วีดีโอ

They are two different flavors of supershoe. The EP4 is wider, more stable, more comfortable and less bouncy. It has more of a cruising, rolling sensation. It to me is more like a training shoe kicked up a notch. The Puma is lighter, faster and bouncier. But it is also more narrow and less stable. It does feels like the faster option between the two. For shorter races, I'd definitely go Puma. I took the Puma out for 14 1:00 reps and the shoe absolutely sung. Felt great when I turned up the pace. If you are looking for more stability and comfort, I'd go Saucony. If you want bounce and speed, Puma. I'm trying to pick my shoe for the Chicago marathon this year and driving myself crazy. I know that the Saucony is the safer choice to get me to the end in comfort and supported. But if I really want to push for a personal best, I'm leaning Puma. To further complicate things, I have the NB SC Elite V4 coming tomorrow. I really want to use the Puma in Chicago, but I want to see if maybe the NB can split the difference between the Saucouny and the Puma and be more stable than the Puma but more propulsive than the Saucony. Review on that one will be coming soon. The Saucony is also bit more accommodating if you have a wider foot or more volume in your foot. The Puma has a tighter fit but still a decent amount of room in the toe box. My normal shoe size is a 12. I'm either a 12 or 12.5 in running shoes. A 12 works for me in the Puma. I went up to a 12.5 in the Saucony.

@@runwithsean my man!! This was the best reply ever and I am also a size 12! I run so much in the Superblast now and just looking for another shoe that can go a little faster! You’ve sold me on Puma except now I can’t find it anywhere online!! Damn the luck! Thanks again man! Looking forward to your NB SC review

Well, I guess brands are willing to push prices to what the market will accept. Every decent running shoe starts at over $100 these days and every carbon plate racing shoe starts at over $200. If you look at the start line of any major race, there are thousands of people wearing the latest and greatest $200 plus shoes. When Nike comes out with a new $285 Alphafly, they sell out instantly. Runners like shoes, and are willing to pay top dollar to get the performance that they deliver. I often try to buy last year’s model when they go on sale. But also when you think about it, if someone trained for three months of their life and put in hours and hours of work, they are willing to pay to maximize their performance on race day. Take a look at cycling. That’s some crazy big bucks. Bikes can be tens of thousands of dollars. No one needs to spend $250 on a shoe. But lots of people do.

We’ll see how it goes in Chicago. Hoping for a personal best.

That's what I was thinking would happen to me as well. A very fast shoe, but also unforgiving.

You definitely don't need a carbon shoe for every race. If you aren't going for a PB, you might as well wear a shoe that fits you well and is comfortable for those long miles. I was hoping that the Superblast 2 would be a good fit for me to use for Chicago this year. It's great for long runs and more stable than the Edge Paris, but just doesn't have the propulsive feeling that I'm looking for to try to push hard for 26.2. I'm hoping that the Puma serves me well. We'll find out in less than two months.

Haha. Yeah, I can dream about going that fast! I do have some overpronation when I run that can be made worse by narrow shoes and soft foam. Some pronation is ok, since it's a natural way of shock absorption for your body. But shoes that are extremely unstable don't work well for me. With these two, I can feel that the pronation is there but it's no where near what happens to me in the Vaporfly 2. My ankle nearly breaks off when I run long in that shoe.

I’ve actually run in both shoes several times. All on the road before doing this one run on the track. So my opinions are based on my full experience with the shoes. Not just this one session. I have separate reviews for each shoe on my channel. I currently have 36 miles in the Edge and just ran a 5k in them today. I have about 20 miles in the Puma so far on the road. The track I run on is also old and not very springy. I find no difference in how the shoes felt that day compared to my experience on the road.

Thanks for your insights. I would have loved to try both the Edge and Sky but it wasn’t in my budget. So I picked the one that I thought would work better for me. How do you feel that the Sky differs in the ride? Does it have more bounce and less of an aggressive toe off? I really think that the Edge is a great shoe. I just don’t want to run long in it.

Why do you think he'd like the Sky Paris more? It is very individual which one works. Edge works better for me. I don't get on with the high plates.

I’m in a constant expensive search for my perfect racing shoe. Haha. When I first got the ASICS, I was blown away by its speed but didn’t think I could take it 26.2. When I saw that the Puma was about the same weight but also softer, that really peaked my interest. These two shoes really are similar in a lot of ways but also have a very different feel and ride. It’s almost like the Puma is a sports car that you are driving around in Comfort mode and the ASICS you pressed the Track button and everything firms up and gets more agressive.

