Uncategorized Archives - Shoes Review and Buying Guides


Category Archives for "Uncategorized"

Fitness Training For Seniors

Begin with a 5-10 minute warm up of light cardio by walking. Perform each exercise using no weight or light weights to get used to the exercises.

Weights are suggested for each exercise, but modify according to your fitness level and goals. To progress, add a set each week until you’re doing a total of 3 sets of each exercise with 30 seconds of rest in between each set.

Do the following workout one or two non-consecutive days a week, taking at least one day of rest between workouts. For best results, combine this workout with regular cardio and a healthy, low-calorie diet.

Stand in front of a chair with feet about shoulder-width apart. Sit down and, as soon as you make contact with the chair, stand back up and try to do so without rocking back or using momentum.

You can place your hands on your thighs if you need to. Hold weights for added intensity, and repeat for 12 sets.

Sit in a chair and place a ball front of both feet. Sit straight up and try not to rest against the back of the chair, keeping your back straight and your abs contracted.

Lift your right foot and tap the top of the ball and take it back down to the floor. Switch sides and do the same with your left foot, alternating each foot for all repetitions, and repeat for 30-60 seconds.

Stand in front of a chair and hold onto it for balance if you need to. Loop a resistance band around your ankles, keeping it looped under the standing foot.

Bend your right knee, bringing your foot up behind you and keeping the right knee pointing towards the floor and right next to your left knee. Slowly lower back down and repeat for 12 reps on each leg.

You can also use ankle weights instead of a resistance band. Hold a light weight or medicine ball straight up over your head in both hands.

Lift the right knee up to waist level while bringing the arms down, touching the weight to the knee. Return to start and repeat on the left side.

You can add intensity by speeding the movement up and lifting the knees as high as you can. Alternate each side for 30-60 seconds. If you have back or knee problems, you may want to avoid the upper body portion of the move and just do the knee lifts.

Stand sideways to a chair or wall for support and tie a resistance band around your ankles. Lift the left leg out to the side, foot flexed and hips, knees and feet in alignment.

Try to lift the leg without tilting at the torso–hold the torso upright as you lift the leg a few inches off the ground. Lower back down and repeat for 12 reps on each leg.

You can also use ankle weights if you don’t have a band. Sit on ball or chair, back straight and abs in.

Hold a medicine ball or any type of ball at chest level and squeeze the ball with the palms of hands to contract the chest. While continuing to squeeze the ball, slowly push the ball out in front of you at chest level until elbows are almost straight.

Continuing the pressure with your hands, bend the elbows, and pull the ball back to chest. Repeat this exercise for 12 reps.

Stand or sit holding a resistance band in both hands up over your head. Hands are wider than shoulder-width apart and back is flat, abs engaged.

Keep the left hand in place and contract the lat muscles to pull the right elbow down towards the ribcage. Press back up and switch sides, alternating right and left for all repetitions.

Beginners Fitness Weight Training in Training

Carefully design Starting Fitness. Fitness is a very important step to consider a greater chance of success than failure to achieve goals and achieve your fitness goals. This parallel, as you build a solid foundation for your home for many years. And there remain some time, effort and good planning, but I think it is worth the investment.

I’ll give you two important guidelines for the fitness beginner weight training should take into account your education and short-term and long term.

The main principle is

Become a Multi-active internal

By that I mean to use for all types of education, and be limited to not get stuck with one type of device. Many students are just beginning to use resistance machines to end his life, which can cause more harm than good to you. In addition, you can limit your muscle growth potential in terms of strength and muscle mass.

On the other hand, if you have a mix of training and exercises with weight machines, fitness studio or your own bodyweight, dumbbells and resistance bands and tubes, you do justice to your body is exposed to various stimuli and a wide range of motion, that he really needs.


Weight Training moving

There is another stone which is necessary to add funds, so to speak. There is no such thing as perfect, or just the right kind of strength training for your body. But this is just the opposite. Thanks to the Permanent Mission of the body needs to adapt to different types of training variables, again and again for the motivation high.

Let me give you a realistic example of what I’m talking about …

If your goal is to 4 pounds of muscle to get, and do 7-12 repetitions of many scientists and trainers recommend weightlifting on the right track.

However, you want to change the variables of learning in higher education capacity (15-100 repetitions per exercise). This type of muscle training, you can create a higher density of capillaries, which can lead to better nutrition, and finally achieve muscle growth.

At the same time, you also want a power-type weight lifting after a few weeks, switched to support the neuromuscular system. These recommendations could effectively operate heavy lifting, muscle mass.

Mohamad examinations in the field of nutrition and fitness and wellness for women. You can also look at the place on his final journey shoes, where he studied and lists several hiking boots.

Fitness Training for Backpacking in Fitness

Backpacking is a pleasurable but physically strenuous opportunity to escape the routine everyday life and relish the outdoors. If you want to focus more on the fun of backpacking rather than the effort, it is important to take time for physical preparation beforehand. Backpacking fitness training ensures that you have the physical endurance and strength you need to get to where you are going, as well as stay safe on the way.

Sport Specificity

According to the principle of sport specificity, you get better at a particular activity by practicing that activity. Therefore, one of the best ways of building fitness for backpacking is to engage in the activity frequently. For effective backpacking fitness training, you will need to decide on which elements of backpacking you wish to get better at, and then begin simulating those activities.


No matter the intensity and length of the backpacking trip you are on, you can expect to walk for a few miles daily. Long day-hikes are an ideal way of fine-tuning your footwear and building up your hiking endurance, getting a feel of any problem areas before walking miles away from any remedy. In addition, hiking allows you to identify your abilities and comfort level on irregular terrain.

If there are no hiking trails available, you can use carry out your fitness training in a gym. The stepmill is perfect for simulating an uphill hike, which is one of the most challenging aspects of backpacking travel. Stair climbers are also popular for simulating the feel of hill-hiking.

Heavy Packs

Though hiking helps in preparing for the walking part of any backpacking trip, you will also need to prepare your legs to carry the weight of the pack. Weigh yourself with and without the pack on, and then subtract the two figures to find the weight of the pack. Once you have an estimate of how much gear you can carry on a typical outing, you could either do your climbing or hiking training with a full pack, or invest in a weight vest which weighs as much as your full pack. Using the weight vest during activities such as hiking or climbing stairs can help your legs get accustomed to the effort of carrying a full pack.

Balance and Core Training

Strong abdominal, hip and back muscles help protect you from injuries as you maneuver your pack over, around and under obstacles. Balance training gives you the agility you require to navigate uneven terrains with minimal risk of falling, twisting an ankle tripping. The two usually go hand-in-hand since good coordination and core strength is vital for maintaining balance.

Running and Mind in Running

These are what we can not acquire through sitting in the classroom. They are fragmentary knowledge aquired by Bannister’s “extra sensory” bit by bit. These knowledges are learnt with a great of efforts, therefore, they could be much more impressive and unforgetable. Joseph talked in the Leisure: The Basis of Culture that we don’t trust those awards coming from nothing and people enjoy those things that from struggles. Sportsmen are like puritans most, and they could feel satisfied because of the “hard work” in running.
Most runners have to keep their eyes on their steps. So they can seek out an efficient pace. If their minds are not concentrated, they can not run smoothly. Therefore, you must concentrate on your running race. NIKE FREE Run 2 Remind yourself to relax and to run smoothly.
Thingking about the hurt feeling from running is the easiest method to know the seemlingly contradictory phenomenon. It is avilable to eliminate the hurt feeling during running, but once you begin to look for methods to improve, pain would appear immediately. Let’s suppose that you are used to running 1 mile a day, and you want to increase the distance . Hence, one day you decide to run 2 miles. There is no doubt that you will make it come true, but it is very painful when you are going to the finihsing line. At that time, you would feel worse if you keep running. The hurt comes from the fight between mind and legs. Your brain asks your body to keep running, while your legs pray, “For God’s sake, let’s stop!”.
The level of hurt during running is controlled by the intensity between body and mind. If you plan to run only 2 miles, you can do it slowly and reduce the bad feeling. But if you don’t care about the pain and keep running terrible, that could be quite painful.
Some runners are good at running uphill, some runners are good at running downhill, and there are still some runners who are good at running on flat ground. Except your advantages, you need other extra efforts. So you can get a dominant position in the race. When you join the game first time, you will find that it is easiest to stand behind others. Maybe you will find that he can not constitute a danger to you. Certainly, you also want to surpass others. If possible, you should make him surprised and reveal him an authoritative look. Even if he accelerates himself, you need not feel discouraged.

Buying Running Shoes

The importance of the correct running trainers should never be undervalued by runners and joggers. You don’t need to look at the price tags in terms of wonderful trainers, most low-priced brands for running shoes still do wonderful on the street. Jogging shoes are the most crucial piece of products you are able to have if you might be an athlete.

Producing the right selection allows you to accomplish your utmost potential. Obtaining the most out of your buy and selecting the greatest shoes for your feet, fit, and function. Athletes shouldn’t make the mistake of making use of cross training shoes, tennis shoes or other running shoes. Jogging shoes and trainers are accessible from a lot of top brands like Nike, Adidas, Reebok, Umbro, Puma, New Balance, K-Swiss, Converse and many others. A decent running shoe sales person will be able to take a look at your aged running shoes and establish your individual biometrics and suggest the correct kind of running shoe for you.

You ought to not need extra support to the inner (medial) side of the foot. Jogging shoes are put into three main categories, stability shoes, cushioned shoes, and movement control shoes, based upon their perform. They’re further classified according to their use like racing shoes, trail running shoes, and performance shoes. Movement manage athletic shoes stop the inward turn of the foot, which regularly occurs with flat-footed athletes. These shoes tend to be rigid, ungainly and major. Cushioned jogging shoes are made to give balanced impact moderation without extra stableness devices. They can motivate the inward turn motion that is lacking in a jogger with high arches.

