Though I didn’t review as many shoes in 2015 as I have in previous years, mainly due to reduced running mileage associated with my return to school, there were still a few standouts that are worth mentioning. I’m going to keep my list short and sweet, and simply go with my top 3 picks from last year.

1. New Balance 1400v3

Specs per Running Warehouse: 6.3 oz (men’s 9), 23mm heel, 13mm forefoot.

Though the top two were close, I’m going to give the NB 1400v3 my award for top shoe of 2015. The 1400 v2 was one of my favorites of all time, and v3 saw some minor tweaks that made for an even better shoe. Gone was the somewhat scratchy upper, and in its place a softer upper that could handle sockless running. v3 retained the sole that I loved in v2 – soft under the heel, firm under the forefoot, and perfect for both speed and long runs. Fit is snug, but just right for my foot. Really couldn’t ask for much more in a running shoe!

Read my full New Balance 1400 v3 review here.

2. New Balance Zante

Specs per Running Warehouse: 8.1 oz (men’s 9), 23mm heel, 17mm forefoot.

Coming in at #2 is another standout from New Balance. Though I did most of my running in the Zante in 2014, they were officially released last year, and it’s a shoe that I pulled out more than a few times during 2015 for longer distance runs.

The Zante is a shoe that just works for me – the fit is near perfect, the sole is pretty soft and cushy (my preference), and the upper is minimally structured. It’s a shoe that I can use for uptempo runs as well as longer distances, and they’d be on my short list as a marathon racer. Great shoe all-around, and I’m looking forward to the Zante 2 which should be coming out soon (see Thomas Neuberger’s review here)

Read my full review of the New Balance Zante here.

3. Asics Lyteracer RS 4

Specs per Running Warehouse: 7.3 oz (men’s 9), 25mm heel, 16mm forefoot.

Running Warehouse decided to try something new and different last year – they brought in a collection of Japanese racing flats that are not typically available in the US market. They sent me a couple pairs to try out, and one of them wound up being one of my favorite shoes of the year.

Like the NB 1400 v3 and Zante, the Asics Lyteracer RS 4 has a softish feel under the heel and a firm forefoot, and is suitable for both speed and distance (most of my favorite shoes fit in this category). The Lyteracer differs in having something of a throwback-style upper with suede-like overlays and a more traditional-style mesh. I like the look, and the ride was great – I even opted to use them for a ten mile road race back in October. If you like shoes like the NB 1400 or adidas Adios Boost, these are definitely worth a look.

Read my full review of the Asics Lyteracer RS 4 here.

In addition to the Lyteracer, Running Warehouse also sent me a pair of another Japanese racing flat: the Tartherzeal 3 (Disclosure: these were provided free of charge for review purposes). There are some similarities between the Lyteracer and Tartherzeal, but also some significant differences. I’ll dig into both in this review.

Specs

Per Running Warehouse, the Asics Tartherzeal 3 weighs in at 6.0oz in men’s size 9, and stack heights are 22mm heel, 15mm forefoot (7mm drop). As with other Japanese flats brought over by Running Warehouse, sizing is a bit odd for the Tartherzeal. There was no 10.5 avaialble, and max size is 11.5. I’ve been running in a size 11 and have found the fit to be good, if a tad on the long side (my normal size is 10, but I typically go up to 10.5 in flats).

Upper

The upper is where the Lyteracer and Tartherzeal share the most similarities. Both have a retro-looking upper composed of a traditional mesh with suede-like overlays. Both have a firm heel counter, and both have exposed stitching internally which likely precludes sockless wear (at least for me). Fit for both shoes is surprisingly roomy for a flat, though that may in part be due to the fact that I am wearing a half size bigger than my usual. The laces on the Tartherzeal are a bit thinner and flimsier, but this did not cause me any problems. If you like a simple upper, both of these shoes should appeal to you.

Sole

The sole is where the Lyteracer and Tartherzeal diverge. The Lyteracer sole is well cushioned, particularly under the heel, and it has worked well for me on runs up to 10 miles. I’d probably have no issues running a marathon in them. The Tartherzeal 3, on the other hand, has a stiff, firm sole built for speed. I’d describe it as a short-distance speed shoe – best suited for 5Ks and speed workouts, at least for me. It’s a shoe that feels great when you pick up the pace, but it’s not a forgiving shoe for long, slow distance. I’d compare it in this regard to shoes like the Adidas Takumi Sen, Mizuno Ekiden, Pearl Izumi N0, Saucony A6, and the old Adidas Hagio.

