If someone were to ask me, “Kristin, what’s a basic model running and exercise shoe?” I’d say, GT-2000.
Now having been reworked for its 6th rendition, I think it’s gotten better, which, is not what I thought after my first couple runs in this shoe (5 and 10 miles). The feel was so firm all around. Patience, let it break in ;).
By the weekend 2000 was really growing on me, and I was surprised how good my foot still felt 12 miles into a long run, the day after running 10 in them.
I changed shoes to finish the 20 miler with my custom inserts (for my specific support needs), but I realized that I really didn’t need to, cushion wise.
Asics GT 2000 6 General Info
The 2000 6 is the lightest and most breathable version of the shoe, but it offers a touch less control in the toe-off; the old design has a wider base.
I do prefer the old base, but, an ounce less per shoe encourages a more efficient cadence: that’s the trade off. (Men’s model is .6 oz. lighter.)
Designers added ventilation holes to the medial aspect of the upper just above the arch, and I do feel the air movement cooling my foot-a subtle but nice touch.
GT-2000 4 Lite-Show is my only previous experience running in this line, and it was my choice for a marathon shoe last January.
In comparison, true to claim, the 6’s toe box has been opened up just slightly along the lateral top, noticeable if your outer three toes are closer in length to the first two, but it’s not obvious, like in Ravenna 8, which also has added height to the toe area.
I love that shoe for comfort underfoot, though, and if you raise your toes significantly while running, you may want to check out Ravenna.
The 2000 competes with Nike Structure. Similar in weight and function, Structure’s midfoot tightens up slightly better, and 2000’s heel fits more snug: a wide heel may prefer Structure or ordering up a size in the 2000.
ASICS’ FlyteFoam is really hyped for durability, but with similar miles on these two (about 70), the midsole dip under the forefoot is similar-not bad; I just expected better. (To check midsole wear, take out the sock liner and feel for the degree of dip in the forefoot.)
It also competes with Saucony Guide ISO, but I haven’t run in that one to tell you the difference in fit and feel.
Asics GT 2000 6 Sole Unit
ASICS completely restructured this shoe, true to expectation, replacing their Fluidride midsole with FlyteFoam yet maintaining (smaller) pockets of gel in the lateral heel and forefoot for shock absorption and resilience.
FlyteFoam is lighter, but I think a big part of this shoe’s weight loss is due to the sole unit being thinner and also a few millimeters more narrow in width, which puts it on par with Nike Structure.
The drop in weight encourages a more efficient (quicker) cadence, which lessens the need for the wider base, in my opinion: I like the change.
The Guidance Line and Trusstic System-staples of an ASICS shoe-have been reworked to fit the modified sole, to offer their proven gait guidance and stability to the midfoot. The 2000 maintains its 10mm offset.
Asics GT 2000 6 Upper Info
The upper was thinned down for the last version and even moreso in this 6th model. The heel collar is basic, not plush; it offers more padding than a racer or hybrid trainer/racer such as Adizero Tempo 9, but isn’t anything to write home about.
The external plastic heel counter was replaced by a subtle internal one that still gets the job done: it guards the heel from excess horizontal motion.
The medial side above the arch now has a thin rubbery piece with straight-up holes in it: I do feel the air movement!
Lacing has changed from traditional holes to using loops for the 2nd and 3rd attachments, which aids a snug tighten, and the tongue is secured by the laces running through a loop.
There’s now slightly more length in the shoe’s lateral tip to accommodate toes. I didn’t notice this until I read about it, since my foot shape doesn’t need the room, but it’s there; don’t expect a major change, unless it’s the little-bit of room that you need.
Asics GT 2000 6 Conclusions
The designers have slimmed GT-2000 down to keep up with the times and have outfitted the shoe with their premium midsole, FlyteFoam, while still sticking with gel and the guidance trusstic that the brand’s shoes are known for.
It’s a basic, quality, stability shoe, and in my opinion the benefits lost from shaving the wider base are made up for by a much lighter shoe overall.
The ride is…basic, no bells and whistles (those things add weight 😉 ), but it’s functional, with no major complaints from me, either. Calling all GT-2000 diehards and newcomers, what do you think of this revamped design?
We purchased a pair of Asics GT 2000 6 from runningwarehouse using our own money. This did not influence the outcome of this review, written after running more than 50 miles in them.