Our score:

Your score:

Add a review

Add a comment...

Fit and ride was just as nice as my outgoing 2140's even from straight out of the box, no issues whatsoever. 

Posted: 27/03/2010 at 17:49

Highly Recomend then for High Milleage Training. Great cushioning and very lightweight

did get two blisters breaking them in but after 3/4 runs Lovely Jubbly !!!!!

Posted: 27/04/2010 at 05:18

Bought these after having a few minor problems with other running shoes, so far I have had no problems. Straight from the box, they fit well and no problem with blisters. Upto 8-9 mile runs in them and plan on wearing them to go further.

Posted: 26/05/2010 at 19:50

Sorry Asics,

I prefer the GT 2140 it was better fit and felt ligter on the foot.  To be honest I did not need to break into them.

Now the GT 2150 feel heavy on my foot, I am scared to race in them, because of the weight.  Luckily I got four old pairs GT 2140's which I rotate in races.  I usually train in my GT-2150.

I feel ashamed to it admit it, but I frequently wear the mens Asics GT 2140 and Asics GT 2150 because of the wider fitting.  I once brought Women GT 2140  by mistake it gaved me blisters on my heels and messed up my toes.

The Asics GT-2150 are good trainers for short distances and running marathons.  I don't mind paying good money for good quality trainers.  If there is any company out there selling new GT-2140 size  91/2 USA size I will be more than happy to buy a  couple of pairs.  Hint, Hint Asics.

Posted: 04/06/2010 at 00:44

I bought a pair of these at the weekend, and am really pleased with them.

Been running with the 2140's up to now, and have had problems with blisters. Took the new 2150's out on a 16 mile run yesterday, and had no problems what so ever.

 Well worth the money.

Posted: 07/06/2010 at 09:19

For many years now I've been running in 1100 series, quite happily upto the 1140s where I've had issues - leg pain etc. Switched to 1150s and again, pain has returned. If I run in my 1130s, all is well.

So the question here is, what's the difference? I'm thinking that maybe I should try the 2150s - more support?

Theories welcome?

Posted: 12/06/2010 at 18:59

I have worn out 2 pairs of 2120, 2130 and 2140 in succession, currently on my first pair of 2150.  I'll be honest here, there is no appreciable weight difference between them (sorry Karen), but I will concur that it doesn't feel as good as the 2140.  The 2150 took an age to break in and just doesn't seem to offer the same responsive, nicely cushioned ride.  I'm a bit disappointed to be honest, I did my best ever marathon in the 2140 and was hoping to improve in the 2150.  Perhaps Asics just dropped the ball with the 2150, it happens.


Posted: 16/06/2010 at 15:44

have always run in neutral shoes until recently,bought a pair of anodyne in may as i had been struggling with long term groin problem. Had gait analysed today and was shocked at level of over pronation. Bought a pair of GT2150's and ran 9.5miles in them tonight with no problem,my only concern would be the fact that wear evident on heal after one run..but early days willsee how they are after 100miles or so

Posted: 14/07/2010 at 21:13

Granted I don't do massive mileage (about 25 miles a week) but I loved my 2140s and I'm with the comments that got their 2150s out of the box and went running with no problems - no breaking in, no blisters.  First run was a 10k tempo run which was about 10 secs off my PB for a pretty hilly training route so it wasn't an easy test.  I also don't really feel any weight difference, although perhaps I can say with my 2140s I's have set a new PB.....

Posted: 04/08/2010 at 11:05

We'd love you to add a comment! Please take half a minute to register as a free member

RW competitions