Barefoot Shoes

Skechers GO Run Ride Review

If I had to compare the Skechers GO Run Ride™ to another shoe of my recent experience, I’d say it’s very much like the marriage between the Saucony Kinvara2™ and the Nike Free™. It’s like the Kinvara2 in terms of low heel-to-toe drop (4mm),…


If I had to compare the Skechers GO Run Ride™ to another shoe of my recent experience, I’d say it’s very much like the marriage between the Saucony Kinvara2™ and the Nike Free™. It’s like the Kinvara2 in terms of low heel-to-toe drop (4mm), feel of the cushioning and the soft sock-liner interior of the upper and like the Nike Free because it’s crazy flexible. The biggest difference between the Kinvara2 and the GO Run Ride is that the GO Run Ride has significantly more toe room than the Kinvara2 because of the use of a more anatomical last. In addition the GO Run Ride is much more flexible than the Kinvara2. In terms of weight, the GO Run Ride is slightly heavier than the Kinvara2 but not by much (~.2 oz). After the jump a full review of the GO Run Ride from Skechers! If you’ve tried or even seen the Skechers GO Run and were put off by the look or feel of “the bump” in the midsole don’t worry, the bump has been significantly reduced in the GO Run Ride and wasn’t even noticeable. I found the GO Run Ride to be very comfortable either with or without socks. There was plenty of toe room for proper toe splay and the level of cushioning I felt was just right for long distance runs. The only detractors were that the upper’s heel cup volume isn’t quite enough to comfortably wear arch support insoles without feeling your heel slip and I was a bit concerned about durability of the exposed midsole-outsole compound. Some vital statistics of the Skechers GO Run Ride:
  • Weight: 7.9oz (M9), 5.9oz (W6)
  • Stack Heights:
    • Forefoot = 12.0mm
    • Midfoot = 19.0mm
    • Heel = 16.0mm
    • Net Drop = 4.0mm
    • Outsole = 3.0mm

The Upper

The upper of the GO Run Ride is very minimal; the material used is very lightweight and breathable. The interior is very soft and plush using an “integrated anti-microbial OrthoLite™ sockliner” which supposedly helps inhibit odor. I can attest that the shoes don’t stink overly much after much usage and I can confirm the sockliner is definitely nice for sockless running. The lacing structure is good; felt like my foot was for the most part pretty secure in the shoe. Perhaps a more asymmetrical lacing structure would help improve the overall feel. What stands out in the GO Run Ride is the very roomy forefoot that has tons of space for proper toe splay. The only real complaint I have with regards to the upper is that the net volume isn’t quite deep enough for an orthotic. While my test pair did okay with the Montrail Enduro Soles™ and even better with my Superfeet Black Insoles™ (very thin) I still felt like I wanted the heel cup to be a bit higher. It was hard to tell because the heel cup is so very thin and non-supportive but at times it felt like my heel was slipping, especially on steep downhills.

The Midsole

The midsole of the GO Run Ride, like the GO Run, uses Resalyte™ which is a very lightweight, injection-molded compound with memory retention. In my experience the midsole felt very cushy yet not overly so but definitely not as firm as some of the shoes I’ve reviewed recently (Further reading: Altra Instinct, Altra Provision, Altra Lone Peak). While midfoot “bump”, properly known as M-strike technology™, is far reduced in the GO Run Ride compared to the original GO Run, the GO Run Ride still does have a slightly curved bottom that is supposed to promote more of a mid-foot strike zone and more fluid stride according to Skechers. The curve is hardly noticeable on use; from the heel which is 16.0 mm thick the curve peaks at 19.0 mm thickness at the midfoot and then tapers off to 12.0 mm thick at the forefoot. The end result is that this shoe only has 4mm of drop from heel to forefoot.

