Hey everyone, and welcome to the Doctors of Running Podcast,
where we, a group of Doctors of Physical Therapy, talk about the
art and the science of the things we're putting on our
feet. Today it's myself, Matthew
Klein, and Dr. Andrea Myers here, and we're going to have a
really interesting episode that I want to describe a little.
There's a lot of changes going on at Doctors of Running right
now. There's a lot of evolution.
There's some really cool things we're excited to roll out, but
there's also a lot of self-reflection going on about
how we do things, how to streamline certain things,
wondering if we're making things more complicated than they need
to be — and trying to get more simple, more straightforward,
and going, "How do we do this better?"
And so we'll get to that in a second.
But of course, the most exciting things — we're going to talk
about shoes first. Before we do that, obviously one
of our sponsors is Rabbit, and we're going to talk a little bit
about some of the things that we have on.
I, as always, am wearing my High Country short sleeve — which I
usually just ran in — but I'm having some issues with a
bacterial infection and having a really hard time regulating my
body temperature. So I am wearing the Go-To
Hoodie, which is really comfortable and great for
staying warm. It's been great.
We really love Rabbit stuff. It's been really awesome.
Andrea, what are you wearing? This is the EZT Perf Trail.
I love their Perf material. It's really lightweight and
breathable. But this one is actually nice
enough looking to just wear casually.
It's almost 90 degrees here and I definitely needed something
cool. So I grabbed this.
Sweet. We are in Oregon in that weird
period where we're just starting to get some warmer stuff —
"warm" being relative, like 70s and 80s.
And then it drops back down to the 40s and you're like, "Wow,
this is really weird." Do I turn the air conditioning
on or not? So yeah, there's a variety of
things you can get from them. And so if that's something
you're interested in, the discount code for this month is
MAYDOCS10 — did I say that right?
Great. MAYDOCS10, all capital letters.
And both of us have debuted their racing kit now, which has
our logo on it from them, and at least Andrea did really well.
When I debuted mine, I didn't do so hot because it was actually
the beginning of whatever this is.
And congratulations, by the way — had a great race.
It was the 400 race, right? Just one race.
Did quite well. Yeah, not bad — matching your
400 high school PR. No, can't complain about that.
I'm sure it was the Rabbit crop
that did it. I've got to say — I'm very picky
about race clothing and I love this Rabbit racing crop.
It's got pockets in the back and on the sides, a built-in bra,
and doesn't restrict your rib cage at all.
So I highly recommend it. I've raced in their crops for a
few years now, and this is probably the most
comfortable-fitting one they've made, and it has more pockets.
So go check it out. Yeah, it has absolutely nothing
to do with the very specific training that you've been doing
— typical strength stuff, power, specific kinds of work...
This is totally off topic, but as an overtrained distance
runner, it's been very interesting to watch your
training and go, "Whoa, you just did like four or five 200s with
tons of rest, and you actually walked the recovery" — which,
for me, feels sacrilegious, even though I know deep down that's
really important and something I need to think about.
So this is off topic, but — what helps?
What kind of maturity does it take to go, "Hey, this is how I
know to train" — or maybe you're not as intense as me and you
just have a better head on your shoulders.
But what helps with going, "Hey, this is what I need to do, even
if it means less mileage"? Well, going from marathon
training — which I was doing the past few years — to mid-distance
training the past year and a half, your mileage is going to
go down. I'm not going to be the best at
the 800 if I'm running 60 miles a week.
It's too much. So I run about 35 to 40 miles a
week with one or two bike rides thrown in there.
But when you see "walk or standing recoveries" on your
speed day workout, you know the intensity is going to be very
high. So honestly, there's no way I
could jog the recoveries that I'm meant to do standing or
walking, because we're usually talking about paces at 800 pace
or even faster — sometimes a little faster than 400 pace.
So you're not jogging between those reps for sure.
Yeah, that's something I need to come to terms with.
You know, as you get older — and the three kind of time points in
your life — we've talked about this before — 30, 50, and 75 are
the three time points based on the evidence where we tend to
start losing muscle mass, strength, and power.
And if you really want to get those things back, you have to
be very specific. And that means you need enough
recovery time. Like, we talk about plyometrics
all the time — to do really good plyometrics, you need like 2.5
to 3 minutes of rest between sets.
If you're actually going at the right intensity.
If you're not, that means you're actually not getting the right
stimulus. Like, they should be really hard
and you shouldn't be able to do more.
And so that's kind of a classic error — and I do this very badly
— a classic error on a lot of endurance athletes' parts: if
you want that stimulus, that's how hard you've got to work.
And so yeah, you're not going to be able to jog that.
So that's something I'm learning from you, going, "I need to do
that." Although I'm still obsessed with
some mileage. I'm desperately holding on to
some. Like, I'm at 59 miles this week
and I'm probably going to go run one or two more later just
because of the obsessive-compulsive nature to
get to 60. So, yeah, it's fine.
You might learn someday, man. Someday.
Anyway, that's our talk on Rabbit, and talking about
training and all kinds of stuff like that.
So again, the code is there. We really love the apparel.
It's not just a sponsorship thing — it's something we stand
by and train in all the time and have really enjoyed.
Well, I will say one thing about that, Matt.
Yeah. I've been racing in Rabbit
shorts for years because I just like them.
They have pockets. They're comfortable.
The shorts that I run in on a weekly basis are four years old
and they're still in perfect condition.
Yeah, I've definitely noticed the durability is phenomenal.
So again — now let's jump into shoe stuff.
And so this is sponsored by Scratch Labs, which — another
code, if you're looking for it — is DOCTORSOFRUNNING, all
lowercase, for 20% off your first order.
Which I have thoroughly exceeded, and I don't get a code
anymore, even though I buy my own stuff too.
I have to say, they just sent us the watermelon, which I had been
complaining about forever. Actually, on the last episode —
when I found out they were selling it — I bought four
containers on my own, and then they sent me another one.
I'm like, well, I have more now. I might have a new favorite
flavor. And Andrea — you said you'd
tested the cucumber lime before, and I'm going to get made fun of
for being bougie, because the cucumber lime is actually really
good. Both of those are limited
flavors that I would have laughed at before.
I did laugh at people — like, cucumber water?
How bougie can you be? And then I had some of this and
I'm like, "Oh man, this is pretty good."
It's delicious. Welcome to the club.
Great. Anyway, it's really good.
And it's been great because — even in Oregon — one of the
challenges I run into is that I don't drink enough fluids.
