Ruth Chepng’etich won today’s Chicago Marathon, becoming the first woman in history to run a sub-2:10 marathon, finishing in 2:09:56.

The Kenyan’s time shed nearly a full two minutes off of the prior world record, which was 2:11:53. That time had been set by Tigst Assefa of Ethiopia last year at the Berlin Marathon.

Chepng’etich, wearing Nike’s AlphaFly 3, stormed to the front of the field at the start, with a 15:00 opening 5 kilometers that gave her a two second lead over Ethiopian Sutume Kebede she would never relinquish.

Kebede was the only runner in the same zip code as Chepng’etich through the 10 kilometer mark with another 15 minute split. But over the next stretch of miles the elastic between the two stretched ever further, and by the halfway mark Chepng’etich had built a 14 second lead.

Chepng’etich’s 40 kilometer split saw her come through in 2:03:11, needing to cover the final 2.2ish kilometers in 6:49 to squeak under the nearly unfathomable 2:10 mark. She barely made it — needing 6:47 to get it done.

Her final margin of victory was seven minutes and 36 seconds.

Chepng’etich dedicated her victory to the memory of men’s marathon world record holder Kelvin Kiptum, who died earlier this year in a car accident.

Image: Getty Images

The post Women’s Marathon World Record Shattered in Chicago first appeared on Slowtwitch News.

It has been nearly eight years since Nike blew apart the run shoe market with the original Vaporfly. Originally including the 4% tagline, it was claimed that the combination of foam cushioning and carbon plating would enhance performance by, you guessed it, 4%.

And a funny thing it happened: it worked. Records across the running and triathlon worlds were first broken, then shattered, thanks in part to shoes like the Vaporfly. Other brands went in hot pursuit, searching for the right mix of soft foam, carbon-plate location, and more. Then Nike raised the bar again with the AlphaFly. And as shown in our recent reporting on the top 10 run splits from Nice, Nike retains that leadership position at the top-end of the field.

Naturally, as age-group athletes seek out so-called “free speed” (I mean, you pay for that speed, but you get the idea), carbon-plated shoes are everywhere. But, well, some of us aren’t exactly efficient when it comes to our running strides. And as a shoe increases in foam stack height, it naturally becomes less stable, unless there is either a.) a broader base under the foot, or b.) the foot sits bucketed by the foam, making the effective height lower.

None of these shoes in this list are what we’d call traditional stability shoes — there isn’t any medial posting to be found on these. Instead, we’re looking for that platform stability that should help you take advantage of the benefits of carbon plates and newer foams. Also, all of these shoes meet World Athletics’ requirements for stack height in a race — meaning HOKA’s Skyward X, for instance, is on the cutting room floor.

HOKA Rocket X 2

The longest tenured shoe on this list, the current generation Rocket has been a staple of triathlon events since it first hit pavement at the two day IM World Championships in Kona in 2022. (Yes, it was technically a prototype then, but all of them said “Rocket X 2” on them.)

The Rocket X 2 was the launch of HOKA’s new PEBA foam, which brought the light, well-cushioned ride to the proceeding, while marrying it to existing work on carbon plates. Couple that with an ultralight upper and you have the recipe for a quick shoe. But what makes the Rocket X2 such a unique shoe is that it, like most classic HOKA shoes, sees your fit sit in the midsole, versus over it. Paired with a broad midfoot base and overall wide footprint, and it’s a very stable shoe — certainly much moreso than the newer Cielo X1. It’s also, unlike most carbon racers, comfortable at nearly every speed.

Saucony Endorphin Pro 4

Saucony, as a company, tends to be the first follower of trends. They were the first to follow the so-called natural running shoe market with the Kinvara. They were the first major manufacturer to abandon 12mm drop. And they were the first to bring out a shoe to compete against the Vaporfly with the Endorphin line.

The Pro, now in its fourth generation, sees a couple of concessions to the mainstream. First, Saucony’s making shoes with a variety of stack heights and drops again, with the Endorphin Pro now at 8 millimeters. What hasn’t changed? A very broad platform underfoot, lower stack heights than most other carbon plated shoes, and plenty of cushioning from the blend of PWRRUN foams underfoot. Although I still prefer the original generation to the newer models, this is a positive step in the right direction, and another shoe to consider.

Asics MetaSpeed Edge

The shoe of choice of IRONMAN World Championship runner-up Kat Matthews, the MetaSpeed Edge is the so-called strider’s shoe — it’s meant for runners who prefer turnover to longer length steps. With that comes a differently shaped carbon-fiber plate and unique midsole geometry. It’s lower to the ground versus the MetaSpeed Sky. By nature, it makes the Edge slightly more stable compared to the sister shoe Sky. And, beating the drum a bit here, but there’s a relatively forgiving profile under the midfoot.

Unlike some other shoes here, though, with both of these you sit on top of the midsole, versus in it. It leans harder into a neutral profile than others. But if you are a person who is faster turnover (e.g., you have no problem with beating 180 strides per minute), it’s another great option.

New Balance FuelCell SuperComp Elite v4

New Balance as a brand typically lags a bit further behind the bell curve. When they have a winning formula, it generally sticks with it. Case in point: the 990 line.

New Balance was a bit later to the carbon shoe game, but they brought out two excellent products in the SuperComp Elite and SuperComp Pacer — the latter of which was used to great effect by Laura Philipp to claim the IRONMAN World Championship. The Pacer is technically meant for shorter races, whereas the Elite is their entrant in the long distance racing category. Surprisingly, it is the higher stack Elite that also has a bit more stable profile underfoot. It comes down to, again, midsole width and increasing the total area in contact with the ground at once.

FuelCell, NB’s foam, is one of the softest in race shoes today. Of this list it’s the most likely to be mistaken for a HOKA in terms of pure cushioning. The general trade-off with NB shoes? They tend towards slightly heavier, with a men’s size 9 coming in at 8.4 ounces. For comparison, it’s a full ounce heavier than the AlphaFly, Endorphin Pro, and Rocket X2. Personally, I don’t think shoe weight matters that much, so long as it’s the best match for you, your foot, and your stride. But it’s something worth noting.

Which One Should You Buy?

I’m going to cheat: the one that fits you the best.

Without trying them on, ideally at your local specialty run store, there’s no good way to make a determination of what shoe is best. What works well for me may cause you significant issues, or vice versa. Example: one of the shoes not on this list (the MetaSpeed Sky) is one of my favorite shoes to run in, although the extremely narrow midfoot contact point gives me pause as to how it would hold up for anything longer than a half marathon.

Lead Image: RWBMultimedia / IRONMAN
Shoe Photos Courtesy of Manufacturers

The post Carbon Racers for the Rest of Us first appeared on Slowtwitch News.

The Nike LunaRacer was the first shoe I ever really loved. I wore a pair during my first Ironman win in Penticton in 2009, and then a modified version – the Lunar Mariah – at Arizona that same year that in hindsight was a step down; I was looking for a roomier toebox, which the Mariah offered, but it wasn’t overall as good a shoe. The upper was heavier and more prone to water retention and was fundamentally a worse Ironman shoe. But the sole – the Lunar foam – was amazing. Lunar foam was probably ahead of its time; without a carbon fiber plate, the bounciness wasn’t as propulsive as the current generation of super shoes, and I think this is likely why it never really took off the way I believe Nike thought it would.

