Asics Gel Nimbus 13 v. Brooks Glycerin 9

So, I waited awhile because I wanted to give these two a real chance to see which one I preferred.  After my trip to Roadrunner Sports I ended up narrowing my choice down to these two, and it was a close one!  They are both fantastic shoes with great cushioning, which I really need.  I used to run on a mix of pavement, grass, dirt and even the occasional treadmill but now I run primarily on pavement, so my shoes take quite a bit of abuse and without significant cushioning, so would my joints.

I have been running in my Brooks Glycerin 8s for some time now, and they have been my absolute favorites, easily beating out my first Nike Zoom Equalon 4s. I have loved my Brooks but did want to try a few others out, you know, just for variety and to be sure I wasn't missing an even better ride ;)

I had tried so many (read previous reviews for that day trip to the store), but I had heard great things about Asics from other runners, so I was intrigued and really wanted to try them.  After numerous test runs in the store, the Asics Gel Nimbus 13 and Brooks Glycerin 9 were in a dead heat and decided I would eventually get them both for my next rotation, though that day I left with just the Asics because, well, I was just going for something different. They are both responsive and comfortable shoes, with great cushioning for running on pavement. I've since put about 100 miles on each of them, so I think I can safely review them.

First the Asics Gel Nimbus 13 seen below (which is exactly the one's I left with). Cute as they can be :)



One of the reasons I wanted to try the Asics is that many runners I know with high arches find them to be then best for them, and since I do have high arches, I figured I should give them a try.

These shoes have decent ventilation, and remain comfortable throughout my regular 3-5 mile runs.  The mesh upper breathes well, though I had gotten used to my Glycerin 8s where I could actually feel the breeze through my toe-sies ;), not so with these but no sweaty feet so that's ok.

They also have a nice heel drop, which is important for me as it helps with my arch support and weak ankles.  Not too high, but just enough for the support I need.

On the treadmill, they were amazing and the midsole was so responsive I felt propelled forward. On pavement, well, a bit less so, but the cushioning is great and absorbs a good amount of the shock from running on pavement.  I sometimes feel like the cushioning absorbs a bit more energy than it should and could have a bit more return on the energy, but all-in-all it's a comfortable ride.

I did notice a bit of heel slippage after the first few runs, but a runner's knot helped with that. I had hoped that after a few more runs I could go back to my standard lacing, but no such luck. With the runner's knot I don't have any more heel slippage, just takes that extra step in the morning that I don't particularly care for at 6am, but it's a minor thing.  If you have very small ankles, you should keep that in mind.

The insole is comfortable enough and the shoe is sufficiently supportive that I can run with or without my orthotics.  For the first 80 miles or so I ran without my orthotics, now I'm using them again (but that's because I'm nursing an overuse injury that's not shoe-related).

Overall it's a comfortable shoe, and I'm glad I purchased them.  I will give the 14s a test run in about 300 or so miles, but they are my 2nd favorite shoe.  It was neck and neck for a bit, but for the reasons set out below, Brooks is still the best shoe for me.

Next up, Brooks Glycerin 9. This is my current favorite ride, the color is cerise, which matches pinks and reds equally well (if that matters to you...)


My favorite shoes in my last rotation between Nike and Brooks were my Brooks Glycerin 8s. After reading numerous reviews and test-running in the store, they never disappointed. For that reason alone, I pretty much figured I'd end up with the 9s, and I was right.

I don't notice a significant difference between the 8s and 9s, though the reviews seem to indicate a bit more support for the midsole in the 9s.

Subjectively there seems to be a bit less ventilation than in the 8s, but moreso than the Asics. I like the mesh upper and appreciate the increased ventilation, for no other reason than it just feels good.

The heel drop is just about right, providing the comfort and support I need. I'd actually be ok with an a slightly higher heel profile, but this is sufficiently supportive for my needs The Glycerin 9 is a bit lighter than the 8, not substantially so, but any decrease in weight without sacrificing cushioning is appreciated.

I have no heel slippage in the Glycerins with my standard lacing, so no need for any runner's knot.  The laces are short, so no double-knotting for security, but after hundreds of miles on 2 pairs of Glycerins, they've never come undone so I guess they got something right in the the lace department and no need for extra long laces.