Grippy, they are.

One of the most striking features of the Tartherzeal 3 is how grippy the outsole is. Unlike the almost full-coverage outsole under the forefoot of the Lyteracer, the Tartherzeal has little rubber nubs covering the forefoot. I’ve run in other shoes with this type of design, but none are quite as grippy as the Tartherzeal. You can feel how edgy the nubs are when you touch them, and they tend to catch on carpet if you walk around the house in the shoes. In his review of the shoe, Thomas Neuberger talks about how he walked over a yoga mat in the Tartherzeal and it ripped chunks out. I haven’t run on a rubberized track in these shoes, but I’d be interested to see how they feel on that surface – if you like a grippy racing shoe, this one is probably the grippiest out there.

Conclusion

The Asics Tartherzeal 3 isn’t the kind of shoe I’d use for all of my runs, but it’s a solid option for those days when you feel the need for speed. It has a firm, responsive sole, and a crazy grippy outsole that claws at the road. It’s also fairly roomy for a flat – fit is better on me than say the Saucony A6. I also like the retro-styling of the upper. The only real downside is the price – $125.95 is a bit on the high side for a flat.

The Asics Tartherzeal 3 is available for purchase at Running Warehouse.

Several weeks ago Running Warehouse started stocking several Asics flats from Japan, and they sent me two pairs to try out for review (Disclosure: these shoes were provided free of charge by Running Warehouse for review purposes). The models I received were the Lyteracer RS 4 and the Tartherzeal 3 – I’ve run in the latter only once or twice so far (it’s more of a speed flat – think Saucony A6 – so will take a bit longer to get miles on), but have put quite a few miles on the Lyteracer. I have to say that I’d rank the Lyteracer right up there with the 3 shoes mentioned in the opening paragraph – it’s a fantastic distance racer and is one my favorite shoes that I have run in so far this year.

One of the things I love about distance racers is their stripped-back simplicity. No frills uppers, light weight, and simple soles with a platform that doesn’t extend much beyond the margins of the foot are what I look for in shoe like this. Add in a forgiving heel and a firm, responsive forefoot and you have the makings of a perfect shoe for me. The Lyteracer RS 4 ticks al of these boxes, and I’ve really enjoyed running in them so far.

Specs

Let’s start with some specs. According to Running Warehouse, the Lyteracers weigh in at 7.3 oz in men’s size 9, and they have stack heights of 25mm in the heel, and 16mm in the forefoot. As in shoes like the Adios Boost and NB 1400, the 9mm drop does not get in the way – no issues there for me.

Sizing

With the Lyteracer being an import shoe from Japan, there are some quirky issues related to sizing. For example, the largest size available is 11.5 (sorry to those with big feet!), and there is no size 10.5 (my preferred size for a flat). When my RW contact asked me for sizing info, he indicated that most of the staff at RW who have tried them have gone up a full size without issue. As such, they sent me an 11 (full size up for me from my training shoe size), and though just a tad on the long side, they have worked out just fine. I would compare the width to the NB 1400 or Adios Boost – snug but not tight in the forefoot, very comfortable overall.

Upper

The upper of the Lyteracer feels almost like a throwback – old-school mesh with faux-suede overlays. I actually really like it, and it seems like it will be more durable than some of the newer-style uppers on the market. The interior of the shoe has a lot of exposed stitching due to the sewn-on overlays, so I’d probably not risk going sockless in them. I haven’t had any issues while wearing socks.

The pair that I received have a neon yellow upper, and I love the look of this shoe. They’re definitely a head-turner due to the brilliant color, and I’ve received a lot of comments on them while wearing them about.

Sole

As you might surmise from the intro to this review, the sole of the Lyteracer is a perfect match for my stride. Much like the NB 1400, Asics Hyperspeed, and adidas Adios Boost, it has a softish heel and a firmish forefoot. Plenty of cushioning for long distance, but still feels quick enough to use for speedwork. This is a great, multipurpose sole that can handle almost anything I throw at it. I’d even go so far as to say it can handle light trail duty due to the fairly extensive outsole under the forefoot. I’ve run in them several times on the rail trail in Lebanon, NH and they handle crushed rock very well – don’t feel any pointy pebbles or larger rocks underfoot. I probably wouldn’t use them were traction is a priority, or on more rugged terrain, but like the 1400 they might be a decent option for fast running on smooth trails.

