diff --git a/docs/_howto/lolex-async-promises.md b/docs/_howto/lolex-async-promises.md
new file mode 100644
index 000000000..56f7c740a
--- /dev/null
+++ b/docs/_howto/lolex-async-promises.md
@@ -0,0 +1,109 @@
+---
+layout: page
+title: How to test async functions with fake timers
+---
+
+With fake timers (lolex), testing code that depends on timers is easier, as it sometimes
+becomes possible to skip the waiting part and trigger scheduled callbacks
+synchronously. Consider the following function of a maker module (a module
+that makes things):
+
+```js
+// maker.js
+module.exports.callAfterOneSecond = callback => {
+    setTimeout(callback, 1000);
+};
+```
+
+We can use Mocha with lolex to verify that `callAfterOneSecond` works as expected, but
+skipping that part where the test takes one second:
+
+```js
+// test.js
+before(
+    lolex.install();
+);
+// ...
+
+it('should call after one second', () => {
+    const spy = sinon.spy();
+    maker.callAfterOneSecond(spy);
+
+    // callback is not called immediately
+    assert.ok(!spy.called);
+
+    // but it is called synchronously after the clock is fast forwarded
+    clock.tick(1000);
+    assert.ok(spy.called); // PASS
+});
+```
+
+The same approach can be used to test an `async` function:
+
+```js
+module.exports.asyncReturnAfterOneSecond = async () => {
+    // Using util.promisify would look nicer, but there is a lolex issue
+    // blocking this at the moment: https://github.com/sinonjs/lolex/pull/227
+    const setTimeoutPromise = timeout => {
+        return new Promise(resolve => setTimeout(resolve, timeout));
+    };
+    await setTimeoutPromise(1000);
+    return 42;
+};
+```
+
+The following test uses Mocha's [support for promises](https://mochajs.org/#working-with-promises):
+
+```js
+// test.js
+it('should return 42 after one second', () => {
+    const promise = maker.asyncReturnAfterOneSecond();
+    clock.tick(1000);
+    return promise.then(result => assert.equal(result, 42)); // PASS
+});
+```
+
+While returning a Promise from Mocha’s test, we can still progress the timers
+using lolex, so the test passes almost instantly, and not in 1 second.
+
+Since `async` functions behave the same way as functions that return promises
+explicitly, the following code can be tested using the same approach:
+
+```js
+// maker.js
+module.exports.fulfillAfterOneSecond = () => {
+    return new Promise(resolve => {
+        setTimeout(() => fulfill(42), 1000);
+    });
+};
+```
+
+```js
+// test.js
+it('should be fulfilled after one second', () => {
+    const promise = maker.fulfillAfterOneSecond();
+    clock.tick(1000);
+    return promise.then(result => assert.equal(result, 42)); // PASS
+});
+```
+
+Knowing that `async` functions return promises under the hood,
+we can write another test using `async/await`:
+
+```js
+// test.js
+it('should return 42 after 1000ms', async () => {
+    const promise = maker.asyncReturnAfterOneSecond();
+    clock.tick(1000);
+    const result = await promise;
+    assert.equal(result, 42); // PASS
+});
+```
+
+A callback in the above test still returns a Promise, but for a user it looks
+like some straightforward synchronous code.
+
+Although these tests pass almost instantly, they are still asynchronous. Note
+that they return promises instead of running the assertions right after the
+`clock.tick(1000)` call, like in the first example. **Promises' `then()`
+function always runs asynchronously**, but we can still speed up the tests.