral side of the shoe to make it a little more stable than its predecessor.

This IncrediRun foam lives up to its name by delivering an incredibly soft, springy ride, even when compared to the foams in other super-shoes.

Running through the midsole is a slotted carbon plate, which is stiffer than on the Endorphin Elite 2 to create a faster transition from heel to toe.

Outsole

The Endorphin Elite 3 uses a thin layer of Saucony’s PWRTRAC to cover most of the forefoot and heel.

Grip was a concern with the Endorphin Elite 2, and although it has been improved on the Endorphin Elite 3, it’s still a bit slippery in wet conditions, I found, and I had to be careful when taking sharp corners in the rain.

Saucony Endorphin Elite 3 review: Running performance

I did a lot of training and raced in the Endorphin Elite 2, so the extremely soft ride feel of the IncrediRun midsole in the Endorphin Elite 3 didn’t come as a surprise, but it’s still a dramatically different shoe to most I tested.

Your foot sinks deep into the midsole foam, especially at slower paces, then springs back up quickly, with the foam, plate and rocker design all combining to push you forward.

It’s a strange but enjoyable sensation that feels especially good when you’re running fast with control, such as at the start of a race or early in a tempo or threshold workout.

I found that when I pushed to my fastest paces, the foam firmed up a little, which was welcome as it helped to speed up the transition from heel to toe.

The Endorphin Elite 3 can still feel slightly sluggish on this front compared to some racers with firmer midsole foams, though, and at times I felt like I was struggling to maintain my cadence late in hard runs because of the soft underfoot feel.

I ran a 5K parkrun in 16:18 using the Endorphin Elite 3, aiming to keep the pace under control for the first half of the race and push on in the second. It felt great when cruising at the start, but in the second half I’d have preferred a firmer ride, and I’m not sure it’s a standout racing option for shorter events.

The comfort of the soft midsole lends itself well to marathons and long, hard training runs though, because my legs always felt fresh the day after a hard run in the Endorphin Elite 3.

Although Saucony has worked to increase the stability of the shoe compared with the Endorphin Elite 2, I’d still say the Endorphin Elite 3 is one of the wobblier racing options because of its soft midsole, and you have to be careful when taking turns at speed.

Should you buy the Saucony Endorphin Elite 3?

For some runners, the super-soft and springy ride of the Endorphin Elite 3 will be irresistible. It’s very fun and undoubtedly quick too, and if you love squishy shoes, the only one I’ve tried that matches it is the Asics Metaspeed Ray, which is lighter but even more unstable.

I find the shoe a little too soft for my own taste, and it’s a shame that it comes in heavier than most rivals in the super-shoe market. It’s still very light, but shoes like the Asics Metaspeed Sky Tokyo and Puma Fast-R Nitro Elite 3 are a couple of ounces lighter in my size.

Those two shoes remain my preferred picks overall, offering lighter and more aggressive designs that I find help me maintain my pace, and I also rate the Mizuno Hyperwarp Pure highly as a short-distance racer thanks to its extremely lightweight design.

I do think the Endorphin Elite 3 is a little more forgiving to slower paces than those shoes, as long as you don’t find it unstable, and its distinct ride is great, but it doesn’t quite hit the performance heights of my favorite racers.

Today is the day to lace up your best running shoes and get out for a run. Why? It's Global Running Day 2026, and if you happen to be wearing one of the best Apple Watches or best Garmin watches, you can earn yourself a special award.

This is a little extra incentive to notch up a run — whether it's outside or on one of the best treadmills at the gym — it all counts. And you get a nice digital souvenir to add to your collection. I personally love collecting Apple's limited edition badges, so if I can get out the door for a quick 5K today, I definitely will.

If you're a determined Apple or Garmin wearer (or you just want a little bit of extra motivation today), then you're going to want to know how to earn these limited edition trinkets.

The good news is that in both cases, it couldn't be any simpler.

An extra bonus from Strava and Runna

There's an added bonus up for grabs today if you happen to use Strava. Recording a run of 5K or more today will give you free access to Runna Premium for two weeks. Runna is our number one pick for the best running apps and a former Tom's Guide Fitness Awards winner.

The app offers a personalized training plan that uses AI to calibrate itself based on your workouts. As your performance increases, so does the plan. If you want to know more about how this works, check out our in-depth Runna review.

If you do decide to head out for a run, whether you want to attempt a PR or just grab one of the aforementioned awards, have fun. I'm coming back from an injury that prevented my marathon attempt this season, so it's slow going for me, but I still can't help wanting to earn those badges.

More from Tom's Guide

• The best treadmills I've tested with hundreds of indoor miles
• I tested the Garmin Forerunner 70 for two weeks — and it’s my favorite running watch for the money in 2026
• I'm a weightlifting coach — 3 exercises I prefer over lunges for building strong, stable legs and knees over 40

I get to test the best running shoes for my job and as an obsessive runner who’s almost always marathon training, it’s a job I adore.

I’m able to try the most exciting new shoes on the market, and discover gems like the Adidas Adizero Evo SL, which has been a fixture in my running shoe rotation ever since I first used it in early 2025.

A lot of incredible running shoes have launched since then, including the Adidas Hyperboost Edge super-trainer, but if I could only pick one shoe from the brand to use for my training, it’s still the Evo SL — here’s five reasons why.

It’s very light and fast

The Evo SL has a stack height of 39mm at the heel and 33mm at the forefoot, so it’s by no means a minimal shoe, but the foam used is Adidas’ Lightstrike Pro, which is a very light material, so the shoes weigh just 7.9oz in my US men’s size 9.5.