Along with the original Hoka Bondis, these shoes were a complete departure from the fairly minimal shoes I typically enjoyed running in. Though I think that a part of that enjoyment was learned behavior. This was during the height of the minimalist phase of shoes, and while I never fully bought into the idea that running in minimal shoes could make your feet stronger, I thought if if you paid attention to lower-leg and foot strength as I did, that minimal shoes were beneficial from a performance standpoint. That is, minimalist shoes were useful tools to get faster. There’s continued research supporting this – INSERT LINK, and I suspect much of my “enjoyment” of these shoes came from a sense that they were accretive to my performance on race day. And, over time, they just became familiar. And certainly I loved the light weight. That feeling of the shoes being barely there, especially since I ran mostly on trails and dirt roads.

From mid-2018 until early 2020, I stopped running entirely to focus on track cycling. Running wasn’t going to make me a faster cyclist, and I had not yet really come to appreciate training outside of the concept of competition. I loved training, but in a “type 2 fun sense of the word. I appreciated the process of training and the sense of becoming fitter and faster. Training was fun because of its utility. This didn’t diminish its fun from my perspective. I loved – and still love – that sense of purpose. I derive a tremendous sense of satisfaction from repetition and process. And so when running wasn’t really servicing any sort of larger goal, I just stopped doing it. At times, I missed it. But I was more consumed then by the larger goal and purpose of pursuit training, and so whatever emotional attachment I had to running was a distant second to the primary attachment I had to the process of becoming faster on the velodrome.

It wasn’t really until perspective was forced upon me by the Covid lockdown that I realized I just loved training for its own sake and for the simple joy of being active. And it was at this point, I started to run again. In the same minimalist shoes I’d always run in. But these minimal shoes were always facilitators of “type 2” fun. Starting during the lockdown, the idea of the “fun scale” has taken on a preeminent role in how I think about training and – more generally – being active in my post-professional life. For those who aren’t familiar with it, the fun scale classifies fun into three distinct categories:
– Type 1: this is fun while you are doing
– Type 2: this is hard – and possibly unpleasant – while you are doing it, but fun in retrospect. Type 2 fun is what is most typically associated with endurance sport.
– Type 3: this is fun that is not actually fun. Like, an idea that seemed good but wasn’t, either during or after.

I’ve written recently about how certain decisions have made training “more fun.” For clarity, what I really mean is that I’ve found ways to turn training from almost exclusively “type 2” fun into “type 1” fun. I’d admittedly not thought about this all that much as an idea – training was *always* type 2 fun; that’s just how things worked – until I read a profile in the NY Times of 2021 pursuit world champion, former pursuit world record holder, and current America’s Cup cyclor Ashton Lambie that presented the shocking (to me) idea that Ashton was satisfied to just … ride. The real nugget comes at the end, though, where a former boss of Lambie’s says that his super power is that he experienced endurance training and feats that should have been type 3 (aka “not fun”) as type 2 fun. I wondered if you couldn’t take this a step further. If you could enjoy something that you shouldn’t, could you change *how* you enjoyed something that you should? If Ashton could experience type 3 fun as type 2 fun, I wondered if I could experience type 2 fun as type 1 fun. Could I just enjoy the simple act of doing, outside of any larger sense of purpose? Like Ashton, I think I managed often to experience type 3 fun as type 2. I think my best races were always on hard courses – often in particularly brutal conditions – because I think I just liked those courses. Winning the inaugural Leadman 250 in Las Vegas, when high temperatures in the aptly named Valley of Fire national park hit well into the triple digits and the winds were so strong my lead motorcycle ran out of gas 20 miles from T2, was probably the most fun I can remember ever having on a race course. It was a race that in some ways seemed impossible. And it was perfect.

I’d always had fun training. I loved my time as a professional, but it was pretty much always type 2 fun. I loved the feeling of accomplishment. The satisfaction of setting a goal and achieving it. And it wasn’t that I disliked like it in the moment; it was more that I’d developed over many years an understanding of the value of that delayed gratification. Something was fun because it *would be* rewarding. But the idea that it could be rewarding in the moment? That was an interesting idea.

In 2022, I got pulled into running a Ragnar Road Ultra with some friends from work. And I thought, if only for the performance and energy savings/return over 36 miles, I ought to get a pair of super shoes to run it in. I tried a few different pairs but didn’t find any that really clicked. And then I tried the Asics MetaSpeed Sky, and I thought, “oh wow. These are fast. And … fun.” Running in the shoes felt a bit like a joke. The old adage is that there’s no such thing as “free” speed. And yet suddenly there was. I liked running in those shoes. They had all the bounce and enjoyment of the Lunars and Hokas, but with that added propulsive magic of the carbon plate. There was none of the sponginess of those other shoes. That sense that yes they felt good, but that the good feeling was coming at a cost. For the first time, the shoes that felt the best were also the fastest.

For reasons mostly of price and durability – and lingering questions about the possible detriments of running in fully-plated shoes for all runs, I knew that the MetaSpeeds would not be my everyday shoe. But was there something “close enough”? I’d always had a special fondness for Asics shoes both because of their incredible history and because the Asics Piranha was the shoe that allowed me to race an Ironman after my near fatal hit-and-run accident in 2010; yes, I ran Ironman Arizona 2010 in a pair of what Asics marketed as 5k flats, because the minimalist, low-profile offered a stability that kept excruciating IT band syndrome from accident at bay. The sponginess of the Lunar foam shoes set my IT band on fire, because I didn’t yet fully understand what I really liked in shoes – a wide toebox, a broad midfoot at the sole but not in the arch (I have high arches), and a snug upper. I want the sole to be wide at the midfoot, but the upper to be relatively narrow so as to offer a sense of support under my arch. Our own Ryan Heisler helped me distill this when I sent him a list of shoes that I had run in that I had liked and those that I had not liked. He wrote back and said, “this is what you want from a shoe.” And he was 100% right, and this razor has never really failed me since.

