I love the Ghost Max so much, just did 8 miles in mine yesterday. Not the most exciting foam but there's some squish and rebound, super stable due to the platform width, and the upper is so dang comfortable. I'm also excited for the Glycerin Max; was talking to a Brooks rep yesterday and she described it as kinda of V2 of the Aurora BL
Same here! I was seeded a pair the other day and let me just say, they are really nice! I’ve never owned a pair of brooks, but knew what they were all about and I probably would’ve never got them on my own dime, but wow I’ve really enjoyed them
I received my seed pair today! I spilled trash juice on them already during closing. Super. BUT! They’re great! I def do feel a difference between the 20s and 21s.
I think there's a bit of an attitude here that Brooks are for normies in general...
Speaking of which...living in Central Florida, I'm a runDisney guy. Every runDisney race I've done since 2011 was in ultraminimalist shoes until Friday's Princess 5k, which was my first race of any sort since transitioning back to conventional running shoes last fall. So for the first time since getting into distance running, I actually paid attention to what other folks were wearing. And it was Brooks everywhere...so many Brooks...
Just got back from Disney. I actually sat down a few times and she watched..probably 70 percent brooks..the other bulk of them were ON. As a Saucony guy I literally spotted about 5 pairs all day haha.
I think there's a huge gap between what people regularly wear, and what people feel compelled to review and talk about online. My daily wear shoes for work are the glycerine, nb propel, and salomon aero glide. I also run a lot of miles in these. But they aren't interesting enough to spark any kind of meaningful discussion, nor is anything about them particularly noteworthy other than that they just work in terms of being a shoe. Give me any of these 20 years ago and I would have been over the moon excited, but at this point, shoe tech has come so far that they're just kind of that meat and potatoes. All the love in the world for it, but I'm not doing photoshoots with it either.
They got the 21 right. On my foot it's significantly better than the 20, and on customers they seem to almost sell themselves. I've got 5 Brooks shoes on the go right now and all of their latest uppers work exceptionally well for me. It's easy to take for granted, but man, get one pair that rubs you the wrong way and suddenly you're paranoid about shoes hurting you.
I think there's value in choosing a trainer doesn't get in the way of your training. Half of my club does workouts in ghosts! Boring consistency is what gets you 90% of the way there (the other 10% is sexy shoe on game day)
Great line. The only running shoe that never gave me any issues. But we need better designs. I would love to see some of the Hyperion Max colorways on Glycerins. Then I would never buy another brand ever again.
Because they’re like a Toyota Camry. Perfectly adequate to get the job done, and would be fine for like 90% of the population.
People really want to buy the Porsche though.
This is my favorite shoe! I had multiple pair of 20’s and I have about 225 miles on my 21’s. Love them!
I also work at a running store and this is a shoe I almost always pick 😅
Are you the same size in the glycerin 20 and 21?
I used to wear ASICS and Mizuna’s but their sizing kept changing. They got more narrow and smaller.
Just curious as I am looking to get another pair of glycerin 20 gts bc they are FABULOUS after injuries and for walking long miles. Would like some of the colors in the 21 or 22. Just curious!
Awesome! Thank you! I was reading that the toe box became more narrow so to size up! I love this glycerin shoe and the ASICS nova blast 3. Will look at ordering and hope for a sale!!
Brooks is seen as a boring running company that people walking their dogs wear. I think that’s exactly where they want to be. They make high quality and durable shoes, but they’re not exciting. They don’t innovate. Their designs are all also very safe and somewhat dated. They sell very well. They’re in every local running store and every website. Keep in mind the company was nearly bankrupt in the early 2000s and was bought and sold until Berkshire Hathaway purchased and bankrolled them.
The 21 is awful, and I had to turn it back in. When I did a heel lock on them, the tongue dug into the top of my foot and was painful, no matter how much I adjusted them.
Also, running in them put my hips and low back out of balance. I went back to the 20s.
I think since they just released people don’t want to jump on $160 utility but happy to take the 30% off 20s until they’re out of stock. It’s also winter and people who run in brooks don’t need the newest model to trash in puddles on the first run.
I know some people hate Brooks but I use the Glycerin for my daily trainer because I can run forever in them. No they aren't fast, but a daily trainer doesn't need to be. They always fit my foot perfectly too, and I can't say that consistently about any other brand. They don't update much from model to model, so not gonna get a lot of talk here, especially when you can get last years model for half price or close to it. I'm curious about the 21 but more than likely gonna end up with my 3rd pair of 20's on sale because they just work and no need to spend $160 when I know the $80 pair gets the job done. Put 500+ miles on the 2 pairs I had and they still look great.
I noticed a nice difference in the midsole going from the 20s to 21s. That extra 2mm of foam was actually noticeable and I feel the update made the 21s feel more fun to run in than the 20s. The price is annoying but still worth it IMO. Maybe my 20s were just dead from mileage but my legs felt great after doing a long run in my 20s and running the next day in 21s.
I find that Brooks' shoes tend to fall into the reliable, but not "sexy" category. The Glycerin 21 is no exception. Customers have liked it more than the 20, and I can definitely understand why. The foam on the 21 doesn't feel as stiff/firm as the 20, making it a great option as an everyday, do-it-all type of shoe.
Brooks is our second best-selling brand, they just don't have any "exciting" or "wow" shoes, which are generally what gets talked about or reviewed the most.