Because I lived in Southern California for 15 years, I'm
like, "Why am I going to drink loads of fluids when I'm in
Oregon? It rains."
Why not? And then I still get dehydrated.
I'm like, "Oh, because I need to drink more fluids."
So Scratch is something I actually drink throughout the
day. It really helps me maintain and
get a little bit more fluids in. And on some of the runs that I'm
doing — I tend to sweat a lot, so it's very helpful.
So if that's something you need, they make some pretty good
stuff. Tastes pretty good too.
So, on to the in-for-testing section.
What are you running in right now?
Well, I was very excited when this shoe showed up because I
loved version one. Puma Magnify Nitro 2.
The original version — loved it for easy runs for a maximal
shoe. It's relatively lightweight.
I think for men it's around 9.5 ounces.
For women it's probably a little under 9, but it has a little bit
of bounce. Like, you can definitely feel
that Nitro foam. Comfortable upper fit, wide
enough toe box. And the way the outsole is
shaped and designed just feels really comfortable for midfoot
landing. So I've gotten a lot of miles on
the original Magnify Max. And I've got a couple short runs
on version 2. And I've got to say — I need to
do another run in version one to compare — but I can't really
tell a significant difference between the two versions.
I know that version 2 is a little bit lighter, maybe half
an ounce. But in terms of the fit and the
ride, it feels pretty similar to version one for me.
But I know that's not quite the experience you've had, right?
Yeah, I just did my first run. I've done quite a bit of walking
in this one. I hadn't gotten a chance to run
in it until this morning. I did my first run.
And I will say it is much better.
I'm not exactly sure what they changed — I'm still learning —
but obviously it is lighter, and they're using what looks like
more of a knit-type upper, which fits me just a lot better than
the original. A little bit wider fit.
Still kind of that lower volume, but it stretches a little
better. Version one was okay.
It wasn't terrible, but it was just like, "It's fine."
And the other thing I found was that version one felt really
bulky, oddly, and I didn't feel like it was as stable.
I don't know if it's because there was a little bit more
outsole flare, but it just felt like — even though there are
massive sidewalls — I was getting pushed immediately a
lot. I did not experience that with
version 2 today. And granted, I need to get some
more miles on it, but it just feels like a lot more refined
shoe. And yeah, it's definitely
maximal obviously, but it feels a little more centered, a little
better fitting. So definitely in my mind an
improvement in pretty much every way.
The one thing we've got to see is durability, because there is
now less outsole material. So we'll have to see what
happens there — especially because we all know what happens
to me when I have something I can rip off — but we'll find
out. So yeah, this may be a whole
other episode. We may have to do a Between Two
Shoes with us for that shoe, but I'm not hating it, which is
great — as opposed to the first one where I was like, "Meh."
So yeah, much better. What else you got?
I'm finishing up miles. I know you already reviewed it,
but I'm finishing my miles on the Saucony Endorphin Elite 3.
I think I talked about the shoe on a previous episode, but I
hadn't run in it yet. So my hopes for the fit came
true — this nice squared-off, wide toe box is so comfortable.
It's definitely one of the most comfortable-fitting racing
uppers out there. I don't know if I would say it's
number one, but no fit complaints.
This is absolutely a softer racing shoe.
I don't always love soft shoes, but this shoe has so much bounce
that it really offsets the amount of softness.
I've done a ton of intervals — like at 10K pace — and one
workout around threshold. I like it.
It's super hard to control when cornering at speed, though.
Like, I told you guys — it feels like I'm Mario Karting in the
shoe. Yeah, that was a great analogy,
by the way. Whatever direction you're
moving, it wants to bounce you in the opposite direction.
So if I'm taking a sharp corner fast, it feels like it wants to
bounce me outward. So if I was going to race in it,
I would definitely choose a course with very few turns.
But I've really liked how it performs around 10K pace and
threshold. It wouldn't be my number one
racing shoe, but if I had to do a race in it, I wouldn't be sad.
But the wildness in turns would definitely prevent me from using
it in a longer race. Like, I'm not even sure if I
would use this in a half marathon, definitely not a
marathon. I think you've got to have
pretty stable mechanics. And I can tell you, as I
continue to complain about this — I learned the hard way, as
someone with not great stability, that you've got to
have really good, stiff stability in your ankles to
really utilize this well. And I made the mistake of using
that shoe on a very hilly, banked road race that just
destroyed me. And so I'll tell you from
personal experience — yeah, that kind of course is not something
you're going to want to do at all.
But if you have a flat, unbanked course and you have really good
stability and you really want one of the bounciest things out
there, it may work for you. It just didn't work for me.
It works great for me on a treadmill when I don't have to
turn at all. But as soon as I take it off the
treadmill, it's something that I struggle with.
And that's — you know — if you want that wild ride, that's
totally fine. It's going to match what you
want. You just got to be able to
control it. Yep.
I've also got to say — like you — I do my whole workout from
home, so I'm not changing shoes in the middle of a workout.
So this is certainly not a shoe that's fun to run slow in.
If you're supposed to be running slowly on your warm-up or
cool-down, you definitely feel like you're trying to control
the shoe a little more than you should.
Yes. I will say — if you're going at
least at a halfway up-tempo pace, even while running, you
don't have to be running all-out for that shoe to benefit.
I do think recreational runners may actually do a little bit
better in that shoe compared to other ones, just because it is
very soft — and as long as you can control it, it's great.
It's great. But if you have any stability
needs, it's kind of like the last version.
It's bouncier, it definitely moves better than the second one
— which I just felt like I mushed into — but you've got to
be stable to really get the benefit out of that shoe.
So I totally agree. Yeah, unfortunately the only
version of the Elite 2 I got to test was a men's 9, so it
definitely didn't give me the real feel for it, and version
one was such a different shoe. I enjoyed version one.
The fit was not perfect for me. I was kind of between sizes in
it. So it just wasn't super
comfortable on the ball of my foot, but I did like the midsole
feel of version one because it was significantly firmer than
version 2 or 3. Can I complain for a second?
Of course. Okay, so Saucony's got all these
great foams. They've got PWRRUN Lux.
They've got PWRRUN, all this kind of stuff.
What happened to PWRRUN HG? I know.
Like, to be fair, that is what's used in the Tempest 3 — and BJ
is going to hate me for bringing this shoe up because it's not
available in the United States. But this is — this is too firm
in my opinion. I think if they used full-length
PWRRUN HG with the Tempest 3 it would have been better, but the
EVA combination just makes it too firm.