The Outsole

The GO Run Ride uses more of a hybrid or combined midsole-outsole in that most of the surface area that makes contact with the ground is the Resalyte compound (in the shape of pillars) with the exception of several GOimpulse sensors™ or pillars of a high-friction compound that are linked at the strike points for added stability and control according to Skechers. Skechers also says that the GOimpulse sensors are independent circular sensors that are supposed to deliver feedback for an interactive running experience. In reality the GOimpulse sensors are sections of a high-friction compound to help reduce shoe wear at the impact points of the shoe (mid to forefoot area). The combined midsole-outsole, despite the thickness, is extremely flexible; I can easily flex the toe of the shoe to the heel and twist it like I’m wringing out a wet towel without any trouble. The pillared lugs of the shoe seemed to be spaced out enough that I only had occasional issues with collecting gravel or other road debris (a common problem I’ve had with the Nike Free line) and even then only after running several miles on gravel roads.


As of this review I have tested the Skechers GO Run Ride running over 100 miles on mostly paved and gravel roads and paths with some short trail sections thrown in for good measure. My longest run was 23+ miles that included pavement, gravel, bushwhacking and a 5km hilly cross-country race on uneven grass and pavement in the middle (in which I placed 2nd overall)! On pavement this shoe, as designed, functioned very well. I thought it had plenty of traction on wet and dry pavement and concrete and it actually faired surprisingly well on grass even though that wasn’t the intended use of the shoe! However, I was concerned that the Resalyte only parts of the outsole will quickly wear down; not too sure what the life expectancy of this shoe will be. I did notice significant wear in the heel and forefoot Resaylte areas from testing. The overall cushioning felt much like the Saucony Kinvara2, not too firm but not “marshmallowy” either; about what I prefer in a long distance running shoe. This shoe is very flexible despite its thickness which makes running smoothly and silently a breeze. The uppers being very thin and minimal did a perfectly good job of holding my foot in place on the roads but the few occasions when I encountered mixed terrain (like the uneven grass I raced in) or very steep down hills on the roads I could feel my foot rolling around inside the upper quite a bit; almost came out the shoe a couple times! Part of this I attribute to using a test pair of shoes that is technically ½ a size too large but I also had the same issue when I eventually tested a pair in my correct shoe size. Mostly I attribute the foot slippage issue to the very thin, minimally structured and non-supportive upper and the fact that the heel cup isn’t quite deep enough to accommodate even my very thin arch support insoles.


I really like this shoe and think it has some amazing potential. It’s a pretty darned good shoe as is but with a few tweaks I’m sure it will only get better. My main recommendations are:
  • More volume in the upper to accommodate arch support insoles.
  • A more asymmetric lacing system would probably aid in locking down the feet in the shoe and preventing lateral rolling and slippage.
  • Cover more of the outsole with the GOimpulse sensors instead of selected areas to help reduce wear. While somebody running with perfect form may mostly hit the areas where there are currently sensors, for the rest of us there are significant gaps in the coverage which could lead to accelerated shoe wear. Also while this is a running shoe, there are occasions where I may be walking some distance in this shoe and heel striking quite a bit more; there is no high-friction material coverage in the heels! I think the trade off in increased weight would be well worth it if it helps prolong the life of the shoe.
If you’re a fan of the Saucony Kinvara line and lament the lack of toe room; this shoe is for you. Likewise, if you’re a fan of the Nike Free line and lament the lack of toe room and high heel-to-toe drop; this shoe is for you. If you’re a runner who is interested in a reduced drop shoe that has adequate toe room look no further. I believe the Skechers Performance Division has come a very long way in a relatively short time toward producing some high quality and serious running shoes. I know that there will be closed minded folks out there who would find it impossible to wear a shoe made by Skechers and that is very sad. Perhaps it may take some more effort by the Skechers PR folks to help overcome the baggage of the Skechers brand name but I think they’ll get there fairly quickly if this design team is allowed to continue implementing their visions and ideas and producing products like I’ve been testing. If you’re looking to pick up the GoRun Ride, they’re running about $80 off Zappos. If the Skechers Go line is of interest, you might also check out my more recent review of the Go Bionic. I’ll wrap with more photos and a call for questions or comments!