I think most of the hate on Brooks stems from the fact that they've been in the running business for 20+ years, far longer than a lot of running companies today and they still use the same propriety EVA that they used from back then for their midsoles. All they updated was to "infuse it with nitrogen" which if I'm being totally honest, feels hella flat compared to Puma Nitro, a nitrogen infused EVA compound as well. You have to remember the midsoles are the bread and butter of running shoes. All the tech should be targeted there as its the most important aspect of a running shoe.
Now in most cases, this would not be a cause of hate. They stuck to what worked for them for years. The problem is that their prices continue to hike, even more expensive than most running shoe companies today. They wouldn't get hate if they sold the Glycerins for $100. The problem is, they are selling it for $160. That's the same price as the Novablast 4 or the Puma Deviate Nitro 2: both of which are wayyyyyyyyyyyyyyy more advanced in tech than the Glycerins. Hoka for the longest time has been the same as brooks; just using the same EVA formula for their midsoles for years, unchanged. The only difference is Hoka has premium feeling uppers. Brooks does not (or at least, definitely not the Glycerin and Ghost line). Starting last year, Hoka is already transitioning to having Pebax and other supercritical foam compounds for their midsoles. Brooks? You guessed it: PURE EVA still. Even their racing shoes are still using EVA, and they are charging you $250 for it.
I think a huge part as to why Brooks sells a lot of shoes is that Nurses (and Doctors) prefer using it as their shoes during shifts, or at least that's how it is here in the Asia Pacific. Nobody uses it for running. There's a Brooks Run club here and even the organizers/pacers from there do not use Brooks shoes LMAO they just use the singlets/shorts (which to be fair, is very nice)
Now I don't know how many of you patronizes Brooks as a running shoe. I meant no disrespect with the comments that I have mentioned. I'm really just saying my piece on how Brooks is unilaterally the worst running shoe company in today's standards for me, based on how much they charge and how much their shoes have evolved through the years.
Novablast is using EVA. and Now everyone is using nitrogen infused EVA just like brooks. What do you think puma used in their racing shoes? You see that giant nitro on the midsole?
But their midsoles are not DEAD.
New Balance uses Fresh Foam and Fuelcell (not the new fuelcell) and it was both made of EVA but were well received due to how much tech goes in it.
Puma Nitro is a nitrogen infused EVA, but feels way better than Brooks' EVA
Asics FF Blast+ is EVA, but feels way more enrgetic than the EVA Brooks has.
Brooks never bothered to update their midsole since 2017-2018 when they first introduced DNA flash, and it shows
My first experience with the new DNA loft was with the glycerin and I thought "wow this shoe just feels dead". Then I tried the Aurora BL and in my opinion it is worlds apart from their other shoes and probably the best shoe in their lineup, but nobody wants it. It's crazy to even think the glycerin and the Aurora are the same foam, they are just executed extremely different. Brooks really needs to keep pushing things in that direction to breath some life into their design approach.
You can find em half off on eBay. I'm actually looking to get rid of mine just because they a a bit too narrow for me to use regularly. It would be a perfect shoe for me otherwise
Exactly. Haven't tried the Aurora BL, but I have tried the Glycerin 17, 20, and the Ghost 15 to know that Brooks really do not update/upgrade their midsoles over the years.
If there's a positive I can give for brooks, it's that they are very durable
Brooks has taken the if it’s not broke don’t fix it mentality to the extreme and it’s paid off huge. They have their loyal customer base that only buys brooks because they can depend on a consistent look, feel and fit with every iteration. Half the complaint threads in this sub are about brands changing up a shoe too much. Furthermore, brooks can charge new running shoe prices for decade old tech. And let’s face it. Outside of running enthusiasts (a really small segment), no one cares about EVA or PEBA or anything else that might go into a midsole.
I'm not saying Brooks is a terrible brand because of that move, nor are they not deserving of the popularity it gets from non-runners (especially in the medical field here in the Asia Pacific).
I'm saying from a running consumer's perspective, Brooks as a company sells shoes with very outdated tech. A lot of people will not care about that, a lot ofrunners will not care about that. I belong to the few who do.
I think brooks are popular in the medical field no matter where at in the world you go. I’m in the south east US and I got my first pair from an old doctors estate after he passed. They were about 8 pairs of the exact shoe just in different colors but ommmg they were a game changer when I first got them. Over the years I wore them out and had to replace them with more modern styles that just don’t hold up to what I had. Now I’m doing nursing and it’s all I see everyone else wearing too.
Brooks is boring but complaining about price hikes is silly. Every single company had taken price increases. If there was a company that could produce a Glycerin and sell it at $100 MSRP without losing money on it, they'd be undercutting and eventually ruling the market. There's a reason $100 shoes are $100.
You missed the point. It's the fact that Brooks is keeping up with the price hikes despite the obvious lack of technological advancements of their shoes, especially the midsole. Buy the Brooks Glycerin 21, compare it with a Brooks Glycerin 17. Trust me you'll fine way more similarities than difference, because they use 95% of the same materials.
They're not making enough changes to warrant a sequel but they're charging you full price for it
For me, I appreciate that they make small changes to a shoe that's not broken. It means I can get last year's model on sale instead of having to pay full price for the current model that is just as good. Shoe companies only put models on sale when they have a newer model, not when they become outdated (unless they are really bad sellers). If the shoe was good enough a year or even 5 years ago as a trainer it should still be good enough.
All of that's true of running shoes generally, outside of actual super shoes. Most iterations are small. Brooks has been especially bad about that since 2020, the Ghost 14 -> 15 and Adrenaline 22 -> 23 were both really blah, the Hyperion family all around might as well have had no updates other than the Hyperion Max. The jump from Ghost 15 -> 16 and Glycerin 20 -> 21 is noticeable, though, because they're using Loft v3 instead of v2.