These shoes are also really flexible. Neutral-Cushioned shoes may be a good option for runners with neutral gaits who like a lighter more adaptable shoe than Stableness shoes give. Balance athletic shoes offer capabilities found in both of the other varieties of shoes but to a less level.

The objective of a running shoe is to provide the cushioning and stableness that’s meets your needs. You should not have to break in your trainers, they should be available immediately. Check them extensively by donning them in the store and running on a treadmill with them if the shoe store allows it. There’s a massive selection out there. Choosing the greatest can be a daunting job for both seasoned and outset runners.

A frequent mistake amongst seasoned runners is to confuse sole don with shoe don. And for that novice keep at heart: the way the shoe looks has absolutely nothing to do with the fit, so whatever you do, do not select a shoe merely because it looks decent. So, what should you do to make certain you select the right shoe, because be reassured there may be numerous shoes that could work for your feet and your running needs.

Selecting the most effective trainers are usually difficult, but following a couple simple steps can make the procedure simpler. If you’re going to be utilizing your shoes for running, it is absolutely crucial that you just purchase a pair of shoes developed specifically for this objective. Aerobics shoes, cross-trainers, and basketball shoes may seem pleasant or not all that different from jogging shoes, but selecting a shoe not fit to your requirements can have a large effect on your level of comfort level and running success. There’s 3 standard categories: neutral runners, over-pronators, and supinators.

The feet of neutral runners go through less extreme motions when they’re running; while over-pronators actually have their ankles as well as the arches of their feet rolling in as they run; and lastly, supinators actually have their ankles and arches of their feet rolling out as they run. The finest way to find out what kind of feet you’ve is to speak to a running specialist. This are often a professional store worker or running fan.

Asics Roadhawk FF Review


  • Tech
  • Summary
  • Pros
  • Cons

Asics’s marketing pitch: Looking for speed and versatility?

Upper: Engineered mesh, fused and stitched-on synthetic.

Midsole: Full-length, single density Flytefoam midsole. 8 mm heel to toe offset.

Outsole: Hard carbon rubber throughout.

Weight: 243 gms/ 8.6 Oz for a half pair of Men’s US 9/UK 8/EUR 42.5/CM 27

Widths available: Single, D – regular (reviewed).

What is the Roadhawk FF? It’s a firm shoe with a comfortable upper and works well for fast-paced training. Great value for money.
Excellent value for money, decent upper fit with a plush heel lining, Flytefoam is firm but delivers good transitions
Noisy forefoot, lack of optional widths, average outsole grip on damp surfaces



Remember the 33 series, anyone? A few years ago, Asics attempted to make inroads into the lower drop, minimally constructed running shoe market with its 33M, 33-FA, and the 33-DFA.

The aforementioned shoes featured a 4 mm heel drop which was unprecedented for the Japanese brand. The midsole also skipped the whole Gel-and-plastic show in favor for an all-foam one, and the outsole swapped the traditional ‘Guidance line’ layout with the ‘Fluid Axis’ instead.

It was fairly obvious the 33 series was a case of trying to force-fit a square peg into a round hole. At the time, Asics simply did not have what it took to make the 33 series successful. It neither had the lightweight chops of the Kinvara, nor a cushioned midsole platform which could compete with the likes of Hoka One One.

As one would expect, the Asics 33 assortment met with a short and forgettable demise.

In hindsight, the missing link was a suitable midsole platform. For years, Asics has relied on its Gel tech (more form than function, though) to market its running shoes rather a foam compound.

Then Asics hit a relative breakthrough with its new Flytefoam material, an EVA foam variant with fibers molded in. The $250 Metarun was the first to feature Flytefoam, followed by the Dynaflyte and several others.

The new Roadhawk FF is proof that Flytefoam isn’t tier exclusive, but rather price and platform agnostic. Even at an MSRP of $100, the Roadhawk features full-length Flytefoam, something that even more expensive models do not have.

While it is good that Asics has made Flytefoam accessible, they should exercise caution in maintaining price-value across their assortment – else, if all shoes have Flytefoam, why pay more for one shoe over the other?

And by the way, what is the Roadhawk FF?

It is a firm riding shoe which is suitable for faster training runs, and it has a seamless upper which fits well. Instead of comparing it to other Asics shoes, the identically priced Brooks Launch 4 would be a more meaningful benchmark.

Like the Launch 4, the Roadhawk FF is very lightweight with a sub 9-ounce weight and a snug fit. Despite the abundance of Flytefoam, the ride quality is firm bordering on hard, so know that the FF isn’t meant for everyone.



Take a cursory glance at the Roadhawk, and some elements from the 33 series jump at you right away. For example, the heel has a straight-up design, free of the plastic clip or the distinct Achilles lip which are seen on many Asics models.

In the front, the engineered mesh design appears familiar – and that’s because you have seen it before on the 33-FA. The open vented area on the top and the tighter-knitted sides are similar to the FA. There’s an internal bumper propping up the toe-box, and a stiffener gives structure to the heel at the rear.

Even the midfoot treatment is based on the 33 series; fused synthetic forms a box over the midfoot, and the lacing eyelets are punched into them. The laces are regular round types which cross over a thinly padded tongue.

The Asics logo is semi-concealed beneath a see-thru mesh over the lateral midfoot, giving the Roadhawk some nice design depth.

The inner side doesn’t have a logo and simply features a different mesh panel. The removal of the inner side logo is something we’ve seen on Asics a lot lately, including more expensive models like the Kayano.


While the heel and tongue don’t have a lot of foam padding, the lining material is very smooth and plush. That’s one of the reasons why we equated the Roadhawk to the Brooks Launch; both shoes have a comfortable lining material.

As you can see, there isn’t much going on the Roadhawk’s upper. It is a simple upper with a nearly seamless interior; nothing more, nothing less. There’re a few other design elements, like the printing over the outer heel which includes a reflective trim, or the molded Asics logo on the tongue flap.

Breathability is average on the Roadhawk, though no more or less than your average trainer. The upper might look very ventilated from the outside, but the interiors have a separate lining layer in certain areas.


There are no fancy bits and pieces on the midsole – no shank, no Gel, no nothing – except for the Flytefoam compound in a full-length avatar. The midsole is compression molded and is firm to the touch. The foam has the characteristic Flytefoam texture – you can see a wrinkly surface with embedded fibers.

Like any other foam, not all Flytefoam is the same. On some shoes, it can be of a softer density, while shoes like the Roadhawk FF get a firm kind. This is something you should know – the Roadhawk is NOT a soft shoe, no matter how thick the heel looks.

Speaking of thickness, the midsole is rear loaded. The heel stack of 20 mm is nearly double that of the 12 mm forefoot. And if you’re performing mental maths right now, then you must have realized that the Roadhawk has an 8 mm drop. This is slightly lower than the usual Asics gradient of 10 mm.

The only soft components are the removable Ortholite insole and the foam lasting below it. The insole is a soft, blown-foam kind used in other Asics shoes, and is one of the reasons why the Roadhawk is great value – this is a premium component.

The midsole sidewalls have a very balanced design. There are just some fine ridges running over the surface, and no deep groove which can cause a ride bias. The Roadhawk’s midsole also has pronounced edges which flare on both sides of the rearfoot, and this helps produce a cupping base for the foot to rest within.

Unlike many Asics shoes which have a softer blown rubber forefoot, the Roadhawk’s outsole is covered with hard carbon rubber throughout. While there are a few areas of exposed midsole foam, most of the outsole is overlaid with rubber. At the same time, there’s plenty of flex grooving and articulation.

The product page for the shoe might not mention the ‘Guidance line,’ but there is one – it begins under the Roadhawk’s heel and splits the forefoot into two distinct halves.



Regardless of its affordable price tag, the Roadhawk is no slouch when it comes to durability. The entire outsole is made of hard rubber, so sections like the forefoot will last longer than their blown rubber counterparts.

It’s not just the material, but also the design which plays a part in increasing lifespan. Despite the guidance line, the edges of the rubber slabs fare better. The edges along the Guidance line are tapered, and this lessens the potential damage from abrasion. Also, the pieces are better inset (or flush) with the midsole, so that helps too.

The firmer Flytefoam compound will perform better than regular EVA compounds, so that’s one thing less to worry about.

The upper forefoot mesh might be a concern for runners with a wide forefoot. This might lead to the bodyweight rubbing the mesh against the midsole edge, resulting in gradual wear and tear.

As with all blown-foam insoles, the Ortholite will gradually flatten and lose its squishiness over time.



There are no complaints with the Roadhawk’s fit. There are no overlays over the toe-box, but only engineered mesh and the internal bumper in the front. So the toe-box isn’t vertically challenged; the height feels just right.

The interior fit is smooth as expected of an upper which features no stitched overlays. However, the round laces tend to apply top-down pressure over the thinly padded tongue.

There’s a small problem with the upper design. When you lace the Roadhawk tight in the front, the forefoot mesh tends to pucker up – though this is not so much a functional flaw, but rather a visual eyesore.


While there are no hot spots, a slight sense of tightness is felt from the fused bands between the forefoot and the midfoot. The engineered forefoot mesh has enough space; it is only over the forward midfoot where the upper feels a bit snug. There are no optional widths for the Roadhawk, so trying before buying is recommended.

The insides of the heel have a soft lining, so the collar fit has a soft feel. The grip isn’t tenacious like how fully-padded collars are, but it gets the job done, with no slide of any kind.



Don’t let that thick stack of rearfoot Flytefoam fool you – the Roadhawk is a very firm shoe. Sure, the Ortholite insole feels soft underfoot, and the area of exposed foam under the heel also produces a cushioned effect. But once you get past that, the rest of the midsole is firm.