@@runwithsean Interesting analogy: the Puma is like driving an Aston Martin at high speed and Asics is like driving a Lambo at high speed.

@@Wings_nutI like your analogy as well! Going along those lines, the ASICS is a Redbull and Vodka and the Puma is a martini (shaken, not stirred)

@@runwithsean copy that

Thanks! Yeah my watch was showing kph instead of mph and I have no concept of how those compare. Just never really bothered to try to figure it out. So I was just chugging along and thinking to myself, "I feel like I'm running a bit faster than usual for a warm up." Then I just couldn't contain myself when I first put the Edge Paris on. "I just felt like Runnin." Good luck in your half marathon! Let me know how you do and how the shoe works for you. That shoe is an absolute rocket!

Thanks! I have the Puma Deviate 1 and the 3. I did not pick up the 2. The 1 has possibly the tightest upper of any of my shoes. The 3 definitely has more room than the 1, but it is still a narrow shoe overall. It looks to me like the 3 has about the same profile and width as the 2, but it also gained some stack. As I said, I don't have the 2 to tell you how it compares on foot. But my best guess would be that the 3 would fit very similarly to the 2. I also have the original Metaspeed Sky, but not the Sky plus. So I'm missing that in-between generation in both shoes. The Edge Paris is even more narrow than the Puma Elite 3. So I would steer clear of that one if you have a wider foot. The Puma Elite 3 has more room in the toe box than the Edge Paris and also has a bit more width in the midfoot and heel. So that would definitely be better for someone with a wider foot. But it could still be too narrow. It's too bad that almost no stores have Puma shoes to go and try them on. I've actually never seen a Puma race shoe in a store. They don't even carry their own line of running shoes in the Puma outlets stores that I've been to. Not a single shoe in a Puma store with Nitro Foam. Let's work on distribution Puma. Have you taken a look at the Saucony Endorphin Pro 4? That is definitely the most wide foot friendly super shoe that I have tried recently. It's much wider in the forefoot, midfoot and heel than these two shoes. It's also heavier, but more stable and comfortable as well. I'm going back and forth with whether I should use the Puma Elite 3 or the Saucouny Pro 4 for the Chicago marathon this year. I like the stability and comfort of the Saucony. But I like the lightness and bounce of the Puma. Right now I'm leaning Puma. I want to take the Puma for a marathon pace long run to make my final decision there.

I have 2 new pairs of the Endorphin Pro 3.. Love the Endorphin Pro 3.. I thought the Endorphin Pro 4 will be a bit like the Pro 3 so did not try it. The Endorphin Elite is on sale in Europe but maybe the HG foam to firm? Again like the Puma no shop has it..

I tried the DNE3 and have the DN2 (not elite). The DNE3 is surely not as snug as the DN2 (I find the DN2 perfect for me feet btw, the DNE3 felt a little loose but still was holding the foot just fine).

@@i.p2088I ran a marathon last year in the Endorphin Elite. I did find that HG foam too firm for that distance. It’s a very fast shoe but I’d prefer to use it for shorter races and the Endorphin pro for longer ones.

​@@i.p2088Endorphin Pro 4 is very different to the 3.

Thanks! I am firmly a regular runner. Haha. I do ok for my age and size, but when I look at what these pros can do, it absolutely blows my mind. I definitely feel like some of these top tier shoes are more designed to benefit a 120 pound runner, with great mechanics, strong ankles and a forefoot foot strike. I'm a 42 year old who's been running for about 4 years, 6'4'' 230 pounds with a midfoot strike. So I'm going to have a much different experience in some of these shoes than an elite runner. I'll definitely keep posting my feelings on shoes from that perspective.

@runwithsean that's what I appreciate! This thorough review from someone much closer to myself. You fill a space that a lot of runners fit in, so thank-you. You really helped me make a decision on what may be the best way to spend my money!

@@jamisons2504Awesome! Glad I could help.

As the King of Gondor, these would have served you very well for long runs across middle earth. Great comfort and traction for hunting Orc. As we all know, dwarves are natural sprinters and wasted on cross country. So I’d recommend a lower stack tempo shoe for Gimli to pair with this one. That would be better for track sessions, and shorter, faster efforts. I love the Adidas Takumi Sen series for that task as well as the NB Rebel and Hoka Mach 5 or 6. The Superblast 2 can also handle daily miles. But many would consider a lower stack daily trainer like the Novablast for that. Then if you plan on racing, you may want to add a carbon shoe in there. Depending on your size, foot strike, distance races you plan on running, etc. there are so many choices in that category. I think a good running shoe rotation really needs a daily trainer and tempo shoe. Then a max cushion trainer and race day shoe are the icing on the cake. If you let me know what style of runner you are and more details about what shoes you like and what you are looking for, I could give you some recommendations. In the meantime, make sure that the blade that was broken returns to Minas Tirith. For Frodo!