But yeah, HG — I feel like — it wasn't soft.
It was firm, but it was really responsive.
And a lot of people liked version one.
I'm not saying there's anything wrong necessarily with version
3. People are going to like it, but
— what happened? I feel like Saucony is
definitely leaning into highly bouncy midsoles right now.
You know, you've got — yeah — the Paramount Max.
I promised myself I would not call it the streaming service.
Paramount Max. To be fair, I did accidentally
write that in the review and I had to delete it.
I realized it right before BJ posted it.
I'm like, "Oh my gosh" — because BJ hates it if we edit reviews
within 24 hours of posting. So I was like, "I've got to
change that." So no judgment.
Yeah. But I mean, the Paramount Max
was a shoe I couldn't run a mile in.
It was so bouncy. And just — you know — can't
really say how I know this, but it seems like the shoes Saucony
has coming down the pipeline are maybe in the same vein of very
bouncy responsiveness. So it'll be interesting to see
if PWRRUN HG is — I would assume it'll still be in the Endorphin
Pro and the Endorphin Speed — but who knows?
Maybe not. Is it used in — I don't
remember. I should know this.
Is it used in the Endorphin Pro 5?
I know they have PWRRUN PB. Wow, I am really embarrassed.
I should know that. So that's something I have to
look up. I can't remember if they're
still using it in that. That's a good question.
I've got to check on that. Yep.
So what else are you testing? Let's see.
I just finished — well, we just published our review on the
Hyperion Max 4. Which, you and I once again
disagree on — do we? I think less than we did on the
3. Definitely less so.
I think the problem is that yours was confounded by the fit
issue. That's true.
And that's exactly why I went up a half size.
Literally everything in Brooks has been fitting me a half size
short and it's really impacted my ability to run in the shoes.
The entire line that we're testing right now, I'm in a 10.5
and that has helped. It changes probably how I
perceive the stiffness and cushioning of the shoe, but
yeah, I went up. But I don't know how much we
actually disagree. Yeah, actually.
Well, I think we're pretty actually somewhat similar.
I think so, yeah. Yeah.
One thing — I think the main reason for the fit issue is all
of their shoes have so much heel collar padding now, it pushes
your foot forward. You think about the Hyperion 3 —
it got much more heel collar cushioning than version two.
Obviously, the Hyperion Max 3 had a similar level of
cushioning, and you and I had similar fit issues in it.
I didn't get the Hyperion Elite. Does it have a lot of heel
collar cushioning? I am not sure.
Not nearly — a decent amount, not nearly as much there.
Ironically, the fit — again, pretty flexible — is something I
actually had a really hard time locking down.
It might have been better if they had more.
I had a lot of heel slippage in this shoe.
So kind of a different set of issues.
Yeah, but basically — the Hyperion line — they've added so
much cushioning and made the upper so much thicker that I can
see why you've been going up a half size.
I think even if I went up a half size, I would still find the toe
box too narrow — which, yeah. I do actually, even going up a
half size, still get some blistering from the taper, to be
honest. It's just such a pronounced
taper... I mean, a lot of listeners know
that the Hyperion Max 1 is one of my favorite shoes of all time
— that shoe fit so comfortably. It could do everything well, and
then they've just progressively made it into what it is now — a
true maximal trainer — but they've also made it much
narrower and lower volume. I find that this year it fits a
lot more like the Launch, which was another shoe I had high
hopes for but can't wear because of how narrow and low volume it
is. So the shoe — I definitely
didn't enjoy running in it because of how tight the toe box
was. I really couldn't run more than
4 miles in it at a time. Similar to version 3.
The medial midsole cutout didn't really bother me that much.
Like, I noticed them and — normally they don't bother me,
but I noticed it. I didn't really even feel it in
the shoe. And I think it's because it's
relatively small. And the platform is so stiff
that having a cutout there doesn't really do much to the
ride. And I know that you felt this a
lot, right? And probably the reason for that
is — I've gone up a half size, so naturally my MTP joints, my
toe joints, are going to line up differently with the plate.
So in version 3, it didn't bother me as much.
I think because I was in a size 10 — and even though I was
getting blistering on my toes, I was rolling forward — it wasn't
nearly as stiff. Whereas one of the challenges
with plated stiffening agents is that if you have any kind of
lateral bias and the shoe's too stiff, you're going to start to
go in the frontal plane instead of the sagittal plane.
I think that's what happens to me because I really noticed it
in this shoe. And I did long runs — but man,
it would flare up all the medial structures on my foot.
And yeah, so I think if you have lateral stability needs, this
shoe's going to be great. Medial stability needs — this is
not a shoe for you. Especially if you go up a half
size to get a better fit. So yeah, I was kind of
disappointed. I really enjoyed version 3.
Version 4 felt mostly like an upper update in a way that kind
of pulled things toward where Brooks seems to be going — where
things are getting more snug and lower volume.
And so I don't know the reasoning for that.
I don't know if their data about the average consumer is that
there are more narrow feet and people are liking that better,
but it's been kind of consistent throughout the entire lineup.
I actually thought the one thing they did better with the upper
in version 3 was — the tongue. I'm trying to remember — it was
a one-piece. Yeah, it was one piece in
version 3. And the gusset was too long on
either side. So no matter what I did, it
would fold over on my foot and there was just no way to get the
tongue to sit flat on top of my foot.
They really streamlined it in version 4 and I did not have
that issue. But that's basically the only
thing I liked about the upper. Yeah.
It just felt like — oddly — just for the category where things
are, the shoe was too heavy, and despite having DNA Gold — which
has been a favorite, like in version 3 was one of my favorite
midsoles — like, this is great. It just feels like it's too
heavy to do what it's advertised for.
Like, I couldn't do anything faster than up-tempo — maybe a
little tempo — intervals was just not pleasant.
And that might also be — for the record — for a lot of the
population that uses Brooks, maybe it's a more approachable
shoe for that kind of speed stuff.
I just found I kind of struggle a little bit, and I would rather
go do something faster in the Ghost — which isn't responsive —
than have this be a little overly stiff.
But that's just me, probably with the fit.
That's so interesting you say that, because I think David said
he did a track workout in the Ghost the other day.
He tried to. Yeah.
It didn't work out well.
And for me, the Ghost is a shoe I can run in at all because of
its high drop, but the idea that the Ghost is a better
fast-running shoe than the Hyperion Max 4 is just wild —
but that's where the shoes are at now.