By Rob

I'm originally from Sacramento, California but now live in northern Alabama. My wife and I have travelled all over the world to compete in races; even as far away as Antarctica. I'm a computer programmer by day to pay the bills. I've been running since the summer of '91 and am an avid ultrarunner and off-road unicyclist (yeah, you heard right!). I've competed in some of the most difficult ultra marathons in the world including the Grand Slam of Ultrarunning, the Barkley Marathons, the Hardrock 100 Mile and the Badwater Ultramarathon. I even completed a supported speed-hike of the 335 mile Pinhoti Trail in record time. So I have a lot of experience with shoes, what works and what doesn?t. Get to know me better via [url=]his interview here[/url].

39 replies on “Skechers GO Run Ride Review”

Great review. I also think that Skechers is on the right path with their designs. People need to get over the Skechers baggage and be objective about these shoes. Personally, I am looking forward to the zero drop Bionic.

ugh, sketchers…ditch the freakin mid foot extension crap, i really wouldn’t call this minimal since they put soft cushion stuff like the frees, and the toe box looks a bit narrow

but whatever, it’s still better than most standard running shoes, so I won’t complain too much, especially since the bionic won’t have the bump

@Cody R.: Actually the mid foot “bump” has been drastically reduced compared to the original GO Run. I’ve run in both and while I could definitely notice the bump in the GO Run I honestly could not in the GO Run Ride.

Keep in mind that when you see “Ride” in the shoe name it’s going to typically mean a bit more cushioning (read: more stack height) than the base version of the shoe. So the GO Run Ride is a bit cushier for those who like it (including myself) for running longer distances and higher mileages.

As for the toe box, it definitely is not narrow. I’ve got a wide forefoot and up to now the only other shoes I’ve really liked were the Altras because of their wide toe box. While the GO Run Ride toe box isn’t quite that big it still has more of an anatomical cut than a lot of other shoes; my toes never felt confined.

“I know that there will be closed minded folks out there who would find it impossible to wear a shoe made by Skechers and that is very sad.”

Well, then I guess I’m closed minded in your view. I prefer to think about it as trusting my feet to those who have proven themselves. I don’t trust sketchers as a running shoe company because I have no reason to. I don’t see why track record (or lack thereof) shouldn’t matter. This sounds like a good shoe and a step in the right direction, but no, I wouldn’t buy it, and yes, it’s because of who makes it. If Sketchers continues to produce shoes that serious runners think highly of then I’ll be happy to give them another look, but you don’t gain credibility overnight.

And as for looking at the shoe objectively, that’s hard to do because i’m not able to personally dissect it and know whether it’s a good shoe. So I have to rely on a) feel, b) reviews by knowledgable people like Rob, and c) the company’s proven ability to make a good shoe for serious runners. (fwiw, nike totally lost my trust for many years because they started producing gimmicky crap. it’s only now that i’m willing to try their shoes again, because they’ve shown that they’re serious about runners again.) This sounds like a good first step to Sketchers being taken seriously.

Nice review. I appreciate Rob mentioning that the heel cup does not have enough volume to accommodate arch support inserts. Not that I would ever use such things, it just tells me more about the author so I can better tell where he is coming from. The things that I hold important in a shoe would be fairly different than someone that uses arch supports. With its lower heel drop I’m sure this could be a useful shoe for transitioning from a traditional marshmallow running shoe to more minimalist shoes. The one thing that consistently bothers me about most shoe companies is their idea that they can add something to a shoe to improve upon natural human motion. This is a ridiculous idea that leads to even more ridiculous marketing. If you need the extra protection then I’m fine with that, but we are meant to move the way we are meant to move. These shoes are not for me, but that frog wallpaper is awesome!

