Asics’s marketing pitch: A smoother and more stable ride.
Upper: Semi-stretch mesh, fused layers. No inner sleeve.
Midsole: Multi-density Flytefoam, medial post, dual Gel pads. 8 mm heel offset.
Outsole: Hard rubber under the rearfoot, soft blown rubber in the front.
Weight: 280 gms/ 9.9 Oz for a half pair of Men's US 9/UK 8/EUR 42.5/CM 27
Widths available: D - regular (reviewed), 2E - wide, 4E - extra wide.
Previous model: Asics GT-2000 9.
Country of origin: Made in Vietnam.
Asics phased out the GT-2170 a decade ago, and replaced it with the new GT-2000 series. The GT2170 was a stability running shoe with a firmer medial post, and so was the first edition of the GT-2000. In other words, it was old wine in a new bottle.
And what exactly, is the point of sharing this trivia?
All prior versions of the GT-2000 had ‘Duomax’, the Asics term for its firmer medial post. It co-existed with a molded plastic shank (Trusstic) that cupped the midfoot for torsional stiffness.
Well, none of those features appear on the newest version of the GT-2000. That’s a first in the lengthy history of this mild-support everyday trainer.
Unlike the GT-2000 9 which had a prominent plastic shank (aka the Trusstic) and ‘Duomax’ highlighted on the midsole, the GT-2000 10 ditches the shank and fills the space with outsole rubber.
The redesigned midsole sidewalls have a raised profile, so it’s difficult to unsee the connection with Brooks Guiderails.
Despite the updates, both the GT-2000 9 and GT-2000 10 share a similar fit and ride character.
Even though ‘Duomax’ is no longer a part of the GT-2000 10’s feature-set, the midsole still has a firmer density wedge.
It may not be obvious from the outside, but there is a medial post.
In short, except for the softer ride and improved upper, running in the GT-2000 10 is a familiar experience that feels like a continuation of the GT-2000 9.
It’s a comfortable and versatile running shoe with a (more) supportive inner midsole – just like the past versions of the GT-2000.
THE RIDE EXPERIENCE
The GT-2000 10’s midsole has a quad-density construction. On the top is a softer layer of Flytefoam that spans from the forefoot to the heel.
A visible Gel unit resides under the rearfoot, and finally, there’s a firmer wedge of Flytefoam just above the outsole.
Here, we’ll not get into a detailed rant about the functional inefficiency of medial posts. A running shoe with a medial post is purely a matter of sensory preference; just know that it will not ‘correct’ your gait or ‘pronation’.
The lower section of the (firm) midsole also has a medial post made of stiff foam. This is where it says ‘Litestruss’ – a new term for Asics’s stability running shoe architecture.
The GT-2000’s redesign process also includes the removal of the plastic shank – also known as the Trusstic. That means the GT-2000 10 no longer has a gap under the midfoot, and the only negative space is the transition groove under the heel.
Asics likes to label simple features with complicated names, so the transition groove is called ‘3D space construction.’
Since this is printed on the insole, it may confuse people into thinking that the midsole has a hollow chamber. We’re like to assure you that there’s nothing of that sort.
One of the recent improvements has been cutting short the ‘Guidance line’ and also making the transition groove shallower. Earlier versions of the GT-2000 had the forefoot outsole split into two halves by this groove. As a result, the edges of the outsole lugs created a pressure spot.
Thankfully, this was corrected from the GT-2000 7 onwards, and the GT-2000 10 makes further refinements.
For example, the transition groove under the heel (aka the 3D space) is not as deep as the GT-2000 9, and the rubber outsole lugs do not project outwards as much as the GT-2000 9 did.
We don’t think that this was a deliberate design choice, but rather a direct consequence of removing the plastic shank.
Asics retains the split crash pad with the multiple rubber lugs, so that’s good. An articulated landing zone makes the transitions easier for rearfoot strikers.
When combined with the increased outsole contact area, the GT-2000 10’s transitions feel more connected. It helps that the midfoot no longer has the gap due to the Trusstic shank.
The grooves under the forefoot make the midsole fairly flexible.
So even though the midsole is made of multiple foam densities, the ride feels very uniform with only a slight hint of cushioning bias.