@@runwithsean hahaha this made my day! Thank you!

@@runwithsean I’m a new runner and my max is 4 miles and growing. I was gifted a super of superblasts 2 and will use as a daily trainer. Just not sure if it’s wise to add a max cushion recovery shoe or a carbon plate as my second pair. My overall goal is to build endurance and get faster at running.

As a big LOTR fan myself, that was a fun comment to write. I agree. As a newer runner, I’d look for a solid daily trainer with less stack height that you can run faster in than the Superblast. I like some of the lighter weight trainers that can double as a tempo shoe. I think the Hoka Mach 5 or 6, NB Rebel, or the new Adidas SL2 might be a good option there. A lot of people really like the Novablast 4 as well. I have only run in the Novablast 1 though.

@@runwithsean thank you!!! Since it was a gift I might just use the super blast as my daily go to shoe! I’m sure it will be okay for that

I have the same feeling as you. I can really turn up the pace in the Edge Paris, but am concerned about stability of that shoe for over 13.1. I’ll probably use the ASICS in a 5k I’m running in a few weeks. I ran a half marathon in the Rocket X2 last year and did well in those for that distance. I haven’t run in the Hoka for a while. So I need to refresh my feelings on that one for a true comparison. But I find the Puma softer and bouncier. I think the feeling underfoot of the Puma would serve me better for 26.2. I’m 99% going to take the Puma Deviate Nitro Elite 3 for the Chicago marathon this year in October. So I’ll have a full marathon test and breakdown of how this shoe did for me after that race.

Thanks. I appreciate it!

I reviewed the Takumi Sen 8 about a year ago. That review is on my channel. I was between that shoe, the Nike Streakfly and NB pacer and went with the Takumi Sen. It’s my favorite short distance tempo shoe. I bought a second pair of the Sen 8, on sale, since I liked it so much. I’ve been doing a lot of marathon focused training since then. So I haven’t put enough miles on my two pairs of Sen 8s for them to need replacing. I buy all of my own shoes, so I do a lot of research myself before purchasing. The other shoes that you mentioned are on my radar. But I don’t think that I’ll be picking those up anytime soon.

Nice. The Superblast is definitely a durable shoe. I haven’t run in the SC trainer, but know that is also a strong shoe for long runs and daily miles. Let me know how that one holds up over time compared to the Superblast.

I’ve run over 110 miles in my Adios Pro 3, including the NYC marathon. I still think that is one of the best super shoes out there. It’s crazy to me that Adidas still haven’t released a new version of that shoe yet though. I guess they were more focused on the crazy light and expensive Pro Evo 1. I find the LightStrike Pro foam in that shoe less bouncy than the Puma. But it still has very good energy return and it has more of an aggressive toe spring. The Puma is lighter and bouncier. The Adidas is a bit more stable than the Puma. Both shoes have very durable midsole foams and outsoles. So I don’t think you have to baby either of those shoes. You can use them both for training and racing and put a lot of miles on them without destroying them. I actually have a video on my channel about why I hate the Nike Alphafly 1. I have not purchased the 2 or the 3, since the 1 didn’t work for me. I just didn’t get along with the AirPods in the shoe and felt like it was slowing me down more than helping me to run fast. I think that may have to do with the fact that I am a giant for a distance runner and was compressing the AirPods too much. $285 is a lot to gamble to see if the 3 works for me. So I haven’t given that one a shot. I want to try the Puma out for a 5k as well as a marathon pace long run to see where I feel it really excels. I’ll post updates on that shoe as I put more miles on them.

Got it, all great things to know. I haven’t tried any of the AFs. I did get good results with the VP2, but stability was a minor issue on longer runs. The VP3 is ok, but too soft for my race taste. I have 2 pairs of Adios Pro 3, one new and the other with about 125 miles. I love them and will use them both interchangeably for long runs and intervals. I only run half marathons so I’ll pick up the Asics Paris Metaspeed and hold them for my November race. Thanks for all your help!