@Jeepman: I wasn’t crazy about the frog wallpaper at first but it kind of fits if you could see the rest of the decor. 😉 Thanks for your comments. I do agree that shoe designers should NOT put more into a shoe than there needs to be which is why I think this shoe, and the coming line that Skechers (not “Sketchers”) is coming out with, really follows that spirit. The extreme flexibility if nothing else should prove that. While somebody may or may not need this amount of cushioning is up to the user and intended use. I think it would make a great “transition shoe” if that’s your thing.

@Rich: Fair enough. Skechers (not “Sketchers” BTW) had had a rough go, especially very recently at least with respect to active foot wear. One can’t deny they have had pretty good success with their other lines of footwear. I know a lot of folks who have a pair of Skechers shoes hanging around somewhere in their closet (including myself: some dress shoes). But believe me, I honestly think this new, fresh team of designers is eager to gain your trust, to develop a track record that will win back the skeptics. You’re right, credibility is not won over night. However, I honestly wish you could try some of the prototypes I’ve been testing; I truly think you’d agree that Skechers is starting to speak loudly with their actions and products. Just give them some time.

As for your comment about Nike being “serious about runners again” I could point out numerous examples why I believe this isn’t necessarily so. Most of the shoes I’ve tried by them: 1) Have high heel-to-toe drop, 2) Contain some sort of dynamic support, 3) Have very narrow volume in the toe box. Honestly, Nike is one of the current Big Shoe companies that hasn’t come on board with the whole minimalist movement. Sure the new Nike Free line is better with respect to lowering the heel-to-toe drop but they’ve done nothing to make the shoe more anatomically fitting. Sorry but I don’t agree that Nike is serious just yet…

@Andrew T: Hmmm, I don’t agree. Perhaps this is a “relative” measurement. I’ve got a few pairs of the Nike Free 5.0s, a pair of 3.0s, a couple pairs of the Nike Free Run a pair of the original Nike Frees and I’ve tried the latest Nike Free 3.0 v4. Without exception they ALL felt fairly cramped in the toe box and I wouldn’t describe them as a “fairly wide toebox”; average at best and downright tight at worst. The biggest issue I’ve had is with the vertical space in the toe box, seems like the fabric of the upper always comes down tightly over the top of my toes; especially in the 3.0s. The tightness is especially noted when I’m running and the upper material continuously pinches the top of my toes. I might accept the fact that I *could* go up a half size or more to get enough toe room but that’s just ridiculous. Pure and simple, Nike needs to make more of an anatomically shaped foot bed. Then again perhaps it’s what your experience is. After running in Altras for a while, I think a lot of shoes that I thought I liked before have overly constrained toe boxes! 🙂

@Rob yes relative, while they are not as big as say my minimus trail zeros or trail gloves, they are wide for nikes – so they are headed in a direction. Plus Free’s are not really minimal but they have been a gateway drug for so many people.

@Andrew T: I can accept that. And agree that the Nike Free line, at the moment, has the best potential (of the entire Nike line) for folks interested in, as you say a “gateway drug” type shoe. I’d say go with the racing flat line but they all have very narrow toe boxes! So yes, it is all relative but on the whole, with so many preferable shoe options out there that include an ample toe box AND low heel-to-toe drop I’d hardly recommend a Nike Free (right now) as the best choice. Believe me I wanted to like the Nike Frees, as you can tell by the large list I had. I’ve run 100s of miles in them in fact but once I experienced running in shoes that fit my foot shape and gait much better? There was no going back I’m afraid; at least not until I see some significantly more changes in the Nike products. Really appreciate your comments and this discussion. It’s been fun!

thanks for the review Rob! I sure enjoy your comments on all these “maximal” shoes. I like my huaraches, but i’m definitely in the market for something like these for higher mileage.

@Mark: “Ugly as sin” might be a bit strong, I’ve learned to never judge a book by its cover. Performance speaks volumes over style.