That light weight, coupled with the energetic midsole foam and the sharp rocker on the shoe, means that the Evo SL is great for fast runs, and I’ve done a variety of workouts in it during my 100+ miles of testing, from short track intervals to long tempo runs on the road.

It’s comfortable enough for easy runs too

The Evo SL excels at fast paces, but it’s not just a speed shoe in my opinion, because it’s also comfortable for cruising through your easy and steady daily training runs too.

It’s cushioned enough to protect the legs on these runs, and while it’s not the most stable shoe because of a cutout on the medial side of the midsole, it’s been fine for me as a neutral runner, and its versatility makes it one of the best all-rounders on the market.

It’s great value

At $150, the Adidas Adizero Evo SL is not an extremely cheap shoe, but the level of performance it offers is in line with top super-trainers like the Hyperboost Edge and Asics Megablast, and these will set you back $200 or more.

Its price-to-performance ratio makes it a very good value in my opinion, and it’s also a shoe that’s now often on sale, because it’s been around for a while.

It comes in different versions, including a winterized model

The Evo SL has been a huge success for Adidas, and rather than overhauling the shoe with a new version, which would risk ruining it, the brand has so far opted to release modified models of it instead.

These include the Adidas Adizero Evo SL Woven and Adidas Adizero Evo SL EXO, which have different uppers to the original shoe — some people struggled with the fit of the OG Evo SL, though I’ve found it great myself.

The alternate model I really like is the Adidas Adizero Evo SL ATR, which is a winter-ready version of the shoe. It has a water-repellent upper and improved grip for wet roads, but retains the bouncy Lightstrike Pro midsole design.

As someone who trains through the British winter, which is never short of rainy days, the improved grip and weatherproof upper on the Evo SL ATR have made it my go-to for runs in inclement conditions.

It’s more fun than most running shoes

The last reason I rate the Evo SL so highly is the simplest — it’s just great fun to run in. It’s bouncy, fast, and light, and I always look forward to using it.

I test a lot of running shoes, and when I compare them directly to the Evo SL, its springy ride always shines through and puts a smile on my face.

More from Tom's Guide

• Forget pricey new running shoes — I would get these last-gen Hoka, Saucony and New Balance at a steep discount instead
• Coros Pace 4 vs Coros Pace 3 vs Coros Pace Pro: Which is the best Coros watch for you?
• Garmin Fenix 8 vs. Garmin Fenix 8 Pro: should you upgrade?

It's been nearly a month, and I'm still bitter. Like several other members of the Tom's Guide fitness team, I was due to take part in the London Marathon last month, and I had my sights firmly set on a new personal record.

I'd trained rigorously throughout the winter and, after a disappointing first attempt at the marathon in 2023, I was ready to take on the course again. I planned to try and complete the race in under four hours, with a target finish time of somewhere between 3 hours 45 minutes and 3 hours 59 minutes. Unfortunately, it wasn't to be.

The best training plans for running a successful marathon set out a mixture of easy runs, tempo runs, and long runs that increase week by week. Then, as you get closer to race day, you reduce your mileage in a tapering process. I was in the midst of this when I took a few days away for a family holiday. No running, no exercise, and a little too much food and drink.

Four miles into my first run back after five days and two weeks out from race day (very early on a cold, damp morning), I felt a short stab of pain in the back of my right calf that intensified with every step I took. I stopped the run immediately and walked home. When it didn't go away for the next couple of days, I spoke to a physiotherapist who confirmed I had a grade 1 soleus muscle strain. In the best case, it would take three or four weeks to recover.

Runners can be stubborn characters, and right up until two days before the marathon, I harboured a faint hope I might be able to compete. As part of my preparation, I had been working with a PT named Matteo based at London's Pillar Wellbeing health club.

Matteo, a runner himself, advised me (in no uncertain terms) that attempting a marathon on a pulled calf muscle wasn't a good idea. Frankly, it was dangerous.

Matteo reasoned that my two primary reasons for attempting the race — to run a personal record and enjoy the atmosphere — would both be voided by the damaged soleus.

He told me, from experience, that trying to run through an injury destroys any enjoyment of taking part in an event. There will always be another run.

Suffice to say, I withdrew my place in the marathon and let the seven stages of grief do their thing. Coming out the other side, I have a new appreciation for a particular exercise that I'll never neglect again. It'll be a firm fixture in my core routine and warm-up from now on.

The one exercise I'll never ignore

Before a run, I'll generally do a few pogo jumps to warm up, but in all my resistance or weights training, I've never put much stock in calf raises. Well, that changes now.

To execute a calf raise, you need to stand with your feet hip-width apart, either on the ground or on the edge of a step or stair. Next, you stand tall — lifting your heels away from the ground to raise yourself onto the balls of your feet. Slowly, and with control, lower your heels to the ground again.

If balancing on your feet is tricky, you can try seated calf raises as an alternative.

To make the exercise harder, all you need to do is stand on the edge of a step to create a deficit and drop your heels below ground level. This will stretch out your ankles and Achilles tendons and increase your range of motion. The soleus muscle helps with plantar flexion (pushing your toes down), which is crucial for running well but also contributes to your posture. Strengthening the soleus, along with the larger gastrocnemius muscles that protect the knees, is crucial to protecting yourself against strains and tears. Especially if, like me, you're getting on in years.

How to do calf raises

• Stand with your feet hip-width apart
• Maintain a tall posture and engage your core
• Place your hands by your sides, on your hips, or behind your head. You can also hold weights
• Rise onto the balls of your feet with control, counting three to four seconds
• Pause at the top and squeeze your calves
• Slowly lower your heels to the ground again
• If you are opting for deficit calf raises, lower your heels as far as you can while maintaining your balance, then drive upward again
• Continue for 3-4 sets and 6-12 reps.