Having found joy in the Asics MetaSpeed Sky, I decided to try the first version of the Asics MagicSpeed. The MagicSpeed was Daniela Ryf’s shoe of choice for Ironman racing, and it’s certainly a race-competent shoe. But it’s not a “super” shoe. It’s really more of a “tempo trainer,” with good – but not super – foam. And a partial caron plate, at least in the first and second versions; the third version makes it more of a race-oriented shoe with a full-length plate and more race-y foam; most reviewers praise these changes, but with a couple hundred miles in the third revision, I can say that they are good, but – for me – less universally outstanding. While this article is ostensibly about the MagicSpeed as a shoe, it’s really about finding shoes that bring you joy. The MagicSpeed and MagicSpeed 2 brought me joy. The MagicSpeed 3 is a very good. But it’s more purposeful. It’s definitely less good for easy running, which for me means 5:00/km+ (8:00/mi). It’s a tempo shoe. Or a race shoe. It’s fine for an easy jog, but the shoe feels a bit underwhelming. Part of this is the more race-oriented upper; the best upper – so far – was the 2nd revision, which was sort of a knit-style upper (without being a truly knitted upper). I like the shoe a lot, and with more of my easy miles on trails in the Speedland GS, I don’t mind so much that it’s not as good overall. It’s marginally better for fast running – and is certainly a more affordable race-day shoe, but it just seems like Asics went away from a shoe that was good at literally everything to make some small gains in the fastest runs. Would I have fallen in love with the MagicSpeed 3 if it was the only shoe I ran in – as was the case when I bought my first pair of MagicSpeeds? Hard to say. I think having a better idea of what I really enjoy in shoes, I’m more critical now. Having become open to the idea of a plated, high-rebound shoe, I was a bit of a blank slate when I got that first pair. I’d basically stopped running for almost two years. So I think inevitably there was some sheen to just rediscovering how great running was that the shoes benefitted from. Now, being back in the routine of regular running – and having found another shoe that I truly love in the Speedland GS, I think I’m more critical and my expectations are higher. It’s also possible that I was an odd consumer of the MagicSpeed, wanting it as an everyday shoe rather than as a slightly cheaper race shoe. But to me, that partial carbon plate was perfect. And the slightly heavier – but more forgiving – upper, especially on the MagicSpeed 2 was superb. When I finally killed my first pair of MagicSpeed 2s, I immediately bought another pair. When this pair of MagicSpeed 3s dies, I might – might – try something else. But probably not. The shoe is still really good.

But that first pair of MagicSpeeds was, simply, magic. This was a shoe I just liked to run in. It made running on the road substantially more enjoyable. I love running on the road because I find it a bit easier to fall into the zone than on the trails, where you need some level of constant vigilance to ensure you don’t twist an ankle. And because the road is fast. But it’s also unforgiving. Or, at least, it was until I ran in more responsive shoes. That made the road more forgiving, but without taking away any of what I enjoyed. Running on the road became a lot more fun. More type 1 fun. I just liked lacing up the MagicSpeeds and running. It felt good *while* I was running. I felt fast. I didn’t feel beat up. I ran more often with a smile. I wanted to run just to run.

I put a few hundred miles on that first pair of MagicSpeeds and then replaced them with MagicSpeed 2s, which notably improved the upper – really the only area of weakness on the first version, tweaked the outsole a bit to make it more durable, and was – in general – a solid update across the board. It kept everything I loved and fixed the few things I did not. The MagicSpeed 2 was – unquestionably – my favorite shoe ever, at least until I ran in the Speedland GS, though I think the MagicSpeed helped me to really appreciate the Speedlands in a way that I might not have before. I had run on and off since retiring, including an almost 18 month stretch without any running when I was focused on pursuing, and it was the MagicSpeeds that made me fall in love with running again. I don’t see myself ever taking another break from running, and I credit the MagicSpeeds for helping me rediscover the joy of running. The shoes were fast and fun. And they changed my expectations of what a great shoe could – and ultimately should – deliver.

Falling back in love with running made me appreciate the possibility that training more broadly could be type 1 fun. In finding a pair of shoes that was both fast and fun, I set out to find more ways that I could enjoy training while I was doing it. This led me to the Speedlands. To moving my bike computer to my wrist. To riding my gravel bike only with fat 650B tires. To get back on my rowing machine. The Asics MagicSpeed changed my perceptions of what a shoe could be. And what it could offer. And in doing so it helped reshape my sense of purpose and my belief in the value of training. I’ve always loved training. But now, I find, I especially love it in the moment. If that isn’t magic, I don’t know what is.

The post MagicSpeed Is Magic first appeared on Slowtwitch News.

As a self-admitted gear nerd, particularly for running shoes, this article’s been germinating in my head ever since I decided to enter IRONMAN Lake Placid. The mission: take four pairs of shoes that I was contemplating wearing for the race, put them through a series of tests, and come away with a winner. Sounds simple, right?

The hard part was coming up with the comparison set. Some of that is wallet-related — two of the four shoes in this test were paid for out of my own pocket. But it was also trying to figure out a fair set of shoes to compare against. I respond extremely well to carbon-plated shoes, but seeing as I’m not exactly expecting a blazing run time in LP, would that be the right play?

Ultimately I settled on four options, all of them with carbon-plates, with an added criteria for slow-speed comfort. Because, well, let’s face it — the wheels are likely to come off at some point, and I’d like to be prepared for that moment.

Let’s meet the contenders. We have two entrants from HOKA — the still available Rocket X2 that put HOKA’s racing line-up on the map, and the new this year Cielo X1. Both shoes tower over the competition in physical height, although all meet the World Athletics criteria for measured stack. I purchased a pair of Asics MetaSpeed Sky Paris, as I was first shocked that Fleet Feet West Hartford even had a pair of fun shoes in my size in stock (nobody carries a 13 in anything fun) and then wowed by the try-on feel. And, lastly, I had to put old reliable in the mix: a pair of Saucony’s Endorphin Pro, but two generations old. Why not the newer ones? Because I tend to prefer lower drop shoes, and because the mid foot carve out has gotten so narrow as to be untenable for my foot shape and gait.

Before we dive in, a quick discarding of why some shoes aren’t here. Nike’s carbon shoes are so narrow under the mid foot that it aggravates some posterior tibial tendonitis symptoms. I found On to be far too harsh of a ride with a poor fit. I could not find a local shop that carried Brooks Hyperion Elite without forcing me to pay up front for it as a special order. And New Balance was out of stock of the FuelCell SuperComp Elite v4.

Let’s start comparing.

Uppers and Initial Feel

When I was working shoe floors, we used to say that the first feeling once you put on a shoe would make or break the experience. If you don’t like a shoe the second you put it on, it is highly unlikely that shoe feel is going to get much better when you start running in it. There are some exceptions to that rule — one of them in this comparison — but it’s a good rule of thumb.

Despite both being from HOKA, the Cielo and the Rocket could not be more dissimilar in initial feel. The upper on the Rocket is thinner, with a nearly non-existent heel counter that can make putting the shoe on a chore. That said, once inside the shoe, you have a typical HOKA experience: a plush, premium underfoot feel, a snug midfoot wrap, and freedom in the toe box. The Cielo, meanwhile, is a much boxier fit despite the tongue attaching to the midsole in an intended wrap. It also feels far less stable than the Rocket, with an initial giveaway — your foot sits *in* the Rocket, like most HOKAs, whereas your foot rides *on top* of the Cielo’s midsole.

The MetaSpeed came across as somewhere between the HOKA’s. The upper reminds me more of the Rocket X2, but you’re definitely riding on top of the midsole like the Cielo. Despite a nearly flat insole, the MetaSpeed also has the most pronounced feeling arch of the bunch, and it announces the most loudly walking around that it is, indeed, a carbon-plated racer. It’s the raciest feeling of the bunch — and definitely not something that screamed that it would be particularly comfortable when running in.

The Endorphin Pro reminded me why I’ve run in Saucony’s ever since the original Kinvara came to market. It follows the typical Saucony low-offset playbook: wide midfoot platform, medium arch, narrow heel, wide toe box. It’s familiar. It’s a cozy blanket on a cold winter morning; a comfort. (So, Saucony, BRING THIS BACK. Love, Me.)

