This is not a comprehensive list of all the running shoes we’ve evaluated. Here we include shoes that are still available.The Adidas Adizero SL2 (women’s, men’s) is light and responsive. However, it’s quite stiff — the little foam on the shoe does not have much give. Three of our four testers wished this shoe had a higher stack, and one tester thought they had a narrower fit than most other neutral shoes they’d tried. “I think these are nice for a lighter weight runner that doesn’t do more than 30 miles a week and likes a more responsive shoe versus bouncy,” another tester said. “I found myself using this shoe for either easy treadmill runs or for short track sessions where I knew I’d get a little cushion from the track and I’d benefit from the responsiveness.”The Asics Gel-Cumulus 26 (women’s, men’s) is a neutral shoe that our testers agreed felt stiffer and heavier (even at a weight of 9 ounces) than our picks. This shoe felt so heavy on the foot that one tester said it was distracting, with another tester commenting that the shoe felt like it “worked against me rather than for me.” After a break-in period, the Gel-Cumulus 26 was a bit easier to run in for some but still wasn’t very breathable. One heel-striker tester appreciated the curved bottom of the shoe, leading to a full and smooth stride. We experienced durability concerns with the Gel-Cumulus 26 — one tester fell during their first run in them, which caused a small tear on the top front of the shoe, while another runner grazed a rough surface during an early run, causing a rip in the sole cushion. Tightening the shoes was another concern, as the eyelets on the Gel-Cumulus 26 felt farther apart than most.The Asics GT-2000 14 (women’s, men’s) is a plush, stability trainer that our testers wished were more durable. One of our testers said they could feel the shoes “bottoming out in the forefoot,” particularly on pavement. Another tester said that just after a few weeks, “the cushioning started to feel like a sneaker in the final miles of its useful life” and overall they didn’t use the shoe for runs past 20 to 30 minutes. The Asics GT-2000 13 (women’s, men’s) and Asics GT-2000 12 (women’s, men’s), a former pick in this guide, are better stability trainers and still available from third-party sellers.The Brooks Adrenaline GTS 23 (women’s, men’s), another former pick, is still available from third-party sellers. The Adrenaline GTS 23 prioritized support over cushioning. It took less effort to step off and did not create a sinking into the ground feeling that shoes with more cushion can sometimes have. Some testers found these shoes less stable in slippery conditions, though.Brooks’s Ghost 16 (women’s, men’s) feels like they have less cushioning than the Ghost 15 shoes we formerly recommend. Out of the box they were stiffer and needed a longer break-in period. The Ghost 15 had a roomier toe box, and a few testers felt their pinky toes pinching against the sides of the Ghost 16 shoes on longer runs; one tester had repeated hot spots on the inside of their right foot after running in them. Some testers noted that the laces can be challenging to tie, so you might have to remove them from the first pair of eyelets for a snug fit. All four testers who ran in the Brooks Ghost 17 (women’s, men’s) agreed that this shoe didn’t cause hotspots or have troublesome laces like the Ghost 16 did, but the newer version is still noticeably stiff and needs more breaking in than most.The Brooks Glycerin 21 (women’s, men’s) is softer than the Ghost 16. “The first time I ran in them, I felt like my feet were wrapped in a cozy comforter at the top and cushioned by springy clouds at the bottom,” one tester said. The heel collar is also made of thicker material, which helps to stabilize the foot. However, the Glycerin 21 is not the most breathable shoe, and our testers didn’t feel much energy return on both long and short runs. While the Glycerin 21 is a solid choice (especially for easy miles), we wish it had a wider toe box. Some of our testers found that this shoe runs a half size too small. The Glycerin 22 (women’s, men’s) initially felt a bit stiff, three of four testers agreed. Two pointed out the toe box felt narrow and the midfoot was more uncomfortable than that on previous versions of this shoe. Once broken in, though, the Glycerin 22 is easy to slide into, thanks to a padded heel collar and additional padding throughout the shoe that one tester described as “almost slipper-like.” This version also felt more breathable than the Glycerin 21. All in all, the Glycerin 22 is a solid trainer, but might not be the best choice for people with narrower feet.The Brooks Revel 7 (women’s, men’s) is another shoe costing around $100 that isn’t as cushioned as some of our neutral trainer picks. Unlike the similarly priced Saucony Axon 3, the Revel 7 felt comparatively stiff. “The flat sole lacks the necessary geometry and arch support for serious running,” one tester said. “The bottom is essentially a single, flat piece, similar to a walking sneaker — it doesn’t give much flex.” We also felt the Revel 7 was less breathable than the Axon 3.The Diadora Cellula 2 (women’s, men’s) is a bulky trainer — weighing almost 11 ounces — that prioritizes support. It doesn’t have a lot of pop and is therefore best for easy miles. My foot felt cushioned and protected during runs, although you can definitely feel the extra girth of the shoe if you’re more accustomed to lighter trainers. It’s a good shoe for walking and recovery days, but ultimately can’t compete with our picks.The Hoka Mach 6 (women’s, men’s) has firm cushioning and felt bulkier than other neutral Hoka shoes we’ve tested (Hokas are known for their soft, lightweight feel). After about 50 miles, we noticed the cushioning and initial pop in the shoes start to dissipate. One tester, who ran a half marathon in the Mach 6, noticed by mile eight that their legs were feeling more fatigued than usual due to the weight of the