Comments: (8)

Review: adidas Energy Boost 2.0

Use ← → (arrow) keys for new photos & posts

counterkicks-performance-reviews-adidas-energy-boost-2-solar-blue-1

Regardless of what some reviewers have written the last couple of weeks, the adidas Energy Boost 2.0  is one of the most responsive runners – forget that – shoes I have ever worn. Period. Point blank. Ain’t no more to it.

Now, I may not be a genius when it comes to kicks, or have my own YouTube channel where I picked my top shoes of the year all from one company (nah, we ain’t biased), so you can take this review and make your own opinion. I never got to try a Boost runner last year, opting instead to go the outrageous route and try the Springblades instead. I messed up. The Springblade is not a bad shoe, but the Boost is a different world. I won’t tell you they provide so much energy return over another foam or that they perform in all temperatures (I will let Runner’s World do that), but for my wearing, I will say – wait, I forgot the review. Let’s go…

Use ← → (arrow) keys for new photos & posts

Related Posts with Thumbnails

Category : adidas, Features, Reviews

Comments (8)

Excellent review; thanks Duke.

VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

Great review they sound awesome, I can’t wait to see how Boost transitions to other sports.

VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

Is it a DENSE feeling bounce, or does it feel slightly mushy?

I know that we’ve discussed this before, that good density, as in placing the Adidas Combo insole inside of the Adidas PureMotion, and FeetYouWear shoes, in order to get that nice dense cushion feeling, does Boost feel like that, or something else?

VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

Mede – it is weird – the bounce on this shoe is dense but on the Pure it is mushy – like they altered durometers. That’s why I am real curious about the Rose 5 and CL Boost. I wouldn’t say these are adiprene+ solid though – more like a soft insole on a stiff, old shool, real Zoom shoe.

VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

Awesome balanced review! Agree on the lateral stability issues. It’s good we’re seeing new models coming out with some solution to the problem. I’d love to see this tech used for insoles, if it even works as a thin layer. :)

VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 5.0/5 (1 vote cast)
VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: +1 (from 1 vote)

^^^ My thoughts as well – New Balance did Absorbz insoles, UA has Micro G insoles, adidas used to put adiprene inserts on insoles, we need a Boost insole to add to the FYW shoes.

VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

How would you compare this to the CQ runners?

VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

Sam – completely different. The CQ gives you a low ride, very sparse, quick, sprint type of feel. The Boost, responsive, but a thicker soled runner for the traditional high-mileage camp.

VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

Post a comment