@Kevin: Compared to huaraches I guess these could be considered relatively “maximal”, but compared to your average trainer these are way more minimal to me.

thanks for the response Rob!

definitely smaller than the go run, but it’s still there and i don’t like that they still use it, that said

at least companies are moving in the right direction, which is always good

@Cody R.: Well that’s why there are many different styles and approaches to promoting a mid foot strike in shoes. Skechers chose to achieve this goal through the use of a very slightly concave (longitudinally) midsole. I for one have actually really enjoyed running in this shoe, I seem to run much quieter and I like having the very slight “bump” as a guide, especially late in a race and my form starts to go. But I can totally understand that some folks may not like it. Sort of weird, I tried the original GO Run and while I didn’t mind the bump since I typically wear arch supports any how (the bump was almost like a dynamic arch support) what I didn’t like was the negative heal flex I’d sometimes experience, would notice some Achilles twinges after a run. Haven’t had this issue at all with this shoe, GO Run Ride.

@James: Why the surprise? We’ve reviewed far less minimal shoes than these on this site. When I’m talking arch support I’m talking about my own personal choice (sorry if it makes you cringe 😝) read my interview on this site if you want to learn more about my background. This shoe has no support whatsoever, nether does the GO Run nor any of the other prototypes I’ve tested.

I am still apprehensive about Skechers footwear as the material they use seem to trap odors worse than almost all other shoe brands. While I have only worn a few of Skechers athletic and casual shoes, I found that my feet smelt much worse after using their shoes. Anyone else notice this?

@Baron: FWIW, I haven’t noticed any exceptional foul odors in the Skechers I’ve been tested; certainly not any more or less than all my other non-Skechers shoes. Shoes are just going to stink eventually, that’s the sad truth; especially if tend to run sockless in them. Also, I just learned, from a reliable source, that most of the running shoe companies get their materials and fabrics the same source or sources so there would be no reason to think Skechers would be any different.

I must disagree that the upper is breathable in these. My feet get quite hot just walking around an air conditioned house in them. Compared to my Altra Insincts or Adidas Hagios, breathability seems quite poor. Shame because I really like the feel of the shoe overall. Perhaps they will find a place in my rotation for winter months.

@Sam: I agree that the uppers on these shoes is not the most breathable of shoes I’ve worn in the past, but they are definitely not the worst either. Probably about average in my view. I’ll definitely recommend that the breathabity of the uppers in these shoes needs to be improved. The trouble with using a larger, open weave in the upper fabric is that it tends to wear out sooner and also let’s in dirt and debris into the footbed. Trade offs for a more breathable shoe.

@Rob: Maybe the GR Ride Ultras are just what I’m looking for? They seem to be identical except for the upper which is a more traditional open weave then the sock like upper of the GR Ride. Have you tried out the Ultras and can you comment on the differences?

Love the GORun. The upper is amazing and made me fall in love with running sockless. I dont mind the “bumb”, makes for a nice “catch” for heel strikers. It catches before the heel strikes, improving transition. Anyway, great write up, was very curious what sketchers could do with “more shoe”. Thank you!

I tried on a pair of these yesterday. The build up under the arch was very evident to me. I walked around the store for a couple minutes. I felt like I was standing on the rung of a ladder. Way too much pressure on my arches. I have no doubt that if I tried to run in a pair of shoes like these I would be injured. There is no way I could ever wear these shoes. I ended up with a pair of New Balance 730 and walked away from the store very happy.