Speed Testing

To test my response to the carbon plate in each shoe, I ran multiple times in each pair across what my wife and I dub “the Loop” here at the house. It’s a rolling 2.5 mile trip that includes roughly one mile on our well-packed gravel road; a mile that trends downhill on a broad highway shoulder; and a half mile stretch that includes a third of a mile hill that tops out at a 21% grade to come back to the house.

I targeted the very top-end of my “Z1” heart rate (I operate on a ZR-Z1-Z2-Z3 system) in order to drive consistency across them. Temperatures and conditions were mixed for each shoe, with each getting a run in similar weather and my personal fatigue levels based on the rest of my training.

The clear winner of the speed test was the MetaSpeed Sky. Over the rolling terrain of this course, the combination of the longer stride made available by the foam and carbon plate and flexibility of the forefoot when running uphill combined for a shoe that was, on average, 13 seconds per mile faster than any other shoe in the test. It particularly excelled on the flats and downhills, with a peak pace at my target HR of 6:44/mile.

The next two shoes surprised me, with the Endorphin Pro and the Rocket X2 tying for second place. I think that surprise came from the running experience in both; the Saucony feels a little snappier underfoot, whereas the Rocket X2 came across as a smoother run experience. That said, the Rocket X2 was a touch more difficult to push uphill with the combination of higher midsole height and carbon plate. Overall the Endorphin Pro gave me the most consistent run pace across the course, whereas the Rocket X2 would, like the MetaSpeed, give me more bang for my buck on flats and downhills but give that time back going up.

I don’t quite know what it was with the Cielo, whether it was the feeling of additional height or stability, or if I was running scared in the shoe, but for whatever reason, HR was almost always a tick higher, and pace a tick slower, than any other shoe in the test, regardless of conditions or training load. It was also my least favorite shoe to come up that hill with. It’s still faster than my baseline training shoes, to be certain — but it didn’t feel great while getting there.

Slower Speed Comfort

Carbon plate efficiency is one thing. How the shoe tolerates running at what will most likely be my IM pace on the flats and uphills is another. Because, as I said before — the wheels are bound to come off at some point (probably, oh, the corner of River Road and Sentinel Road on run lap 2). For this part of the test, I aimed for a ceiling heart rate of 140, which would typically translate out into a run pace in the mid 8s to low 9s per mile. Runs varied in distance between 7.5 and 12.5 miles in total, and may have included walking breaks on the large climbs near my house in order to keep HR in check.

This is where the Saucony shined. The shoe was comfortable at any pace that was run in it. It was also the only shoe that I did not blister in once. It didn’t matter if it was 95 degrees or 45 degrees. It also did the best job dampening the times where the town decided the best approach to managing our gravel road was by dumping as much loose rock on it as it could.

The Rocket X2 came closest to that experience, with a nearly perfect experience while running in a wide variety of temperatures and pace matching that of the Saucony’s. It, too, was also quite stable. The biggest flaw of the shoe is the gap in the heel; the number of times I got a rock stuck in that section of the shoe entered double digits on a single run. And it drove me bananas.

The MetaSpeed and Cielo were tied on this count, for different reasons. The MetaSpeed is simply a shoe that wants to run fast; the platform stability of the shoe improves at quicker paces. But it’s not something I’d call a particularly comfortable shoe. The midfoot felt harsh. There’s a *lot* of sound. And the upper is so thin, without a toe bumper, that clipping a rock when my form was less than perfect hurt so much I initially thought I’d broken the toe.

On the Cielo, the same stability issues that plagued the faster runs came up during slower ones, too. Quite simply, sitting on top of the midsole, with a narrower cut in the midfoot, just does not work for me. It also had the same issue as the Rocket X2 of jamming rocks into the heel. I think I was most shocked by this shoe overall — and mostly for the wrong reasons.

Final Placing

Fourth place was easy: HOKA’s Cielo X1 is, unfortunately, a shoe that just does not work for me at any speed. To be clear, that doesn’t make it a bad shoe; it makes it a bad shoe for me. I think if you’re someone who has traditionally liked, say, some of the Nike carbon shoes but don’t want to give Nike any money, this might be a strong solution.

Now comes the hard part. Ultimately I wound up weighting long run comfort slightly more than carbon plate efficiency. Whether that’s your choice, well, that’s up to you and your run time. With that in mind, I award silver medals to the Rocket X2 and the MetaSpeed Sky. And somehow, despite being a few models old, the Saucony Endorphin Pro wins out this round.

The post Gear Battle: Run Shoes for IM Lake Placid first appeared on Slowtwitch News.

Why two shoes in one review you ask? Well, they are kind of the same shoe but built for different people so I thought it made sense to review both at the same time. I’ll explain in a moment.

adidas, a brand with a long history in running, yet a complicated one in the recent world of run specialty retail so not familiar to many. adidas gets credit for changing the industry with the launch of Boost foam back in 2013 as it was the first trainer with a bouncy, high response foam, a foam created by BASF that had a higher rebound then regular EVA. When Boost launched every other brand realized they had to play catchup and fast.

At that time, adidas dedicated a lot of resources on being in run stores and getting on the feet of everyday runners and it worked, as Boost was very successful. Yes, it was kind of heavy, but man what a ride and so different from everything else at the time.

Then they did a corporate shift away from brick-and-mortar stores and changed to a direct-to-consumer focus and promptly lost the everyday runner as they also shifted away from Boost to newer foams and an elite level focus. They were still making some great shoes, but more in the niche/specialized category of high performance (adizero) and lost ground to every other brand that was outfitting the masses, and also launching their own new high rebound foams.

Enter 2024 and a complete re-focus for the product line, with dedicated models for the masses, while still making great high-end products. Think of Supernova as a collection of models for the everyman/women. The workhorse shoe that logs all the miles and doesn’t cost you your first born. Now why the two-shoe review? As I stated, they are very similar, Rise is the neutral daily trainer and Solution is the guidance version. Both feature Dreamstrike+ midsoles and very similar support rods between the Dreamstrike+ foam and the rubber outsole.

Those EVA rods on the Solution are aligned a bit more to the medial side by combining two rods together, offering more guidance/control, while on the Rise they remain more neutral providing transition assistance from heal to forefoot. Looking at the midsole, they are very similar with the Solution offering a higher stack height. Its in the midsole where you can easily see the difference between the two shoes Support Rods (the grey foam near the outsole), with the rods on the Solution being thicker and more sculpted, again to provide additional support/guidance.

So, how do they feel? Really nice. My foot pattern from midstance to toe off does best in a guidance shoe as my foot travels from lateral to medial going too far past neutral, losing me propulsion forces and causing my Achilles to be a mess. So, for me the Solution is a “better” option and between the upper, higher stack and extra guidance I got a really nice riding shoe for daily mileage. My heart, on the other hand ,preferred the Rise — a little lower to the ground, a slightly snappier, more alive ride and some extra flexibility. I do know long term for me that adds up to issues but if I had both I’d use Rise on shorter, quicker days and Solution on longer, slower days.