You might have worn other Asics shoes featuring Flytefoam which might have felt softer, but the Roadhawk is not one of those. The compression molded Flytefoam has a higher density, leading to a firm feel from heel to toe. It must be pointed out that the forefoot feels far stiffer than the heel.

The forefoot is rigid due to a few reasons. The front thickness is only a mere 12 mm of Flytefoam, so that’s certainly a contributing factor. The rubber used underneath is a hard variety, and that adds to the firmness too. The forefoot hardness also leads to an undesirable side-effect.

The front outsole makes a slappy noise during runs, and this is going to be more noticeable for forefoot strikers than heel loaders. This might not have a negatively functional impact, but the sound is distracting.

You need to give the Roadhawk’s forefoot at least 50 miles to break in. Initially the midsole has a very stiff feel, but it gains marginal flexibility in the weeks which follow.

There is an upside to the lack of cushioning softness, and that’s the superior stability. The combination of a stiff midsole and a balanced sidewall design make the Roadhawk extremely supportive. There’s no bias on the heel, and the raised sidewalls keep the foot locked in.


Forefoot transitions are great. The midsole might not be very flexible, but this character allows the weight to load quickly and economically all the way to toe-offs. Asics advertises the Roadhawk as a speed trainer, and we must say that’s a fairly accurate marketing description.

Like the firm Brooks Launch 4, the Roadhawk is best used for fast training runs, and even long distances if you’re accustomed to a firm ride. The shoe is very lightweight at a mere 8.6 ounces, so that helps make the Roadhawk feel fast too.

As far as responsiveness or the springback quality is concerned, it is nearly non-existent on the Roadhawk, except for some mild feedback from the rearfoot.



The Roadhawk is excellent value for money, with it’s $100 MSRP offering a lot. There’s a full-length Flytefoam midsole under an engineered mesh upper, and the plentiful rubber coverage makes the shoe durable. There’s little softness to be found on the Roadhawk, but that makes the ride very supportive, and the transitions quick.

There are a few things which we didn’t like about the shoe. The rigid forefoot is noisy, making a slappy sound during runs. The hard rubber also delivers average grip performance on damp surfaces. And then there’s the lack of additional widths. The Roadhawk fits snug, so it would be great to have at least a 2E (wide) available as an option.


The 2017 Asics Roadhawk is what the earlier (and unsuccessful) Asics 33 series aspired to be – a well-mannered and an affordable lightweight trainer with a comfortable, no fuss upper.

All that said, the Roadhawk isn’t for everyone. If you’re expecting the Flytefoam midsole to be an epitome of softness, then you’re likely to be disappointed. Instead, what we have here is a firm trainer which shines during fast-paced workouts.

So what if you wanted a couple of other shoes to rotate alongside the Roadhawk? We’ll cover that in the next section.



Rotation Model Shoe type Check price
Same brand Asics Roadhawk FF Lightweight, fast-paced training Amazon
Same brand Asics Cumulus 19 Cushioned, long and easy runs Amazon
Same brand Asics Hyperspeed Firm, lightweight, race-day Amazon
Multi brand Asics Roadhawk FF Lightweight, fast-paced training Amazon
Multi brand New Balance 1080V7 Cushioned, long and easy runs Amazon
Multi brand New Balance 1400V5 Lightweight, race-day Amazon

For an Asics shoe with a softer ride, the Cumulus 19 fits the part. It is softer than the Roadhawk, though the toe-box fits shallower. For race-days involving 5K and 10K’s, the Hyperspeed 7 is the shoe to rotate.

If you want an all-foam, non-Asics cushioned trainer with the same heel drop, then we recommend the New Balance 1080 V7. The ride isn’t particularly soft or responsive, but there’s plenty of consistent cushioning.

For shorter races, get the New Balance 1400V5.


We can think of a few shoes which compare with the Roadhawk, but the Brooks Launch 4 is the closest – both in terms of the $100 MSRP and the ride quality.

Both the Asics and Brooks models are firm, though the Launch 4 has a better padded forefoot due to the use of blown rubber. The Launch 4 has a more comfortable heel collar too, but happens to be slightly heavier – by 0.4 ounces to be precise.

If we had to choose between the Roadhawk and the Launch 4, our money would be on the Brooks shoe.

The Roadhawk can also be loosely compared to the $15 more expensive and cushioned Hoka Hupana and the 4 mm drop Skechers GoMeb Razor. At some level, even the Nike Elite 9 is comparable, if you just consider the intended use-case.

Do you own this shoe? Improve this review by sharing your insights – submit a review here.

The post Asics Roadhawk FF Review appeared first on Solereview.

Brooks Ghost 10 Review


Brooks’ marketing pitch: The Ghost 10 delivers the smoothest ride possible for neutral runners.

Upper: Mesh, fused and stitched synthetic leather.

Midsole: Dual-density EVA foam midsole. 12 mm heel to toe drop.

Outsole: Hard carbon rubber under the heel, softer blown rubber under the forefoot.

Weight: 295 gms/ 10.4 Oz for a half pair of Men’s US 9/UK 8/EUR 42.5/CM 27

Widths available: 2A, B, D – (regular – men’s, wide – women’s), 2E – (wide-men’s)

The Ghost 10 is an improvement over the 9. And why? Brooks’s popular neutral trainer has increased toe-box room and breathes better. The cushioning is slightly softer too, a result of significant midsole design updates.
Cushioned yet supportive ride, premium materials, interior fit quality and heel fit, outsole grip
Outsole durability, the DNA midsole material isn’t engaging



A few years ago, we were outraged when Brooks swapped its DNA Gel midsole for an all-foam one. The outrage wasn’t so much about the foam midsole per se; after all, brands change their cushioning technologies all the time.

It was rather an issue of semantics. Brooks described the new ‘DNA’ foam the same way it did the Gel, and that, we thought, was somewhat misleading. But that was back in 2014, and the whole DNA foam-Gel thing is a non-issue now – at least from a marketing perspective.

The all-foam Ghost has also grown on us over the past few years, based simply on the merit of the product.

You see, the rest of the footwear industry is on a penny-pinching drive. Many of the new running shoes in the $110-130 price-band are stripped down versions of their former designs, relying heavily on a minimal design language and material specs to reduce manufacturing costs. This approach applies to some of the more expensive shoes too.

Brooks’s design approach is a contrast; they continue to use shoe making materials which look and feel premium. Even though the Ghost 10 isn’t Brooks’s most expensive neutral shoe (the Glycerin is), it is heads and shoulders above the rest when it comes to the level of materials used.

But will Brooks’s material generosity last for long? Can’t say for sure, but let’s enjoy this fleeting moment while we can.

There’s also a consistency of upper fit and ride quality with the Ghost 10, and that makes the latter’s case as a versatile everyday neutral trainer very strong. The midsole doesn’t have the springy feedback of Boost or Everun, but there’s cushioning in plenty. The upper fits just right, being neither too snug nor excessively spacious.

And what of changes between the Ghost 9 and 10? We’ll eventually cover this topic in greater detail as we always do, but the summary is that the new Ghost 10 comes with an increase in forefoot room, is more flexible, and happens to be a bit softer and lighter than the outgoing model.



Most of the Ghost 10’s upper is made out of engineered mesh and high-density printed layers. The Brooks marketing name for this is 3D Stretch Print, a nod to the printing’s semi-elastic nature.

The Stretch Print is applied over the mid and rearfoot, while the forefoot is built of engineered mesh. There are narrow bands of tightly-knit mesh areas near the midsole edge and over the forefoot, and in between are zones with larger pores for ventilation.

The last year’s Ghost 9 had a fused toe-cap with a small ‘canopy’ extending over the big toe. That changes on the Ghost 10, which now uses a regular, stitched-on toe bumper. The Ghost 10’s forefoot gets an updated engineered mesh, and there’s reduced usage of the 3D Stretch print material over the sides.

Needless to say, these updates affect the Ghost 10’s fit character – something which we’ll cover when discussing the upper fit later in this review. There are other design tweaks on the new Ghost, such as the updated (and cleaner) lacing area and the external heel area.


The laces are round this year compared to the Ghost 9’s flat ones. But regardless of their shape, Brooks’s laces are a soft and semi-stretchable kind, and they stay tied-down. So there’s little functional impact here; rather, it’s a matter of personal preference.

The heel gets some bling in the form of molded urethane decorations colored in metallic. We say they’re decorative because the heel already has support due to the hard internal counter. Over the heel center, the synthetic strip of the Ghost 9 has been replaced with molded mesh.

Reflectivity gets affected here, as they disappear along with the Ghost 9’s stitched synthetic. The small ‘DNA’ logo on the midsole and the tongue label are the only shiny bits the Ghost 10 have.

For the last few years, Brooks had relied on a two-mesh set-up to construct the heel collar design. One kind of mesh lined up the Achilles area, while another formed the rest of the heel collar.

That changes with the Ghost 10, which now uses only a single mesh to line the insides of the heel. Also, there’s more foam padding inside the heel over the Ghost 9, so the heel interiors feel smoother overall.

The Ghost has never had an inner sleeve, but tongue slide was prevented by using a ‘tongue-tied’ loop. The Ghost 10 doesn’t have a sleeve either, but the tongue now has two loops instead of one. So the plushly padded tongue is securely held down by these loops, hence completely preventing tongue slide.

The Ghost 10 is slightly lighter than its predecessor due to the elimination of layers; there’s a weight reduction of 0.3 ounces.


If you’ve been keeping up with the Brooks Ghost series, then you’ll know what we mean when we say that the Ghost 10 feels similar to the Ghost 7.

The Ghost 7 was the first all-foam based model after the Gel-based Ghost 6, and it had a softer ride. A similar analogy applies to the Ghost 10; the Ghost 8 and 9 were firmer riding models.