That’s the question that I’m asking myself right now actually. I think I’m really between those two shoes for the Chicago marathon this year. The Saucony is wider, more stable and very comfortable. The Puma is lighter, bouncier and more propulsive. I feel like in a shorter race, advantage Puma all the way. For a marathon, I’m not sure yet. I think when I’m done with this training block and if I feel great and really want to give it my all for the race, I’ll pick the Puma. If I don’t think that I have it on race day and just want to get through it in comfort and put in a solid effort, I’ll reach for the Saucony. I’m definitely going to do some marathon paced long runs in both shoes soon to feel how they treat me over a longer effort. I’ll definitely post an update on my channel once I do so.

When a new model comes out it’s always so tempting! I understand

I found this online: How much does shoe weight affect performance? The most usual answer: adding 100g or 3.5oz per shoe will slow you down 1%. Nike’s calculation for marathon runners running in 4oz lighter shoes: they could finish 3 minutes faster. So it’s not a huge difference. But there is still a difference. I know that for myself personally, I can feel a big difference in the weight of my shoes, and find it easier to run faster in lighter shoes with less effort. I have shoes that are 13 Oz. The average running shoe is around 10 Oz in my size. A 7 Oz running shoe is nearly half the weight of the 13 Oz shoe. Think about doing bicep curls with a 10 pound weight compared to a 5 pound weight for 3 hours straight. Even though they are both light, having that 50% reduction in weight will make it easier. If we are talking about an 8 Oz shoe vs a 7 Oz shoe, then we are splitting hairs a bit. But 3 Oz can definitely make a difference over a marathon. The energy return that you get from these super foams, combined with the carbon plate can add to over a 4% increase in efficiency for runners. You want to pick a shoe that makes you feel confident on race day, to make sure that you are able to get the most performance out of yourself and make all that training pay off. If a shoe can be comfortable, stable, propulsive and also light, then we’ve really got a great shoe.

@@runwithsean Thanks. I am astonished to hear that, I'll have to look into it deeper, I'm still incredulous. That probably means that athletes of 20 years ago probably have to adjust their marathon PB's by a couple of minutes faster, without even taking into account the plates, better foams etc. With those it would probably be 5 minutes. Maybe Haile Gebrselassie still holds the adjusted WR! That said, marathon runners are usually about half your weight:) And I think to make the dumbbells comparison more correct, we should say more like 0.2kg vs 0.3 kilo dumbbells, as 5 or 10 pounds is percentage wise way closer to our body weight than shoes typical weight.

I also just found "That is, if a 200-pound man loses 10 pounds (five percent), he should be able to race five percent faster. A half marathon in 2:00 becomes a 1:54." This is amazing news for you (I really hope you don't take this the wrong way!). I don't think I have much to shed as I'm pretty skinny already (181cm or 5'ft11 and 74kilos). Unless I stop doing any upper body strength and lose muscle, which I am not prepared to do, I believe in balance.

@@yianpap6093Yeah my weight example was probably not proportional. I’ve just never picked up a weight lighter than 10 pounds. Haha. You’re right about body weight. The best marathoner in the world weighs 115 pounds. I’m double that. So he’s basically a Honda Civic and I’m a Ford 150 pickup truck. I don’t get quite as good fuel economy. As you said though, I can’t get too much lighter without losing muscle mass. I have no designs on being an elite runner, so I’d rather not wither myself away. When Nike came out with the Vaporfly and Alphafly, some runners were experiencing performance gains of 4%-10%. For Elites, that’s minutes off their marathon times. Some runners sponsored by other brands were painting Vaporflys black and running in them, since it gave them such an advantage over their other shoes. Now the playing field is much more level, since every brand is now making very light shoes with superfoams and carbon plates. Now it’s about finding which shoe is the most comfortable and feels best for someone’s running style.

@@runwithsean Yeah, I guess I'm just amazed at how the world record now is evidently not really faster than 20 years ago. I think it was 2hr 4 min or so. If we take into account the 4-10% increase from the plates/foams, say it's 5% and another 1% from 100grams shoe weight loss on average in 20 years (just pulled this out of my behind, but shouldn't be far off!), so 6% out of 125mins, that would make it less than 2 hours with today's technology.

I’ll make sure I double check that on the next video. Thanks.