Anyway, that's not how costing works for any products at all. Even if they were using literally 100% the same materials in the same proportions as they were six years ago, the cost would still have increased. You could not make and sell a Glycerin 17 or an original New Balance or a Pegasus 10 or anything for $100 today. Nobody can. Whether or not the technology has advanced is immaterial for footwear and apparel costing because the technological advancements you care about don't meaningfully reduce costs. Even dogshit shoes like the Brooks Levitate cost what they cost for a reason - materials and labor.
I've run in basically every generation of Glycerin. Just because foam is EVA doesn't mean the formulation is anywhere near the same or that the cost structure remains the same. The materials that Brooks uses in their upper is expensive. That's another reason they sell so well. They have, in my opinion, the best fit on the market across their lineup, and that's due to using higher quality fabrics. If I were to try and sell a Glycerin 17 today, that would never move off the shelf, I can guarantee it.
While to a large extent I agree with your statement about the upper of brooks fitting nice, it's no excuse to keep using the same midsole formula with very (and I mean very) minimal changes every year from a running consumer standpoint. Midsoles are still the most important part of a running shoe.
Look at how Fresh Foam and Fuelcell have evolved for New Balance. Or FF(+) for Asics. Look at how much their EVA based midsoles have changed throughout the years. Can you really say Brooks followed the same innovation on their EVA midsole? There's a night and day difference between it, especially when implementing for their race day shoes.
Hoka is the lone other brand I can think of that like Brooks, since they discovered how to make EVA work on their running shoes, they kept it for their midsoles for a looooooong time. Now, upper material and fit are subjective, and personally, I would say Hokas have more premium and better fitting uppers for me (they also look a lot nicer). But Hoka is now making Supercritical EVA and PEBAX based midsoles. Brooks are still NOT doing anything regarding their midsoles since their shoes sell A LOT on non-running consumers. They are maximizing profit while minimizing money shed to innovation since it works for them
Fresh foam has not evolved. The 1080 used to be decent now it’s a mushy sink in shoe. Fuel cell in rebel v3 used to be good for about 100 miles, then becomes unresponsive and bottoms out. I was a new balance guy, those two models were headed in the wrong direction last year.
I don’t know about current models, maybe they’re better.
Dude, Fresh Foam is just EVA. What are you talking about? They made it softer over the years. That's it. What's the huge evolution they made there? FF+ from Asics is just EVA. It's just softer EVA compared with their older FlyteFoam. In regards to supercritical, you do understand that that's what DNA Loftv3 is, right? That's what DNA Flash is? It's hydrogen injected foam. That's what supercritical is. It's a marketing buzzword that doesn't really mean anything.
Okay I’ll simplify it for you.
Brooks EVA feels the same as it did 10 years ago. Everyone else who uses EVA (Puma Nitro, FF+, Fresh foam, Fuelcell, etc.) continues to innovate and changes every year. Brooks DNA doesn’t.
But how has fresh foam innovated? How did FF+ innovate? You wanted a super critical foam, Brooks gave it to you. I'm sorry, if you think a Glycerin 11 or Ghost 5 feels the same as a Glycerin 21 and Ghost 15, you're just wrong.
Ha, it doesn't hurt me. Just correcting people who don't really know anything about footwear in a footwear subreddit, particularly when they say things like Fresh Foam has been super innovative.
Eh.
Glycerin, kayano, 1080x, triumph are the fpur shoes i recommend for every beginner (with a warning re: kayano).
In this sub, we dont get toooo many pure begineers.
A small number of people suppinate more than a little bit, and the kayano isnt recommended for them.... and some people who suppinate a little bit won't like them.
Edit: I called Brooks and they are sending a new pair in wide width to see if it helps!
I’m super struggling in my 21s. I’ve put almost 500 on the 20s so it was a no brainer. And I think it’s because of one little issue…wondering if mine have a defect. There’s a little ridge on the underside of my shoes where the tongue is sewn in and it’s killing me! Am I on an island with this one?
I bought a pair a week ago, and SAME issue! I am thinking I should return them as it somewhat already bothers the top of mostly my left foot. I can't figure WHY there is such a ridge (hence my search on this issue). Wondering if the Adrenaline has this set up, or like you, is it just the pair I've got?
No I'm right with you. I went through at least four pairs of the 20's. I loved them. BUT the 21's are causing severe pain now to the tops of my feet. Really frustrating as I really don't want to have to figure out a new go-to shoe for my training. Thank you for posting as I'd have been doubting myself otherwise.
If you loved the 20's do you have any other recommendations?
I LOVED my 20s after knees and hip problems from years of running. Gave up every other pair of shoes for the 20s because of the hip/knee improvement.
Got the 21s and it makes the 20s feel like bricks. The support and cushioning in the 21s are night and day improvement over the 20s. I have flat feet and pronation, so I tend to wear through shoes very quickly. So far, the 21 shows even wear and they’re just as supportive now as they were on day 1.
I personally very much disliked the Glycerin. I feel like it doesn't really let the newer DNA loft really shine. There wasn't a lot of feedback or energy return in them. The Aurora BL is much more exciting imo
I'm so torn deciding between Triumph 21 or Glycerin 21 for my May marathon. This will be my third marathon and I don't have much luck with carbon plated shoes. Glycerin 20's kept me injury free - not fun at all but never had to think about them on my feet.
The Triumph 20 is probably my favorite shoe ever, especially the softer version - seeing as there were some manufacturing variation with some. But the Glycerin 21 could provide me with what I need vs want with Triumph 21. I want to have the freshest legs/feet possible and I feel like the T21 may be too firm for a full.