The Ghost 10’s midsole construction is similar to the Ghost 7 too, with a separate crash pad on both the midsole sides. In contrast, the outer/lateral midsole of the Ghost 9 had a single-density construction.

These updates also mean that the Ghost 10’s forefoot midsole is now single density, as opposed to the twin-stack of the Ghost 9. The result is a noticeable increase in forefoot flexibility and softness over the last version. The design of the outsole flex grooves have little to do with the added flexibility; rather, this change is material and construction dependent.

The midsole walls also flare higher on both sides of the midfoot. You can see the midsole sloping upwards from the forefoot to the midfoot, after which it melds into the rearfoot.

The material hasn’t changed, however. The foam continues to be Brooks’s Biomogo DNA EVA foam, and updates made to the construction and density ends up making the Ghost 10 a softer Ghost.

If you’ve read our Glycerin 15 write-up, then you’ll recognize the common update theme applied to both. For example, a section of the foam midsole (under the midfoot) now swoops down to form a part of the outsole. This is so designed to soften the midfoot transition experience.

Other design aspects are borrowed from the earlier Ghosts. The rounded heel outsole is split into two near the edge; this allows for smoother landings. There’s an open section of midsole foam right under the heel, and this splays wide during landings to produce a cushioning effect.

The removable insole placed inside the upper hasn’t changed. It is the same thick BioMogo foam sockliner used on the past versions of the Brooks Ghost.



Like many Brooks shoes, the soft outsole rubber will be your primary durability concern. What Brooks giveth in outsole grip, it taketh in outsole lifespan. The rubber provides excellent grip, but has lower durability compared to its peers. Regardless of whether you’re a forefoot and rearfoot striker, the frontal section should be the first to shred.

Another area you should keep an eye on is the forefoot mesh. Compared to the Ghost 9, most of the mesh in the front does not have external reinforcement; also, it feels thinner.

Since the mesh is directly glued to the midsole, watch out for signs of early wear due to abrasion and repeated flexing. The Ghost 10’s midsole is noticeably more pliable than the Ghost 8 or 9, so that translates into an increased flexing action for the upper mesh.



The Ghost 10’s upper fit is an improvement over the 9. The last year’s model had a larger, fused toe-bumper with an extension over the big toe. This made the toe-box relatively cramped, so the increased space in the Ghost 10 will come as a relief.

By removing the 3D Stretch print in the forefoot and shortening the synthetic toe-bumper, the Ghost 10’s toe-box gains space – both vertically and sideways. The upper breathes better too, and has an accommodating nature. That said, the Ghost 10’s mesh isn’t as stretchable as the Glycerin 15’s.


The insides have a smooth feel, as expected of an upper which is nearly free of stitched overlays. There’s no tongue slide, thanks to the dual loops, and the generous padding filters the lacing pressure.

The heel collar has a smoother fit now. The switch from dual-mesh to a single mesh lining results in a more consistent feel, and there’s this sense of increased padding packed within.

The rear upper grips extremely well. When new, the Ghost 10’s Achilles dip slopes inwards – more so than the Ghost 9 – and this leads to a temporary paucity of toe-box room, as the heel pushes the foot forward. But after a week or so, the heel padding settles in and makes the Ghost 10 fit true to size.

So if you feel that the Ghost 10 is slightly shorter in size, this feeling should dissipate as you put on miles. Get the same size as the Ghost 9, or if you are new to the Ghost, then buy true to size.



The Ghost 10’s ride represents an optimal meld of cushioning and support. There’s a distinct sense of softness underfoot, but it isn’t mushy either. But if you’re comparing the 10 to the 9, the newest Ghost is softer. This is because of two reasons.

The first is the updated midsole with a separate crash pad under the heel. This also translates into a single density forefoot on the Ghost 10, which is different than the dual-density design of the Ghost 9. The second is the lighter density of the upper midsole foam itself, which is softer than before.


Combine these updates, and you get a softer ride – both under the heel and the forefoot. While the cushioned insole inside the upper delivers an identical level of cushioning, the softened midsole foam changes the Ghost 10’s ride character. The forefoot is also softer, as the entire midsole thickness is constructed using a single density (and softer) foam.

That said, the rearfoot doesn’t lack support. The crash pads in the lower midsole are firmer than the upper portion, and these structures keep the midsole stable. It is also important to highlight the higher arch flare of the Ghost 10’s midsole. This change in the sidewall design makes the shoe feel more supportive under the arch when compared to the Ghost 8 and 9.

The transition quality is average, as the softer midsole tends to slow the down the loading process. This is particularly noticeable under the forefoot, where the softer and more flexible base makes the push-offs a bit lazier.

So depending on how you like your neutral trainer served, the Brooks Ghost 10’s added softness could be viewed as a double-edged sword. A softer midsole makes for a plusher ride experience, but at the same time, you’ll miss the rock-solid stability of the Ghost 8 and 9.

Nonetheless, the Ghost 10 is a great neutral shoe for training runs of any distance. It has ample cushioning for a marathon, and stable enough for a quick treadmill run. It is just that you won’t get the bouncy responsiveness of foam technologies like the adidas Boost or Saucony Everun.



The Ghost 10’s biggest strength is its versatility. The upper fit hits the sweet spot of interior space and secure hold, and the same applies to the balanced ride character. This versatility gives the Ghost multi-role capabilities, be it tackling marathons or the occasional training run.

We like the use of premium materials in running shoes, a fast disappearing trend save for shoes such as the Glycerin, Ghost and a few Saucony products. There are no evident signs of cost cutting on the Ghost, and that translates into a running experience which feels worth every dollar of its $120 MSRP.

Below, the outsole grips well, and the density consistency of the upper midsole and the BioMogo insole give the ride its characteristic smoothness.

Now for the cons. The outsole durability has always been an issue, so the premium material package amounts to nothing when the underside tends to wear and tear faster than shoes from say, the adidas or Nike stable. And then there’s the staid plainness of the DNA foam material, which provides the expected (and ordinary) foam-based cushioning and nothing more.

You’ll also have to live up with the blemishes and finishing defects in some examples of the Ghost 10. We’ve often highlighted this issue in our past reviews (G7 review), and some production models might have skewed assembly or glue marks. So visually inspect any Brooks shoe before you buy.


A couple of things will stand out when comparing the Ghost 10 with the Ghost 9. The first is the softer ride quality which also includes a more flexible forefoot. Earlier in this review, we’ve already covered the reasons why this occurs.

The second update is the increased space in the toe-box, the result of a redesigned toe-bumper and an open forefoot mesh construction.

There are other minor changes such as the 0.3 ounces weight reduction, the increased under-arch support, and the updated heel area, but the ride softness and the toe-box space are the updates which matter the most.


Name Shoe tech Check price
Brooks Glycerin 15 Super-DNA foam midsole Amazon
Brooks Ghost 10 Dual density Biomogo-DNA foam midsole Amazon
Brooks Revel Single density Biomogo-DNA foam midsole Amazon

Spend $30 more, and you get the Glycerin 15. What’s the difference? The Glycerin has a plusher interior and a slightly more stretchable mesh, and the midsole is more supportive and cushioned.

When compared to the Glycerin, the Ghost 10 feels a much lighter shoe, though the actual weight difference isn’t much. This is perhaps so because the Glycerin 15 feels relative bottom heavy, and there’s a sense of more midsole material than the flexible Ghost.

At the entry level is the new Brooks Revel with its new knit upper and a single density midsole. Much like the Launch 4, there are no additional widths.



Rotation Model Shoe type Check price
Same brand Brooks Ghost 10 Cushioned, long and easy runs Amazon
Same brand Brooks Launch 4 Firm ride, fast-paced training Amazon
Same brand Brooks Hyperion Lightweight, race-day Amazon
Multi brand Brooks Ghost 10 Cushioned, long and easy runs Amazon
Multi brand Nike Elite 9 Firm ride, fast-paced training Amazon
Multi brand New Balance 1400V5 Lightweight, race-day Amazon

The Ghost 10 is a comfortable and versatile shoe, but not very fast. So what do you do then, for faster training runs? You get the much firmer and snugger fitting Launch 4. And if you’re used to firm riding shoes, then the lighter Launch 4 can be used for longer races too.

For shorter 5K and 10K races, the Brooks Hyperion is your go-to shoe.

Now let’s explore some of the options available outside the Brooks assortment. The Hyperion equivalent would be the sleek New Balance 1400V5. It has a secure yet breathable fit, and there’s enough cushioning for shorter runs or races.

For general fast-paced training runs, consider the firm riding Nike Zoom Elite with its snappy forefoot feel.



Brand Model Midsole Check price
Asics Cumulus 19 Medium soft Amazon
Mizuno Wave Rider 20 Firm Amazon
New Balance 880 V7 Medium soft Amazon
Nike Pegasus 34 Soft Amazon
Saucony Ride 10 Medium soft Amazon
Underarmour Gemini 3 Medium soft Amazon

There are various neutral trainers available in the same price class and category, but the New Balance 880V7 is the closest match with the Ghost 10.

Much like the Brooks shoe, the 880V7 has a regular dual-density EVA foam midsole with similar support and cushioning levels. The upper, with its engineered mesh and fused overlays, partly resembles the Ghost – except for the 880’s shallow toe-box and tongue slide.

If you’re shopping for Asics, then the Cumulus 19 is the Ghost equivalent. It has a comfortable dual-density ride, but with a shallow toe-box.

The UnderArmour Gemini 3 is also comparable, but solely from a category perspective. The Speedform upper design and materials feel and fit different than the rest of the shoes on the list. Underneath, the Gemini 3 comes with a smooth and supportive ride.