@Jeepman: Well, to each their own. That’s why there are so many different types of shoes out there. I agree that if you’re not used to ANY sort of arch support then perhaps the GO Run Ride isn’t the shoe for you. But there are plenty of folks who are used to some arch support so they’d probably find running in the GO Run Ride a bit more normal. Believe me the build up under the arch of the GRR is nothing compared to the GO Run, then again I run with arch supports so I’m used to that feeling underfoot. BTW, I seriously doubt you’d end up injured if you took these shoes for a run, that’s just ludicrous! 🙂

@Rob – I battled fasciitis for years before getting turned onto Fivefingers and minimalist shoes back in 2008. I haven’t had it since then. The only time I get that old fasciitius discomfort feeling is when I clean the gutters out every year. Just the 30 to 40 minutes I spend standing on the ladder is enough to make my arches sore for the next couple days. I’m guessing you were being playful with your ludicrous comment due to the use of the smile face. I can’t foresee anybody telling another they wouldn’t get injured wearing a certain shoe. How could they make such a claim when they don’t know the person’s body or history? I know for a fact I would get injured running in these shoes. The fasciitis would be back with a vengeance.

@Jeepman: Fair enough. However I feel strongly that there is no ONE solution to a similar issue. Like you I battled plantar fasciitis for many, many years. The only thing that has totally eliminated it for me was going back to using arch supports. 🙂 It was the years of running w/o any support that eventually lead to a very serious heel spur in my foot! Anyhow, I LOVE that feeling of a ladder rung under my arches. So to each their own! Who can say what’s best? Anyhow, I think in your case you should try the GO Bionic. That’s a much more minimal shoe than the GO Run Ride. I actually like the GO Bionic quite a bit more than the GO Run Ride overall. There really is no bump in these shoes at all. Much more like what a Nike Free SHOULD be like; zero drop, minimal stack height, extremely flexible, light and ample toe room.


I just tried the Skechers Go Run and liked them. I am a pretty devoted Brooks fan due to my need for a neutral shoe and have recently been using the Brook Pure Flows as a foray into minimalist shoes. I doubt that I have ever owned any Skechers shoes, but was intrigued by the Go Runs and got them at a discount. Although I still like my Pure Flows better, the Go Runs offered similar benefits as I continue my quest to become a better midfoot striker. Although I am not ready to give up my Brooks by any stretch of the imagination, I will be rotating my Go Runs into the running schedule. Thanks for your review.

Go run did it’s job of injury and blister free if going beyond 13 miles, I highly recommend it since it is light and make toe free to move as you pound your forefoot for every strike.

Rob, thanks for the well written and objective review. I appreciate that you ran over 200 miles in the two new Go Run series shoes before the write-up. I am looking forward to shoe shopping soon and the Rides will be at the top of my list. I am currently alternating between my Nike Free Run+ and New Balance 730s. I had to special order the Nikes to get them in wide. Glad to hear the Skechers have a fairly wide toe box.

Hi Rob,
I am sorry, but I have to question your review. I was just in shock, so my comment here does not even cover everything. You are writing that you went cross country running “mixed terrain” I have to ask you if you ever considered that this shoes is for the road only ?!! There are cross country shoes that cover that part of running.
Further: “More volume for arch support”. I am not sure if you understand that the purpose of lighter shoe means that it’s for runners who don’t need arch support. For that they are making stability shoes. Next: “Outsole wears quickly” – Really ? I am running about 8-13 miles daily, hitting 240 miles so far. Mostly asphalt, concrete, and don’t have any wear. Maybe you are confusing it with another shoe, because the biggest benefit with Resalyte is that’s not wearing as quickly as foam or hard plastics. And lastly: “…I may be walking in this shoe..” Come on, its a RUNNING SHOE. These are serious shortcomings on your review.


I’m sure Rob will have thoughts on your comment here, but I can’t help but read it and think, “these are some pretty hard line thoughts about what you can or cannot do in shoes.” Sure a shoe might not be intended for a certain use: does that mean it can’t be used for that use?

Why does lightweight *necessarily* mean you can’t use orthotics?

Who made these rules?