The silver lining

Not being able to complete the event you've trained for stings, obviously. But the great thing about fitness is that none of the work I put in to get there is wasted. I'm stronger and faster than I've been in a long time, thanks to the marathon training plan I put in place at the start of the year.

And I've also been able to get to grips with the truly excellent New Balance SC Elite v5 — the carbon-plated running shoe I was set to wear on marathon day. This was my first experience with NB's flagship carbon-plate shoe, and the spring and bounce are incredible. What's more, the shoe is one of the lightest I've ever had the pleasure of running in.

If you want the specifics, it has a stack height of 40mm at the heel, which drops to 32mm at the forefoot for an 8mm offset. It’s lighter than its predecessor, with the SC Elite v5 weighing 7.4oz in a US men’s size 9.5 compared to 8.6oz for the SC Elite. The midsole is made 100% PEBA foam, which is the bounciest, lightest, and best material in New Balance's arsenal.

I've racked up many, many miles in this shoe over the last couple of months and have found it to be comfortable and propulsive off the toe. If you want to know even more about how this shoe shapes up, read my colleague Nick's in-depth review of it right here.

Final thoughts

Facing any kind of setback or failure is uncomfortable, and I don't want to get too prosaic here, but if you can find some wins — however small — in the process, then that can really help salve the wound. In my case, I've got (much) more knowledge about my muscles than I had a month ago and a newfound appreciation for an exercise I had previously ignored.

At the end of the day, my injury and failure to race were my own fault, and nobody else's. I failed to warm up properly or strengthen the muscles that I relied on. But life is just a big classroom, and I'm now positive I won't make the same mistake twice. I just hope that New Balance drops the SC Elite v6 in time for 2027's marathon season.

Have you had an event or competition derailed by an injury? How did you move past it or learn something new? Let me know in the comments section below — I'd love to hear from you.

More from Tom's Guide

• Amazon’s New Balance sale is better than I expected — 21 running shoe and apparel deals from $15
• 6 ways to save on buying running shoes — I test sneakers for a living, and you don’t need to spend big money to get great shoes
• How to pace your runs — the pros and cons of using pace, heart rate, power or just running by feel

After over a decade of testing running shoes, my main piece of advice for anyone seeking value is to buy last-gen models rather than the latest version of popular shoes.

This advice is based on the fact that brands often only make minor updates to new shoes, so the older shoe will offer the same level of performance for less.

However, sometimes there are significant updates to a new shoe, and that’s the case with the Nike Pegasus 42, which has a new midsole design that I have found improves the ride compared with the Nike Pegasus 41.

The question then becomes whether it’s worth making the saving to get the older shoe, even if it's not quite as good as the new one. In the case of the Pegasus, I still think it’s the case, because you can get the Nike Pegasus 41 for just $79 at Nike right now using the code START.

Even if a deal as good as that isn’t always available on the Pegasus 41, it’s always likely to be in a sale somewhere now that the Pegasus 42 is out, so it’s still worth considering over the new shoe.

If you’re picking between the two shoes, here are the questions you need answered.

What’s new with the Nike Pegasus 42?

The main update to the Pegasus 42 is that it has a full-length Air Zoom unit in the midsole, surrounded by ReactX foam. The Pegasus 41 instead used two Air Zoom pods, one under the heel and one under the forefoot.

When testing the Pegasus 42 and doing a short run with it on one foot and the Pegasus 4 on the other, I found that having the full-length unit creates a smoother ride, and the new shoe has a little more pop off the toes, too.

According to Nike, the new shoe somehow also has 3mm more foam under the forefoot while keeping the same stack height and 10mm drop as the Pegasus 41, which also smooths out the ride a little and makes it a little more comfortable under the toes.

Nike has also tweaked the upper on the new shoe to improve the breathability and fit, but I didn’t really notice a big difference on this front — brands almost always say they’ve improved the fit and breathability of an upper with new shoes, I find.

The outsole has been changed to, with the new shoe having less rubber coverage than the Pegasus 41, which might mean the Pegasus 42 is a little less durable in that area, but I expect both shoes to be very long-lasting.

Finally, the Pegasus 42 is actually heavier than the Pegasus 41, probably because of the full-length Air Zoom unit. It’s 10.8oz in my US men’s size 10, whereas the Pegasus 41 is 10.3oz in the same size.

How much will you pay for the Nike Pegasus 41?

The full price of the Pegasus 41 is $140 and the deal you can get right now in the Nike sale is exceptionally good, because it stacks the START code on top of an existing discount of the sneaker. I expect $70-$79 is about as low as the shoe will go this year in big sales periods.

I think you’ll often be able to get the Pegasus 41 for under $100 though — the shoe is widely available for that at sites like Dick’s Sporting Goods and Footlocker right now, which is a considerable saving on the $145 the Pegasus 42 will set you back.

It’s worth clicking around the various colors of the shoe when shopping on the Nike site too, as older designs will usually be reduced by more.

For its part, the Pegasus 42 could well start to appear in sales itself later this year, especially during the Black Friday period. It’s unlikely it will be as cheap as the Pegasus 41, but the equation could change if the price difference is more like $10 rather than $40+.

Nike Pegasus 41 vs Nike Pegasus 42: is it worth paying more for the latest model?

There are improvements to the Pegasus 42 that make the ride smoother and livelier, but these are a little offset by the gain in weight and reduced outsole coverage.

Most importantly, however, they don’t make a significant change to the performance of the shoe, in my opinion. It’s still a comfortable daily trainer that’s good for easy runs and gym workouts, and not particularly impressive at faster speeds.

