Adizero Boston 11

I thought it was common knowledge that lighter people have problems with Adidas shoes needing more break in. Most lighter runners needed at least 50 miles to get Bostons to soften up, where as us heavier runners loved them out of the gate.

I am on the heavier side, 220ish, and every ruin in the Rebels feels like I'm running in concrete. My legs are so destroyed because of how much they absorb and don't give back. They are great walking shoes for me, but they are horrible shoes for any types of runs for myself. I have some Puma's on the way from Shoebacca's ebay store as they were blowing them out for cheap (Foreverrun NItro and Velocity Nitro), and I'll see how they work.

Not a problem as I am used to that with the Boston 11 and Adizero SL.

Sales + runrepeat. Needs to be at least half off. If I’m being honest more like 66%+ off. I’m running in speed 2s, Boston 11s, triumph 19, and glycerin 20s because they were on sale.

Never tried the endorphin speed 4 but love the endorphin speed 5. Before these I've been a huge fan of the Adidas Boston line. Got over 400 miles out of the Boston 11 and Boston 12, and I have a pair of 13 waiting for when my Ultra boost 5x hit 400 miles. I'm 6'6 220 and a bigger guy but the Boston are definitely worth a shot. Plus, they are on sale quite a bit

Yeah agreed. I've had the 11, 12, and about to open up my 13. I'm 6'6 220 and love them. Seems to be a popular viewpoint among us bigger guys!

Wow, welcome to the confusing mess that is purchasing shoes in 2026. More models, more manufacturers, and now more shoes direct from China. I know how you feel about the Wave Riders. I ran for two years on some Air Zoom Elite 4s, and I still have never found a shoe that I thought I liked as much. I used my fairly firm Boston 10 as dailies for a few years, but they aged out and I had to go down this same rabbit hole this year looking for a new daily. What I did discover this round of shopping is that my needs continue to evolve as I am aging, and that there are a whole whack of pretty stellar shoes out there. What opened my eyes was a pair of EVO SL purchased on spec based on their amazing reviews. What I discovered was that responsive cushion is different that just cushion, and its "trampoline" effect was so much easier on my joints. Although the EVO SL are fun to wear, they are simply too unstable for me to use them as a daily. But there are shoes with Clifton-level comfort and (close to) EVO SL levels of responsiveness. I recommend going to the runrepeat website, and looking at shoes with both good shock absorption scores, and good scores in energy return. This is how I ended up with my current "test dailies", a set of Salomon Aero Glide 3 GRVL and Under Armour Infinite Elite 2. I've taken both straight out of the box on to the treadmill for a 5k run, and both have good bounce, yet decent geometry for dailies. Jury is still out, but my joints certainly appreciate the impact absorption more than I miss ground feel. Two shoes with larger fan bases as dailies are the Asics Novablast 5 and Nike Vomero Plus.

Second this - Adidas generally gives good forefoot room with a slimmer heel and midfoot. Have has three of the new-gen Boston (10-11-13), and find the 13 fits more average in the forefoot, and is a bit longer. EVO SL fits TTS, but is also a very unstructured shoe - upper is not very supportive (woven is apparently better), and midsole is both tall and unstable. If you have any motion control issues or are a heel striker, it may not be a good shoe. But yes, narrower heel and wider forefoot. If you were looking for a daily trainer with a bit of squish and the Adidas fit, Supernova Rise 3 looks like a pretty good shoe without some of the specific challenges the Boston or EVO SL have.

I have similar issues with my big toe, so typically seek well-rockered shoes with less toe flexibility. You will likely also now find yourself running with a more rigid foot on its outside, meaning you’ll need good cushioning. Runrepeat.com does a flexibility test on shoes - might be worth a look. Adidas Boston is one model I’ve had good luck with as well as Saucony Triumph. Just make sure you have a good amount of room in the toe box to prevent irritation.

Personally like the firm support of Lightstrike combined with the softer Lightstrike Pro for shock absorbency.

The Megablast is a great shoe, and it can do it all, but it's expensive, and I'm not sure I'll get 250 miles on mine before the outsole on the heel wears through. You can still find the Adidas Boston 10, it's cheap, it will last for 500 miles, it's the most underrated shoe of the last 5 years, and that's a hill I will die on. It's not the greatest for easy/recovery days, and it takes about 30 miles to break in, but it's otherwise excellent.

The upper is a perfect fit for my foot, they strike a great balance between stability and encouraging a roll through my stride, I can run in them 5 days a week through 500 miles and never get any weird niggles in my metatarsals, ankles, shins, calves, knees, hips, etc... the outsole has fantastic grip, and it outlasts most of the competing shoes I've worn over the last 4 years. It was widely panned by shoetubers because it does have a pretty long break-in period. They don't have time to put 50 or 60 miles into a shoe, especially when it doesn't feel optimal out of the box. Why would they waste time on an underwhelming shoe when they need to put miles on a dozen others? I admit it's a little stiff and blocky at first, but if you do put those miles in, the Boston 10 starts to shine. At a time when I was training in both a pair of Boston 10s with about 300 miles on them and a retired pair of Adidas Pro 3s, I noticed that those two shoes had many more similarities than differences in ride and performance. The firm, yet bouncy and responsive foam was almost identical between the two. I'm on my 5th pair of Boston 10s, and occasionally I'll spend a lot of time rotating through other pairs of shoes, and find myself questioning if the Boston 10 is really as good as I remember after all these years. I might somewhat reluctantly pick up a battered pair for a low-stakes interval workout because it's raining outside, proceed to crush the workout, and re-commit to acknowledging their greatness. It's the best all-around workhorse shoe I've ever owned. It's not the best for slow recovery runs, but at least you won't hurt yourself running slow in them. I haven't tried the Boston 13, but I think I had 2 or 3 pairs of the Boston 12. The 12 was an excellent shoe, but it started losing some pop around 250 miles, which is about the time the 10 was transforming into a super shoe. (PS It's worth noting that I average about 175lbs. If you weigh 130lbs, your Boston 10 MMV) (PPS When you get a pair, which you should, compare the silhouette and the midsole geometry to the Evo SL)

Generally, there are three reasons to run in super shoes. 1. It's a race. 2. You're testing them for issues before a race. 3. You have them in regular rotation to minimize the impact of workouts. I'm not sure if #2 applies, but if so, this probably isn't the shoe for #1, and #3 obviously isn't having the desired effect, if that was the intent. It would be helpful to know what shoe, exactly, causes your issues, and why you've chosen to run in super shoes. That would help inform suggestions for alternatives. I like the Adidas Boston line for a good mix of "super" foam and stability, myself.

You don't want stiff and bulky, but shortlisted the Sonicblast? Rebel has shifted into a much softer, more bouncy daily shoe than a speed one. Boston and DN3 are probably closest to your brief out of those, but I'd vouch for the Vaporfly 4 as an alternative - technically a "full carbon racer", but amongst the lightest shoes you can buy, very comfortable and huge energy return... Knocked a full minute off my 5k PB first time I ran in them and only shoe I've worn where going under 4min/km didn't feel like hell.

I gave Nike way too many chances, but they are not for me. I found the Pegasus uncomfortable. I prefer Adidas, give me a Boston and I’m happy