The midsole is responsive with good energy return, even on concrete. I notice a slightly higher return energy from the Brooks than the Asics. It's not a huge difference, but it's enough to increase my pace slightly - always a good thing. The DNA on the 9s runs the entire length of the mid-sole, which may be the reason for the better energy return. That's the marketing speech, I have no idea what that means but I do know a responsive shoe when I run in one, and this one doesn't disappoint.  Again, on the treadmill, it's very noticeable but on concrete everything suffers.

With these as well, the insole is comfortable and sufficiently supportive that I can run with or without my orthotics. As with the Asics, the first 80 miles I ran without, now back to using them (again, for reasons not connected at all with the shoes). The standard insole is far more comfortable in the 9s than the 8s. Honestly, the 8s insole seemed to be made with the intention that you weren't going to use it, it almost seemed like an after-thought. Not so with the 9s, it's comfortable enough to be of real value in the shoe. I like the option of running with or without orthotics as well as having a choice as to whether or not I use a standard insole or replace it with something else.

Overall, the shoes are very similar and you can't go wrong with either one, but the heel slippage on the Asics and the slightly reduced energy return cause the Brooks to edge out as my favorite. 

Can't wait to test out the Glycerin 10s and Asics 14s. I see they reduced the heel drop in the Asics 14, so it's looking like I will be a Brooks girl in the next rotation as well - but I'm willing to test them both to confirm ;)

Nike, Asics and Mizuno Running Shoe Mini-Reviews

I had stated in my review of RoadRunner Sports that I had tested at the following shoes: NikeFree, Nike Zoom Vomero, Mizuno Wave Rider, Mizuno Wave Creation, Brooks PureConnect,  Brooks Glycerin 9, Asics Gel Cumulus 14, Asics Gel Nimbus 13.

In my last post I reviewed the two minimalist shoes, NikeFree and Brooks PureConnect.  The Brooks beat out the Nike for me, so it's time to move on.  Here I'm going to do a cursory review of all but my final two choices because none of the others really stood out, despite the considerable effort I put into giving them all a fair shot at being my new favorite shoes.  Excuse the ads, but I do think a visual is quite nice when discussing shoes.


Nike Zoom Vomero: Again, really wanted to like these as I do like the Nike brand, but they were unimpressive. Not even as comfortable as my Equalon 4s and certainly not a major contender in my selections.  Comfortable fit with a decent toe box, no heel slippage, but I couldn't detect a bit of cushioning or support and certainly not very responsive. Opinions vary, but mine is that they just aren't what I'm looking for. They were cute, have the sensor pocket (though I use a gps system), love the 'just do it' brand, but can't find a shoe that will hold up to my little 20 mile/week runs. Disappointed.


Asics Gel Cumulus 14: an ok ride, comfortable and responsive enough. They certainly beat out the Nike's but just not quite what I was looking for.  Not enough cushioning for me but a decent shoe if it works for you.  Decent toe box, ok in the cushion and response, no noticeable heel slippage. They just don't compare to the Gel Nimbus 13 (a review for next time). Still, Asics is a quality shoe, and worth anyone's time to try.



Mizunos: Tried the Wave Rider and Wave Creation. Have to say that the Mizunos were a new experience. They are a nice, responsive shoe with decent cushioning and the rocking motion from the sole gives a nice subtle forward-motion that's kinda fun. The Wave Creation, despite it's heavier size, won out for me as it had a bit more of a responsiveness to it and more cushioning.  The fit was comfortable and seemed to have decent enough ventilation and a roomy fit without being too big (read: no heel slippage)

I do have to say, they are now my third-favorite shoe, and I wouldn't return them if given to me. I liked them fine and they were a strong contender, but I just didn't see myself putting these into my rotation for the next 500 miles.  That said, I will continue to test future versions and see if they move up into my favorite slot.

             vs                

Two hours of testing and the final two were the Brooks Glycerin 9 and Asics Gel Nimbus 13.  I'll take those head-to-head next time, but I can tell you this much: these are my top two favorites.  It was a difficult decision, guess which one I went home with???

114119616182701355145