At the same price, or for $5 more, I’d get the Pegasus 42 myself, but with any sizeable discount, I do think the Pegasus 41 is the smarter buy for most runners, so I’d keep your eyes peeled for deals on the older shoe.

More from Tom's Guide

• Forget pricey new running shoes — I would get these last-gen Hoka, Saucony and New Balance at a steep discount instead
• Coros Pace 4 vs Coros Pace 3 vs Coros Pace Pro: Which is the best Coros watch for you?
• Garmin Fenix 8 vs. Garmin Fenix 8 Pro: should you upgrade?

The Nike Pegasus 42 has been one of the most popular running shoes on the market for over four decades, and you don’t get to 42 models of a running shoe without doing something right, but you also get there by not doing anything too wrong.

Nike tends not to make big changes to the Pegasus because of its popularity, and although the Pegasus 42 has an upgraded midsole design, it certainly felt familiar to me on the run as someone who has tested the last eight models of the shoe.

That familiar feel is a mixed blessing. On one hand, if you love the Nike Pegasus 41, then you’ll probably love the Pegasus 42, which offers value, durability, and a balanced ride that will work well for a variety of runners.

On the other hand, it also means the Pegasus 42 feels a little outdated compared to the best running shoes I’ve tested from Nike and other brands, which offer more comfort, bounce, and fun thanks to having higher stacks with springier foams.

Nike Pegasus 42 review: price and availability

The Nike Pegasus 42 is available now and costs $145 in the U.S. and £130 in the U.K., which puts it at the more affordable end of the running shoe spectrum.

It’s the cheapest of the three Pegasus models in the Nike line-up, sitting below the Nike Pegasus Plus and Nike Pegasus Premium, which use ZoomX foam in their midsoles to create a livelier ride.

Nike Pegasus 42 review: design and fit

The Nike Pegasus 42 is available in a wide variety of colors, and in keeping with past models, there will be lots of special editions of the shoe with designs related to college and professional sports teams.

I found the shoe fit me well in my normal running shoe size, the same size I’ve used on all past Pegasus models I’ve tested and used across the Nike range.

The Pegasus 42 has a drop of 10mm and a stack height of 37mm at the heel and 27mm at the forefoot, which makes it a relatively low-stack shoe these days — the shoes in Nike’s Vomero line are all above 40mm, for example, as are many daily trainers from other brands.

It’s fairly heavy for its stack height, weighing 10.8oz in my US men’s size 10. Other daily trainers with a similar stack height, like the Puma Velocity Nitro 4 or Hoka Mach 7, are below 9oz.

Upper

The Nike Pegasus 42 has an updated upper that’s designed to provide a more secure fit and be more breathable than the one on the Pegasus 41.

It’s made from a lightweight mesh and has a lot of padding on the tongue and collar of the shoe, which can feel a little oppressive in hot conditions, especially the tongue.

Overall, though, I found the fit comfortable, but I didn’t notice a major improvement compared with the Pegasus 41, which also fit me well.

Midsole

The main updates to the Nike Pegasus 42 are in the midsole, which now has a full-length Air Zoom unit as opposed to the smaller pods under the forefoot and heel in the Pegasus 41.

This full-length unit is designed to increase the energy return of the shoe, and Nike has also managed to add 3mm of foam under the forefoot without changing the drop of the Pegasus 42, so there’s a bit more cushioning in that area.

Nike’s ReactX foam encases the Air Zoom unit in the midsole. This is a foam primarily designed for comfort and protection, rather than a high level of responsiveness, and the ride of the shoe isn’t as squishily soft and springy as many rival running shoes.

Outsole

The Pegasus 42 has good rubber coverage on the bottom of the shoe, with the waffle-tread outsole delivering good grip throughout my testing.

As with past Pegasus shoes, it’s also an outsole that I expect will deliver good durability, even if you run on light park trails as well as roads.

Nike Pegasus 42 review: running performance

I used the Pegasus 42 for a variety of training runs during my testing, including a couple of easy-to-steady progression runs, strides, and several easy efforts.

Straight out of the box, I did notice the changes to the midsole design, which make the Pegasus 42 feel smoother and a little livelier at faster paces than the Pegasus 41, thanks to the full-length Air Zoom unit. It makes the heel and forefoot of the shoe feel more connected, so you roll through your footstrike more naturally.

The foam is still not the most energetic, though, with the ReactX being good for cushioning the impact of running but not especially soft and bouncy, and the larger Air Zoom unit has made the Pegasus 42 heavier than its predecessor.

While it feels good at easy paces, I didn’t love the Pegasus 42 for anything faster than that. Even steady paces feel a bit labored in the shoe, and there are much lighter and more versatile options that have a similar stack height to the shoe, like the Hoka Mach 7, New Balance Rebel v5, and Adidas Adizero Evo SL.

The fact that it’s not a max-cushioned shoe means the Pegasus 42 does stand out a bit in a market full of super-stack shoes, but it also means I didn’t find it as comfortable, especially under the forefoot, as more cushioned picks.

It gives a more grounded ride feel that some runners might well prefer, but I’d rather have the extra cushioning myself for daily training, especially as the Pegasus isn’t as light and fast as you might expect for a lower-stack shoe.

Should you buy the Nike Pegasus 42?

If you love the Nike Pegasus 41, and a lot of people do, you can roll on to the Pegasus 42, and I have little doubt you’ll enjoy it as a similar but slightly improved shoe.

It’s a good value shoe in general, too, especially as it has a durable design with a full outsole and often pops up in sales, and the Pegasus 42 will suit new runners as a safe pick that works well for a variety of running styles.