Overall, both shoes are really nice options. Great mesh on the upper that has a very good accommodating fit. Both are well cushioned without being overly soft and mushy and have some pop to them (Ride has more pop, Solution more cushion). It comes down to whether you need a little extra guidance in your stride but I’d say these are the 2 best daily trainers adidas has made in years. Add them to a rotation of faster models such as Boston 12 and adios Pro 3 and adidas has you covered.

Specifications

Supernova Rise
Cost: $140.00
Mens: 9.7oz (275g)
Womens: 8.6oz (243g)
Stack: 28.5mm/18.5mm
Drop: 10mm
*My 10.5 US weighed 10.7 oz (304g)

Supernova Solution
Cost: $140.00
Mens: 10.3oz (293g)
Womens: 8.6oz (245g)
Stack: 35mm/25mm
Drop: 10mm
*My 10.5 US weighed 10.7 oz (304g)

You can purchase either shoe here.

**I have no idea how my two pairs weigh exactly the same but they do, they shouldn’t but they do

The post Reviewed: adidas Supernova Rise & Solution first appeared on Slowtwitch News.

Let's get it out of the way first: so far, most people hate the laces on HOKA's latest race offering, the Cielo X1. Triathletes are going to really hate them. They are stiff and not easy to tighten quickly. Once in place, they do provide serious, lock in place support if you can find your perfect fit. But for triathlon, just pull the laces out and replace with your favorite elastic lace.

OK, now for the rest of the shoe. First spotted on sponsored athletes in summer/fall 2023 (though with a Rocket X2 upper and often wrongly reported to be a Rocket X3), the Cielo X1 is the newest and highest energy return shoe HOKA have made. The 2-layer PEBA midsole with carbon fiber plate sandwiched in the middle features dynamic cutouts through the midsole to reduce weight, though the Cielo X1 is not the lightest racer on the market coming in at a listed weight of 9.3 oz.

Different from most Hoka over the years the Cielo X1 is a 7mm drop shoe, higher than what the brand has previously offered. Part of this is Hoka has changed how they measure drop, now including the Strobel and insole and part is yeah, it’s a slightly higher drop. If you’re the type that can notice 2mm it may feel higher, most won’t notice a thing. (Editor’s Note: to borrow the old phrase from Mizuno – focus on miles, not millimeters.)

When I first put these on, I wasn’t sure what to think. I have a fairly high arch and yet I could feel the midfoot filling up under my foot, almost like a bump. Then I walked around, still not really sure it is even going to be “like” let along “love” as they felt pretty unstable walking around. Next up was to run and there it is, a really nice pop of rebound with every foot strike. I land pretty midfoot and that is the sweet spot for the Cielo X1. The shoe has a very pronounced rocker shape and I don’t think landing rearfoot will work very well but that midfoot “fullness” I felt when I first put these on acted like a bounce house under full run force as it compressed and rebounded and I liked it.

I did have to stay focused on form as when I got a little lazy, I could feel the shoe being a little unstable as my foot landed a little further back and with more lateral sway. It seemed to be at least less stable compared to the New Balance SuperComp Elite v4 that I tested just before these. While running hard I really liked the feel, responsiveness, and the shoes’ ability to absorb a ton of impact.

The upper is very supportive with a unique ribbed knit upper that reminds me of Nike Aeroswift half tights. There is also a knit gusseted tongue that wraps the foot nicely and is forgiving enough for the high instep crowd. HOKA says the upper is very breathable but being in Western NY, aka, almost Canada, in February, I can’t easily test that out as my feet are not going to get warm here (though they also didn’t get cold, which honestly, they never do, years of running sockless all year round will do that) The material is a little on the thick/stiff/supportive side so those with wide feet may not fit too well here as I don’t think there will be much give.

A large pull tab is on the tongue to grab so the guested tongue doesn’t push down. A fairly firm yet low heel counter helps to really lock the rearfoot in place and should keep any slippage issues to a minimum as I’ve seen none so far. Between the upper material, the laces and the heel counter my foot was locked in over the midsole.

At the recent Orlando Marathon Trials, Hoka athletes were all in Cielo X1 from what I saw. Non-sponsored athletes wearing Hoka were in Rocket X2, most likely due to Cielo X1 releasing 2 days before the race. I expect to see people moving to Cielo X1 from Rocket X2 for its higher energy return and I won’t be surprised if a v2 somewhere in the future ends up being lighter weight as they find places to trim some grams.

Overall, I’ve enjoyed the ride and fit of the shoe. Weight weenies will find it heavy but it sure does soak up the miles and provides a lot of bounce. And remember, for triathlon, swap out the laces ASAP.

HOKA Cielo X1 Stats
Price: $275.00
Released February 1, 2024
Unisex: 9.3 oz (264g)
Stack: 40mm/33mm
Drop: 7mm
*My 10.5 US weighed 9.5oz (270g)

The post Reviewed: HOKA Cielo X1 first appeared on Slowtwitch News.

At over 125 years old Saucony has a long history in footwear. They also have a long history in triathlon through sponsorship of numerous legends of the sport and at one time even owned bike brand Quintana Roo. Needless to say, they know how to make some good running shoes and they remain a strong player in multisport.

Ride 17 is version 17 of the good old daily trainer from Saucony. Really it could be considered even older as it has DNA from the Trigon Series from the 90’s and you could go so far as say a bit of Jazz 3000 bloodline as a nicely cushioned, do a bit of everything for a moderately priced shoe.

Ride 17 updates

The biggest update is to the midsole as it now features PWRRUN+ foam, same as the current Triumph 21 (though with 2mm lower stack in the rearfoot). PWRRUN+ is a low-density PU based foam that allows for lower weight, softer feel and a bit more responsiveness than previously used foams. It doesn’t have the pop and rebound of say the Endorphin Speed but as an every day log some mileage shoe it has a very nice, lively ride to it.

Saucony is also gradually moving back to their traditional fit of a narrower heel and a slightly roomier toebox. For decades this is what made the brand so popular, especially with women, as the heel and midfoot was nice and secure and the forefoot gave the toes just a little extra space to wiggle. It's good to see this move from what has been a bit of a sloppy rearfoot fit.

The engineered mesh upper is soft and accommodating and as mentioned above the toes have some breathing room. Those with really narrow feet or those that like a snug fit would do better to look elsewhere as the front may feel too roomy.

Another highlight for me is that there is a nice amount of rubber on the outsole. A lot of shoes try to reduce weight by leaving the midsole foam exposed, resulting in a lighter shoe that will wear out faster. The Ride 17 has a nice nearly full outsole, which provides plenty of grip and will help the shoe last for many miles.

With my high instep I do feel a slight amount of pressure over the very top of my foot where the laces are tied. Some of that is the attached tongue but mostly is just my foot; the majority of people won’t have an issue and I can easily log miles with no issues. It’s just something I slightly felt if I had them on for a long time.

To me one thing that makes a really good shoe is when you don’t think about it at all during a run, it just works and does its job, that’s the Ride 17. It isn’t flashy, it doesn’t make you super excited. I could log miles and never really think about what was on my feet. I didn’t have to figure out lacing, or deal with any issues, you can just run.