As mentioned, outsole coverage is extensive, and durability his been excellent so far. There is a also a soft plastic shank under the midfoot to add a bit of longitudinal stiffness, though it’s not as stiff as the plates found in some other racing flats.

Conclusion

When I was first thinking about what I was going to write in this review, my intention was to say that the Lyteracer is a great shoe, but that similar models could be purchased at a lower price. I hadn’t looked at the MSRP, and my suspicion was that they would be expensive since they are imports. Turns out that they are actually very reasonably priced at $89.95 at Running Warehouse, so much cheaper than the Adios Boost and on par with the NB 1400 (though bit more expensive than the Asics Hyperspeed).  Given this, I can highly recommend that you give the Lyteracers a try if you are a fan of distance racing flats. I’m not sure how long they will have these in stock, but I am pretty sure that this will be one of my top 5 shoes of the year. They’re that good, and they have me wanting to try some additional Japanese imports!

The Asics Lyteracer RS 4 is available for purchase at Running Warehouse.

For another take on the Lyteracers, check out Sam Winebaum’s review at Road Trail Run. For some thoughts on other Asics flats from Japan, see this post on Believe in the Run.

Based on my experience with the Hyper Speed, I decided to pick up a pair of the Asics DS Racer 10  – they were a bargain at Running Warehouse as a new color was coming out. The DS Racers sat in the box un-worn for several months, and I finally took them out back in early June (wish I’d done so sooner!). I’ve run most of my road miles since then in the Racers, and to be honest, I’m having a hard time wanting to run in anything else. Like the Hyper Speed, they feel like a shoe that was designed specifically for me.

Specs

The DS Racer weighs in at 6.3 oz in men’s size 9, so it’s a very light shoe – less than an ounce heavier than the Hyper Speed. It has stack heights of 23mm in the heel, and 15 mm in the forefoot, but it feels less than an 8mm drop shoe to me.

Upper and Fit

The upper of the DS Racer is pretty simple – a nice, breathable mesh supported by welded overlays. The mesh feels a bit less stretchy than that of the Hyperspeed, and the fit may be just a tad snugger around the foot. However, for a racing flat I find the fit of the DS Racer to be fairly accommodating and have not felt the need for extra space up in the forefoot for my toes (I have an average width foot). Fit around the midfoot and heel is nice and snug for a good lock-down.

Internally, the Racer has a weird, white fabric lining the arch area that looks like it was perforated multiple times with a hole puncher. It feels a little scratchy, and this would be one of my few complaints about the shoe – probably not the best choice for sockless running.

The heel region of the DS Racer is supported by a plastic heel counter, and the ankle collar is sufficiently padded to ensure a comfortable fit. No abrasion or hot spots from either.

Sole

The DS Racer is billed as a light stability shoe, having both a medial post and a plastic midfoot shank, but I can’t say that the shoe feels particularly controlling in any way (similar to how I feel about the New Balance 1500 and Saucony Fastwitch). To be honest, it runs a lot like the neutral Hyper Speed.

The feel underfoot is soft in the heel, firm in the forefoot, which is the magical combo for me – I’ve absolutely loved running in this shoe. I’d compare the ride of the DS Racer to that of the Hyper Speed, adidas Adios Boost, Saucony Kinvara, and New Balance 1400. If you know anything about my shoe preferences, that’s pretty impressive company. The thing I like about this group of shoes is that they are all very versatile – enough cushion for long miles, but lightweight and responsive under the forefoot enough for running fast. If I had to narrow down my shoe collection to just one shoe, I’d probably choose from among these (with the Skechers GoRun 4 and New Balance Zante being other contenders).

The outsole of the DS Racer is made up of heel components and forefoot components. The heel outsole is AHAR+ high-abrasion rubber and has been holding up well – no excessive wear apparent. The forefoot is composed of a softer rubber, and there is pretty significant wear present on the central forefoot after about 40 miles of running. I don’t think this will negatively impact the function of the shoe, but it would be interesting to see what they look like after a few hundred miles (can anyone comment?).

One other minor complaint is that the drain holes in the sole tend to pick up road debris – I’ve had to pluck out a few rocks mid-run, and you can see one of them plugged up in the photo above. I know some people fill holes like this with shoe goo, so I suppose that would be a simple fix. I have not run in wet conditions in these so can’t comment on water drainage/entry via the holes.

Conclusion

The Asics DS Racer 10 is easily among the top shoes I have run in so far this year. It’s not a newly released shoe, but it’s one that I wish I had tried sooner. If you’re looking for a lightweight racer that can also handle longer runs, it’s definitely worth a look. Great shoe!

