Holabird Sports Blog

Asics GT-2000 Running Shoe Review

Greg Jubb April 9, 2013 Running 12 Comments
ASICS GT-2000 running shoe review

Asics Loyalists: Some of you may have pondered what happened to the 2100 series. Fear not; your go-to shoe now goes by a different name: The Asics GT-2000.

Asics overhauled one of the most popular shoes in the market to redefine stability as we know it. Such modifications may cause some uneasiness among the 2100 series aficionados, but, in this case, we at Holabird Sports think change is good.

GT-2170 vs. GT-2000: What has changed?

If you’re looking for a soft, cushioned ride, look no further. Asics has truly outdone themselves in producing a plush, gel feel in the GT-2000. With larger gel units in the forefoot and heel, this model will leave you feeling oh-so-comfortable for the duration of your run or workout.

Asics has added a second layer of SoLyte foam to the top of the midsole, providing better cushioning and shock absorption just beneath the sock liner. Keeping both genders in mind, the GT-2000 has implemented a softer layer for women and a firmer one for men. With Asics’ patented Personalized Heel Fit (PHF), two layers of memory foam in the heel will mold to your fit, creating a superior fit that lasts.

ASICS GT 2000 running shoe review

But is it still just as supportive? Will you be able to safely transition from other stability shoes to the Asics GT-2000. Yes and yes.

Asics has replaced the old Duomax medial posting with the new and improved Dynamic Duomax, allowing for a smoother control of overpronation. Compared to the GT-2170, the medial support is less aggressive in the GT-2000 without compromising support and functionality. Additionally, the Guidance Line in the outsole encourages a firm foot strike and a steady toe-off.

ASICS GT-2000 running shoe review

Increased cushioning and new a medial post must mean a heavier shoe, right? Not at all. In fact, the GT-2000 is even lighter than its predecessor. I weighed the women’s model in at 9.3 ounces, .6 ounces lighter than the GT-2170. The men’s version slimmed down to 11.3 ounces, shaving .2 ounces from the previous model. With thinner overlays in the forefoot, the GT-2000 is not only lighter, but also more flexible.

My thoughts: Shin splints begone! When I first stepped foot in the shoe, I noticed how plush it really is. Consider it a featherbed for your foot. Already appreciated for a soft, gel-cushioned experience, Asics has proven that stability shoes can have same soft ride as many neutral shoes.

I loved the improvements to the medial posting. The Dynamic Duomax is gentler than the old Duomax, but is still equally supportive. I didn’t notice any distinct rigidity beneath the arch and heel, but still felt the necessary correction we would expect from a stability model. For stability shoe gurus, it may have seemed strange that the GT-2000 did not have a painted posting. Resembling more of a neutral shoe in fashion, Asics has done away with the classic grey-on-white look in the midsole.

I noticed a slightly narrower toe box, but my feet still had plenty of room to breathe. The arch ramp didn’t seem quite as prominent as it did in the GT-2170, but still felt comfortably supportive.

The Bottom Line: The GT-2000 is the perfect shoe from a workout on the elliptical trainer to a 20-mile long run. Asics has produced a great blend of cushioning and functionality in this model, and it is built to last.

Shop ASICS GT-2000 Running Shoes

ASICS GT-2000 running shoe review

 

  • Category: Stability
  • Recommended for: Mild to Moderate Overpronators
  • Heel Height: 21mm
  • Forefoot Height: 11mm

Greg Jubb is a former middle-distance runner for the University of Maryland and current employee of Holabird Sports.

Like this Article? Share it!

12 Comments

  1. Dani May 10, 2013 at 5:22 am

    I have to disagree, I was a long term gt21xx runner for long distance and recently moved to the new gt2000 and started developing inner knee pain. The physio pointed out the forefoot is much more compressible in the new shoe which leads to overpronation in my case. Admittedly this only showed up after a few long runs….

  2. Greg May 10, 2013 at 11:19 am

    Hi Dani:

    Without a doubt, the GT-2000 was a bold move for Asics, as the 2100 series had a very sound following. I had worn the shoe for about 200 miles before I wrote the review and I stayed healthy. So, for me, the transition from the 2170 to the 2000 was easy.

    When it comes to overpronation correction, shoe companies will focus more on posting and support in the heel to curb inward roll of the ankle. The forefoot is soft, especially with the added layer in the midsole. Asics has also dropped the standard medial posting from the previous models. At first sight, the 2000 does look much different from the 2170. So when it comes to overpronation issues, I can fully understand your concern. From wear testing the model, I, personally, could still feel great stability–both ankles still felt locked in.

    But I’m not everyone!

    Either way, I do hope your knee is feeling better. Long runs can be tough on the body, particularly if you’re training for longer distance races.

    If you have any questions–about shoes, racing, injuries, etc.–for me or for Holabird Sports, feel free to ask. We’d love to hear from you.