Specs and Availability

$140.00
Men: 9.9 oz (282g)
Women: 8.4 oz (238g)
Stack: 35/27mm
Drop: 8mm
Standard and wide width options available
*My 10.5 US weighed 10.6 oz (300g)

The post Reviewed: Saucony Ride 17 first appeared on Slowtwitch News.

Editor's Note: We're happy to welcome Boots, AKA FF Boots on the forum, to our writing team. Boots co-owns, with his wife Ellen, Fleet Feet Rochester's three stores in upstate New York and the event company YellowJacket Racing.

First, before diving into the specifics of this shoe, I wanted to go through a bit of my history and philosophy when it comes to testing.

As the shoe buyer for my stores, I’ve been evaluating and testing shoes for decades now and also consult with brands on future product development. I’m known for being bluntly honest with brands, which is seen as a pro and a con depending on what the brand was hoping to hear.

In terms of fitting experience, I’ve personally fit everyone from young kids and senior citizens to professional athletes across numerous sports as well as Olympic Gold Medalists.

I also have a long history with launching new brands and products. My stores were one of the earliest HOKA dealers in the US, and the same with On Running. I’ve worked closely with Karhu and Diadora on their revitalization in to the marketplace. Essentially, I like new stuff and evolving the industry.

When it comes down to it, my “philosophy” when it comes to testing and evaluating product is as follows:

1. I test through the eyes of the intended customer, and NOT my personal preferences.
2. I take in to account the direction I may know a brand is headed with their product and where the current product falls within that journey.
3. I don’t adhere to going longer to make a shoe fit a wider foot, just get a shoe that fits correctly, both length and width.
4. The boring stuff is just as important as the cool flashy new toys. The majority of runners are wearing good, solid daily trainers, and not carbon plated, super foam shoes.
5. Shoe weight is not at the top of the list for me. How a shoe works with a person’s biomechanics is most important. An extra ounce for a shoe that might improve biomechanics, efficiency and power is worth it.

Now, with that. The shoe in question. Whether you call them super shoes, cheater shoes, KISS army platform racers, whatever you want; they are here to stay and only getting better (and faster).

What makes super shoes "super" — is it the Foam or is it the carbon plate? The answer is yes. The trend for high stack height racers was made possible by the use of super lightweight yet highly responsive foams for the midsole. This allowed for an increase in shock absorption that helps the legs and also for the shoe to “give back” more of the energy that is put into it with each foot strike. Add in a carbon plate that 1, helps stabilize all that tall squishy foam and 2, propels the foot through its gait cycle faster and presto, you have a really fast shoe.

With the introduction of version 4, New Balance has taken a big step up in performance with the SuperComp (hereafter, shortened to “SC”) Elite. The 100% PEBA midsole increases energy return and makes for a really nice, soft ride. The re-designed carbon plate with energy arc (where the plate and the void in the midsole are designed to work together to increase energy return) makes for an even faster transition to toe off.

I don’t have a ton of miles on mine yet but one thing I’ve always liked about the SC Elite is while being very fast it is also fairly stable, which is good for those not running 2:10 marathon pace. The wide platform underfoot gives a decent amount of support for more mortal paces, including those of us that utilize occasional walk breaks.

The upper on v4 is one of the more “trainer” like uppers of all super shoes. By that I mean it’s not overly tight or narrow and should be rather accommodating for a wide range of foot shapes. One downside that is triathlon specific is that the tongue of the shoe does not come up very high, so there’s nothing to easily grab in transition and get your foot into the shoe. If this is an issue for you, any local shoe repair store should be able to add pull tabs to the tongue (and heel if you prefer) or you could just cut the entire tongue off.

I often like to wear a low-profile aftermarket insert such as a Superfeet Dynamic or Currex RunPro and the stock insole on the v4 is easily removable making this possible. Note, for triathlon I suggest adding extra glue under the insole so it doesn’t move during transition.

For the wide foot fam, SC Elite v4 comes in a wide option for both men and women. That’s a big deal — there are very few other shoes in this category that come in widths — and sticks to the NB legacy of width options in abundance.

Overall, I find the ride soft but not overly squishy with nice rebound/energy return and I have had no issues with the fit of the upper. For those that some super shoes feel unstable underfoot the New Balance SC Elite v4 could be a very good option with its wider platform underfoot offering a nice base of support.

New Balance FuelCell SuperComp Elite v4
Price: $250.00

Published Specifications:
Mens: 8.4 oz (237g)**
Womens: 6.6 oz (188g)
Stack: 40mm/36mm
Drop: 4mm
Standard and wide width options available

**My 10.5 US sized pair weighed 9.2 oz (262g)

The post Reviewed: New Balance FuelCell SuperComp Elite v4 first appeared on Slowtwitch News.

Elite triathletes are bigger than elite runners. This is especially the case at longer distances. World class IRONMAN triathletes are a lot larger than world class marathoners.

I noticed this decades ago, because for a dozen years many or most of the top triathletes used wetsuits I made so I had some general (within a range) insight into their morphologies. The Big Four (Mark Allen, Dave Scott, Scott Tinley and Scott Molina) all wore the same size, even though we made at least a dozen sizes of wetsuits. That particular size fit men who were, plus or minus, 5'11" or 6 feet tall, and who weighed in the mid-150s to low-160s in pounds. If there was a prototypical triathlon morphology for men, that appeared to be it. That observation has stuck over time.

Yes there were outliers like Greg Welch and Christian Bustos, who were 15 or 20 pounds lighter, but most top male triathletes of that day including Rob Barel, Ken Glah, Wolfgang Dittrich, Ray Browning, Pauli Kiuru, Simon Lessing, Spencer Smith, Peter Reid, Jurgen Zack and on and on generally hovered around what in boxing would be the "middleweight" class and for the weights I'm referencing below I'm relying on results of Google queries of athletes' heights and weights. Today’s most elite runners at the 10k level up to the marathon are routinely 30 or more pounds lighter than listed weights of top IRONMAN triathletes (and many top Olympic distance men as well).

In pure run there are outliers as well, like Jakob Ingebrigtsen who is built like a triathlete at 6’1” and 163lb. He also is more of a middle distance runner who stretches to 5000 meters. Still, look at him in a Diamond League or WC 5000. He’s a giant among Lilliputians.

Same with women. Back in the 80s and 90s our most popular wetsuit size for elite women was "women’s medium" and if you look at the top triathletes from Erin Baker to Karen Smyers, Michellie Jones, Siri Lindley, Barb Lindquist up to Gwen Jorgenson, Flora Duffy, Lucy Charles-Barclay (pictured below) and Daniela Ryf today it’s very common for top women in triathlon to be of larger stature than typical of elite runners. Google queries about morphologies show many elite triathletes range between 126 to 133 pounds in weight (because they're taller and carry more muscle). See how this compares to reported weights of world class runners. Faith Kipyegon is 5’2” and 93lb. Letesenbet Gidey, Gudaf Tsegay, Sifan Hassan are all taller and heavier than her and, like Jakob Ingebrigtsen, are middle distance to 5000 meters, sometimes to 10k. Even they are all under 110lb. Women’s marathon? Mary Jepkosgei Keitany is a 93lb heavyweight and the other top women marathoners are, as in the 5k and 10k, 110lb or lighter. While there are exceptions to the rule, this is the rule.