The Mizuno Wave Rider 20 has a ride quality which runs tangential to the rest of the pack, made unique by the hard plastic ‘Wave’ plate embedded in its midsole.

And lastly, you have two of the most popular neutral trainers – the cushioned and responsive Pegasus 34, and the snappy Saucony Ride 10.

Do you own this shoe? Improve this review by sharing your insights – submit a review here.

The post Brooks Ghost 10 Review appeared first on Solereview.

adidas adizero tempo 9 Review


adidas’s marketing pitch: Light shoes designed for support and flexibility.

Upper: Synthetic leather/suede, spacer mesh.

Midsole: Full-length Boost topped with a firmer EVA foam layer. Plastic midfoot shank, supportive laminate over the inner midsole. 10 mm heel drop.

Outsole: Combination of Continental and adiwear hard rubber.

Weight: 266 gms/ 9.4 oz for a half pair of Men’s US 9/UK 8.5/EUR 42.7/CM 27

Widths available: Single, D – regular (reviewed)

The Tempo 9 downsizes the Stableframe midsole, turning it into a lightweight trainer which is comparable to the Boston 6.
Responsive ride and efficient transitions, durable outsole, breathable upper, outsole grip
Lack of optional widths, mild tongue slide



The adizero Tempo 9 is adidas’s fast training running shoe with a mild support element. One way to look at it would be to do so as a lighter and slimmer version of the Supernova ST. The latter is a cushioned trainer suitable for longer distances, while the Tempo 9 is a much lighter shoe suited for races and training runs of similar paces.

The Boston 6 has to be mentioned in the same breath as the Tempo, for the two shoes are (now) remarkably similar. Considering that the Tempo 9 does not use a firmer medial-post, it won’t be wrong to treat the shoe as a slightly more supportive version of the Boston.

This year’s Tempo 9 features a brand new set of midsole and outsole. The end product is a marginally softer ride experience, the result of less EVA on the midsole and an outsole design with bigger windows. And mind you, the Tempo 9 no longer uses the word ‘Stableframe.’ Taking its place is adidas’s new ‘Energized stability’ film over the inner midsole.

The Tempo also receives a new set of clothes; the upper switches to a subdued aesthetic scheme along with a couple of elements which influence the quality of fit.


There’s nothing groundbreaking about the Tempo 9’s upper, just a tried-and-tested combination of materials and placement. Synthetic suede is used liberally over the upper which not only lends a subtle look but also makes the shoe supple.

The toe-bumper is a largish piece of suede, and the lacing panel and the three-stripes logo are made of the same material. There’s something about suede which gives any shoe an understated look, and adidas has put it to good use here.

The laces are flat and have a cottony texture which keeps them tied together.


The inner sleeve which formed a part of the Tempo 7 and 8’s interiors is gone. It is replaced by a thin and softer tongue with a traditional lace loop. And while we have always appreciated an inner sleeve in the past, the Tempo is better off without it. The past two adizero Tempos had sleeves, but the standard of assembly was sub-par.

By switching to a simpler construction minus an inner sleeve, the Tempo 9 ends up a much better finished model. There’s also visual clean-up in the form of the redesigned heel; gone are the glossy layers of synthetic seen on the V8.

Instead, a thin transparent laminate is applied over the external heel. Inside, there’s a stiff counter like before. The collar lining and foam fill levels stay unchanged from the V8. The heel upper gets a nylon pull tab, which is a new design addition.

The forefoot and the midfoot mesh is also now a single kind of spacer mesh, which is a cleaner approach than the multiple mesh types used on the V8. All said and done, the most important update on the Tempo 9’s upper is the split eyestay.

Instead of having a single midfoot suede panel – as it was on the Tempo 7 and 8, the Tempo 9’s first two lacing rows are mounted on a separate strip of synthetic.

This new arrangement allows those rows to operate independently; this can affect the fit quality, depending on how you lace the Tempo 9.

Like for like, though, the Tempo 9 has less layering on the forefoot side. There are a couple of thin straps in a criss-cross formation which opens up the forefoot more than the Tempo 9’s synthetic covered design did. adidas calls this design ‘Japanese Origami’ inspired, presumably based on the art of Japanese paper folding.

On a side note, 2016 was the year of mid-season model refreshes. The Supernova Glide changed its outsole half way through the year, and the Tempo refreshed its upper mesh as well.

As a result, there were a couple of Tempo variants available to buy, depending on which retailer’s website you were on. If that wasn’t confusing enough, there was even a separate women’s version.

For now, it seems that the Tempo 9 will be consistent for 2017.


If you’re familiar with the adidas’s Supernova, Boston, and Tempo series of running shoes, you’ll feel right at home with the Tempo 9’s midsole.

A familiar combination of the firmer EVA rim on top and a full-length Boost midsole is deployed on the Tempo. While this design is similar to the what’s on the adios 3 and the Boston, the Tempo 9 does a few things differently.

When compared to the Boston, the EVA component is slightly larger, while the Boost foam is present in a larger volume than the race-day adios 3. So in terms of cushioning, it won’t be wrong to say that the Tempo 9 sits midway between the adios and the Boston. The Tempo also has a couple of other features befitting its ‘support’ categorization.

The last two Tempo versions had a ‘Stableframe’ midsole with slightly more support and material on the inner side and around the heel. On the inner midsole, the EVA portion extended till the midfoot as a means of additional support. The EVA near around the Tempo 7 and 8’s heel was also raised higher and served as a cupping base of sorts.

This year, the Tempo 9 gets a midsole with the EVA portion trimmed down – both near the forefoot and the heel. In their place are a couple of new features.

The inner midsole has a thin film over the Boost which adidas calls ‘Energized Stability.’ This is keeping in line with the changes on the Supernova ST (previously called the Sequence) which also switched from a larger Stableframe midsole to a combination of a slimmer midsole and a thin laminate.

As a matter of fact, adidas no longer mentions ‘Stableframe’ in the Tempo 9’s description. adidas claims that the Boost midsole is dual-density, but it is technically not so. The thin film over the midsole does add some firmness, but then, that’s a separate component over what is unarguably a single-density Boost midsole.

Also, there’s a larger ‘Torsion’ plastic component between the midsole and the outsole, one which also extends to the inner sidewall like the adizero adios. Parts of the plastic also extends under the forefoot for added stiffness.

The outsole is a combination of Continental rubber and adiwear used liberally over the forefoot and rearfoot. There are minor changes like larger rubber lugs and increased windows exposing the Boost foam beneath.

The higher number of windows makes the ride slightly softer, as was the case on the Boston 6. There are a few things carried over from the previous design, such as the beveled/angled heel for gradual heel strikes and transitions. Inside, there’s a chunky EVA foam insole which adds extra cushioning over the midsole.

With all the changes, the Tempo 9 gains 11 grams/0.4 ounces over the outgoing model.


Ever since the pairing of the Boost foam and Continental rubber outsole began, the general trend has been that of the sole unit outliving the upper. The Boost foam and adidas’s rubber compound are highly resistant to wear and tear, so it is unlikely that parts of the upper will fail first.

For example, the shallow toe-box mesh or the heel lining areas will undergo expected wear and tear. This is a natural occurrence once the shoe crosses a mileage threshold of a few hundred miles.



The Tempo’s upper fit is closely modeled on race-day shoes, which means that an overall snug fit including a relatively shallow toe-box is part of the territory. While the toe-box doesn’t pin down the big toe, there’s isn’t any margin left over either.

The midfoot gets a conventional fit and feel, thanks to the thin and sleeve-free tongue. Unlike the Tempo 7 and 8, there’s no inner sleeve, so the fit goes slightly relaxed. The downside is that you experience tongue slide which is associated with a sleeve-free design.

In the back, the narrow molding of the internal counter keeps the foot locked in, despite the minimal amount of foam padding.


The Tempo 9 gets more forefoot room than the Tempo 7 and 8. There’s a lot more open mesh area compared to the previous year models which had synthetic over both sides. This change, when combined with the lack of an inner sleeve, makes the Tempo 9 more breathable too.

But there’s a catch. As the first two lacing rows are mounted on a separate panel, cinching them tight will lead to a noticeable increase in narrowness. This isn’t a bad thing, considering that a snug forefoot fit works great for fast track runs.

All the same, if you’re using the Tempo 9 for longer runs like a half marathon, you should be mindful not to over-tighten the lacing in the front. Also, we recommend buying a half-size larger  – unless you’re limiting the Tempo’s use only to track runs.

The first two rows also add some extra synthetic over the toe-box which was previously missing. This means that you’ll sense the additional material over your foot when flexing. For this sensation to disappear completely, you’ll need to account for a break-in period of a week or so.


The Tempo 9 has a firm ride. The only layer of softness you get is from the molded insole sitting atop the midsole; the rest is firm cushioning. Unlike the more cushioned Boost models like the Supernova and Energy, the amount of Boost available on the Tempo is just enough to make the ride cushioned but not soft.

The Tempo 9’s EVA midsole also covers the Boost completely over the heel as opposed to being just a rim on the Boston, so that also contributes to the firm ride character.

There’s enough cushioning to run half marathons, though if you’re running anything longer, we recommend a second shoe – see our rotation section later in this review.


Soft the Tempo 9 may not be, but responsive it certainly is. The Boost has a nice springback quality about it, and you feel it with each footstrike. The transitions are also efficient due to uniformity in the material used – be it the Boost or outsole rubber, everything is used in a full-length format.

For all practical purposes, the Tempo 9 is a neutral running shoe. This statement has greater relevance for the Tempo 9 than the 7 and 8 which had a larger Stableframe. With a bulk of the EVA gone and substituted with Boost foam, the midsole exhibits a ride quality which feels uncannily similar to the Boston and adios.

As mentioned before, the larger windows on the outsole design make the Tempo 9 a bit softer than the 7 and 8. Coincidentally, this is an update similar to what we experienced on the Boston 6 versus the 5.