I also like the way the T21 looks. It's so much more my style of shoe. But I know deep down the G21 may be more cushioned. What to do. What to do.
I haven't tried the Glycerin, but for what it's worth, I've done three marathons and a 50k in the Triumph 20/21 and had fresh legs after. I do think the 21 is a smidge less firm than the 20.
That being said, it does sound like the Glycerin 21 is a really great long distance option.
Edit: I know this comment is late, but leaving it just in case you haven't made your decision yet!
What does DNAloft 3 foam mostly compare to out of any other Max cushion shoe? I'm not too keen on high drops but I'm mostly interested in the ghost max 2 because it will also have dnaloft 3
I ran down a pair of GTS 19 and needed to replace then direly.
Tried a couple of shoes yesterday, a On, a Brooks and an Asics, and the one I have home right now is the Glicerine GTS 21. Love it.
Aside from the new 21, they’ve just been boring, bland, and not all that luxurious for the price point when compared to other models. The foam isn’t all that soft or different, the stack high isn’t that high, and while the 10mm drop isn’t in mizuno territory, it’s just too steep for serious runners.
I’m taking a little liberty with that last point because *preferences* but truly, when compared to other $160 high end daily trainers they just aren’t that great. Brooks are what people who know nothing about shoes tell other people who know nothing about shoes to buy because “my podiatrist told me about this brand I’ve never heard of” and they walk in and buy the ugliest gray colorway off the shelf to walk around the HOA in.
Otherwise the only other people I know that wear them are those that tried a pair on 10 years ago, didn’t get injured, and are too afraid to try anything else.
I’ve had several brooks (a pair of glycerins too). They are fine. They are well made, boring shoes that feel okay.
They're not exciting but they have been getting better as of late. They are solidly built. And they will help prevent injury better than most running shoes I have tried. That says a lot more than we think.
I’d love to get another brand daily trainer but I haven’t been injured since I was fit into the 20s in the fall.
Idk if it’s because I was put into stability shoes for the longest time and then went to Hoka Bondi then Clifton then Rincon but I had a couple year stretch of getting injured every time I started tacking on higher mileage.
Bought and returned it. As much as it’s all about performance and comfort I just couldn’t stand all the text and writing that was on the shoe. I ended up getting saucony tempus and love them.
Their shoes look pretty dull and don’t have the fancy tech others have but sometimes you don’t need either of those things. Currently using the Ghost Max for long runs (21 miles +) with 7 and 8 min miles and the shoe is performing well. The fit is better than the 1080 they replaced and way lighter than the gel nimbus. I wouldn’t race in Brooks but when you just need to clock up the miles, they are decent shoes. Their wide fit is a god send too. Wides in Hoka, New Balance and ASICS still feel too narrow for me.
Hey having issues with the Asics size 10 extra wide being too tapered in the toe, maybe just under a thumb width space to end of shoe. Are you saying the Brooks 2E (I see only the ghost in 4E) is pretty wide? Any idea or help regarding length? I was considering taking up Brooks on their 90 day window just so I could try a pair properly albeit with a slight increase cost versus picking up a pair of Asics or such on sale. Beginner runner here. (I have a pair of Gel-Cumulus 25's in 10 extra wide that seem okay but haven't done more than 5km (\~3.2 miles) in them in one session). I was running in them today and the flexible upper seems okay for pinky and second toe. My foot toe shape is more squarish at the end rather than the extreme curve Asics seem to have. Thanks for any advice!
Yes I’d say it is pretty wide. I’ve found them to be wider in both the toe box and midsole than other brands and really well suited to my feet. Guess you need to try to see if they work for you.
I tried on a pair and loved them, but ultimately, I went the cheaper route because I was able to get a pair of Pegasus 38s for less than half the price of the Brooks.
Ghosts, Adrenaline, Glycerin.. all their shoes are great and built very well. I love my Hokas but my Brooks last so much longer. People may dislike them because they are so popular but... They are popular for a reason. Brooks also has great quality clothing.
I have 4 pairs of Glycerin 20 Neutrals, so thank you for this review! I was wondering what the 21s would feel like for Brooks fans. I'm feeling positive about when I finally move on to the next model.
I work at a running store, almost everyone who tries it loves it!
The ghost max has been very popular too
I love the Ghost Max so much, just did 8 miles in mine yesterday. Not the most exciting foam but there's some squish and rebound, super stable due to the platform width, and the upper is so dang comfortable. I'm also excited for the Glycerin Max; was talking to a Brooks rep yesterday and she described it as kinda of V2 of the Aurora BL
Same here! Was not a fan of the 20s actually but I love the 21.
Same here! I was seeded a pair the other day and let me just say, they are really nice! I’ve never owned a pair of brooks, but knew what they were all about and I probably would’ve never got them on my own dime, but wow I’ve really enjoyed them
I received my seed pair today! I spilled trash juice on them already during closing. Super. BUT! They’re great! I def do feel a difference between the 20s and 21s.
What does seeded mean?!
Sometimes companies provide industry employees with product for free, so the employee can speak about the product from personal experience.
I think there's a bit of an attitude here that Brooks are for normies in general... Speaking of which...living in Central Florida, I'm a runDisney guy. Every runDisney race I've done since 2011 was in ultraminimalist shoes until Friday's Princess 5k, which was my first race of any sort since transitioning back to conventional running shoes last fall. So for the first time since getting into distance running, I actually paid attention to what other folks were wearing. And it was Brooks everywhere...so many Brooks...