shoes. “While the toe box appears wide … I developed some pretty gnarly big-toe blisters from rubbing up against the side of the shoe,” they added.The original Lululemon Blissfeel — a women-centric shoe produced from scans of more than a million feet, according to the company — felt “springy” in the heel to one of our testers wearing an 8½. One tester found that they fit “a bit narrower, especially at the front of the foot.” Another tester, in size 7½, considered the shoes “perfectly comfortable” but ultimately wasn’t bowled over. We haven’t tested the Blissfeel 2.We tested New Balance’s Fresh Foam X 880v14 (women’s, men’s)which felt less comfortable, almost “squishy” when compared to the Fresh Foam X 1080 series. The dense foam did give some feeling of being propelled while running, but the shoe takes time to break in and, for some testers, led to some blisters on early runs. It also tended to run bigger than other New Balance shoes we’ve tested. Overall, a majority of our testers felt it was a shoe for light miles (around 3 or so) at an easy pace. “It kind of felt like an old-school, Dad, do-it-all shoe, for someone who just wants comfort and something not too stiff, not too soft,” one tester observed.At first, the Nike Structure 26 (women’s, men’s) impressed, with its cushioned midsole and midfoot support system that offers moderate stability. However, three of four testers who ran in this model experienced significant fraying on the shoe, from the cloth to the heel cup and reflectors on the sole. “When they were new, I loved the look of this shoe,” one tester said after just under two months of use. “But whatever knit material they used absorbed dirt. These now look completely cooked.”The On Cloudflow 5 (women’s, men’s) is a durable trainer, but with a stiff design that troubled three of our four testers. It’s rigid with a compact build (and little extra cushioning). For some, that will be desirable. But the inflexibility of the shoe was a drawback for many of our testers. (One called the shoe “plasticky.”) The shoe has a speedboard but three of our testers said they didn’t notice any additional boost from it. The On Cloudflow 4, a neutral trainer we think is worth considering, remains available for now.The On Cloudrunner (women’s, men’s) stability shoe felt a bit clunky and stiff, with little stability or arch support. As with some other On running shoes, testers reported small pebbles or debris getting caught in the spaces between the grip on the sole. These shoes have decent traction and felt responsive with a good amount of pop, but our testers preferred the Guide 17 and other stability picks.The On Cloudsurfer (women’s, men’s) neutral shoes feel really light and have good cushioning, but they didn’t feel as supportive on longer runs over 10 miles. They’re not a stiff shoe by any means, but our testers did not feel amply supported in them, either. A few testers thought they’d be an ideal running shoe for travel, serving as both a casual fashion choice and something for squeezing in a few miles if you don’t want to pack extra shoes. All four testers for the Cloudsurfer 2 (women’s, men’s) noted that this shoe’s lightness has pros and cons. On one hand, they are ready to wear out the box and are among the most comfortable daily trainers we’ve tried. However, they feel really optimized for shorter runs. “The Ons are very light and cushiony, but I personally prefer the feeling of [daily trainers] being slightly more stiff and supportive,” one tester said.The Reebok FloatZig1 (women’s, men’s) neutral shoes chafed our testers’ ankles — while running and walking, with socks long and short. Otherwise, the FloatZig1 has good grip and performed well on uphill and downhill test runs.We previously recommended the Saucony Axon 3 (women’s, men’s) as one of the best options for people looking to spend less than $100 on a new pair of shoes. The Axon 3 is lightweight and comfortable, with soft material that allows plenty of foot and toe movement and expansion. The stretchy mesh upper is breathable, and a padded, tall heel collar keeps feet secure. “They have the characteristics and structure of more expensive running shoes without the bulkiness,” one tester said. But multiple testers said they wished the toe box were bigger, and a few complained about this shoe’s longer-than-typical laces.The first thing we noticed about the neutral Saucony Ride 17 (women’s, men’s) was the thick cushioning on the bottom that resembles styrofoam. It is supposed to be plush and springy. Overall, our testers thought the foam offered a lot of lift but felt it wasn’t very responsive and, actually, a bit firm. The shoes felt heavy during runs, and some of our testers believed they would have to go a half size down for an ideal fit. One tester noticed that the foam bottom started flaking after a few weeks.Initially, all four of our testers of the Saucony Guide 18 (women’s, men’s) thought the shoe looked and felt pretty much the same as the Guide 17, one of our favorite stability shoes. But after a few weeks in the Guide 18s, we noticed some flaws. One tester, who’s worn both the Guide 17 and 18, said the uppers and treads on the 17 shoes lasted much longer. Another tester who has both shoes said the Guide 18s “lacked the rocker feel that I liked in the previous model where it encouraged forward movement, and even faster paces.” Another tester got hot spots on both feet during their first few runs in the Guide 18s, adding, “I can’t say I’d clamor to weave these into my rotation.” We suggest getting the Guide 17 while it’s still available.The Under Armour Infinite Elite 2 (women’s, men’s) shoe is wide, with a large rounded toe box. Still, this pair felt comfortable despite the clunky design. These shoes don’t seem ideal for speed runs and the thin shoelaces bothered two of the four people who tested this pair.Amy Roberts and Ingrid Skjong contributed reporting. This article was edited by Tracy Vence and Kalee Thompson.
Source link