If you have a bigger budget, I would upgrade to the Nike Vomero Plus, which is a much more cushioned and bouncy shoe than the Pegasus 42, and actually even a little lighter despite having so much more foam underfoot.

There are some excellent options available at the same price as the Pegasus 42 from other brands, too.

The Asics Novablast 5 and Hoka Clifton 10 are both more comfortable and enjoyable for daily training, while the Puma Velocity Nitro 4 and Hoka Mach 7 are much lighter and better all-rounders for easy and fast runs.

There’s still nothing particularly wrong with the latest model of the Pegasus, but it lacks some of the verve you can now expect to get even from more affordable running shoes.

Amazfit makes some of my favorite wallet-friendly alternatives to popular Garmin smartwatch models. Take the new Amazfit Cheetah 2 Pro; it offers many of the same high-end design elements, features, and training tools as Garmin's top running watch, the Forerunner 970, for way less money.

I brought the Amazfit Cheetah 2 Pro on a trip to Hawaii's Big Island, where I spent a week testing its performance while running, snorkeling, swimming, and hiking. Here are the five most important things you should know about the Amazfit Cheetah 2 Pro.

1. It's significantly cheaper than the Forerunner 970

Priced at $450 via Amazfit directly, the Cheetah 2 Pro is a full $300 cheaper than the Garmin Forerunner 970. It's also less than half the cost of the Garmin Fenix 8, the brand's top multisport watch, which starts at $1,000.

Even if you step down to Garmin's mid-level running watch, the Forerunner 570, the Cheetah 2 Pro is still $100 more affordable.

2. The design feels premium

The Cheetah 2 Pro is one of Amazfit's more attractive watches, with a two-tone black-and-silver design that pairs a titanium chassis with a plastic housing. The result is a reasonably lightweight 46.5 g wearable that should hold up to the daily wear and tear. By comparison, the Forerunner 970 is 56 g.

Similar to other recent Amazfit models, this one features a faux tachometer along the outer edge of the screen, a subtle yet appreciated nod to the mechanical watches of yore.

The screen is sapphire crystal, which is more resilient to scratches and chips than reinforced glass. Two buttons, with ample gnarling for grip and plenty of tactile response, adorn either side of the case. These can be used for navigation, or you can use the reasonably responsive touchscreen, which maxes out at a brightness of 3,000 nits, making it easily visible in direct sunlight. It also supports always-on mode.

The Cheetah 2 Pro only comes in 48mm, which is larger than I prefer. It's also fairly thick at 15.6mm compared to 12.9mm for the Garmin Forerunner 970.

3. Loads of running tools

The Cheetah 2 Pro is a technology-packed smartwatch designed specifically with hardcore runners in mind. Still, the wearable supports over 170 workout modes.

It also features dual-band GPS tracking, an onboard alimeter for precise elevation data, and the brand's latest health sensor array with 24/7 heart rate tracking and blood oxygen readings. Amazfit's latest additionally plays nicely with popular third-party fitness tracking apps like Strava.

In terms of metrics for runners, the Cheetah 2 Pro provides insights into more than pace, heart rate, and speed; it also measures your vertical oscillation, ground contact time, V02 max, training load, training effect, and power. It can additionally generate custom-tailored training plans — support I look forward to testing — and track running performance over extended periods.

That said, training and recovery insights aren't quite as comprehensive as those found on the best Garmin watches, though the Cheetah 2 Pro comes pretty darn close. It also generates fairly detailed daily sleep reports.

Like the Forerunner 970 and Fenix 8, the Cheetah 2 Pro supports downloading route maps for offline navigation with turn-by-turn directions and automatic rerouting.

That said, in my experience, Amazfit's take on offline maps is far less intuitive/a lot more clunky than Garmin's. However, there's a chance that Amazfit has tweaked the maps experience for the better with this latest premium release (stay tuned for my full review).

4. The right amount of 'smarts'

To store all those offline maps, along with no shortage of playlists and podcasts for offline listening, the Cheetah 2 Pro offers 32GB of onboard storage. It also had NFC for tap-to-pay, an onboard speaker and microphone for taking Bluetooth calls from the wrist, mirrored smartphone notifications for both Android and iOS devices, and a handy voice memo app.

Compared to the best full-featured smartwatches in 2026, like the Apple Watch Series 11 and Google Pixel Watch 4, these smart features may not seem like much; however, they are a near-match with the smart features found in the Garmin Forerunner 970.

5. The included strap is a disappointment

When I first unboxed the Amazfit Cheetah 2 Pro, I was instantly enamored with the included silicone strap. Giving off the vibes of a classic 1960s skin dive watch strap, my infatuation was sadly short-lived.

For starters, the strap came with one mis-sized spring bar (which should've been a sign of things to come), causing frustration when I initially attempted to affix it to the watch. Fortunately, my favorite cheapo Timex dumb watch makes use of the same-sized spring bars as the Cheetah 2 Pro, so I was able to borrow one for the duration of my trip.

Unfortunately, after swapping the Amazfit strap back and forth between the Cheetah 2 Pro and my Timex a handful of times, a tear began to develop in the silicone around one of the spring bars, effectively rendering the strap useless.

As a result, I had to swap in my Timex strap on the Cheetah 2 Pro for the last few days, resulting in it sitting somewhat awkwardly on my wrist (see image above). Of course, a crappy strap shouldn't make or break a smartwatch, given most folks swap out the standard-issued one sooner or later, but the tear is disappointing nonetheless.

That aside, after one week with the Cheetah 2 Pro, I'm pretty impressed. The question is, can it truly compete tit-for-tat with Garmin's top running watch, the Forerunner 970, when it comes to accuracy, durability, and reliability... all for $300 less?