The Tempo 9 doesn’t have many faults. The ride is cushioned and responsive, the transitions feel quick, and the model is lightweight too. The midsole and outsole are very durable, and the upper is reasonably breathable. The split eyestay allows a custom level of fit to be achieved through the front rows.

If we had to nitpick, we’d point out the Tempo 9’s unavailability of optional sizing widths. This isn’t specific to the Tempo, but to most of adidas’s product line. The tongue also tends to slide a bit, so that’s something one needs to be aware of.


A good way to summarize the changes would be that the Tempo 9 is an easier-going Tempo. The ride is slightly softer due to the reduction in the volume of the firmer midsole EVA foam and the redesigned outsole, and the upper feels breezier because of lower synthetic usage and no sleeve.

The upper fit is more relaxed around the midfoot, and the forefoot can be relaxed or more narrow, depending on how you treat the first two lacing rows.

A $120 MSRP remains constant across both versions, and the Tempo 9 is heavier by nearly half an ounce. This is likely the result of a larger plastic Torsion shank on the midsole which now extends to the heel and parts of the forefoot.



Rotation Model Shoe type Check price
Same brand adidas Tempo 9 Firm ride, fast runs Amazon
Same brand adidas Supernova ST Cushioned ride, long runs Amazon
Same brand adidas Takumi Sen 3 Lightweight, Race-day Amazon
Multi brand adidas Tempo 9 Firm ride, fast runs Amazon
Multi brand Saucony Hurricane 3 Cushioned ride, long runs Amazon
Multi brand New Balance Hanzo S Lightweight, Race-day Amazon

In the last year’s Tempo 8 rotation, we recommended the Ultra Boost ST and the Sequence. This year, we’ll adopt a different rotation approach because the Sequence has morphed into the much softer Supernova ST.

As such, the Supernova ST is an ideal companion to the Tempo when it comes to a cushioned shoe capable of long distance runs. There’s significantly more Boost packed into the Supernova ST’s midsole than the Tempo, and only slightly less so than the Ultra Boost. This makes the latter redundant, and you can go with the Supernova ST instead.

If you’re using the Tempo 9 as the shoe for runs of 10k to a half marathon, it makes sense to get something lighter. Like the Takumi-sen 3 for instance. It’s a great shoe for quick 10k runs or shorter, and this quality adds to the shoe’s rotational value.

In case you’re looking to substitute the Supernova ST with a shoe from another brand, then the Saucony Hurricane ISO 3 is a good stand-in. After all, the Everun foam is nothing but another name for a material similar to the Boost, and the Hurricane has a thick midsole with plenty of cushioning.

The ultra-lightweight New Balance Hanzo S or the Mizuno Wave Ekiden is a good substitute for the Takumi-Sen if you’re not up for the latter’s high sticker price.


adidas_adizero_tempo_9_similar shoes

Brand Model Midsole Check price
adidas adizero Boston 6 Firm Amazon
Asics DS Trainer 22 Firm Amazon
Brooks Asteria Firm Amazon
Mizuno Wave Catalyst 2 Firm Amazon
New Balance 1500 V3 Firm Amazon
Saucony Fastwitch 8 Firm Amazon

The Tempo 9 is a lightweight and supportive trainer, which puts it in the same category as the likes of the New Balance 1500V3 and the Asics DS Trainer 22. The 1500 has slightly less cushioning and responsiveness than the Tempo, but excels as a lightweight trainer till distances of a half marathon. It also performs superbly on synthetic tracks.

The Asics DS Trainer 22 has a lot in common with the Tempo. It’s got a medial post which is barely noticeable, and the Flytefoam offers a cushioned yet relatively flatter ride quality. The Brooks Asteria is somewhat comparable, considering its mini medial-post mated to a lightweight midsole. The Saucony Fastwitch 8 is a firm yet padded lightweight trainer with a non-intrusive support element.

Mizuno has the Catalyst 2 representing its lightweight support category. As expected of any Mizuno shoe, the ride is firmer due to the plastic Wave plate inserted between the midsole foam. On the bright side, you get plenty of support with a ride character which feels quick and efficient.

Lastly, another adidas shoe compares with the Tempo. That would be the Boston 6 with its slightly softer ride but with a similar weight class and ride quality.

Do you own this shoe? Improve this review by sharing your insights – submit a review here.

The post adidas adizero tempo 9 Review appeared first on Solereview.

Skechers GoRun Ride 6 Review


Skechers marketing pitch: The sixth generation of the GoRun Ride has additional impact protection and response.

Upper: Engineered knit mesh, fused urethane, synthetic leather.

Midsole: Single-density EVA foam, 4 mm heel drop.

Outsole: Circular hard carbon rubber pods in a localized placement.

Weight: 235 gms/ 8.3 Oz for a half pair of Men’s US 9/UK 8/EUR 42.5/CM 27

Widths available: Single, D – regular (reviewed).

If you were a fan of Skechers’ older ‘M-Strike’ midsole, then you’ll be happy in the GoRun Ride 6. Be mindful, however. By carrying over the legacy midsole design, the Ride 6 delivers a cushioned, yet flatter ride quality when compared to newer models such as the GoRun 5 and GoMeb Razor.
Cushioned ride, smooth interior fit, extremely lightweight for its class, great price-value
Lack of outsole grip, flat ride quality, poor insole quality, Skechers’ custom fit (with the insole) strategy is hit or miss



Hmm. This is interesting. The Skechers GoRun Ride 6 uses the same midsole as the GoRun Ride 5, which means that it is now the only Skechers performance running shoe to feature the legacy ‘M-Strike’ rocker midsole, with its rubber-tipped foam pillars doubling as the outsole.

The rest of the performance line, be it the recently launched GoRun 5 and the GoMeb Razor – have transitioned to different midsoles. As a result, there’s a significant difference in ride quality between the GoRun Ride 6 and the rest.

Although Skechers has updated the Ride 6 midsole with its new 5GEN EVA foam, it’s done so in an injection-molded format. This delivers a flatter and less resilient ride quality than the newer models.

As a stand-alone shoe, there isn’t much wrong with the Ride 6. Its sub-$100 retail price and knit upper still makes it great value for money, and its neutral cushioned ride has plenty of padding.

The bright side is that those missing the ‘M-Strike’ midsole design have the Ride 6 to look to. The rocker-shaped midsole won its share of followers in the early years of Skechers’ performance assortment, so the Ride 6’s older design is a solace to some.



The lower part of the Ride 6 might not have changed, but the upper is brand new. Like the rest of flock, Skechers uses an engineered mesh upper (aka the GoKnit) for the latest version of the Ride 6. The upper has a clean profile with minimal layering, at least in the frontal areas of the shoe.

There’s no external layering over the toe-box, and the latter maintains its shape through an internal toe-stiffener. The midfoot has a band of hotmelt urethane placed vertically which then goes to join the lacing panel made of the same material.

The flat laces pass through rectangular-shaped eyelets and over a padded tongue which has a familiar design and construction. In relative terms, the heel has a lot of material. To begin with, Skechers’ ‘Quickfit’ is now in the shape of an external pull-tab. It is attached to a large piece of synthetic which wraps around the back.

The heel collar is padded with an internal counter, and the lining is the same textile used on most Skechers models. Reflectivity is provided by a few bits located over the heel and midfoot.


There are numerous structural changes over the GoRun Ride 5’s upper. The eyelet holes are now rectangular shaped versus the round ones of the Ride 5. This update allows for a smoother movement of laces compared to the Ride 5. Also, the Ride 6 has a cleaner looking upper as it gets rid of most of the forefoot overlays.

This, when combined with the new knit mesh, creates more sideways forefoot room and raises the toe-box height. The Ride 6 is also more breathable because of the larger vents knitted into the mesh.

But there’s a catch.

The last year’s GoRun Ride 5 did not have the ugly looking Quickfit tab. Instead, the heel collar had a hole which performed as a hook for your fingers. This year, the collar is made ‘whole’ instead of ‘hole,’ and this causes the foot’s position to move forward towards the toe area.

As expected, the GoRun Ride 6 feels slightly shorter in size when compared with the GoRun Ride 5.


The midsole uses a single-density piece of EVA foam. Though Skechers uses 5GEN, its newer foam variant, it is visually impossible to tell the difference between it and the last year’s Resalyte midsole.

The Ride 6’s 4 mm drop midsole is identical to the Ride 5’s and uses the rocker design with its foam pillars protruding underneath. The only difference is that the Ride 6 does not use midsole paint on the sides.

What passes off as the outsole is a colony of circular rubber pieces mounted on midsole pods. The placement of rubber isn’t where maximum wear and tear happens, nor do they follow a movement path. Instead, the outsole design prioritizes visual symmetry over function.

There’s an upside to the minimal use of rubber, and that’s the shoe weight. The Skechers GoRun Ride 6 is a measly 235 grams/8.3-ounces, which is very little weight in exchange for a decent stack of cushioning.

The Ride 6 can be worn in two ways – with and without the insole. The removable insole is a thin sheet of compression molded foam, and below that is another layer of foam.

Unlike most running shoes with foam lasting, the Ride 6’s underlayer is designed just like an insole. There’s an identically colored fabric lining on top, with ‘Skechers Performance’ printed and all.


The upper will hold up okay, but there’s a potential durability issue with a couple of other components. The removable insole is made of low-quality EVA foam, and it tends to go flat after 100 miles.

The midsole doesn’t fare any better. The pod-like structures on the outsole tend to shred quickly in specific wear and tear areas. The newer outsole design used on the GoRun 5 and Razor perform better on durability.

The foam is standard EVA, so expect a gradual flattening of cushioning after a couple of hundred miles.