I’m still seeing the Endorphin Elite for $275 most places. Hopefully there will be a good sale on those when the 2 comes out. However, from what I’ve seen so far on the 2, it looks like Saucony have moved to a completely different foam in that shoe, that is much softer. So I think that shoe will feel very different than the 1. The foam may be more similar to what is in this Puma shoe. The Endorphin Elite is definitely the most stable of the three you mentioned. The foam is also firmer and it has a more aggressive toe off than the Puma. I felt some real efficiency gains from that shoe. I’ll have to run in those three one after be other to give me some fresh perspective on them. I’ll try to do a comparison review soon. I had some pain in my knees after the marathon that I ran in the Endorphin Elite. Which is something that I haven’t experienced before or since that race. I’m not sure how much the shoe was to blame for that, but I’m looking for a softer foam than what that shoe has for my next marathon.

@@runwithseanthanks for the feedback a side by side comparison would be very interesting. I picked up in the uk some 2024 elites for £165 flash sale just before the newer blue colour way arrived...price back up at rrp now but these sales will be ongoing now the new version will be available soon. They get great reviews just the price has always been to high so maybe they are a better shoe than the puma and asics at my price. They are still in the box not decided if they're the ones yet ha.

Yeah, I'm surprised he said they fit perfect. I also tried it in a shop in the same size as my Deviate Nitro 2 (which does fit perfect for me) and they definitely run a lot longer than the DN2 and the upper overall is not as perfect-fitting as the DN2. I also tried the DN3 elite half a size down and that was a touch tighter than the DN2, so I am not sure I would be comfortable sizing down either (though it could be fine with thinner socks, who knows). Overall the shoe felt great though and I am tempted once it goes on sale (still not sure what size!)

My normal shoe size is a 12. I’m usually either 12 or 12.5 in running shoes. I want to have a little bit of space between my toes and the front of the shoe, but not too much. In a lot of running shoes, I have to go up to a 12.5 to get that fit. I find that in general, Puma shoes run a bit long. So I’m good with my true to size 12 than having to go up to a 12.5. I have the Deviate Nitro 2 and this shoe in a 12 and have a little bit less than a thumb nail between my big toe and the front of the shoe. Which is exactly what I’m looking for. In most Saucony and Nike shoes I need a 12.5 to get that same fit. Adidas usually works for me in a 12, since they also seem to run a little long to me compared to some other brands. Both the DN2 and this shoe also kind of come to a point at the front of the shoe. I think that if I went a half size down, I wouldn’t have enough length.

Thanks. This one is definitely impressing me. I want to try them out for a marathon paced long run before declaring these my shoe for Chicago. But it’s looking good for them so far.

@@runwithsean nice

I’m looking forward to trying the Puma and ASICS in 5ks to really see how they compare in a race. Hopefully I’ll get the chance soon. Congrats on the PB!

Thanks. If you like the Elite 1, I think you’ll love the 3. Really kicks it up a notch.

I was able to do my normal size 12 in these. Sometimes I’m a 12 and sometimes I need a 12.5 in running shoes. It really depends on the shoe. You want to have a little bit of room between your toes and the front of the shoe. So sometimes a half size up is needed but not always.

Thanks

ASICS seems to be doing a great job when they update their shoes. They keep upgrading the foams and really make a quality product. If you pick up the 4, let me know how you like it.

Thanks. I appreciate it. Myself also being a larger runner, shoes being not too soft can definitely help. Especially on longer efforts.

Thanks!

I need a US 12.5 in a lot of running shoes. Including some other ASICS models. I’m good with my true to size 12 in this shoe. The upper kind of comes to a point, so I find that it has the length that I need in the toe box. So I don’t think you need to go up half a size.

I ran 20 miles in this shoe the first week that I got them. My longest run in the shoe so far is 8 miles at easy pace. The shoe feels bouncy and soft and really comfortable for daily efforts. We’ll see if I take it for a long run of over 10 miles at some point. Recently I’ve been putting at of my long runs into the Superblast 2 (which I just reviewed). The SB2 has more stability, it’s not as soft as the SL2, and isn’t as tight in the upper. So I definitely like the SB2 better as a long run shoe than the Adidas. The SL2 feel light, fast and bouncy. But I think the softness of that shoe could cause some foot fatigue on runs over 10 miles. So I’ll probably keep them for daily runs and some tempo efforts.

@@runwithsean got it. Some non-elite runners concluded that SL2 is not for long runs. Possible tempo, fartlek or track workout. Not advisable to buy at all, so basically the ideal shoe is Asics (Novablast 4, Superblast 2), Adidas (Prima or Rise). I'm not interested on Adidas Boston 12 since it's not a max cushion. not ideally good for easy or Zone 2 run which can use pain in the arch of the foot.