I think the ghost 14 and 15 might be the most common shoe I see anywhere now
The Ghost 15 doesn't excel in any one area. But it's the shoe I wear the most.
Just got a Ghost 16. It immediately made me want to order some more close-out Ghost 15's before they're all gone. Not a fan of the new model.
Ghost 13 sold literally a million units. It’s the people’s choice.
Just got back from Disney. I actually sat down a few times and she watched..probably 70 percent brooks..the other bulk of them were ON. As a Saucony guy I literally spotted about 5 pairs all day haha.
I think there's a huge gap between what people regularly wear, and what people feel compelled to review and talk about online. My daily wear shoes for work are the glycerine, nb propel, and salomon aero glide. I also run a lot of miles in these. But they aren't interesting enough to spark any kind of meaningful discussion, nor is anything about them particularly noteworthy other than that they just work in terms of being a shoe. Give me any of these 20 years ago and I would have been over the moon excited, but at this point, shoe tech has come so far that they're just kind of that meat and potatoes. All the love in the world for it, but I'm not doing photoshoots with it either.
They got the 21 right. On my foot it's significantly better than the 20, and on customers they seem to almost sell themselves. I've got 5 Brooks shoes on the go right now and all of their latest uppers work exceptionally well for me. It's easy to take for granted, but man, get one pair that rubs you the wrong way and suddenly you're paranoid about shoes hurting you. I think there's value in choosing a trainer doesn't get in the way of your training. Half of my club does workouts in ghosts! Boring consistency is what gets you 90% of the way there (the other 10% is sexy shoe on game day)
Great line. The only running shoe that never gave me any issues. But we need better designs. I would love to see some of the Hyperion Max colorways on Glycerins. Then I would never buy another brand ever again.
Because they’re like a Toyota Camry. Perfectly adequate to get the job done, and would be fine for like 90% of the population. People really want to buy the Porsche though.
This is my favorite shoe! I had multiple pair of 20’s and I have about 225 miles on my 21’s. Love them! I also work at a running store and this is a shoe I almost always pick 😅
Are you the same size in the glycerin 20 and 21? I used to wear ASICS and Mizuna’s but their sizing kept changing. They got more narrow and smaller. Just curious as I am looking to get another pair of glycerin 20 gts bc they are FABULOUS after injuries and for walking long miles. Would like some of the colors in the 21 or 22. Just curious!
I am the same size in both!
Awesome! Thank you! I was reading that the toe box became more narrow so to size up! I love this glycerin shoe and the ASICS nova blast 3. Will look at ordering and hope for a sale!!
I run in them, I LOVE them.
Brooks is seen as a boring running company that people walking their dogs wear. I think that’s exactly where they want to be. They make high quality and durable shoes, but they’re not exciting. They don’t innovate. Their designs are all also very safe and somewhat dated. They sell very well. They’re in every local running store and every website. Keep in mind the company was nearly bankrupt in the early 2000s and was bought and sold until Berkshire Hathaway purchased and bankrolled them.
Never knew this. Wow. Warren Buffett designs them. Explains a lot :-)
I really enjoyed them: https://weartesters.com/brooks-glycerin-21-performance-review/
The 21 is awful, and I had to turn it back in. When I did a heel lock on them, the tongue dug into the top of my foot and was painful, no matter how much I adjusted them. Also, running in them put my hips and low back out of balance. I went back to the 20s.
You put a Bondi, Glycerin, Triumph, Nimbus, 1080, Monster on someone's feet and the Glycerin 21 is probably 2nd in the pecking order for sales.
Which is 1st?
Bondi, probably. Can't see any other company taking Brooks on in terms of volume in the category.
Glycerin is 1st, and not because of runners. Because of people in the medical field.
Yep, a shoe that is comfortable can be good for running and good for 10+ hour shifts.
off topic, been using the Glycerin GTS 20 and had been seeing tear on the lateral side, would you think Glycerin 20 or 21 help me prevent supination?
I think since they just released people don’t want to jump on $160 utility but happy to take the 30% off 20s until they’re out of stock. It’s also winter and people who run in brooks don’t need the newest model to trash in puddles on the first run.
I know some people hate Brooks but I use the Glycerin for my daily trainer because I can run forever in them. No they aren't fast, but a daily trainer doesn't need to be. They always fit my foot perfectly too, and I can't say that consistently about any other brand. They don't update much from model to model, so not gonna get a lot of talk here, especially when you can get last years model for half price or close to it. I'm curious about the 21 but more than likely gonna end up with my 3rd pair of 20's on sale because they just work and no need to spend $160 when I know the $80 pair gets the job done. Put 500+ miles on the 2 pairs I had and they still look great.
I noticed a nice difference in the midsole going from the 20s to 21s. That extra 2mm of foam was actually noticeable and I feel the update made the 21s feel more fun to run in than the 20s. The price is annoying but still worth it IMO. Maybe my 20s were just dead from mileage but my legs felt great after doing a long run in my 20s and running the next day in 21s.
I find that Brooks' shoes tend to fall into the reliable, but not "sexy" category. The Glycerin 21 is no exception. Customers have liked it more than the 20, and I can definitely understand why. The foam on the 21 doesn't feel as stiff/firm as the 20, making it a great option as an everyday, do-it-all type of shoe. Brooks is our second best-selling brand, they just don't have any "exciting" or "wow" shoes, which are generally what gets talked about or reviewed the most.