Here is why I bring this up. Former elite runner and soon to be 2-time U.S. Olympic triathlete Morgan Pearson appears to be that prototypical triathlete, roughly comparable in size (my estimate) to Scott Molina in the old days and to Alistaire Brownlee today. Morgan Pearson was making the race at the USATF Cross Country Nationals last week, 8k into the 10k race. He was at that point in the race in the lead and trying to drop Cooper Teare, who is currently America’s best cross country runner. Pearson would fade to 4th, earning a spot on the U.S. Worlds team, and his “fade” at the end still kept him only 9 seconds behind eventual winner Teare. It is my contention that he runs this fast not in spite of being a triathlete, but in a certain way because of it. Here is why what (I suspect) works for Morgan Pearson also works for you.

Morgan Pearson does not really train for his winter run exploits. He maintains his swim, bike and run training and just does what any good triathlete should do in the off-season: He rests immediately post-season and upon his return to training shores up a weakness. (During the winter he's more likely to train his swim than his run). I note this as I recall that every second winter for the past few years he’s done something in pure run that he never quite did as a pure runner, prior to his becoming a full triathlete in 2018. Two winters ago he finished 8th in the U.S. Half Marathon Championships, running 1:01:47. Two winters before that he won the U.S. Club Cross Country Nationals.

But while those results were eyebrow raising the National Championships last week was not the Club race. This race was Big Time. Cooper Teare is a 3:50 miler and a 13:06 5k runner on the track. Pearson finished just ahead of the Bor brothers, Kenyan expatriates who are now America’s best steeplechasers (the track specialty perhaps most akin to cross country). Predictably, every time Morgan Pearson does something like this the threads on LetsRun say, “He should give up triathlon and become a pure runner!” and the assumption is that he will be faster yet if he does so. I’m not convinced this is true and here’s why.

Junk Miles

For about a decade we’ve been hearing this phrase and the definition is “miles without portfolio” I guess. Miles to which you can’t ascribe a specific use or duty. But I think this gets misinterpreted as easy miles. Slow miles. Which, if you’re a world class runner you run a lot of and they’re not junk. They serve a purpose. Volume. We need quality in our training but not all our workouts should be quality (high heartrate). If you ask a top run coach the most frequent mistake aspiring world class runners make is, “The hard workouts are too easy and the easy workouts are too hard.” Unless you do the easy workouts easy you can’t do the hard workouts hard! But you can’t have only the hard workouts, and it’s that way whether you’re a pure swimmer, biker or runner. In fact, if you had to drop something there's an argument that you keep the volume and sacrifice the quality workouts, even if the volume running is slow. And if you do choose to get your "volume running miles" done in the pool and on the bike your regimen still should include that long run. Even if it's slow.

To be an expert anything you have to put in Gladwell’s Hours and that’s the case in running. That’s a lot of volume. When you translate your training to hours, it’s hard to spend that many hours afoot. If you run 120 miles a week even if your average pace is something very pedestrian, like 6:30 pace, that’s 13 hours a week. That’s not a lot, really. And that kind of running mileage is a problem for larger athletes.

Let us assume Gwen Jorgenson swam 20,000 yards a week, and I think that’s about right or if not it’s low. That’s at least 5 hours a week in the pool. Two hundred fifty miles a week on the bike is another 14 hours, if you ride the whole thing at an 18mph average. Then imagine 6 hours a week running. That’s a 25 hour week and I don’t think that’s a bad assumption, at least in terms of hours at an endurance heart rate (110bpm or higher). If Gwen ran that 130 miles per week, as the top Kenyans and Ethiopians do, she’s probably tearing her legs up; Paula Radcliffe is the only female in my memory who reached world class marathon success with a morphology roughly equivalent to Gwen’s.

This is why I think Gwen might’ve been her best running self as a triathlete, even as every pure runner would just denounce that as even a possibility. But that kind of paradigm is at least an explanation for Lukas Verzbicas, demolishing the high school national 2 mile record (running 8:29) while training to win the world junior triathlon championship. Only to flame out in months as a “pure runner” at U of Oregon, under a coach who could not fathom what I’m writing now.

It’s not “Cross Training”

This isn’t a case of runners cross-training. Jorgenson and Pearson – and you and I – have acquired the skill, technique and fitness to ride like cyclists and swim like swimmers. We all get our full measure of aerobic and muscular work swimming and cycling. We have the luxury of “running” the volume mileage on the bike and in the pool. Pearson is putting in more aerobic work than a 130 mile-per-week runner, with less wear and tear. Were he to try to run that mileage it's my guess (and only a guess) he might be playing at a disadvantage to his lightweight contemporaries.

And this is why you might be pure running faster now than you think you should, if you’re a 15- or 20-mile per week (or a little more) runner buried inside a triathlete who’s also riding 150 miles a week and swimming 7,500 yards a week (pretty healthy age group totals). If that’s you, you’re putting in 12 to 14 hours of work with that kind of mileage and you’d have to run (my estimate) 75 miles a week to get the same training benefit if all you did was run. But you and I know you’d break down if you stopped everything else to run that 75 a week.

It’s a Running Thing

While triathletes occasionally cross over to pure cycling with success (women more often but with one obvious man who made good), what I'm writing about is a run-only thing. Volume is better achieved in the sport in which you’re racing, all things equal. You can do a lot of swim and bike volume without injury. According to my well-worn, dog-eared equivalency chart it’s not terribly hard to ride 500 miles a week, or swim 50,000 meters a week, if you’re a cyclist or a swimmer. Those are roughly equivalent to each other and to 125 miles a week of running. This, you can’t do if you’re too big or if you have structural weaknesses and it doesn’t matter how good of a runner you are. It’s not about the engine. It’s about the chassis.

Further, just because it’s possible to run 125 miles a week doesn’t mean it isn’t breaking you down, and it doesn’t mean it isn’t taking so much out of you that your quality sessions aren’t compromised. So…

Here’s one thing I’ve learned over 40 years in this or any business: If you keep doing what you’re doing you’ll keep getting what you’re getting. I usually trot that phrase out when something needs to change. But I just think there’s a reason male and female triathletes –elite and age group – run faster than you think they should based on the mileage they run. Triathlon or something like it turns out to be a great recipe for pure footspeed in pure run races. My counsel: Be slow to abruptly change a recipe that's brought unexpected success.

PHOTOS: Those of Morgan Pearson were taken at the 2023 World Triathlon Olympic Games Test Event in Paris where he qualified for the 2024 Olympics. They appear here courtesy of World Triathlon.

The post We Often Run Faster Off Tri Training first appeared on Slowtwitch News.

This year, though, almost a third of the top run performances in Kona came from athletes outside of earning a paycheck. Still, the two fastest runs on the day saw those athletes springboard up the rankings — and in one case, establish a new run course record. Here's the shoes that powered those record runs, with numerous brands represented.