The benefit of the fact that the DS Racer has been out for awhile is that it can be found for sale at very reasonable prices, particularly when new colors are released (Running Warehouse US has a few colors priced under $70 right now). Outside of the US, they are also on sale at Running Warehouse EU, and are available at Running Warehouse Australia.

(Disclosure: these shoes were review samples provided free of charge by Asics).

The Lyte33 v3 retains almost everything I liked about v2, and manages to do so while dropping an ounce or two in weight (my pair in size 10 weighs in at only 7.4oz). The sole dimensions are the same (23mm heel, 17mm forefoot), and the weight loss comes from a combo of the new, more minimally structured upper, what appear to be thinner outsole pods, and a change in the compound that composes the midsole (full Solyte rather than a Solyte/SpEVA blend in version 3). It’s a solid shoe, but suffers from a flaw that I’ll detail below.

Fit and Upper

My first impression upon putting on the Gel Lyte33 v3 is that it felt even roomier than the previous model. The forefoot is downright spacious, and offers a ton of room for the toes to wiggle and spread. I love the fit.

The new upper is lighter and more breathable, both also big pluses. Asics has done away with the stitched-on overlays from v2 and replaced them with welded overlays, and this makes for a much lighter and more minimally structured upper. The shoe also has no plastic heel counter, so it’s one that I often recommend to people who have insertional Achilles tendon pain (sometimes a hard heel counter can aggravate this).

My only concern with the new upper is that it’s made of the type of synthetic mesh that sometimes seems more prone to tearing at the forefoot flex points. I haven’t had any issues with my pair (a bit over 40 miles on them), but it’s something to keep in mind.

Internally the shoe has a soft, comfortable lining and I have not had any issues with abrasion or blistering.

Sole

The sole of the Lyte33 v3 is where things get a bit problematic for me. I want to love this shoe, and for the most part I’ve really enjoyed running in them. I’ve done up to 14 miles in a single run, and I really like the amount of cushion that this shoe provides in a lightweight package. I’d classify it as a very soft shoe, probably softer than the Saucony Kinvara. Closest comparison might be something like the Altra The One2 (in terms of both fit and feel).

My problem is that the forefoot of this shoe feels lumpy. I can feel a distinct lump on both sides right behind my second toe. I initially thought that maybe I just got a defective pair, but a few weeks ago I was at my local running store and while chatting with one of the employees about the Gel Lyte33 he mentioned the same thing (before I had said anything about it). I’ve since asked others about this and some say they do feel the lumps, others do not. I’m not sure if maybe there was a bad batch or if some people simply are not sensitive to the change in firmness in that region. It is strange to me that it is present in the same spot on both sides.

For the most part the lumpy forefoot has not interfered with comfort on runs, and I wasn’t going to make a big deal out of it. But, last week I started feeling a bit of an ache in my right foot behind my second toe. It wasn’t until another run in the Lytes that I noticed that the sole lump was directly below the achy spot. The previous week I had done several runs in the shoes, including a long run. I’m not 100% sure that the Lytes were the cause of my foot ache, but it was enough of a concern that I will likely not continue to run in them. It’s a shame because in all other respects this is a really nice shoe, and it’s a relative bargain at an MSRP of $90.

(Note: In a situation like this I will often look at reviews on Amazon and Zappos to see if others have complained about an issue that I noticed. In fairness to Asics I will say that none of the Amazon reviews report issues with a lumpy forefoot. But, I still have concerns given that I know of a few people who independently noticed it.)

One other thing to note – one of the outsole pods under the outer forefoot is beginning to delaminate on one of my shoes (see photo at left). Nothing a bit of glue couldn’t take care of, but does add to my suspicion that something might be off with the sole of my pair.

Conclusion

So would I recommend the Asics Gel Lyte33 v3? I would say yes, but try them on first and feel out the forefoot. If it feels good to you, then the shoe is a great option if you are looking for something with a soft feel, moderate drop, and a very roomy forefoot. If I had a pair that felt right to me, I’d not hesitate to use them in a marathon. But the lumpy forefoot on my pair scares me a bit, so they will likely not see further use.

The Asics Gel Lyte33 v3 is available for purchase at Running Warehouse (currently on sale), Zappos, and Amazon.com. Outside the US they can be purchased at Millet Sports.

How about you – have you tried the Asics Gel Lyte33 v3? Did you notice anything odd about the feel of the forefoot?