I'll attempt to answer that question in my forthcoming Cheetah 2 Pro review. Stay tuned!

More from Tom's Guide

• I’m a running noob doing my first 5K — here’s all the tech I’m using to cross the finish line
• I walked 5,000 steps with the Garmin Forerunner 570 vs Apple Watch Ultra 3 — and the winner was nearly too close to call
• I logged 37 miles at MWC 2026 on my Garmin Instinct 3 — here are 5 things I learned

Part of the appeal of running is that it’s a simple and cheap sport to get into. You don’t need other people to do it or to book a court or field, and it doesn't require a lot of specialist equipment.

You do need the right footwear, however, and the price of the best running shoes has rocketed over the last decade or so that I’ve been reviewing them.

Top cushioned daily trainers will now routinely set you back $160-$200, while the best carbon plate running shoes for racing are more like $250-$300. Even "entry-level shoes" are generally $130-$150.

If those prices seem crazy to you, the good news is you don’t have to pay them. You can get great running shoes for a lot less than that if you shop smart, and hopefully these six tips will help you do just that.

Shop last-gen models

The biggest tip I have for buying cheap running shoes is to ignore the latest models. Popular sneakers get updated every year, and these updates can be very minimal, so the older model is usually a better value in sales.

I’ve picked out several last-gen running shoes that are as good, or even better, than the latest models to start you off, and in general, whenever a new model of a popular sneaker is launched, it’s a good time to start hunting for its predecessor in sales.

Consider budget options

Most running brands have some cheap sneakers in their line-up, and you can also find shoes for $50 or less at big retailers like Walmart.

These generally aren’t as durable and comfortable as pricier options, and if you’re someone who’s running most days and doing distances over five miles regularly, it will be worth upgrading beyond these budget picks, but they can get the job done for beginners and casual runners.

Go and try shoes on

This is particularly important if you’re buying a budget shoe, but even if you’re going for a popular model, it’s worth going to a store and trying on a few shoes.

There’s a lot of information out there about things like gait analysis that can help find the perfect shoe for you, but if a sneaker feels good when you do a test run in it, it usually works out to be the right shoe for you.

This can help you find a cheaper model that actually suits you and reduce the risk of wasting time and potentially money sending shoes back.

Look for sales on popular lines

Buying running shoes in sales is obviously a good way to pay less, and it helps to hunt for the right kind of sneakers, because not all of them are subject to regular discounts.

Generally, the best deals on running shoes tend to be on popular cushioned models rather than carbon plate racers or so-called "super-trainers" that use the latest tech and materials.

For starters, some shoes I’d look for in sales include the last-gen models of the Nike Pegasus, Brooks Ghost, Hoka Clifton and Asics Novablast.

These are all reliable, popular options that suit a wide range of runners and often the first sneakers to get discounts in big sales periods like Black Friday.

Join membership programmes

Handing over your details to brands isn’t desirable, I get it, but if you sign up for the free membership programmes on running websites, you’ll often get exclusive access to deals and bonuses like discounts on your birthday.

Running clubs sometimes get their own discount codes too, and if you’re a member of an athletics association, there could be deals available as part of that membership, so it’s worth checking.

Consider the durability of your shoes

If value is what you prize most in your shoes, then it’s not just the initial price that matters. If your shoes last 500 miles of running instead of 400, it’s worth paying more for them upfront.

It’s hard to rate a running shoe’s durability — different runners go through shoes quicker than others, depending on things like their foot shape and the impact they put into the midsole with their running style — but there are some features to look out for.

One is the outsole — how much of the bottom of the shoe is covered, and how thick the rubber is. Many running shoes have quite minimal outsoles to reduce weight and improve the ride, but this can compromise durability.

Also check how thin the upper is, especially if you have a wide foot that puts more pressure on the material, and research the midsole foam by checking reviews from other runners — some really soft and springy foams can lose their bounce quickly, while some that are firmer initially, break in to become softer and then last longer.

Follow Tom's Guide fitness on Instagram for more workouts, routines, tips, and tricks.

More from Tom's Guide

• Forget pricey new running shoes — I would get these last-gen Hoka, Saucony and New Balance at a steep discount instead
• Coros Pace 4 vs Coros Pace 3 vs Coros Pace Pro: Which is the best Coros watch for you?
• Garmin Fenix 8 vs. Garmin Fenix 8 Pro: should you upgrade?

Running shoes don’t reach 18 generations if they’re not beloved, and the Brooks Ghost line has been one of the most popular options with runners for almost two decades at this point.

The reason for this isn’t that it’s the fastest or flashiest among the best running shoes; it’s because it’s extremely dependable. It’s cushioned and comfortable, very durable, good value, and works well for a wide range of runners.

It’s a shoe that runners of all levels turn to for their daily training as a result, and Brooks doesn’t make major changes to each new version of the Ghost so returning runners get the familiar ride feel they’re expecting.

The Brooks Ghost 18 has just launched, and it’s an evolution of the Brooks Ghost 17, with updates to the upper creating a more comfortable fit.

What’s new with the Brooks Ghost 18?

The main updates to the Ghost 18 are found in the upper, which is made with a new two-color air mesh material to improve both the comfort and security of the fit.

Brooks shoes are renowned for their step-in comfort and the padding around the collar and on the tongue of the shoe will give a plush feel, while the updated mesh ensures the Ghost 18 is still breathable.

Underfoot there’s a new Ortholite X-60 sockliner sitting on top of the nitrogen-infused DNA Loft v3 midsole, the same midsole foam used on the Ghost 17.