    Happy Running,

    Greg

  3. Tony June 15, 2013 at 7:15 pm

    Worn the GT line for the past 12 years, get 300-400 miles no problem before wearing out. 1st pair of GT 2000, heel completely worn at 120 miles, 2nd pair, only 80 miles and worn down to the white. Have 2 pairs of GT 2160s with 380 miles and minimal wear on the heal. What happened??

  4. Greg June 17, 2013 at 9:31 am

    Hi Tony:

    That’s very strange. Asics did not alter the design of the outsole too much when they updated the GT-2170 to the GT-2000. Likewise, the outsole on the 2160 is very similar too. They still use the same AHAR (Asics High Abrasion Rubber) to keep the underside of the heel and forefoot as durable as possible.

    Have you changed the surfaces on which you run recently? Do you run on roads a lot?

    Greg

    • Greg Armstrong June 27, 2013 at 2:25 pm

      My GT-2000s wore out after 160 miles. I started having knee pain again after regular 6 mile runs. I switched to ON Cloudrunners. Have had a few tendon issues since the switch in my right heel/ankle, but that is my own fault for going out and running a little over 13 miles for the first time ever on my third run in the ONs. I have had no issues other than that with the ONs

  5. Greg June 27, 2013 at 3:42 pm

    Hey there, Greg:

    Always a pleasure to talk to another Greg. Some runners have had issues with accelerated wear on the GT-2000s. Fortunately, for me, they’re still holding up very well.

    It’s interesting to see that you tried a pair of Cloudrunners as an alternative. I thought On’s models were a bit of a gimmick at first, but I have logged a couple hundred miles between the On Cloudsurfers and the Cloudracers.

    Just like you, I haven’t had any injury issues or any soreness with these. My longest run to date in them is 10 miles, and I’m sure they would hold up for longer runs as well. In case you were curious about more On models, here are my reviews of the Cloudsurfer (lightweight trainer) and the Cloudracer (performance shoe):

    http://www.holabirdsports.com/blog/on-cloudsurfer-running-shoe-review/

    http://www.holabirdsports.com/blog/on-cloudracer-running-shoe-review/

    Happy Running,

    Greg
    Holabird Sports

  6. WILLIAM July 7, 2013 at 12:40 pm

    Yes, the 2000 has a nice fit but less cushioning. Simply, it is engineered with less production cost in mind. It is cheaper to make. It is that simple. Nike has taken the same route however in a drastic move, resulting in extremely uncomfortable shoes. Cannot beat ACIS. Compared to 2170, the 2000 is inferior on all counts. I believe the 2170 is the best shoe so far, followed by the 1150. Thank God, I got myself four pairs of 2170.

  7. HHung January 5, 2014 at 2:47 am

    Anyone let me know the meaning of GT in those shoes? :(

    • Cara Bruce January 6, 2014 at 11:01 am

      It stands for Gran Turismo.

  8. Geoff January 10, 2014 at 6:27 pm

    The 2100 series has been great for me. Bought a couple of 2170s when asics went to the 2000. When went to2000 outer sole gone on the heel in 150 miles, feel the road in forefoot right away, knee pain. I weigh 180 and have flat feet that did fine in 2170 on 10-20mile training runs and half and full marathons. 30 years running and been through this before–any suggestions on 2170 replacements. I note that RW referred to 2000 as a good shoe for novice runners. Thanks asics. Didn’t they run an ad campaign about money back about the time they pulled the 2170?

  9. Nicole January 18, 2014 at 11:54 am

    I have worn 2100 series for 10 years for correction of over pronation and have loved them feeling like each upgrade was an improvement until now. While I am not a runner I am on my feet on concrete or hard tile flooring most of the day. So far with the new 2000 I don’t fell like I have as much support from my arch forward and I feel like the toe area of the shoe is skinnier so the front part of my foot does not have as much room and it becomes annoying. Wish I had bought more 2170′s when I had the chance. I have read that possibly going up from an 8M to an 8 wide may take away the “toe cramping” but I feel like it will be too large for the rest of my foot as I have a high arch so thinner middle part of my foot. Any suggestions are welcome!!

  10. Jon Storey July 23, 2014 at 11:47 am

    I used to wear the GT-2160 and ran over 800kms in them and loved them. Retired the shoe and still wear them for casual attire. The cushioning has now stiffened up but the soles have remained hard wearing.
    Unfortunately the change in sizing from the GT2160 to the GT2170 meant that I never purchased a pair. For some reason they narrowed the fit, and I couldn’t even get in to a 4E width.
    The GT2000 had a different fit again being wider than the GT2170 but narrower than the GT2160. I bought a pair in a 2E width. To start with I hated them. The cushioning was too soft. I also found that the toes were slightly more pointed than the GT-2160 and I was thus finding a hotspot by my little toe on my left foot. As I used them more the cushioning has become a little firmer and have therefore felt better, the material has also stretched making my feet a little more comfortable.
    However after 300kms the sole has worn through to the cushioning. It seems that the durability of the sole is nowhere near as robust as the GT-2160.

Leave A Response

CAPTCHA Image
*

Current ye@r *