Right. And so I think it's because the
Ghost is so much lighter than it used to be.
It's more of a — it's not a 12, it's a 10-millimeter drop.
It actually feels lower. If you told me it was like 7 to
8, I would totally believe you. And it doesn't have the
bounciest foam, but just trying to turn over, it just feels a
lot smoother. And it's a good example of being
careful with plates and stiffening agents — because
stiffer doesn't necessarily mean better.
So it's just an interesting place.
I still have hope for the Hyperion Max.
I think there's a lot of potential.
I think Brooks is trying some things, which is awesome.
It's just — there are some refinements that I think
continue to be made and they're learning things.
And so we'll just see what happens.
Right. Like, I'm super excited for the
Hyperion Elite 6. It looks really nice.
I have really high hopes, but we'll see what happens this
summer. So what else do you have?
You know, that's it for what I'm testing.
My track workouts — I'm still trying to get some miles on the
Diadora Mezzofondo spike, but I've been doing a lot of
400-pace reps recently and I just can't run that fast in that
spike because of the really sharp toe spring.
So my go-to right now is the Nike Victory 2 spike.
But I've come to realize that I'm kind of in between sizes in
that shoe. Last year, I ran in a 10 and it
was a comfortable fit, but I knew it was just a little too
long. So for indoor season at the end
of last year, I got a 9.5 and it fit the way I felt a spike
should fit — but it made the arch of the left shoe just hit
my arch in the wrong place. And it's kind of made me realize
that I have this problem in every Nike racing shoe.
I've always gotten a little bit of arch pain in the Vaporfly and
the Alphafly, and now the Victory 2.
But it was not bad enough where I would stop running in it
because I love how fast I run in those shoes.
But the pain from this size 9.5 Victory 2 spike is enough where
I'm like, "All right, I've got to find a different spike that's
not doing this to me." So I just ordered the On Cloud
Spike — their mid-distance one. That's supposed to be arriving
this week and I can't wait to test it this weekend at the
track. Should be exciting.
Yeah. Yeah.
Sweet. I actually have — what are you
touching? I've got two or three — one old
one that I've kind of gone back to.
The other two are somewhat new. And I've talked about this, but
I've got the Brooks Ghost Max 4, which I've really been enjoying.
Again, I had to go a half-size up, so I'm a 10.5 in this.
The last two versions felt slightly short — my toes were
hitting the end of the shoe. Even though version 3 wasn't
narrow. It was definitely on the wider
side. This goes the opposite direction
— where even with the half size up, it's definitely more narrow,
and I don't particularly enjoy the tapered toe box.
But the rest of it I'm really enjoying.
And the Ghost Max — again, whether this is a running shoe
is up for debate — but for walking and standing, hmm.
This shoe does a great job. It's definitely got that
stable-neutral component. The deep footbed will take
orthotics well if that's something you want.
It is really comfortable. It just took a little time for
the midsole to break in. Still — I've done a few runs in
it. Good for shorter distance stuff,
but just not bouncy — not what I'd be hoping for out of a
running shoe — but it's been really awesome for walking long
periods. I have tons of clinic days and
long teaching days in this shoe. It's been great.
I forgot about that too. I've been wearing it to work
too. Yeah, it's awesome for walking
around — being on your feet — but not for running for me.
Probably not for running. Yeah.
The other shoe — maybe one of the bigger disappointments of
the year — is the ASICS Kayano 33, which is not what I was
hoping for. It has gone back to being much
firmer. The bouncy ride — somewhat
bouncy ride — of version 32 is not there anymore.
They talk about FF Blast Max, which I have yet to experience
as that super bouncy, fun, responsive ride in any FF Blast
Max that I have put on. And they've gone back with a
firmer sole. It's just made the heel
clunkier. And what's really weird is — so
they've got this design where they have — what should I call
it — a bottom layer. Forgetting the name of it, but
it's another firmer foam bottom layer with a softer top layer.
And so it's supposed to use some geometry to kind of cradle you
in. You can see things like — hey,
the outsole comes a little — this bottom layer comes a little
farther on the medial and lateral sides of the forefoot.
And so they actually call this "Fluid Support."
I can actually feel the forefoot stability in this shoe, which is
actually decent. You can see in the heel there's
also a piece that comes up relative to the lateral side
that I can definitely feel — it almost feels like I'm sitting in
a slightly inverted position at the heel.
But then the midfoot doesn't feel supportive.
It's like they took out the 4D Guidance System that used to
transition you out of it really nicely.
And honestly, I felt like this is one of the least supportive
midfoots in a Kayano that I think I've ever experienced,
which has been irritating. Fits much better, though.
It's not as narrow as the previous version.
But — yeah, this shoe is having a bit of an identity crisis,
where they're calling it more of a "natural stability," and I
just feel like it's less stable. And it's not been a super fun
shoe to run in. It's been great to walk in.
I've used it — again, like the Ghost Max — I've used this for
walking and standing. Really comfortable during that,
but just the higher impact during running has just not been
comfortable. And yeah, I just don't know what
to make of this. So still in the process of
writing the review. I think for walking, it's going
to be great — which is what most people in the United States use
running shoes for anyway. So I think that's going to be
really successful. From a running perspective, I
feel like it takes several steps back.
It's also heavier. It's like 0.3 ounce heavier than
the previous version. And actually they lowered the
stack height slightly. So I would have expected that to
drop weight, not increase weight.
But yeah, man. That shoe and the Nike Structure
Plus have been major disappointments this year.
And ironically, that shoe also works much better for walking
than running. David and I have had similar
experiences — great for walking, but running, that heel
transition is so clunky. But luckily, I'm not totally
disappointed because we've had some great stability shoes from
Saucony — the Omni and the Hurricane have been awesome.
And — I'm going to mess this word up.
This is the new shoe. I can't pronounce correctly —
the Gaviota. Damn it.
Okay. So the Gaviota 6 from Hoka has
also been awesome. So there are some good things,
but we've just got to move away from clunky stability shoes.
It's 2026. Come on.
So my only last one — which I've already done a 100-mile review
on — I haven't written it up on the website yet.
I probably should — is the On Cloud Monster Hyper 3 — or Hyper
3, however you say it. I've gone back to using this
shoe kind of after my rough race.
I went back to not using carbon-plated super shoes and
I've just been doing all my speed stuff in this.
This is such a good shoe. And I have 140 miles on this.
This is my left shoe. That's the wear.
Wow. So again, it's $280.