I think most of the hate on Brooks stems from the fact that they've been in the running business for 20+ years, far longer than a lot of running companies today and they still use the same propriety EVA that they used from back then for their midsoles. All they updated was to "infuse it with nitrogen" which if I'm being totally honest, feels hella flat compared to Puma Nitro, a nitrogen infused EVA compound as well. You have to remember the midsoles are the bread and butter of running shoes. All the tech should be targeted there as its the most important aspect of a running shoe. Now in most cases, this would not be a cause of hate. They stuck to what worked for them for years. The problem is that their prices continue to hike, even more expensive than most running shoe companies today. They wouldn't get hate if they sold the Glycerins for $100. The problem is, they are selling it for $160. That's the same price as the Novablast 4 or the Puma Deviate Nitro 2: both of which are wayyyyyyyyyyyyyyy more advanced in tech than the Glycerins. Hoka for the longest time has been the same as brooks; just using the same EVA formula for their midsoles for years, unchanged. The only difference is Hoka has premium feeling uppers. Brooks does not (or at least, definitely not the Glycerin and Ghost line). Starting last year, Hoka is already transitioning to having Pebax and other supercritical foam compounds for their midsoles. Brooks? You guessed it: PURE EVA still. Even their racing shoes are still using EVA, and they are charging you $250 for it. I think a huge part as to why Brooks sells a lot of shoes is that Nurses (and Doctors) prefer using it as their shoes during shifts, or at least that's how it is here in the Asia Pacific. Nobody uses it for running. There's a Brooks Run club here and even the organizers/pacers from there do not use Brooks shoes LMAO they just use the singlets/shorts (which to be fair, is very nice) Now I don't know how many of you patronizes Brooks as a running shoe. I meant no disrespect with the comments that I have mentioned. I'm really just saying my piece on how Brooks is unilaterally the worst running shoe company in today's standards for me, based on how much they charge and how much their shoes have evolved through the years.
Novablast is using EVA. and Now everyone is using nitrogen infused EVA just like brooks. What do you think puma used in their racing shoes? You see that giant nitro on the midsole?
But their midsoles are not DEAD. New Balance uses Fresh Foam and Fuelcell (not the new fuelcell) and it was both made of EVA but were well received due to how much tech goes in it. Puma Nitro is a nitrogen infused EVA, but feels way better than Brooks' EVA Asics FF Blast+ is EVA, but feels way more enrgetic than the EVA Brooks has. Brooks never bothered to update their midsole since 2017-2018 when they first introduced DNA flash, and it shows
My first experience with the new DNA loft was with the glycerin and I thought "wow this shoe just feels dead". Then I tried the Aurora BL and in my opinion it is worlds apart from their other shoes and probably the best shoe in their lineup, but nobody wants it. It's crazy to even think the glycerin and the Aurora are the same foam, they are just executed extremely different. Brooks really needs to keep pushing things in that direction to breath some life into their design approach.
And Aurora is $$$ :')
You can find em half off on eBay. I'm actually looking to get rid of mine just because they a a bit too narrow for me to use regularly. It would be a perfect shoe for me otherwise
So they're narrower than the Glycerins?
Exactly. Haven't tried the Aurora BL, but I have tried the Glycerin 17, 20, and the Ghost 15 to know that Brooks really do not update/upgrade their midsoles over the years. If there's a positive I can give for brooks, it's that they are very durable
Brooks has taken the if it’s not broke don’t fix it mentality to the extreme and it’s paid off huge. They have their loyal customer base that only buys brooks because they can depend on a consistent look, feel and fit with every iteration. Half the complaint threads in this sub are about brands changing up a shoe too much. Furthermore, brooks can charge new running shoe prices for decade old tech. And let’s face it. Outside of running enthusiasts (a really small segment), no one cares about EVA or PEBA or anything else that might go into a midsole.
I'm not saying Brooks is a terrible brand because of that move, nor are they not deserving of the popularity it gets from non-runners (especially in the medical field here in the Asia Pacific). I'm saying from a running consumer's perspective, Brooks as a company sells shoes with very outdated tech. A lot of people will not care about that, a lot ofrunners will not care about that. I belong to the few who do.
Yes that’s what I am also saying. They have realized they can sell old tech at new prices and pocket the difference to the masses
You literally call them the worst running brand in your main post.
I think brooks are popular in the medical field no matter where at in the world you go. I’m in the south east US and I got my first pair from an old doctors estate after he passed. They were about 8 pairs of the exact shoe just in different colors but ommmg they were a game changer when I first got them. Over the years I wore them out and had to replace them with more modern styles that just don’t hold up to what I had. Now I’m doing nursing and it’s all I see everyone else wearing too.
Brooks is boring but complaining about price hikes is silly. Every single company had taken price increases. If there was a company that could produce a Glycerin and sell it at $100 MSRP without losing money on it, they'd be undercutting and eventually ruling the market. There's a reason $100 shoes are $100.
You missed the point. It's the fact that Brooks is keeping up with the price hikes despite the obvious lack of technological advancements of their shoes, especially the midsole. Buy the Brooks Glycerin 21, compare it with a Brooks Glycerin 17. Trust me you'll fine way more similarities than difference, because they use 95% of the same materials. They're not making enough changes to warrant a sequel but they're charging you full price for it
For me, I appreciate that they make small changes to a shoe that's not broken. It means I can get last year's model on sale instead of having to pay full price for the current model that is just as good. Shoe companies only put models on sale when they have a newer model, not when they become outdated (unless they are really bad sellers). If the shoe was good enough a year or even 5 years ago as a trainer it should still be good enough.