That’s natural given the difference between the outer(softer) and inner(firmer) midsole design. Even though the outer midsole (with the visible Gel unit) is softer, the foot doesn’t lean outwards during heel landings.
The midsole has a cupped profile with a stiff heel counter, so the stability is excellent. The raised sidewalls remind us of the Brooks Guiderail, except that the GT-2000’s midsole edges are nowhere as tall or stiff.
The heel edge is nearly flush with the upper, and that means there’s no midsole overhang. This makes forefoot-striking perfectly doable, despite the 8 mm heel-to-toe offset.
The removal of the shank (Trusstic) also turns the GT-2000 10 into a better running shoe (than the GT-2000 9) for full-contact landings. The midfoot no longer has a gap, so that increases the outsole real estate.
All these updates make the GT-2000 10 a better midfoot and forefoot striker’s running shoe than any of the past versions. The traction is also great, even on wet sidewalks.
Just avoid going over metal drainage covers when wet; the outsole doesn’t grip well on those surfaces.
Though the GT-2000 10’s Ortholite footbed and lasting create a soft layer of step-in comfort, the overall cushioning isn’t very soft or springy.
There’s a firm undertone in the ride, and it’s also worth noting that the transition groove (aka 3D space) isn’t as deep as before. It must be mentioned that the midsole stack heights for the women’s GT-2000 10 are 1 mm lower than the men’s GT-2000 10.
In our opinion, the Asics GT-2000 10 strikes an excellent balance between everyday comfort and transition-friendly ride quality. There’s sufficient ride comfort for half-marathon distances and longer.
It also doesn’t struggle at faster paces (6 min/km, 10 min/mile). Sure, this is nothing like the rocker-shaped Novablast, but at no point does one feel that the GT-2000 is running out of steam. It can be pushed hard when the occasion demands it.
So what’s the ideal use case for the GT-2000 10? This is a do-it-all daily trainer for runners who prefer the sensation of a medial post – even if Asics chooses not to advertise it.
So if the GT is your everyday trainer, which other shoes add rotational value?
We see the Asics Hyper Speed or Saucony Type A9 filling the role of a speed shoe for those quick 5K and 10K runs. On the higher end of the cushioning range are models like the Asics Novablast 2 and Saucony Endorphin Speed V2.
The Asics Novablast 2 is a softly cushioned shoe that feels peppy, thanks to a rocker-shaped midsole that allows quick turnovers. The Saucony Endorphin Speed V2 occupies a higher rung on the food-chain of running shoe tech.
The Speed V2 shares the same midsole as the V1, so our review of the V1 contains relevant information. Its PEBA foam midsole delivers a lightweight and bouncy cushioning; the internal Nylon plate adds a springy snap to the ride. This cushioning behavior makes the Endorphin Speed an excellent racer that’s also comfortable for high-mileage runs.
IS THE ASICS GT-2000 10 DURABLE?
We expect the Asics GT-2000 10 to deliver around 400 miles of useful lifespan.
The mesh upper has no weak spots, and the firm Flytefoam stack is resistant to premature compacting.
Gradual wear and tear will occur on the outsole lugs, but that’s par for the course.
THE UPPER DESIGN AND FIT
Except for the mild tongue slide, the GT’s upper fit is superb. The true-to-size interiors are smooth and secure.
The just-right toe-box and forefoot are one of the best we’ve experienced in a GT-2000. The fit isn’t excessively long like the Novablast or other Asics shoes like the Hyperspeed and Metaracer.
An internal bumper gives the toe-box a broad profile, and the lack of overlays on the forefoot results in an accommodating fit. Though the engineered mesh isn’t elastic, the slits give it some mechanical stretch.
The ventilation levels are average – it’s neither too breezy nor too stuffy.
Asics has reinforced the inner midfoot with a soft and perforated lining material. Besides preventing the upper from appearing droopy, these panels help achieve a secure midfoot fit.
On the outside, the high-density printing adds aesthetic detail and structural support.
The semi-elastic laces stay tied for the duration of the runs, and the top-down pressure is absorbed by the padded tongue. The tongue and heel collar use a plush lining that enhances the fit comfort.
