ASICS Men's GT-2000 10 Running Shoes

I've owned the version 8 and 9 of the GT-2000 and these 10's are by far the lightest to wear for either running (road running NOT trail running) or long-distance walking. For someone who has over-pronated feet (flat feet) these are the perfect pair of walking/running shoes to own.The Asics GT-2000's are similar to an extent the Asics Kayano's with 3 main differences in my opinion...One, I've found the GT-2000's to be lighter than the Kayano's which makes it a great daily training/running/walking sneakers.Two, the GT-2000's are not really meant for long-distance running unlike the Kayano's. The reason for this is due to the difference in the forefoot design and support. Kayano's have a firmer forefoot which gives it that slight edge as a better long-distance running shoe. It also helps that Kayano's have a more plush upper material for more breathability and comfort. GT-2000's have a softer forefoot which leads to a smoother ride and feel. This to me is what makes GT-2000's great long-distance walking shoes or daily walking shoes and trainers. They too have great breathability and comfort as well but I Kayano's definitely have the slighter edge on this matter.Three, price point... Kayano's will always be pricier than GT-2000's even when Asics put them on sale. Kayano's are typically between $20-$50 more expensive than GT-2000's.Overall, the GT-2000 10 version is a really great and versatile pair of shoes that provides great support, comfort and durability.

I have several foot issues. I have arthritis in both feet that makes my toes curl. That has led to hammer toes and decubitus ulcers and now forces me to wear wee doo-hickeys to keep the tips of my toes from beating themselves to death on the ground. There is sufficient room in the toe box of these shoes to accomodate said doo-hickeys. I have also had bunions and a bunionectomy on one side. The Asic 2000 line of shoes has always been known for excellent performance wrt pronation v supination (the tendency to put weight on the outer or inner edges of your feet) and their performance in that regard has been helpful to me and many others.My podiatrist and surgeon recommended Asic shoes from this line several years ago and I have stuck with them ever since. I have found them consistently able to keep me walking. Our first grandchild has reached an age where we can take her to Disney World, which isn't far away. I've just come back from such a trip and the walking is extensive. On the previous Disney trip I used a pair of Merril Moab hiking shoes. The Asics provided superior comfort and at the end of the day my feet felt much better than they had after the previous trip. I don't want to run down the Merrils, they are excellent shoes, but for these particular feet in that particular scenario, the Asics worked better. My podiatrist has suggested that I purchase wider shoes and larger shoes than I actually require. These days, though, the only options are regular and wide and there is a large difference between them. The wide can sometimes be so wide as to affect lateral stability: putting your foot down sideways on a steep slope can end up with the shoe sort of rolling under your foot. Be careful. With the Asics, however, I have found that stepping up a half size in length (from a 9.5 to a 10) provides enough extra width to be comfortable without the loss of stability. NOTE, if I did not have my foot issues, I would NOT make those adjustements. I would buy precisely the size that a Brannock device (the foot measuring gadget at the shoe store) indicates. The Asics, in my experience, are sized perfectly for a healthy foot.I have probably owned more than ten pair of Asic 2000 and their predecessors, the 2160s and 2170s. So, yes, I would buy them again.

These are very comfortable shoes. I had switched to Brooks from New Balance after battling Plantar Fasciitis in my left arch.The Brooks provided additional support and the pain has slowly faded.I saw these good looking shoes on Amazon and purchased them.They are supportive and cushioned, I prefer them to the Brooks. Although they are about $40 more than the Brooks.* I am a 10.5 regular in all shoes. These shoes are a bit narrow. If I had it over I’d buy a 10.5 wide. I’m making it work because I like these shoes so I loosened up the laces so they feel less constricted.I recommend these shoes.✌️After wearing these shoes for a month or two I gave them to my nephew and purchased a pair of Brooks Glycerin running shoes. The ASICS are just not as comfortable as the Brooks despite being beautiful and well made.My feet hurt and they do not hurt when wearing Brooks supportive running shoes

ASICS Men's GT-2000 10 Running Shoes apparently run a wee smaller than I expected in the 13-wide size. They are almost, but not quite, wide enough to be really comfortable. The slight constriction right at the widest part of my feet stresses the fabric a bit, and after several months, the shoes show a bit of stress in the mesh part covering the toes.But they are lightweight, cool (talking temperature not the other kind of cool), and a good value at the $60 price.