I have not run in very many Asics shoes in the past. I reviewed the Gel Lyte33v2 last year, and will have a review of the v3 up soon. But the one Asics shoe that I’ve long had my eye on is the Hyper Speed (Ryan Hall’s marathon racing shoe). I had thought that the Hyper Speed was going away after v5, but in talking with Asics found out that a v6 was indeed on the way. I bought a pair earlier this year (Disclosure: this was a personal purchase, not a media sample), and have now put about 50 miles on them. I’m rather impressed by the shoe, and would rank it right upper there with the NB 1400v2 and Adios Boost mentioned in the intro.

Readers of this blog will know that I’m a fan of simple shoes. I like a basic, minimally structured upper with a bit of give/stretch, and a simple sole without a lot of tech built in. The Asics Hyper Speed 6 fits this bill perfectly. Let’s start with the specs.

Asics Hyper Speed 6 Specs

Weight: 5.6 oz in men’s size 9 (via Running Warehouse)

Stack Height: 21mm heel, 15mm forefoot

Upper Construction

The upper of the Hyper Speed 6 is a double-layed mesh with welded overlays. Very simple, not a lot of extraneous material. The internal lining is soft and seamless through the midfoot region. There is some stitching on either side of the forefoot that can be felt internally, but I have not had any abrasion issues (have not tried running sockless in them yet, but don’t think it would be a problem). The upper has almost a baggy feel to it in the forefoot, which makes for a very roomy fit for a racing shoe. This fit is kind of reminiscent of the Saucony Grid Type A5, which is a very good thing for me!

The HyperSpeed 6 does have a bit of arch support, mostly due to the midsole curling up a bit under the arch, and a hard heel counter (the area colored red behind the heel is hard plastic internally).

The photo below gives a nice view of the upper mesh:

Sole Construction

For a 5.6 oz shoe the Asics Hyper Speed 6 offers a surprising amount of cushion. The heel has a soft, springy feel to it (there is a Gel unit in the heel), very similar to the NB 1400v2 or the adidas Adios Boost. The forefoot is firm and responsive. This is my pretty much exactly what I want in a sole for my stride.

Unlike some racing flats, the Hyper Speed 6 is actually quite flexible, I don’t think there is a plate or shank of any type in the sole. This is one of the reasons why I’d not choose it as a 5K shoe – I like a shoe to be firmer and stiffer for running top speed in a short race. But for a half to full marathon it’s just about perfect. I’ve run up to 14 miles in them so far without any issue, though they do feel better at a slightly faster than easy pace.

One of the things that has puzzled me about the Hyper Speed so far is that I’m seeing almost no heel wear at all (see photo above). I typically wear soles a bit in front of the back corner of the heel, and I see almost nothing there in this shoe. I am seeing a bit of wear on the triangular black outsole pod behind the forefoot on the right shoe, but that’s about it:

This wear pattern is unusual for me and I’ve only recently seen something similar in the Nike Free 4.0 Flyknit. I’m wondering if the flexible sole in both of these shoes is shifting my contact point forward a bit? Kind of a mystery.

Conclusion

I’ve been really impressed by the Asics Hyper Speed 6 so far. It’s a sub 6oz shoe that retains ample cushion and does this in a flexible package with a roomy fit in the forefoot. Pretty much the exact combination of features I look for in a distance racer.

Here’s the best part – the Hyper Speed 6 is a bargain! It has an MSRP of $85, but can be purchased for less than that at various on-line outlets. You could likely buy two pairs of Hyper Speeds (and a couple pairs of socks) for the cost of one adidas Adios Boost. And given my observations on durability of the sole so far (50 miles on them) I’m not worried that they sacrificed quality at the lower cost.

I loved the adios Boost, but I’d find it very hard to recommend it at $140. Even the New Balance 1400v2 has an MSRP $15 higher than the Hyper Speed. If you liked either of those shoes, the Hyper Speed 6 is definitely worth a look. And if you’re looking for a first racing flat that won’t break the bank, this shoe is definitely one to consider.

A bit over a year ago Asics introduced its “33” series, presumably to compete with the lightweight, stripped down offerings from competitors like Brooks (PureProject) and Saucony (Kinvara/Mirage/Cortana). Most of the shoes in the 33 series represented a fairly mild departure from more traditional running shoes, and only one caught my eye as something that might appeal to me as a minimally-oriented runner – the Gel Lyte 33.