It's an expensive shoe, but durability and the upper not
losing its fit — I've had zero blistering, I've had no issues
with sliding in this, and every time I'm like, "It's gonna suck
because there's no way I can do this without laces" — it's been
great. It's something I keep
gravitating back towards, and if I have to do any longer races,
I'm probably going to grab this because it's one of the few — I
know it's not plated — it's stiff.
It's the closest thing to a stable racing shoe that we have.
It's the lightest one. I just did a video with the 361
Flame 5 and the Hoka Rocket X3. This is lighter than both of
those. That's crazy.
So it's just been a really fun shoe.
And I think if you have some stability needs and you want a
unique upper and a durable shoe — it's been great — and I keep
gravitating back to it. And I may actually get to that
200 to 400 mile range that Nathan was challenging me to go,
"What happens with that upper?" So we will see what happens.
I was really bummed that the high medial sidewall in that
shoe just didn't work for me, because it feels like it fits my
foot. Like, it does feel like it would
stay on, but I'm not running it with that high sidewall.
It is insanely high, which is what makes it so incredibly
stable for me. Although — I mentioned this in a
previous video — it's one of those shoes where, when I run in
something that's too stable, my medial arch will kind of spasm
during runs. And that's definitely what
happened the first few runs. I thought it was not going to be
stable enough. And then I went, "Oh."
And then it just broke in and I'm like, I can do long runs.
I could do track work, intervals, long tempos —
everything — and not have a problem.
And I'm like, "I bet Andrea is going to think — this is not
going to work for her at all — because that sidewall is going
to crush her." There you go.
Isn't it interesting? You know, On has some really
interesting shoes right now. And they certainly did not
advertise the Cloud Monster Hyper 3 as a stability racing
shoe or even a stability performance shoe — but that's
what it is. Really?
Yeah. And we've definitely found that
with several of their shoes this year — what On said it was for
was not what we specifically found it good at.
But they've just made some very different shoes that serve very
specific purposes. And if that meets your needs,
it's going to be an incredible value and there aren't other
comparable shoes. I think the regular Cloud
Monster Hyper 3 is just such a great example of what a super
trainer should be. It's light, you can run a
variety of paces in it. It fits comfortably.
It doesn't feel clunky, it's not unstable.
Did anyone on our team dislike it?
There's not a single person that I think dislikes it.
Which is remarkable. So, you know, you're comparing.
Right — because we often have been, like, hard on On.
Like, "What the hell are you guys doing?"
And then all of a sudden you're like, "Whoa, where did this come
from?" Like, guys did their homework
for sure. I don't know if you intended it
to land this way, but I'm sure they did.
Of course. Yeah.
But then you compare that shoe
to the Hyperion Max 4, which is technically in the same
category. It's heavier, it's clunkier, the
fit is bad. It's just — Brooks, in my
opinion, has some catching up to do.
They definitely have potential. I know — it's just kind of the
way things go. Like, I think companies kind of
shift where they are. I think like Saucony, for
example, has definitely suddenly pulled ahead on the midsole
front — they're making the bounciest, softest midsoles on
the planet — which a couple years ago was definitely not the
case. And I would have argued going,
"Saucony, you guys are kind of falling behind a little bit.
Your super shoes kind of aren't standing out that much.
Like, what are you doing?" And then now they've pulled
ahead. And I think companies like — you
know — ASICS is doing some interesting things, but a lot of
their trainers make you go, "Hey, like, what are you guys
doing? You're advertising some really
intense foams, but what is happening here?"
So I think — and then look at a company like Mizuno, who was
traditional for years. I talk about this all the time —
they were traditional for years. And I was like, "You guys ever
going to come into the current day?"
And then I had to eat my words: "You guys are making the most
crazy stuff." And also — probably comparable
with Saucony — you have some of the bounciest foams out there.
And your other companies — your Nike, your Adidas — I think
yeah, some of the main companies are definitely changing where
they are. Puma is another great example.
They've been pretty aggressive from the start — consistent.
They've been aggressive since the get-go — the Fast R 3, the
things they're doing — you know, they're holding that.
But I'm sure things will shift, you know?
And so that's just the state of where things are — and the only
constant is that it's going to change.
And people are going to move differently.
So we'll have to see where the catch-up games are, and it may
also just be that companies have different focuses.
As a company, their themes are different.
So, you know — Brooks, for example — the Ghost Max 4, I am
sure, is going to sell super well.
It's so comfortable, and it's definitely catered to the
recreational runner or those who are standing and walking a lot.
That's a lot of who they have to focus on because, you know,
they've got to see who they're selling to.
So the performance stuff has been interesting, and I think
they have a little bit of a ways to go — but I have no doubts,
because I know the people who are in charge of this have some
pretty good stuff behind their name.
Figuring things out at a new company is a different story.
So I'm curious to see what happens.
But I'm pretty sure they're looking at us going, "Hey, we
finished working on that shoe like four years ago.
So just wait." Yeah, and you know, Brooks has
signed a number of high-profile runners, and that assists in
moving R&D along too. So yeah, I have high hopes for
Brooks too. Yeah.
So that of course went longer than we thought — but let's talk
about categorization, which is kind of in the same vein.
Let's talk about categorization. Do you want to lead this off?
Do you want me to? We have decided that we want to
streamline our shoe categories and kind of get back to basics.
So, you know, in the past we've called a shoe "maximal" or a
"super trainer," but now most shoes fall into the maximal
category, and that's not very descriptive of what it's going
to be used for. You know, you can have a shoe
that has a 40-millimeter heel and a 32-millimeter forefoot,
and you could be talking about a Vaporfly, a super trainer, a
Kayano. It's the wild west now in terms
of stack heights. And you know, last year I made a
very short list of shoes that actually have stack heights in
the 20s — because there just aren't that many left.
And this year I can probably cross a couple more off the list
because those shoes got an upgrade and now they're in the
30s. So we have decided to just use
four shoe categories — and that kind of goes back to, not the
olden times, but for those of us who were born in the 1900s,
there weren't as many shoe categories back then.
So the four categories we're going to be using are: neutral
daily trainer, stability daily trainer, performance trainer,
and racing shoe. And we just feel like that's a
very clear description of what each shoe is used for.
And then we can get into the details of, "Well, it has this
stack height," or "it's plated," or "it has a super foam" — or
whatever. But it's very clear what the
intended use of a particular shoe is from those four
categories. And I think one of the
challenges — you mentioned this earlier — is going, "Oh, we used
to say 'maximal,' but now literally everything is sitting
in that category." Like, people get all upset
going, "Oh, it has to be 40 millimeters to be race legal" —
but even some of the normal shoes, like the Hoka Bondi or
the Clifton, are sitting above 40 millimeters.