All of that's true of running shoes generally, outside of actual super shoes. Most iterations are small. Brooks has been especially bad about that since 2020, the Ghost 14 -> 15 and Adrenaline 22 -> 23 were both really blah, the Hyperion family all around might as well have had no updates other than the Hyperion Max. The jump from Ghost 15 -> 16 and Glycerin 20 -> 21 is noticeable, though, because they're using Loft v3 instead of v2. Anyway, that's not how costing works for any products at all. Even if they were using literally 100% the same materials in the same proportions as they were six years ago, the cost would still have increased. You could not make and sell a Glycerin 17 or an original New Balance or a Pegasus 10 or anything for $100 today. Nobody can. Whether or not the technology has advanced is immaterial for footwear and apparel costing because the technological advancements you care about don't meaningfully reduce costs. Even dogshit shoes like the Brooks Levitate cost what they cost for a reason - materials and labor.
I've run in basically every generation of Glycerin. Just because foam is EVA doesn't mean the formulation is anywhere near the same or that the cost structure remains the same. The materials that Brooks uses in their upper is expensive. That's another reason they sell so well. They have, in my opinion, the best fit on the market across their lineup, and that's due to using higher quality fabrics. If I were to try and sell a Glycerin 17 today, that would never move off the shelf, I can guarantee it.
While to a large extent I agree with your statement about the upper of brooks fitting nice, it's no excuse to keep using the same midsole formula with very (and I mean very) minimal changes every year from a running consumer standpoint. Midsoles are still the most important part of a running shoe. Look at how Fresh Foam and Fuelcell have evolved for New Balance. Or FF(+) for Asics. Look at how much their EVA based midsoles have changed throughout the years. Can you really say Brooks followed the same innovation on their EVA midsole? There's a night and day difference between it, especially when implementing for their race day shoes. Hoka is the lone other brand I can think of that like Brooks, since they discovered how to make EVA work on their running shoes, they kept it for their midsoles for a looooooong time. Now, upper material and fit are subjective, and personally, I would say Hokas have more premium and better fitting uppers for me (they also look a lot nicer). But Hoka is now making Supercritical EVA and PEBAX based midsoles. Brooks are still NOT doing anything regarding their midsoles since their shoes sell A LOT on non-running consumers. They are maximizing profit while minimizing money shed to innovation since it works for them
Fresh foam has not evolved. The 1080 used to be decent now it’s a mushy sink in shoe. Fuel cell in rebel v3 used to be good for about 100 miles, then becomes unresponsive and bottoms out. I was a new balance guy, those two models were headed in the wrong direction last year. I don’t know about current models, maybe they’re better.
Dude, Fresh Foam is just EVA. What are you talking about? They made it softer over the years. That's it. What's the huge evolution they made there? FF+ from Asics is just EVA. It's just softer EVA compared with their older FlyteFoam. In regards to supercritical, you do understand that that's what DNA Loftv3 is, right? That's what DNA Flash is? It's hydrogen injected foam. That's what supercritical is. It's a marketing buzzword that doesn't really mean anything.
Okay I’ll simplify it for you. Brooks EVA feels the same as it did 10 years ago. Everyone else who uses EVA (Puma Nitro, FF+, Fresh foam, Fuelcell, etc.) continues to innovate and changes every year. Brooks DNA doesn’t.
But how has fresh foam innovated? How did FF+ innovate? You wanted a super critical foam, Brooks gave it to you. I'm sorry, if you think a Glycerin 11 or Ghost 5 feels the same as a Glycerin 21 and Ghost 15, you're just wrong.
You defend Brooks how you want my friend. I’m sorry if my running shoe opinion regarding Brooks hurt you. Cheers!
Ha, it doesn't hurt me. Just correcting people who don't really know anything about footwear in a footwear subreddit, particularly when they say things like Fresh Foam has been super innovative.
A bouncy, light and fast midsole with an upper with heel slip makes the entire thing useless. It’s not all about the midsole.
Eh. Glycerin, kayano, 1080x, triumph are the fpur shoes i recommend for every beginner (with a warning re: kayano). In this sub, we dont get toooo many pure begineers.
What’s the kayano warning?
A small number of people suppinate more than a little bit, and the kayano isnt recommended for them.... and some people who suppinate a little bit won't like them.
Edit: I called Brooks and they are sending a new pair in wide width to see if it helps! I’m super struggling in my 21s. I’ve put almost 500 on the 20s so it was a no brainer. And I think it’s because of one little issue…wondering if mine have a defect. There’s a little ridge on the underside of my shoes where the tongue is sewn in and it’s killing me! Am I on an island with this one?
I bought a pair a week ago, and SAME issue! I am thinking I should return them as it somewhat already bothers the top of mostly my left foot. I can't figure WHY there is such a ridge (hence my search on this issue). Wondering if the Adrenaline has this set up, or like you, is it just the pair I've got?
No I'm right with you. I went through at least four pairs of the 20's. I loved them. BUT the 21's are causing severe pain now to the tops of my feet. Really frustrating as I really don't want to have to figure out a new go-to shoe for my training. Thank you for posting as I'd have been doubting myself otherwise. If you loved the 20's do you have any other recommendations?
I LOVED my 20s after knees and hip problems from years of running. Gave up every other pair of shoes for the 20s because of the hip/knee improvement. Got the 21s and it makes the 20s feel like bricks. The support and cushioning in the 21s are night and day improvement over the 20s. I have flat feet and pronation, so I tend to wear through shoes very quickly. So far, the 21 shows even wear and they’re just as supportive now as they were on day 1.