All Images: Slowtwitch

Fastest Run: Anne Haug
Run Split: 2:48:23 (course record)
Finish Position: 2
Run Shoe: Nike Zoom AlphaFly NEXT%

Haug has traditionally worn Nike's original carbon-plated shoe, the VaporFly, and used it to great success (including the year she won the IRONMAN World Championships). She moved into the AlphaFly this year, which features more stack height. Clearly no problem for Haug, as she now owns the record for fastest run split.

#2 Run: Chelsea Sodaro
Run Split: 2:53:02
Finish Position: 6
Run Shoe: On Prototype

Sodaro was well down the order coming off the bike, more than 20 minutes from Lucy Charles-Barclay's lead. Undeterred, Sodaro began mowing through the field on the run, coming up less than two minutes short of catching Daniela Ryf for fifth.

Sodaro's On shoes look to be a lower stack version of the prototype Gustav Iden wore prior to IRONMAN's alignment with World Triathlon on shoe rules. You can hear more about Sodaro's 2023 season on our podcast.

#3 Run: Laura Philipp
Run Split: 2:55:24
Finish Position: 3
Run Shoe: New Balance FuelCell SuperComp Elite

Philipp's used a third fastest bike and run to overcome a sizable swim deficit, making a decisive move early in the bike to bridge and then continue to hold position on the run. Philipp's worn New Balance the last few years. The FuelCell SuperComp Elite uses a familiar pattern — 4mm drop, highly cushioned foam, carbon plate — but with a slightly wider platform underfoot. It flies under the radar. It shouldn't. It's a damn good shoe.

#4 Run: Lucy Charles-Barclay
Run Split: 2:57:38 (course record)
Finish Position: 1
Run Shoe: Asics MetaSpeed Sky+

The 2023 IRONMAN World Champion has worn Asics for the bulk of her long-course career, and moved into the MetaSpeed Sky series shoes when first-released in 2021. Charles-Barclay mentioned the shoe as being a helpful part of her recovery from a metatarsal fracture earlier in the year, in part due to the stiff carbon plate in the forefoot. Whatever it is, the combination of Charles-Barclay and this shoe works — she's been running faster than ever, including a by-far best run split in Kona for her this year.

#5 Run: Svenja Thoes
Run Split: 3:01:07
Finish Position: 14
Run Shoe: Blacked Out

Thoes had to scramble to take home prize money, finding herself further down the order than Sodaro coming off of the bike. She did so brilliantly, nearly breaking three hours for the marathon — it would have been her second sub-three hour IM marathon ever.

Thoes raced in a completely blacked out shoe that looks suspiciously like either a Saucony Endorphin Elite or a Nike AlphaFly. Thoes typically wears Altra running shoes. We could not confirm the model.

#6 Run: Sarah True
Run Split: 3:02:09
Finish Position: 8
Run Shoe: Nike AlphaFly 2

Fellow Tundra Division athlete True had a well-rounded day to finish in the top 10 in Kona for the first time since 2018. True had a lot of new equipment this year for both the bike and run. It was the current generation AlphaFly on her feet this year in Kona.

#7 Run: Daniela Ryf
Run Split: 3:02:11
Finish Position: 5
Run Shoe: HOKA Rocket X Prototype

Ryf, a long-time Asics athlete, finally moved into a carbon-plated run shoe this year after holding out for years. Ryf received a prototype of the next generation Carbon Rocket X, which featured a new iteration of HOKA's super soft foam and carbon plate, mated to a current generation Rocket X 2 upper. The combination seemed to work — like clockwork when healthy, Ryf runs somewhere between 2:57 and 3:03 in Kona.

#8 Run: Skye Moench
Run Split: 3:02:40
Finish Position: 7
Run Shoe: Saucony Endorphin Elite

Moench backed up her 9th place 2022 performance with an improvement this year, some of which can be attributed to her run — to date, her marathon time in Kona was her second-fastest IM run ever. (That's since been shattered by Moench's record-breaking performance at IRONMAN Florida.)

The Endorphin Elite is a curious shoe in Saucony's line-up. It is narrower under the mid foot versus the rest of the Endorphin line, while also abandoning some of the hallmark Saucony fit characteristics. That said, the combination clearly works for Moench.

#9 Run: Leonie Konczalla
Run Split: 3:03:31
Finish Position: 24
Run Shoe: On CloudBoom Echo

The first of our non-top 15 athletes, Konczalla (who also happens to be a surgeon) didn't have the day she wanted on the swim and bike, but rallied for an extremely fast marathon at the end of the day. Unfortunately, we didn't get a photo of her on the day.

#10 Run: Taylor Knibb
Run Split: 3:05:13
Finish Position: 4
Run Shoe: Nike Zoom AlphaFly 2

Knibb continued to break the mold of what's possible in a first trip to Kona, holding onto second until the exit of the Natural Energy Lab and nearly holding on for a debut podium. Knibb was another athlete in Nike's ever popular AlphaFly.

#11 Run: Laura Jansen
Run Split: 3:06:14
Finish Position: 19
Run Shoe: Saucony Endorphin Pro

The second of our non-money winners, Jansen was another athlete caught out coming out of the water and left a significant deficit to fight out of for the remainder of the day. Jansen's Endorphin Pro is my preferred race shoe out of the Saucony line-up, with a slightly broader mid foot region giving more stability to the platform, despite the soft foam and carbon plate.

#12 Run: Penny Slater
Run Split: 3:08:08
Finish Position: 13
Run Shoe: On Cloudboom Echo

Slater earned her paycheck with the 12th fastest run of the day. She, too, utilized On's carbon-plated shoe. If you prefer a firmer ride out of your race day footwear and a slender fit around the foot, this is one of your better options.

#13 Run: Hannah Berry
Run Split: 3:08:39
Finish Position: 11
Run Shoe: Asics MetaSpeed Sky

Berry's balanced performance — top 15 worthy splits across all three disciplines — saw her take home a paycheck in her first IRONMAN World Championship. Like Charles-Barclay, Berry runs in the MetaSpeed Sky — according to Asics, it's better for athlete's who increase speed by increasing stride length (versus the Edge, which is for athletes who increase speed through a mix of stride length and cadence).

#14 Run: Laura Zimmerman
Run Split: 3:08:49
Finish Position: 22
Run Shoe: HOKA Rocket X 2

Zimmerman's swim was her undoing at a chance at a paycheck. Still, she fought back for the next eight hours of her day. Her run in Kona this year is her fastest IRONMAN World Championships marathon. The Rocket X 2 she used here was one of the most popular shoes in 2022, despite it then being labelled a prototype, and for good reason: if you respond well to carbon shoes but need more midsole width, this is a great option.

#15 Run: Jen Annett
Run Split: 3:10:16
Finish Position: 23
Run Shoe: Nike Zoom AlphaFly

Annett's fastest Kona run of her career came this year. She's another AlphaFly wearer. Like Moench, she also backed up her run in Hawaii with a strong race in Florida, running faster there than she did in Kona.

The post The Fastest Pro Run Shoes in Kona first appeared on Slowtwitch News.