What's another example? Like a daily trainer — like the
Hurricane, actually, from Saucony.
I think that's sitting over 40 millimeters.
And those are daily trainers. Those are shoes that lots of
people use for marathons — things like that — that
technically are now illegal at the elite level.
It doesn't really matter. For the majority of us — your
recreational runner — that's not something you have to worry
about. But at the end of the day,
everything basically is becoming that category.
Like you said, there aren't that many shoes with stack heights in
the 20s anymore. To be honest, there are probably
more shoes with stack heights below that.
Right? Simply because Xero has so many
different models. Xero — or even like the Vibram
barefoot series — are still around.
You have Topo that makes some stuff in that range, Altra that
makes some stuff in that range, but they also — even Topo and
Altra — there's nothing in the 20s.
Everything else — it's either in the teens or it's in the 30s and
40s, and nothing really sits in between.
So it's going, "Okay, why are we getting that specific when at
the end of the day, there are some better ways — like, is this
just a shoe for your normal daily miles?
Is this a shoe that has a little bit more versatility as a
performance trainer? Or is this shoe really meant for
racing?" And part of the problem too —
and I think I'm certainly at fault for this — is going, "Oh,
this shoe can do performance, therefore a lot of recreational
runners can probably use this for a marathon," and then —
should I be calling this a racing shoe?
No, because back in the day — back when you and I were in, you
know, a while ago, before all this stuff got crazy — people
would use performance trainers as their marathon racer.
Like, there weren't a lot of marathon-specific racing shoes.
It was just racing flats that the elites would use for a full
marathon, and the rest of us would use performance trainers
or a trainer to get through that distance.
And now going, yeah, you know, things are starting to
homogenize a little bit. Did I use that word right?
Yeah. It's getting, yeah.
Like, you've got enough maximal stack height — okay, well, the
basic foundations are starting to get more similar.
Like, everything's tall or everything's minimal.
Either things are meant for daily training, they have a
little bit more versatility, or they are purely for racing.
And that's kind of where we're getting back to.
And it goes back to the idea of — let's try to simplify this.
I think the whole point of Doctors of Running is to help
teach people and try to keep things — it's very complex — but
we're trying not to keep information locked up.
We want to make this more simple.
And going back to trying to help ease consumers' understanding of
categorization I think is a really key thing.
So do you want to give some examples of how we're kind of
working through this? Well, I think the Hyperion Max
is a really good example to talk about.
So the stack height in the heel is, I think, 42 — and forefoot
is 36, right? Yeah.
Wait, I actually don't know what we called it on our review.
We probably called it a maximum trainer — some conundrum of what
we put there. This shoe is, in my opinion, a
neutral daily trainer. I know you would not call it
neutral. You would call it immediately
biased, but it's certainly a daily trainer.
We called it "maximal plated super trainer."
Okay. I don't know if you did that or
— it's probably me that did that, because I feel like you're
much better at keeping things really straightforward.
So that's probably my fault. Well, but yeah — if somebody
hears "maximal plated super trainer" — what does that mean?
It doesn't really — it tells you it has a plate.
And it tells you it has a high stack height.
But what are you supposed to use it for?
Are you supposed to race in it? I wouldn't race in this.
It's very heavy. I mean, some people will race in
this, but for most people this is going to be a daily trainer.
It doesn't have any stability features.
In fact, it's going to drive you immediately in the midfoot
because of the cutout. So in our new categorization,
this would just be a neutral daily trainer.
Simple. And then you read the review and
you understand — okay, how did we experience it, what paces is
it best at, what's the stability actually like — but there's no
need for categories to be complex like they have been
getting. And I will say one of the things
that we've talked about — and BJ has really mentioned — is that
even if we have — like for me, having worked in the running
industry, my gut is to go, "Oh, we should at least be calling
this a performance trainer," but we're going to be labeling it as
it actually functions, not as the company's given us a label.
And so if you go, "Yeah, there is a little pace for stability,
but in my opinion it's not that much more versatile" — and then
a lot of shoes like the ASICS Nimbus, I think I would do
similar things — if not run a little quicker.
And I would still label the ASICS Nimbus as a neutral daily
trainer. Even though it's stable neutral,
it's actually probably one of the most stable — man, I want to
argue with BJ now. And be like, "Can we have a
stable neutral category, please?"
Like, can we — this is where the problem starts.
This is where the problem starts.
I want to like... Shoes that Andrea and Matt
vehemently disagree on. Yeah, I mean, yeah.
So I might still make a plug for "stable neutral," because again,
the Nimbus is a great example of this — but this is also the
rabbit hole. It explains why my
categorizations have just gotten out of control.
I think this is a me problem. It's just me having these super
long categorizations — and BJ going, "I'm tired of having to
edit this every time, dude. You've got to stop."
Here's a question for you. Yeah.
So if we have two categories — one is a neutral daily trainer,
one is a stability daily trainer — that technically could
encompass shoes that are stable neutral, right?
So you could either have neutral shoes that don't provide
guidance at all, and then you have shoes that do have guidance
features — and those guidance features could be in one or more
directions depending on which part of the shoe you're talking
about. So in my mind, it actually makes
more sense to throw the stable-neutral shoes in with the
stability trainers. Oh, interesting.
Because that's how we talk about stability anyway — when we
discuss stability, it's not just like, "Well, this is a Kayano or
it's not." We talk about the ways in which
it guides motion or it doesn't. So if it's a shoe that truly
doesn't guide motion — and there are shoes like that — then
that's a neutral shoe. But if the shoe has significant
guidance features, then I think that would go in a stability
category. And I think we just have to be
clear that when we say "stability," we aren't talking
about the traditional understanding of stability —
which means something that prevents medial motion.
Well, that doesn't really exist because you can't prevent it.
Well, yes — you might be able to change the rate.
You might be able to change a little bit of it, but you can't
prevent it. No, that's true.
So again, that description is something we need to figure out.
But so how would you categorize this shoe?
Since I haven't actually run in it, I can't really say — but
just from the way it feels on my foot when I try walking around
in it, it feels like a shoe that's pushing me significantly
laterally. So I wouldn't call it a neutral
shoe. But so our major categories — to
clarify — are going to be neutral, stability, performance,
and racing. Correct?
Right? So would you put this in racing
or would you put this in performance?