DNA Loft v3 is a foam used on many Brooks shoes that I’ve tested and it provides a well-balanced ride that’s comfortable but still responsive at faster paces.

It’s also a very consistent and durable material, in that it feels just as good at the end of a long run as it did at the start, and can stand up to hundreds of miles of running.

The outsole of the shoe sticks to the same long-lasting rubber as the Ghost 17 and the drop stays at 10mm, so runners who are long-term fans of the line should get a familiar underfoot feel from the Ghost 18 while enjoying the improved fit of the upper.

Join the Brooks Run Club for the chance to win a $30 gift code

The Brooks Run Club is free to join and brings with it regular rewards like early access to limited edition shoes and a free set of socks on your birthday when you spend $50.

Right now there’s also a promotion running that gives you the chance to win a $30 gift card if you sync your Brooks Run Club membership with your fitness tracker or Strava account.

The promotion runs through June 2026 and every month 100 members who have synced their accounts will win the $30 gift card, which you could use to knock the price of the Ghost 18 down to $120 if you’re keen to pick up the new shoe.

More from Tom's Guide

• I test running shoes for a living and you don’t need to buy the latest models — these 5 last-gen shoes are just as good and often on sale
• Coros Pace 4 vs Coros Pace 3 vs Coros Pace Pro: Which is the best Coros watch for you?
• Garmin Fenix 8 vs. Garmin Fenix 8 Pro: should you upgrade?

I’ve been testing running shoes for more than a decade, and during that time, there have undoubtedly been some incredible developments in the tech and materials used in the best sneakers.

Carbon plate racers have helped set world records, while max-stack cushioned shoes have brought more bounce and fun to daily training.

However, not every new shoe aims to reinvent the wheel, especially with the most popular lines of running shoes from major brands; the updates on the latest model can be very minimal, like tweaks to the upper or outsole, and some new colorways.

That’s why, in my running shoe reviews, I not only say whether a sneaker is actually good, but also if it’s a significant upgrade on the previous model, because the older shoe is more likely to appear in sales and save you money.

There are a lot of excellent running shoes out there right now that I simply wouldn’t buy, because the older model is just as good as them, and in some cases even a little better. Here are five great last-gen shoes I’d be looking for in sales.

Hoka Mach 6

I absolutely loved the Hoka Mach 7 when I tested it earlier this year, but when I did a run with it on one foot and the Mach 6 on the other, I struggled to tell them apart.

Both are lightweight, versatile daily trainers with a smooth, rockered ride, and the only real changes to the new shoe are a tweaked upper and outsole, neither of which really made a huge difference to me on the run.

The Mach 6 has been a regular feature in the Hoka and REI sales over the past few months, but stocks are starting to get low, so if you spy it for less than the Mach 7, I’d grab the deal while it lasts.

Saucony Hurricane 24

Another cushioned cruiser, the Saucony Hurricane 24 is also a shoe that offers stability thanks to the dual-density midsole it uses, with a softer, bouncier foam surrounded by a firmer frame that supports the foot on both sides.

If you’re a runner who overpronates or has flat feet, it’s a highly comfortable option for racking up the miles in, and the Hurricane 24 is just as good as the Saucony Hurricane 25 for this job, in my opinion.

I’ve run a lot of miles in both shoes, and while the Hurricane 25 is a little lighter, there’s not a lot in it, and they both perform the role of comfortable, stable cruiser just as well, so I’d scoop up the Hurricane 24 if you see it in a deal for less than the latest model.

New Balance Rebel v4

I gave the New Balance Rebel v5 a glowing review when I tested it last year, but in that review, I noted that it’s a similar shoe to the Rebel v4, and the older model is usually available on sale somewhere.

Both are lightweight but well-cushioned daily trainers that have a wide base to offer stability for easy and long runs.

They’re simple, good-looking, and good value shoes in my opinion, and there’s not enough of a difference between them to make paying more for the Rebel v5 worthwhile, if you can make a saving on the Rebel v4.

Saucony Endorphin Speed 4

The Saucony Endorphin Speed 4 is a plated training shoe that offers a fast, rockered ride for workouts and races, but is also comfortable enough for easy daily training runs as well, even if it’s not as comfortable as a dedicated cushioned shoe like the Brooks Glycerin Max.

I’ve loved every model of the Endorphin Speed, going back to the original, which I ran over 300 miles in, but it’s fair to say Saucony hasn’t hugely changed the shoe ever since the first model came out.

The Endorphin Speed 5 certainly felt very similar to the Endorphin Speed 4 in my testing, and with it being an expensive shoe, any discounts you see on the Speed 4 would make it the smarter buy.

Brooks Glycerin Max

The Brooks Glycerin Max 2 is a perfectly good cushioned running shoe, but it’s heavier than the original model and didn’t really improve the performance on the run in any way I noticed in testing.

That makes opting for the Brooks Glycerin Max a no-brainer in my view, especially as the Glycerin Max 2 is an expensive shoe at $200, and the older model has been available for $149 fairly regularly in the past few months.

Keep an eye out for a deal if you’re a runner who loves to use as cushioned a shoe as possible, and want a comfortable, rockered option for your daily training.

Asics Gel-Kayano 32

The Asics Gel-Kayano 32 is a max-cushioned stability shoe that offers a lot of comfort and support.

It's one of the more popular stability shoes on the market, as evidenced by the fact Asics has been making it for over 30 years, and old models of the Gel-Kayano are always worth looking for in sales.

I've just started testing the Asics Gel-Kayano 33 which does have an updated design with a new midsole set-up, but so far the shoe feels similar to the Gel-Kayano 32, and big discounts are popping up on the older shoe regularly.