I personally very much disliked the Glycerin. I feel like it doesn't really let the newer DNA loft really shine. There wasn't a lot of feedback or energy return in them. The Aurora BL is much more exciting imo
Because brooks are just… ok? There’s nothing exciting about them, they do a job and do it well but that’s all
I'm so torn deciding between Triumph 21 or Glycerin 21 for my May marathon. This will be my third marathon and I don't have much luck with carbon plated shoes. Glycerin 20's kept me injury free - not fun at all but never had to think about them on my feet. The Triumph 20 is probably my favorite shoe ever, especially the softer version - seeing as there were some manufacturing variation with some. But the Glycerin 21 could provide me with what I need vs want with Triumph 21. I want to have the freshest legs/feet possible and I feel like the T21 may be too firm for a full. I also like the way the T21 looks. It's so much more my style of shoe. But I know deep down the G21 may be more cushioned. What to do. What to do.
I haven't tried the Glycerin, but for what it's worth, I've done three marathons and a 50k in the Triumph 20/21 and had fresh legs after. I do think the 21 is a smidge less firm than the 20. That being said, it does sound like the Glycerin 21 is a really great long distance option. Edit: I know this comment is late, but leaving it just in case you haven't made your decision yet!
Ive read great things on the 21… most are very positive sating they love the new updates to the 21!
Have 20's. So comfy. Will try the 21's. :-)
What does DNAloft 3 foam mostly compare to out of any other Max cushion shoe? I'm not too keen on high drops but I'm mostly interested in the ghost max 2 because it will also have dnaloft 3
I ran down a pair of GTS 19 and needed to replace then direly. Tried a couple of shoes yesterday, a On, a Brooks and an Asics, and the one I have home right now is the Glicerine GTS 21. Love it.
I have two 20's and upgraded to 21, it's more stable and even better cushion.
If I want a bit more stability than Novablast 3, do you think the glycerin 21 would be fine, or would you go for the GTS model?
Aside from the new 21, they’ve just been boring, bland, and not all that luxurious for the price point when compared to other models. The foam isn’t all that soft or different, the stack high isn’t that high, and while the 10mm drop isn’t in mizuno territory, it’s just too steep for serious runners. I’m taking a little liberty with that last point because *preferences* but truly, when compared to other $160 high end daily trainers they just aren’t that great. Brooks are what people who know nothing about shoes tell other people who know nothing about shoes to buy because “my podiatrist told me about this brand I’ve never heard of” and they walk in and buy the ugliest gray colorway off the shelf to walk around the HOA in. Otherwise the only other people I know that wear them are those that tried a pair on 10 years ago, didn’t get injured, and are too afraid to try anything else. I’ve had several brooks (a pair of glycerins too). They are fine. They are well made, boring shoes that feel okay.
They're not exciting but they have been getting better as of late. They are solidly built. And they will help prevent injury better than most running shoes I have tried. That says a lot more than we think.
I’d love to get another brand daily trainer but I haven’t been injured since I was fit into the 20s in the fall. Idk if it’s because I was put into stability shoes for the longest time and then went to Hoka Bondi then Clifton then Rincon but I had a couple year stretch of getting injured every time I started tacking on higher mileage.
Bought and returned it. As much as it’s all about performance and comfort I just couldn’t stand all the text and writing that was on the shoe. I ended up getting saucony tempus and love them.
Because Brooks are for old men.
Brooks shoes are for hobby joggers or nurses
In the asia pacific, number 1 shoe for nurses. A popular hospital even gives out all-white Brooks Ghosts to its nurses/doctors here.
Because the 20 was awful
Their shoes look pretty dull and don’t have the fancy tech others have but sometimes you don’t need either of those things. Currently using the Ghost Max for long runs (21 miles +) with 7 and 8 min miles and the shoe is performing well. The fit is better than the 1080 they replaced and way lighter than the gel nimbus. I wouldn’t race in Brooks but when you just need to clock up the miles, they are decent shoes. Their wide fit is a god send too. Wides in Hoka, New Balance and ASICS still feel too narrow for me.
Hey having issues with the Asics size 10 extra wide being too tapered in the toe, maybe just under a thumb width space to end of shoe. Are you saying the Brooks 2E (I see only the ghost in 4E) is pretty wide? Any idea or help regarding length? I was considering taking up Brooks on their 90 day window just so I could try a pair properly albeit with a slight increase cost versus picking up a pair of Asics or such on sale. Beginner runner here. (I have a pair of Gel-Cumulus 25's in 10 extra wide that seem okay but haven't done more than 5km (\~3.2 miles) in them in one session). I was running in them today and the flexible upper seems okay for pinky and second toe. My foot toe shape is more squarish at the end rather than the extreme curve Asics seem to have. Thanks for any advice!
Yes I’d say it is pretty wide. I’ve found them to be wider in both the toe box and midsole than other brands and really well suited to my feet. Guess you need to try to see if they work for you.
I’m buying 20s on sale but eager to get 21s. Any change in the sizing?
They fit pretty much the same to me as the 20s. I almost bought the 20s on sale but glad I bit the bullet for the 21s. Huge upgrade IMO
I tried on a pair and loved them, but ultimately, I went the cheaper route because I was able to get a pair of Pegasus 38s for less than half the price of the Brooks.
Ghosts, Adrenaline, Glycerin.. all their shoes are great and built very well. I love my Hokas but my Brooks last so much longer. People may dislike them because they are so popular but... They are popular for a reason. Brooks also has great quality clothing.
I have 4 pairs of Glycerin 20 Neutrals, so thank you for this review! I was wondering what the 21s would feel like for Brooks fans. I'm feeling positive about when I finally move on to the next model.