The Ride 6 fits true, but if you want the same sizing margin as the Ride 5, then you need to buy half a size larger. That’s because the new heel design pushes the foot slightly forward.

Barring this change, the Ride 6 offers ample vertical and sideways room. The internal toe-bumper without layers outside offers spacious accommodation for your toes. Over the forefoot, the generously vented GoKnit mesh provides enough foot-splay room and ventilation.

No complaints with the heel and tongue fit, either. The padded collar grips the foot well, though our opinion is that the whole ‘Quickfit’ feature is overdone. The huge synthetic pull tab is a gratuitous design add which looks aesthetically displeasing.


You have to be wary of the GoRun Ride 6’s removable insole set-up. The interiors are designed so that you can wear the Ride 6 with or without the insole. But opting for either choice comes with issues of its own.

If you wear the shoe without the insole, then there’s excess room left over. So much so that the heel starts slipping, and the forefoot tends to gather when laced tight. And while there are no fit issues when you use the provided insoles, one needs to be careful about the insole’s placement.

We recommend that you wear the GRR 6 with the supplied insole, but with a caveat. The insole edges are thin and high, so they might ride up the insides and can potentially prove to be an irritant. So make sure the insole placement is perfect before you take the Ride 6 for a run.

Skechers should drop this insole ‘feature,’ as the potential drawbacks outweigh the benefits.



There’s not much to write about the GRR 6’s ride quality. The midsole provides cushioning, but without much responsiveness. Though there’s softness beneath, the ride feels flat.

Much of this can be attributed to the injection-molded construction which feels less resilient than the newer compression-molded midsoles used on the GoRun 5 and GoMeb Razor. There are exceptions to how injection molded parts can feel, so this isn’t a sweeping generalization. For example, the GoRun Ultra uses injection molding, and the ride feels noticeably responsive.

We prefer the cushioning quality of the GoRun 5. It isn’t necessarily softer than the Ride 6 but provides better responsiveness and feedback. Transitions also feel slower on the Ride 6; the foam pillar based midsole doesn’t feel as quick as the flatter profile of the GoRun 5. And the outsole grip could also be better.

Despite some of the shortcomings of the GoRun Ride 6’s midsole, the shoe is comfortable enough for longer runs – as long as you aren’t chasing pace records. Remember that the GRR6 weighs a mere 235 grams, so it delivers a lightweight running experience.

You can also use the GoRun Ride 6 on treadmills but stay out of synthetic tracks or light trails. There simply isn’t enough grip to make track workouts fun, and the build isn’t durable enough for unpaved surfaces.

The Ride 6 is best worn with the supplied insole. Without the latter, there’s nearly nothing between your feet and the midsole – this turns the ride quality remarkably flat in character. The lasting below the insole has a layer of blown foam, but it’s so thin that it’s good as not having any.



There’s one fact you can’t deny about the GRR6. A sub-$100 price makes it great value for money, considering that you get a knit mesh upper and a cushioned ride in lieu. Skechers is the only brand we know of which provides these materials at this price-point.

It’s also very lightweight, with the upper being comfortable and well ventilated. There’s enough forefoot and toe-box room, and the lack of seams results in a smooth interior. Though the midsole material doesn’t feel special in any way, it contains enough cushioning for runs of most mileages.

What’s missing though, is an engaging ride experience. There are also a few other shortcomings, such as the tricky placement of the removable insole and the lack of outsole grip and durability.


The GoRun Ride 6 is a reminder of what the Skechers performance line used to be once. The rocker-shaped ‘M-Strike’ midsole is similar to what was used in earlier versions of the GoRun series, so the ride quality will feel familiar to runners who have owned a pair of older GoRuns.

Notwithstanding the carry-over midsole, the Ride 6 is a lightweight, cushioned, and value-for-money shoe. The knit upper is smooth, breathable, and has ample interior room.

The fit changes slightly over the GoRun 5; while the sideways forefoot room and toe-box height increases, the new heel design results in a slightly shorter sizing.

There are plenty of other updates on the upper, such as the new GoKnit mesh (the GRR 5 used regular mesh) and an aesthetic profile which is much sleeker than before. The retail price is $5.00 lower than the GRR5, and both shoes weight the same.

What remains to be seen is how Skechers manages its differentiation problem going forward. We mentioned in our GoRun 5 review about how the latter is very close to the GoMeb Razor, considering that both are based on identical midsole platforms.



Rotation Model Shoe type Check price
Same brand Skechers GR Ride 6 Cushioned ride, daily runs Amazon
Same brand Skechers GR Ultra Road 2 Cushioned ride, long runs Amazon
Same brand Skechers GoMeb Speed 4 Lightweight, Race-day Amazon
Multi brand Skechers GR Ride 6 Cushioned ride, daily runs Amazon
Multi brand New Balance Boracay V3 Cushioned ride, long runs Amazon
Multi brand Saucony Type A Lightweight, Race-day Amazon

Making a recommended rotation of three Skechers shoe could have been tricky if not for the recently introduced GoRun Ultra Road 2. By far, the Ultra Road 2 packs the most cushioning of all Skechers running shoes, hence creating a differentiated rotational assortment of the Ultra, the Ride 6, and the GoMeb Speed 4.

With the rotation approach mentioned above, you can use the Ride 6 as a cushioned daily trainer while delegating fast runs to the GoMeb Speed 4. For those long and easy runs, the brand new GoRun Ultra Road 2 comes in handy.

Within the recommended 3-shoe non-Skechers rotation, it’s worth looking at the New Balance Boracay V3, a 4 mm drop shoe with more cushioning over the GRR6. On the other hand, the 4 mm heel drop Saucony Type A will work as a fast, race-day shoe.



Brand Model Midsole Check price
Asics Roadhawk FF Medium soft Amazon
Brooks Launch 4 Firm Amazon
Hoka Hupana Medium soft Amazon
New Balance Boracay V3 Medium soft Amazon
Saucony Kinvara 8 Medium soft Amazon
Skechers GoRun 5 Medium soft Amazon

Despite Skechers positioning its GoRun 5 as a training (and faster) shoe, the GR 5 is the Ride 6’s closest living relative. The knit upper and 4 mm drop feels all too familiar across both models.

Among the rest, the new Asics Roadhawk FF is a lightweight (sub 9-ounce) cushioned trainer which strays from the tried-and-tested Gel and foam formula. Instead, the midsole is made of Flytefoam stack with a 8 mm offset. The New Balance Boracay V3 is somewhat similar to the Roadhawk and provides more cushioning than the GRR6.

The Brooks Launch 4 is a firmer neutral trainer; the Hoka Hupana and Saucony Kinvara 8 are moderately cushioned with a low heel drop.

You might have noticed that this recommended list is nearly identical to what we prescribed in our GoRun 5 review. There’s a good reason for doing so.

Regardless of how Skechers pitches the Ride 6, the shoe isn’t of the same category as a regular neutral trainer. The Ride 6 has a low heel drop of 4 mm, is very lightweight, and does not have as much as cushioning as you’d find on, say, a Pegasus or a Ghost.

Do you own this shoe? Improve this review by sharing your insights – submit a review here.

The post Skechers GoRun Ride 6 Review appeared first on Solereview.

Nike Air Zoom Pegasus 34 Review

Nike’s marketing pitch: Versatile and fast.

Upper: Engineered mesh, partial inner sleeve, Flywire strap-based lacing.

Midsole: Compression molded EVA foam midsole, heel and forefoot Zoom Air bags. 10 mm heel drop.

Outsole: Full-length hard carbon rubber.

Weight: 295 gms/ 10.4 Oz for a half pair of Men’s US 10/UK 9/EUR 44/CM 27.1

Widths available: B – narrow, D – regular (reviewed), 2E – Wide

The Pegasus 34 is very similar to the 33. The ride quality is exactly the same while upper receives a few updates. The value proposition – that of a durable and comfortable everyday trainer – stays unchanged.
Responsive ride and snappy transitions, secure upper fit, breathable, durable outsole, decent price-value
Lack of 4E width, Flywire cords aren’t perfect, thin tongue, reduced reflectivity



The Nike Pegasus is, by far, the longest continuing running shoe series (excluding retro releases) in the history of the footwear industry. The ’34’ suffix to the shoe name is a testimony to how long the Pegasus has been around. It won’t be far fetched to say that the Pegasus is nearly as old as Nike itself.

So what makes the Pegasus so special? But that’s asking the wrong question. The Pegasus isn’t special in any way, and that’s perhaps its greatest strength. The Pegasus is the footwear equivalent of the boy or girl next door – not the smartest or the most athletic, but someone you’re comfortable hanging around with all day.

This decently priced, neutral cushioned trainer by Nike fits that analogy. There’s cushioning, and yet it’s not ultra soft. The upper fits well without cocooning your feet in material plushness. The Zoom Air bags provide a snappy feel under the forefoot and rear, and the outsole is as durable as they come. In other words, the Pegasus 34’s lack of special is what makes it endearing to so many.

The same can’t be said for the Structure, the Nike Pegasus’s stability counterpart. The Nike Structure has gone through many changes with all the enthusiasm of a swinging pendulum. Some versions worked well, while others were flawed. But then, that’s a story for another time. So for now, we’ll stay on topic.

If you’re a long-time Nike user, then you would be familiar with Nike’s biennial design update cadence. For most Nike running shoes, midsole and outsole changes happen once in two years while the upper changes annually. The Pegasus 33 updated the midsole and outsole, so this year it’s time for an upper-only refresh.

Not much has changed since the Pegasus 33. The midsole and outsole stay the same, and all updates happen on the Pegasus 34’s new upper. The upper changes aren’t major and just happen to be tiny tweaks made to the material and construction.