Based on your description? Yeah, I don't know.
We're trying to figure out what our description is.
Right, because we do need to be consistent about that.
True. So I think On probably intended
it to be a performance shoe, but like many performance shoes,
some people would race in it — but it might not be that brand's
top-tier racing shoe. It's probably not marketed
specifically for racing. So I would put it in the
performance category. Got it.
And I think now that I'm dealing with this — I would totally
agree — because we have two categories for trainers, and
performance shoes kind of catches everything in between.
I think you did a great job explaining that, yeah, if there
is a stability component, we'll talk about that in our section —
either the stability section or in our grading at the bottom —
which we do a great job of going, "Hey, in stability, is
this neutral, medially biased, laterally biased, stable
neutral," whatever. And I think that's a better way
to provide a lot less confusion — going, "Okay, here's the basic
category." Now if you want more, read the
rest of our review and you can dive in.
But if you just want the base — like, what's the major category
— cool, you can move on. So I mean, that makes sense to
me. What other options could we run
into that might throw this for a loop?
Oh, I've got one. Your least favorite shoe — the
Mizuno Hyperwarp Pro. Okay.
So Mizuno has a Hyperwarp line, and they've got three shoes: the
Pro, the Elite, and the Pureflow.
Mizuno says that the Pro is the most stable of the three.
When in reality, it is the most medially biased.
And the one that you could barely run in.
Well — I can handle it. And it is my favorite shoe.
I don't know how many miles I have on it.
Definitely over 100. Well, it's got that 100-mile
review — come on. Yeah, it's not stable neutral.
It is a heavily medially biased shoe, which works great for me
and terribly for you. So this shoe — even though
Mizuno advertises it as a racing shoe — I would categorize it as
a performance shoe because they have much lighter racing shoes
to choose from. But if we were talking about
stability, we would have a discussion about which way it's
encouraging motion. Right, yeah.
Which would — again — and so that's the nice part: instead of
having six different categories, you just call it a performance
trainer. And then if you want to know
what direction it's pushing you, you go read the stability
section — because that will be very clear that it's really
pushing you medially, for a variety of reasons including
that excessive lateral flare. But it's still a performance
trainer because that's kind of what it's intended as compared
to a lot of other things. Like — would you go race in
that? Peanut has decided to make a
cameo on — Yep. Luckily not jumping off the bed
or off things this time. That's what she was trying to
do. Oh, got it.
Yeah. So — would you race in that
shoe? If I didn't have any other
options, I would. Okay, got it.
Like, I love it too, but it's not the lightest.
It's not the bounciest. If I had to choose a Mizuno shoe
to race in, it would be the Pure because the Pure feels a lot
like the Pro, except it's lighter and even more responsive
— but it's still very medially biased.
So — and in my mind, that's what a performance shoe is supposed
to be. It should be a shoe that you
could race in, but it's not the lightest and the best out there,
and it should cost a little bit less than a racing shoe and
probably be a little more durable.
Yeah. Let me bring up one that we
actually agreed on — surprisingly.
What about this one? Oh yes — the one that you
eventually agreed with me on. I don't know if I "eventually"
agreed. I think we were pretty much
right off the bat like, "Oh, this is not —" I am collapsing
immediately, actually. Yeah.
Oh, version four?
No — I do admit you were eventually right.
Five — I think we agreed right away.
We're like, "Oh man, like..." Well, you know, I didn't get to
put enough miles on the five. There was a question of whether
or not I got one with a defective upper because I really
felt — yeah — remember, I — yeah, I had...
If I had mine up here I would show you, but if you showed the
back of the heel of yours — so the seam on the back of Matt's
heel there. Turn it the other way so that —
yep. Oh no, so the heel is facing the
camera. Yep.
So his seam on his heel upper is straight.
Well, mine angled inward immediately.
And it caused a blister on the inside of my Achilles, and it
just made me feel like the shoe was pushing my heel inward.
Which does not work for me. So it was so uncomfortable to
run in that I actually contacted Saucony and told them, and sent
them a photo, and they're like, "Oh, it looks like you got a
defective upper. We will send you another pair" —
but they didn't. So — I can't — I don't have
enough data of me running in that shoe to say.
But the one mile on the treadmill that I did run in it
was very uncomfortable. Got it.
Okay, this might be a bad example.
But the reason I brought this up is — yes — the Pro series has
been a racing shoe because that was Saucony's first super racing
shoe. However, what I had heard was
that some of the changes made to this shoe were in line with the
fact that a lot of people had been using the Pro series as a
trainer — like a performance shoe — and then racing in the
Endorphin Elite. And so some of what I'd heard
is, "Hey, we're going to change this to kind of fit that, where
it can handle tons of miles. It's not going to be the
lightest racer out there. That's not our intention with
this. It's — hey, if you want a racing
shoe, it's a little bit more durable, can handle training
miles. That's kind of where this is
set." It's supposed to be the more
stable option, which for me — as the heel breaks in, it gets a
little better — but just the way I think the plate was designed,
I am collapsing aggressively off the medial side of the shoe,
something I haven't done in the last two versions, and it just
made it not a shoe I was going to choose for racing.
I've still been bringing it out, trying to break it in, get some
more miles, see if things change — but after 50 miles on and off,
it hasn't really changed that much.
So some people are going to like that.
I don't. But I guess I'm kind of at odds
going — is this a racing shoe or is it a performance shoe?
Well, I think what Saucony is doing is interesting.
And again, I preface my comments by saying I've only run a mile
in that shoe because of the fit issue.
But I like that Saucony made that shoe.
Isn't it $225? Yeah, I don't think — let me
double-check that while you're talking.
I don't think — yeah. I think it's great that there is
a mid-tier racing shoe for people who don't want to drop
$300 on the highest-level racing shoes.
It's $240. Oh, okay.
All right. So sadly — that is a relatively
reasonably priced super shoe these days in 2026.
So Saucony says it's designed for racing.
If it works for you, you're going to be using it for racing.
It would actually be surprising to me if somebody used the Pro
as a performance trainer and then raced in the Elite.
They're such different shoes. I mean, so that's — again — what
I had heard directly from Saucony.
And for many people out there — I mean, I remember David saying
he feels like the Endorphin Azura is more of a training
version of the Endorphin Elite, simply because of the geometry.
But — version one, yes. I don't know if that holds with
current day stuff, but yeah. So if I were to categorize the
Endorphin Pro 5, I would still call it a racing shoe.
Got it. How about the Azura?