Over the past year I’ve heard good things about the original Asics Gel Lyte33. In his 2012 Shoe Award post, John Schrup over at Rogue Rundown labeled it as the “Best Shoe That’s Aaaalllmost there…”, but he complained about the upper and narrow fit. I respect John’s opinion on shoes since we seem to have similar taste, so I took a pass on the original Lyte33. In his review of the original, John commented that the upper and fit were supposedly being addressed in version 2, so when I was offered the opportunity to test them out I agreed (Disclosure: the shoes reviewed here are media samples provided free-of-charge by the manufacturer). Turns out the new version is a complete makeover, and you can find a rundown on the updates from the folks at Rogue as well.

I’ve now put over 40 miles on the Gel Lyte 33 v2’s, including multiple double-digit long runs (max of 16 miles in one run), and I have to say that I really like the shoe.

Based on my preferences, I would classify the Lyte33 as an easy run/long distance shoe. It’s lightweight but not skimpy (mine weight 9 oz in a size 10.5), it’s well cushioned (Running Warehouse reports stack height at 24mm heel, 17mm forefoot), and it fits very comfortably on my feet. In fact, “comfortable” is probably the best single word I could use to describe the shoe – this is not a shoe that I think of as being “fast” or “responsive.” It’s not a shoe I would wear for my next 5k, or even in a half marathon. It’s a shoe for wearing when you want a soft, plush feeling underfoot.

The upper of the Lyte33 v2 is pretty substantial. It’s not really so much that it’s overstructured because it’s not, it just seems like they have used a lot of material to construct it. Asics could probably cut a bit of weight from the shoe by simplifying the upper a bit and removing some of the excess material. The interior feels very soft against a bare foot, and I haven’t had any hotspots or abrasion while running in them (this is pretty rare for me!). I also very much like the fact that there is no rigid heel counter, and the cushion around the ankle collar feels great. Arch support in the shoe is not extensive – it comes mostly from the contour of the sockliner, and when you take that out the arch actually feels pretty flat.

The sole of the Lyte33 is very well cushioned, and it has a softness reminiscent of the Brooks Launch, Saucony Virrata, or Skechers GoRun 2. This is not a firm shoe, and thus works very well for me for long distances (I like a soft shoe for easy runs and distance). Forefoot cushioning is excellent, which is also a plus. The outsole appears to be durable carbon rubber on the heel, and a softer rubber under the forefoot. This makes the sole slightly more noticeable underfoot at initial ground contact, especially when compared to a shoe that has a sole mostly composed of exposed EVA. The tradeoff is that I expect durability should be better in the Lyte33 compared to a shoe like the Saucony Virrata.

One of the technologies that Asics is promoting in some of their new shoes is called FluidAxis. It is intended to allow the sole to flex in the direction of sub-talar joint movement rather than simply longitudinally. You can see the flex grooves in the heel the cross diagonally over the sole – that’s the FluidAxis. The shoe does not flex particularly easily along these groves when manipulating it by hand – I don’t think they’re deep enough to be really effective. I also am not a great subject to test this aspect of the shoe since I’m not a hard heel striker. I tend to contact slightly to the heel side of midfoot, but having run on a force treadmill my pressure profile more closely matches that of a midfoot strike. As such, my stride wouldn’t make much use of the flex grooves back in the heel.

One final comment about fit – I had heard repeatedly that the original Gel Lyte33 was a pretty narrow shoe. I’m happy to report that the Lyte33 v2 is plenty roomy on my feet, I’d go so far as to call the forefoot spacious. I definitely feel like it has more room than the Saucony Kinvara or Virrata, though I would still opt for either of the latter for a marathon due to their lighter weight and the fact that I like the way a less prominent outsole works with my stride.

Conclusion

My personal feeling is that shoes like the Gel Lyte33 (along with the Brooks PureProject, Saucony Kivara/Mirage) should be the new center of the running shoe spectrum. It would be a great place to start as a runner since it would feel familiar and well-cushioned, but it’s a lot less shoe than more traditional models. It’s also a great choice for someone used to more traditional shoes who wants to try something less without making too big a jump to more minimal footwear. And at an MSRP of $90, it’s a reasonably price shoe on the current market.

For me, the Lyte33 works very well as an easy run/distance shoe, and for that reason it’ll likely retain a spot in my rotation.

The Asics Gel Lyte33 is available for purchase in selected colors at Running Warehouse. Outside of the US it is available at Sportsshoes.com.

It is available in a wider selection of colors at Zappos.(see below)