So if you’re not in a mood to pay new-shoe dollars for the Pegasus 34, it’s perfectly ok to stay with the 33 for another year. This way, you can save plenty of money by getting the outgoing Pegasus 33. That would be a financially prudent decision, as the differences between the 33 and 34 do not amount to much.


While the Pegasus 34’s upper bears a close resemblance to the previous designs, efforts have been made to align the aesthetic scheme with Nike’s ‘Breaking 2’ collection. The Pegasus 34 is inspired by the clean lines of the Vaporfly 4% and the Zoom Fly. This inspiration also extends to the large vents on the Pegasus 34’s engineered mesh upper and the ‘speed lines’ running over the side.

The Flywire cords are now concealed by the first layer of the engineered mesh, which is a contrast to the exposed design of the Pegasus 33’s Flywire cords. Hiding the Flywire now allows the 34 to move the Swoosh logo to a more prominent location over the center.

The basic upper construction is similar to the last few Pegasus versions. A single piece of mesh wraps around the entirety of the shoe, with another internal layer forming the half-sleeve attached to the tongue. In the rear, there’s a hard internal counter and the toe area has a pliable stiffener.

No change can be observed on the tongue and collar lining. The tongue is sparsely padded as always, and the collar uses a soft textile with a foam fill inside. The last two lacing rows are non-Flywire, and the reserve row can be used for heel-lock lacing when called upon.

What’s new on the Pegasus 34’s upper is the engineered mesh with larger-than-before vents. Compared to the past few models, the forefoot has bigger pores which allow improved splay and ventilation. And while it is difficult to see from the outside, the internal toe-bumper appears to have gained height too.


Also new are the flat laces and the external heel design. The Pegasus finally switches to flat laces with a minute amount of stretch in them, which is a much-needed improvement over the round laces of the past models.

We say this because the flat laces do a better job of distributing top-down pressure and stay tied-down longer too.

The counter gets additional urethane reinforcement over the sides and back. The sides are now covered in a transparent laminate (same as what’s used on the lacing area), and the heel center has a thicker urethane with reflective strips over it.

This is one area where the Pegasus 34 is shortchanged; the level of reflectivity is lower than the 33.


True to its once-in-two-years midsole design update cycle, the Pegasus 34 carries forward the same sole design from the 33 (which had a brand new sole unit). The Pegasus 33 introduced an additional Zoom Air bag under the forefoot last year, and that continues to be the case for the 34 too.

Nike’s EVA foam – Cushlon – forms the bulk of the 10 mm drop, single-density foam midsole, with Zoom Air bags embedded in individual heel and forefoot cavities. Unlike shoes such as the Vomero, the EVA used isn’t very soft and is tinged with firmness.

Outsole coverage is plentiful. Except for a portion of exposed midsole foam under the heel, the bottom is generously overlaid with durable and grippy rubber. The outer side has a series of ‘crash rail’ – pairs of rubber strips – for smoother transitions.


Not all hard Carbon rubber types are the same; the compound used in some brands last longer than the others. Nike’s formulation for its outsole rubber hits the sweet spot between delivering traction and durability. We’ve rarely come across complaints about the Pegasus’s sole, and that’s because they usually last very long.

You should be able to extract more than 400 miles with the Pegasus. Wear and tear will happen with the foam midsole and insole, though the Zoom Air bags will retain their cushioning as long as they do not accidentally deflate.

The double-layered upper is durable as ever, so it’s unlikely that it will fail before the midsole.


The Pegasus switched to a slim fit after the version 30, and the 34 is similar in many ways to the 31, 32, and 33. That said, there are a few welcome updates to the fit. As mentioned previously, the flat laces do a far better job of sitting flush over the thinly padded tongue.

The new mesh material has larger vents, so there’s a bit of extra splay room on the sides. Not saying that the Pegasus 33 was narrow, but the 34 just relaxes the sideways fit ever so slightly. As a bonus, the Pegasus 34 is more breathable than the 33.

We could be wrong, but the toe-box height also feels higher. It is our guess that the internal toe-stiffener is raised over the 33, freeing up a bit of vertical room. In the back, the heel fits and feels the same, with the overall heel-to-toe sizing being true.


Moving most of the Flywire between the upper layers also means that the cords are closer to the foot. This change is something you can sense, as the thin cords strain against the foot when laced tight.

The heel provides a secure grip. The internal heel counter delivers the required support, and the padded collar wraps the foot without slippage.



If you’re expecting the Pegasus 34 to be a soft shoe, then you’ll be disappointed. The Pegasus 33 and 34 are firmer even by version 31 and 32 standards, and that’s because of the extra Zoom Air bag added to the forefoot last year.

The only layer of perceivable softness is provided by the removable insole and the foam lasting below it. The foam cavity under the heel also splays when loaded, and adds to the cushioning experience.


Most runners would describe the Pegasus as a stiff shoe, and that’s not far away from the truth. The Zoom Air bags add a high degree of responsiveness, but the trade-off is the loss of softness, especially at lower speeds. At a higher pace (faster than 5 min/km), the Zoom Air bags add plenty of springy feedback to the ride, regardless of whether you’re a forefoot or heel striker.

The firmness and relatively inflexible forefoot contributes to the transition quality. Push-offs feel quick on the Pegasus 34 (and 33), a trait which adds to the Pegasus 34’s versatile nature. The combination of standard foam and Zoom Air bags packs enough cushioning for gruelling marathons while the snappy feel makes the shoe suitable for shorter runs.



The Pegasus is a decently priced, well-rounded package. The Pegasus undercuts most of its competitor by $10 while offering a ride character which combines a healthy dose of cushioning with plenty of springy responsiveness.

The upper has a seamless interior and a secure fit, both of which are positive traits on a running shoe. The durable outsole is the icing on the cake.

All that said, the Pegasus isn’t perfect. We’re yet to warm up to the idea of the cord-based Flywire which puts localized pressure over the side. This happens more so on the Pegasus 34 which moves the cords closer to the foot. Also, the 34’s heel reflectivity looks snazzier, but there’s less of it when compared to the previous model.

The Pegasus 34 also seems (at the time of writing this review) to have dropped the Extra-wide (4E) version which was previously available on the 33. Why?


The ride quality hasn’t changed over last year, so it’s ok if you decide to stick with the Pegasus 33. Both versions are equally versatile, comfortable with taking on long-distance runs as much as shorter bursts. There’s adequate cushioning along the length of the shoe mixed with a snappy feel provided by the Zoom Air bags.

All changes take place on the 34’s upper. Here’s a list of the updates: The laces change from round to flat, the new engineered mesh upper is more breathable and slightly roomier, the Flywire cords are now placed closer to the foot, and there’s a reduction in heel reflectivity.

There is a small difference in shoe weight; the Pegasus is 0.4-ounce lighter.


Options Technology Check price
Nike Zoom Vomero 12 Heel and forefoot Zoom Amazon
Nike Zoom Pegasus 34 Heel and forefoot Zoom Amazon
Nike Zoom Winflo 3 Heel Zoom Amazon

With the Nike Pegasus receiving two Zoom Air bags, there’s reduced differentiation between it and the higher-priced Vomero 12. But you’ll still get extra cushioning due to the blown rubber outsole and a slightly softer midsole foam. Keep in mind that the Vomero 12 fits noticeably narrower than the Pegasus 34.

The Zoom Winflo 3 is an entry level neutral shoe with a lightweight build. The use of Flywire and engineered mesh serves as a design tie-in with more expensive Nike models, and a heel-only Zoom provides snappy cushioning for rearfoot strikers.



Rotation Model Shoe type Check price
Same brand Nike Lunarepic 2 Low Long and easy runs Amazon
Same brand Nike Pegasus 34 Medium pace runs Amazon
Same brand Nike Streak 6 Fast pace Amazon
Multi brand adidas Supernova M Long and easy runs Amazon
Multi brand Nike Pegasus 34 Medium pace runs Amazon
Multi brand adidas adios 3 Boost Fast pace Amazon

Having the Lunarepic Low 2 along with the Pegasus and Streak 6 makes for a wholesome running shoe assortment. The Lunarepic offers a softer and differentiated ride than the Pegasus, while the Streak 6 is great for fast runs and races up to a half-marathon.

Last year, we recommended the adidas Ultra Boost as a more cushioned companion to the Pegasus. That changes this year due to the introduction of the much-softer Supernova. You can rotate the adidas Supernova for the long and easy runs alongside the relatively firmer Pegasus 34.

The durable and snappy adidas adios 3 performs best when used for fast-paced runs. Say, races from 5K up to a half marathon.



Brand Model Midsole Check price
Asics Gel Cumulus 19 Soft Amazon
Brooks Ghost 9 Medium soft Amazon
Mizuno Wave Rider 20 Firm Amazon
New Balance 880 V7 Medium soft Amazon
Nike Pegasus 34 Soft Amazon
Saucony Ride 10 Medium soft Amazon
Underarmour Gemini 3 Medium soft Amazon

The Pegasus 34 compares to several others in the mid-priced, neutral cushioning class of running shoes.

The Saucony Ride 10 is the closest in terms of overall character, and the Underarmour Speedform Gemini 3 is a close second. Both shoes are different in many ways, though. The Ride fits narrower and has a flatter ride quality, and the Underarmour is a firmer shoe with a slimmer upper.

Others like the Brooks Ghost 9 provide a cushioned and supportive ride without being noticeably soft or responsive. And there’s the softer riding Asics Cumulus 19 and the New Balance 880V7 with their engineered mesh uppers.

Mizuno’s Wave Rider 20 is not cut of the same cloth as the others, thanks to the plastic Wave plate and the firm midsole foam. Nonetheless, a neutral and supportive running shoe it very much is.

Do you own this shoe? Improve this review by sharing your insights – submit a review here.

The post Nike Air Zoom Pegasus 34 Review appeared first on Solereview.