Disclaimer: The shoe reviewed here was given to me as part of the Ragnar Ambassador program. I didn’t purchase the shoe, nor was I given it by Reebok in exchange for this review. I’m simply passing along some information I think is worth reading on a new running shoe.
I’m a die-hard Asics fan. I’ve mentioned it before, and literally pay homage to my Gel Kayanos on a regular basis. I’ve run in them since I was fit by an expert at my local Fleet Feet and swear by them as my go-to training and running shoe.
Recently, however, I was persuaded to try something different.
One of the perks of being a Ragnar Ambassador is the opportunity to try out new gear. Ragnar’s recent partnership with Reebok for their road relays has afforded us the opportunity to be one of the first groups to try out the new Reebok Guide 3.0 running shoe. Later in the year, every team captain of a road relay race will receive a pair of these babies, but for now, we’re the lucky group to get to take them out on the road first.
We were told we had something on the way late last week, and I awaited my shipment with anticipation. When it arrived on Monday, I was excited to open it and find the Reebok shoes they’d been talking about for so long. Because I’m a woman and received a pair of women’s shoes, mine were a catchy blend of what Reebok calls neon cherry, solar pink, white, black, and semi solar royal – essentially, bright, bright, and white. I loved the look of them from the moment I opened the box.
(Men’s are slightly less colorful, combining blacks, blues, and greys.)
As I have been injured following my last 50k, I wasn’t certain I’d get to try them out soon. However, after a visit to my local sports therapist and an ART session (I’ll cover that in another blog), I was able to lace them up and head out for a cautious four miles last night.
I say cautious for two reasons: (1) I was trying to be conscious of how my body felt post-injury; and (2) I wanted to really feel the shoe on my foot and compare it to my faithful Kayano.
First, let me give you a little technical info about the shoe. The upper is made of three different mesh materials which allow for breathing and a nice, cool feel on your foot. The shoe is low-cut and doesn’t rub against my ankle bone, which has been a problem with other models. I appreciated its construction almost immediately.
Because the shoe is a stability shoe (definitely right for me), it provides a substantial amount of arch support and control for those who tend to overpronate. Also, the toe box is a bit wider than most running shoes for runners who find their toes cramped in other brands. This, to me, is another bonus, but it may not be the right shoe for you if your feet are narrow. As a stability shoe it is a little bulkier than some, with the women’s version weighing in at 8oz. according to the Reebok website.
I’m used to running in stability shoes, so this felt quite natural and comfortable to me.
Specs on the shoe (also taken from the Reebok site) put the heel drop at 32mm and the toe drop at 19mm, giving it a 13mm heel-to-toe drop. That might be high for some used to shoes with less cushion, but again for me, it was ideal.
This is definitely a road shoe and is built to provide substantial cushion for the unforgiving asphalt and/or concrete, but it would probably do nicely on gravel surfaces as well. The shoe uses three different types of foam to create a nice, cushioned ride, and while the specifics are C43, T48, and R52, that doesn’t mean much to me. What DID mean a lot was that I couldn’t tell much difference in the level of comfort between the Reebok Guide 3.0 and my Gel Kayanos.
Even when running injured, at a time I expected to feel every uneven surface, rock, and bump in the road, these shoes kept my foot snug, my ankle stable, and my stride even. I actually felt as if I might run a little quicker if my leg had been in tip-top shape because these shoes just felt lighter.
I expected to be sore after my run as I usually do when I try something new, particularly after having been off for ten days. It had been even longer than that since I’d run on the road, so I truly thought I’d be feeling it in my shins, knees and hips.
I am happy to report that this shoe didn’t produce any of the expected discomfort. It was almost like I’d been running in these shoes for weeks.
A little research showed the pricing on this shoe is expected to be in the $130 range, significantly less expensive than my Asics. According to the same research, this shoe is expected to compete with the Asics Gel Noosa, Brooks Adrenaline ASR GTX, and Saucony Stabil CS as well as the Nike LunarGlide in the stability shoe category. If you wear any of those, I suggest trying out a pair of the Reebok Guide 3.0s just to see what you think. While the Gel Kayano wasn’t mentioned there, I felt it compared to that model nicely as well.
You might fall in love with this shoe. Reebok hasn’t been a big name in the running shoe market, being mostly known for cross-fit types of footwear. This shoe shows they’re making the effort to enter the market in a big way.
I know I personally will be wearing out my test pair and likely purchasing another to alternate with my Kayanos…or maybe even replace them in the long run (pun intended).
Bottom line: If you need a lightweight stability shoe, give these a try. And let me know what you think if you do.