With plush cushioning, good support and soles that propel you forward, the MBT GT 2 shoes will help you go the distance with ease.
Swiss footwear company MBT – which is recognised by the American Podiatric Medical Association for promoting quality foot health – has a new pair of shoes for endurance running: the GT 2.
They feature a thick sole with a “rocker” design – a pronounced upward curl at the forefoot area and downward curl at the heel area – that enables a smooth gait transition that propels you forward while providing ample cushioning. Their highly resistant rubber outsoles are said to be very durable.
Inside, the shoes feature patented Ortholite insoles that are said to provide breathability, moisture wicking and anti-bacterial properties.
On the outside, a jacquard mesh upper is combined with a flexible toe-box that is touted to adapt to your feet at different points when running.
Design-wise, the GT 2 shoes are certainly not a looker with their thick midsoles and pronounced curls. You will never see me wearing them except on jogging tracks.
But the jacquard mesh upper provides much breathability and the heel’s memory foam anchors my feet really well and provides a great and comfortable fit from the first time I wear the GT 2.
During runs, the rocker soles help propel me forward, more so when I am doing heel strikes than forefoot strikes.
But any help from the rocker soles is negated by the heaviness of the shoes. They also do not offer much energy return or rebound.
However, the thick midsoles mean there is ample cushioning during runs, for which my knees are thankful. The shoes’ external heel counter also provides much-needed support during impact for my injury-prone ankles.
The GT 2 is an ideal pair of training shoes that will probably last the distance and can help improve your run times once you slip into much-lighter race shoes.
- Rocker sole helps to propel you forward
- Thick cushioning
- Strong ankle support
- Lack of energy return
- Not a looker
Heel drop: 14mm
Weight: 355g (US 9, Men’s)
Value for money: 3.5/5
A version of this story first appeared on www.straitstimes.com.