Thanks! You are using the SB1 exactly for what it’s best at. Let me know if it makes it to 600. You’ll get more chances to buy the SB2 when they release new colorways in the future. As long as you buy it immediately when those new colors come out, before it inevitably sells out again. Haha.

I wonder if ASICS intentionally makes the Superblast hard to get or if they really can’t keep up with the demand for the shoe. In either case, I still think it’s the best long run shoe there is. I was considering using the SB2 for a marathon later this year. If I just wanted to get through that race in comfort, I’d use the SB2. I’ll be going for a PB though. So I want a shoe that’s a little bit lighter, with a bit more pop. I’m hoping that the Puma Elite 3 may be that shoe. It’s incredibly light and Puma have maxed out the stack. They are also using a new formulation of Nitro Elite foam that is supposed to have much more energy return. I’m really looking forward to giving that shoe a try. Will be racing a 5k in them on 7/29. So I’ll post the review after that race.

I am firmly in the Superblast camp over the Prime X Strung. The Prime X is too narrow in the heel for me, so I find it unstable. That means I’m able to run faster in the SB2 than the Prime X, since it feels much more natural to me. The SB2 has a bit more softness and bounce than the original. It really felt great on my run today at helping me to conserve energy on a hot humid day. And my legs always feel like I haven’t done anything after a long run in that shoe.

@runwithsean thanks for that! I'm doing an "easy/steady" Sydney Marathon in mid September followed by a goal race Berlin Marathon 2 weeks later, so I'm weighing up options as to what I will use in Sydney so my legs are relatively fresh for Berlin.

@@saytaniI definitely think that the SB2 is a good candidate for that job. And more power to you, doing two marathons in a row. 💪

@@runwithsean Thanks! Appreciate it! 😀

Thanks! This shoe keeps growing on me the more that I run in it. At first I felt like it had lost a step. But that run today really solidified to me that it has superior energy return to V1.

Haha. Do you know anyone else with one of those shirts? I won't be around on Monday, so I'll miss that one. I'm annoyed about it, because I want to give both the ASICS Metaspeed Edge Paris and Puma Deviate Nitro Elite V3 a shot at a 5k. Will probably go with the Puma on 7/29. I actually haven't run it yet, since all of the runs in my training plan have been more slow and long. I'll probably throw in a speed workout soon to give those a go. I saw that you did a triathlon recently. Impressive stuff!

What are you up to in the Superblast 1 so far? I'm at 151 miles in mine. I feel like this shoe will be good for at least 300. Which is a good thing for you, since you'll have some time to wait before they come out with the next colorway of the 2 and it's available again. Haha. With the Superblast you have to jump on buying it right when they come out. I wonder if ASICS is intentionally creating scarcity of these shoes or if they are just so popular that they can't keep up with production.

@@runwithsean Yes, I've heard of runners racking up 500mi. I'm at 107mi/172k on the SB1. I use it strickly for 18-22 mi long runs with workouts (fast finish, surges, etc.). For easy pace long runs up to 16 mi, I use the NovaBlast. It doesn't seem practical to use the SB1 for easy runs since it is clearly intended for long runs where you can pick up the pace too. Cheers, Sean.

Thanks for the info. Sounds like you have the use case for the SB down. It’s definitely a bit of overkill for shorter runs where you don’t need all that stack.

@@runwithsean Indeed. Cheers, Sean . 👍

Thanks!

@@runwithsean can you gift me?

Yeah. I really liked the bounce and ride of the Invincible 1, but it was definitely an unstable shoe. Very durable though. I put over 250 miles on my pair and recently moved them to yard work duty.

I find the Speed 1 and 2 faster but less stable than the Speed 3 and 4. If you are looking for some more comfort and stability, the Speed 3 and 4 have that over the 1 and 2. I’m one of the few people that had some issues with the Pro 3. That shoe seemed to work well for most people. I’m actually liking the Pro 4 better than the 3. It fits me much better. It’s not as fast of a super shoe as some others that I have. But it’s very comfortable and stable. Right now the Pro 4 is on my short list of shoes I’m considering for the Chicago marathon this year. I’d take the ASICS Edge Paris over the Pro 4 for shorter races. But I feel more confident in the Pro 4 for the marathon distance. We’ll see what shoe I end up using for that race.

Today was my first run in the Superblast 2. 79 degrees, 91% humidity. Ran for an hour, with the last 10 minutes faster. Covered just over 7 miles. I think I sweat the most I have ever sweat today. My socks felt like I stepped in puddles by the end of the run. Really need this humidity to break.