Have you run in that one? Yeah, it was way too firm for
me. I was like, there's no way
that's going to work for you because there's a lot of lateral
bias. Yeah.
Yeah, it just felt like — I
mean, I like firm shoes — but it felt like that shoe had no give,
and it did nothing for my mechanics.
Got it. I definitely would put that as a
performance shoe — only because of its weight — and then having
tested it. Again, this is really important
for us — not going, "What is it at face value?"
but rather, "Let me actually do a review, put miles on it and
go, 'What is it?'" And I've got like 120 miles on
that shoe. I would definitely put that as a
performance shoe. Because it is light enough that
I think a lot of people will excel using it as a
marathon-type shoe — especially if they don't respond well to
plates but actually still want something that's a little stiff.
Which I'm like, every time I put that shoe on I'm like, "How is
this not plated?" — which again also speaks to the
fact that we can call something plated, and that doesn't mean
something non-plated is going to be stiff or not.
There are other mechanisms that feed into how stiff a shoe is.
Like — I think you referenced the Superblast 3.
All the Superblasts are not plated.
Yet these are some of the stiffest shoes, in my opinion,
on the market. Right.
And it's like — there are examples of a plated shoe that's
super flexible, or a non-plated shoe that's stiff as a board.
Right. The Endorphin Speed, actually —
the Speed 5 — is a great example of a shoe that's surprisingly
flexible for having a plate. But it speaks to the fact that
plates are completely different and depending on their design
will behave very differently. Right.
I think that is one of the most common misconceptions I hear
when dealing with runners — they think that just the presence of
a plate means the shoe is going to have certain characteristics.
And it absolutely is not. And you know, we've talked at
length about how the plate is not the secret sauce in super
shoes. There was the great study where
they tested Vaporflys with an intact plate or with a cut
plate, and the metrics were the same.
So it's not about the plate. It's about the interaction of
all of the components of the shoe.
And the presence of a plate helps with some aspects of how
the shoe performs, but it is not the magical ingredient.
Right. It is definitely the combination
of all of them. And I've said this before when I
got to work with a company not too long ago — they were testing
some stuff, a very bouncy midsole and testing all these
different shoes. And I was like, I really thought
the foams were different. And then I realized — looking at
their faces — going, "The only thing that's changing is the
plate design, huh?" They're like, "Yeah."
And I was like — that really emphasized it — it's a very
complex equation of the combination of the geometry, the
foam, and the plate. Small changes in each one of
those can totally change the ride, and it will change it
differently for each person. So yeah, be careful.
And I might even argue the same thing now for foams.
Like, things are getting crazy enough that — yeah — foams are
getting kind of crazy, but that's not the only factor.
If you don't have that in the right geometry and the right
setup, it may not matter, and you may perceive it totally
differently. So...
And that doesn't even get into the role of fit — like we were
talking about earlier — if you go up a half size because the
shoe is too narrow in the toe box, well, now it might fit your
forefoot better, but now the forefoot rocker might not line
up properly with your first MTP. The design of the arch might not
line up with your arch anymore — which I think is the issue I
have in the Victory 2. Right.
So you could have the perfect shoe on paper for your
mechanics, but if it doesn't fit your foot perfectly, it doesn't
matter. It really doesn't matter.
That's very true — which again goes back to us realizing this
is so complex. Why are we having a billion
categories when — why don't we simplify this down to the major
themes and then can talk more about the uniqueness of the shoe
within the review, rather than making the category name more
complicated than it needs to be? Because that just eliminates the
point of categorization. Then it's just like — well, it's
almost a second name. So yeah, it makes total sense.
What's another example — like an interesting shoe that might make
this a conundrum? Oh, well — you know I'm always
happy to talk about the original Hyperion Max.
So it was a shoe that was supposed to be a maximal shoe.
It had "max" in its name. But it had a 32-millimeter heel,
24-millimeter forefoot. It was — I think my women's 9.5
was like 6.5 ounces. It was responsive.
It was moderately flexible, and I could run anything from a
20-mile easy run to 5K-pace intervals in it.
So is that a maximal daily trainer?
Absolutely not. I would put it in the
performance category. And honestly — and I have said
this many times — if that shoe existed before super shoes
existed, it would have been one of the best marathon racers in
the world. Yeah, absolutely.
But hopefully — yeah, I definitely agree that when you
really talk through a lot of this stuff, the simplification
of the categorization makes sense.
And then within the categories, there'll be subsets that we can
just talk about without having to make this stuff complicated.
Because I think that's the theme — things are getting way too
complicated and it's not helping consumers.
It's making things really confusing, and we want to try to
simplify this to help people make better decisions.
And if you're locked in decision paralysis, that's not helpful —
because oftentimes people in decision paralysis will end up
making a very poor choice based on factors that are probably not
relevant to them. So usually decision-making
starts with a step-by-step process.
If you can start with, "Okay, what's the general category I'm
looking for?" — that is going to be a good
place to start. Then you can work through what
are the subsets that you want. So that is one of the many
changes that you're going to see coming to the website.
Even before we actually debut the new website, we are already
doing that with our current reviews.
And we hope it's helpful. But I think one of the big
things for those listening and watching is — can you give us
some feedback on this? Because we're having this
discussion as those of us who do this a lot, trying to figure out
how to optimize it. Do you agree or disagree with
this stuff? And I'm really curious —
consumer, developer — feedback to go, you know, "Is this good?
Should we not be doing this?" Because we're going to move
forward with this, but we also value your feedback as people
who consume the stuff that we're doing.
We want to make sure this is relevant for you — and that's
part of the discussion, asking, "Hey, what's going to help best
for those consuming our content?"
Because we're not looking to be the biggest content engine out
there. We're looking to go, "How do we
make better and more helpful things for those of you who
choose to read, watch, and listen to our stuff?"
So yeah, hope this is helpful, and hope it's helpful to hear a
little bit about our thought process about why we're moving
in a certain direction. If you want to know more — you
can obviously find us in a variety of different places.
We release the YouTube video of this every Sunday, and then the
audio recording, the podcast, comes out on Wednesday.
And of course, again, we have stuff on YouTube.
We're debuting things in a bunch of different areas.
So we appreciate that you watch, listen, and read — and we hope
it's helpful. And always, if you have any
suggestions, let us know. We're looking to try to figure
out how to be better for all of you — and for ourselves —
because that's a really important tenet of what we do.
As always, thanks for listening. Thanks for watching.
Hope this is helpful, and we will see you next week.