The lace length could be a tad shorter, though. Perhaps a 10 mm reduction could do the trick. When fully tied, the loops are large and tend to slap on the sides.
If these laces were not elastic, the length would have been perfect. But since there’s some stretch, its effective length exceeds the on-paper specs. It’s a minor annoyance, but not a deal-breaker.
For most of its history, Asics has eschewed the use of an inner sleeve. The Japanese brand may have come a long way in the last couple of years, but as they say – old habits die hard.
The GT-2000 10 does not have a gusset or sleeve, so the tongue slides sideways during a run. However, there’s a loop on top, so that limits the degree of movement.
A large internal heel counter and copious amounts of heel padding work together to result in an excellent heel grip. There’s no sense of slippage at all, so in most cases, the runner’s loop should not be necessary.
The only area with reflective trims is the heel. You should know that Asics also sells a reflective ‘Lite-Show’ version of the GT-2000 that’s loaded with low-light visibility elements.
PROS AND CONS
Sure, the upper could have been better with an inner sleeve so that the tongue could stay put. But there’s nothing else to nitpick on the GT-2000 10.
The multi-density midsole is comfortable and supportive – without a noticeable cushioning bias. The just-right cushioning also creates a versatile ride character that works for everything from everyday training to long-distance runs. The GT doesn’t mind the occasional tempo run either.
We love the upper proportions and interior comfort. The choice of meshes, lining, and last profile creates a remarkably well-balanced fit; it’s spacious yet secure at the same time. In particular, the heel and midfoot have confidence-inspiring levels of grip.
Just like the past models, the GT-2000 10 is offered in 2E (wide) and 4E (extra wide) sizes. A Gore-Tex variant also exists for a mere $10 price premium.
THE ASICS GT-2000 10 vs. KAYANO 28
The Asics Kayano and GT-2000 (and its earlier forms) have been together for over two decades.
That may seem a little confusing, since the Kayano has a ’28’ suffix, and the GT-2000 is in its tenth year. But it’s easy to forget that 2160 – the GT-2000’s predecessor – existed alongside the Kayano before the name change.
Both are two of Asics’s most popular stability running shoes – also defined as the kind with medial posts. The $30 more expensive Kayano 28 is a plusher version of the GT-2000, so the upper has a higher level of trim.
For example, the Kayano 28 has a plastic heel clip that’s absent on the GT. The midsole has a plastic shank along with a larger wedge of firm foam and rearfoot Gel unit. At 10 mm, even the heel-to-toe offset is slightly higher.
All the extras come at a cost. We’re not talking about the $30 price premium, but the Kayano 28’s one-ounce heavier weight. As a result, the GT-2000 10 is the lighter – and therefore more versatile – everyday trainer.
On the lower end, there’s the GT-1000 10 with milder stability features and fewer premium materials. The GT-1000 11 has just been released, but it’s not widely available yet.
SHOES SIMILAR TO THE ASICS GT-2000 10
The Asics GT-2000 10’s inner midsole is more supportive, so that makes it a mild stability shoe.
There are several others in that category, all well-known names in the running shoe industry. All the shoes that follow are capable everyday trainers with varying levels of cushioning softness and stability.
The New Balance 860V12 is the closest match to the GT-2000 10, as both shoes share a firmer medial post. However, the 860 has a firmer ride than the Asics shoe.
Brooks sells its Adrenaline GTS 22 – a supportive daily trainer with raised midsole sidewalls called ‘Guiderails’. We reviewed the GTS 22 earlier this year; it rides firmer than the GT-2000 10.
Nike’s Structure has been around for over two decades, and the Structure 24, like the 23, does not have a medial post. Instead, the midsole has a stable yet neutral ride character due to the wide base.
The 24 shares the same midsole with the 23, so our review of the older model is worth reading. For what it’s worth, the Structure 24 feels more ‘neutral’ than the Asics GT-2000.
The Saucony Guide 15 doesn’t have a medial post, but its medial side is more supportive due to the plastic stabilizer. Though the midsole uses a firmer density foam than the GT-2000 10, there’s a thick insole made of expanded Polyurethane foam that adds step-in comfort.
Do you own this shoe? Improve this review by sharing your insights – submit a review here.