More from Tom's Guide

• Not the Fenix 9 — this is the new Garmin watch I want to see in 2026
• Coros Pace 4 vs Coros Pace 3 vs Coros Pace Pro: Which is the best Coros watch for you?
• Garmin Fenix 8 vs. Garmin Fenix 8 Pro: should you upgrade?

When you first start running, you’ll almost certainly go too fast in your early workouts. It’s very hard not to, because the first half mile feels easy and almost euphoric; a feeling that quickly disappears when your body catches up with the idea that you’re running and everything starts to hurt.

If you’re following any kind of training plan or just trying to enjoy running several times a week, getting your pacing right is vital. Easy runs need to be easy, and hard runs need to be the right level of hard, or you won’t enjoy your workouts and your progress will stall.

Fortunately, there are several effective ways to pace your runs to judge your effort correctly, whether you plan on using one of the best running watches or just running on feel.

I’ve been running for over a decade and have followed a structured training plan for the past eight years, and I’ve tried all kinds of methods to judge my runs in that time, including pace, heart rate, power and running to feel.

There are pros and cons to each approach, but all of them can work well, so the right one for you will depend on your personality and running goals.

Here’s what I’ve learned about each one during my time as a runner.

Running to pace

How to do it: You’ll need a running watch for this, or just a timer if you’re running on a track where you know the distance.

You can use current pace, lap/split pace, or average pace to judge your runs. I use lap pace to judge workouts, because the current pace will jump around more based on the GPS accuracy at any given moment.

Rolling pace can also be useful for pacing longer efforts. This gives your pace for the preceding mile or kilometer (or a set distance you configure yourself with some apps).

Pros: Pace is very exact and easy to understand, and if you have a goal pace for a workout or race, then it’s a clear target to shoot for.

Cons: Your pace can be affected by things like hills, terrain, wind, illness and temperature, which your watch won’t pick up, so you might not be able to hit the pace you’re going for and be working harder or easier than you planned.

GPS accuracy can also affect pace, especially if you’re in an area with a lot of tree cover or tall buildings, so you have to be careful when using it in city center races in particular.

Running to heart rate

How to do it: Most smartwatches now have a built-in optical heart rate monitor, which is generally pretty reliable, but for the best accuracy, I use a chest strap or armband monitor that links to your watch to show your heart rate during runs.

Pros: Heart rate can give a better indication of how hard you’re actually working than pace, because it takes into account the effort you put in on hills or into a headwind, for example.

You can work in the right heart rate zone to produce the training effect you want from a run, like staying in zone 2 for easy efforts and pushing to zone 4 or 5 during intervals.

Cons: The preset heart rate zones on your watch will be based on a generic calculation that could be wrong for you, so you need to adjust them once you have a better idea of your max heart rate.

It can be frustrating to use heart rate when you’re new to running and find that you have to walk to stay in zone 2 during easy workouts.

If you’re aiming for a set time goal in a race, you might want to push for it regardless of what your heart rate is showing.

Running to feel

How to do it: Just go out and run! If it’s meant to be an easy run, then take it easy, and if you are doing a workout, try to judge your tempo and interval paces based on how it feels.

You can also use your breath or talking to judge running on feel. If you can maintain a conversation, you're running easy; if you can only say a sentence or two, it's likely a tempo effort, and if you can only get a word or two out, you're pushing to your max.

Pros: No tech is required, and running to feel gives you a better understanding of your body and can feel liberating.

Sometimes pace or heart rate can artificially limit you, and when running to feel, you can achieve your best results without any pressure from stats.

Cons: It’s an inexact approach, and it’s very easy to overdo things when running to feel, especially if you’re a newer runner.

It takes experience and discipline to run to feel, especially on race day, when you can convince yourself you’re running easy but are actually pushing too hard early on in an event.

Running to power

How to do it: Power is a catch-all stat for measuring the intensity of your run, which aims to take into account things like hills, pace and even weather conditions.

Running power is shown in watts and available natively on most sports watches, or you can get a footpod to measure power and beam it to your watch to view in real-time.

Pros: Like heart rate, power provides better insight into how hard you’re working than pace, because it takes into account external conditions.

Power also responds quicker to changes in effort than heart rate, and after using it for a while, you can work out your running power zones to train at different intensities, no matter what the weather is like or the terrain you’re running on.

Cons: Power is harder to understand for new runners than heart rate or pace, and I haven’t always found it to be that accurate in gauging my intensity during trail runs in particular.

It’s also not a direct measurement, which it is in cycling, where power is widely used. Running power estimates vary between brands depending on the algorithms they use, so you need to stick with one watch or brand for it to be consistent.

Follow Tom's Guide fitness on Instagram for more workouts, routines, tips, and tricks.

More from Tom's Guide

• Not the Fenix 9 — this is the new Garmin watch I want to see in 2026
• Coros Pace 4 vs Coros Pace 3 vs Coros Pace Pro: Which is the best Coros watch for you?
• Garmin Fenix 8 vs. Garmin Fenix 8 Pro: should you upgrade?

There are some killer deals up for grabs on running shoes this week. Now's the time to start exercising in the great outdoors, so make sure to take advantage of the sales while you can!

Whether you're looking for an affordable pair to get started with running for the first time or a lightweight, speedy pair of carbon plates to set personal bests, there are tons of opportunities to save. I've been searching the web for the best running shoe deals, so scroll down to check them out.

Note: prices may vary depending on the size and colour you choose. To find the best deals, check out any different color options available in your size.

Quick Links

• Adidas: up to 46% off
• Asics: up to 30% off
• Hoka: up to 40% off
• Nike: up to 30% off
• Saucony: up to 40% off
• Under Armour: deals from £25

Adidas