@Peter, With all due respect I don’t really understand the logic of any of your arguments and I agree with Justin that your thoughts seem pretty hardline. Once again I refer you to my introductory interview on this site ( to better understand me and my own personal running journey. Again what you read in my reviews is my own approach. I truly wish I had perfect feet, perfect gait, etc… but I don’t so what you see in my reviews is a reflection of how I run and how I use the shoes in my everyday training routine. Isn’t that the most honest approach? When I test and review shoes I don’t alter my training schedule around the shoe, rather I incorporate the shoe into my training schedule. So if I happen to be be running trails that day so be it. One thing I’ve learned in my past 21 years of running is that A LOT of folks use equipment beyond the scope of the intended design! So why not do it myself and comment on the functionality? Might help advise some folks of the *real* limitations of the shoe not the *stated* limitations of the shoe. FWIW, I’ve had very positive off-road experiences with shoes 100% designed for the road; and vice versa. Don’t you think that might be useful information to somebody considering a multi-surface running shoe? As for my comments about the shoe wear, this is a reflection of my own experience, as always your mileage may vary. And my comment about “Walking in this shoe”? You must not have much ultra-running experience otherwise you’d know that walking breaks are quite common, expected and necessary.

I never thought I would say I would own a pair of Skechers as running shoes..BUT..I am now wrong. I logged 13 miles right of the box in them and they felt great. I am a long long distance guy (141 miles for a high week) so I know about running. I hate Nikes and think Skechers has their minds in the right direction. Kudos.

I owned and run in go run since 2011. I have been happy so far but I wonder if you guys out there have the similar problem I have. I have injury due to stepping on Pebbles or gravels on sandy trail, it is very painful and Go Run soft bottom transfer the pointy impact of stepping on Gravels on Trail straight to my bottom of my feet. From the comments from the author, it seem like this problem is not a probem at all? There must be way you guys overcome this?

@chin keong lam: I can definitely see having issues with gravel with these and other shoes that have wide flex grooves. So I cannot recommend this shoe for frequent use on the types of terrain you describe. The main issue is this is not a “trail shoe” which means there is no rockplate between your foot and the midsole. While the midsole thickness itself is enough to cushion and protect the bottoms of your feet from pebbles and sharp rocks, the problem is the gaps between the pillared lugs. You get a small sharp rock in those regions and you only have the thin footbed between your foot and the rock! Ouch! As a slight “hack” you can create a simple rockplate to place between the shoe’s sock liner and foot bed. You use the sock liner shape to cut out a piece of plastic or other type of material. Can experiment with different materials to see what works best. Alternatively, I’d look into the GO Run (I’m assuming you meant GO Run Ride you were running in) as I thought there was a bit more protection in that version. The GO Run Ride 2 is also a bit different in the outsole so perhaps that could help? Good Luck!

I have tried many running shoes the past 2 years. I have had plantar fasciitis for almost a year now and was skeptical about the go run rides. I have been wearing them for just over a month now and absolutely love them! I have had no heel pain at all. The mid strike bump has worked for me. I am a fan of skechers now and I am so glad I bought them. Will be using them for years to come!

I have a pair of the GoRun Ride Ultras. I alternate between the Skechers and a pair Brooks PureFlows. Both are great shoes. I tend to run faster in the Skechers. I think they may be slightly more firm in the forefoot, and I believe the mid hump alters my running gait and/or posture slightly.

I think the 4mm heel-to-toe differential is a bit misleading with the GoRun Rides since they’re marketed as a mid-strike shoe. I’m more of a forefoot runner, as I think most minimalist and natural runners are. The more applicable measurement would be the thickest measurement(19mm) compared to the forefoot measurement (12mm). That gives you a differential of 7 mm, but it would feel steeper than 7mm because that’s the difference between the midfoot and forefoot, not the heel to forefoot.

I can definitely say that my PureFlows are much flatter feeling than my GoRuns. With the GoRuns, I find that I can slack-off from my forefoot strike when I start getting tired due to the mid hump. Not so much with my PureFlows. I like both shoes, but I view the GoRun as an early-stage transitional shoe. Followed by the PureFlow being the next stage in the progression to a zero drop shoe like the Altra Instinct.

I’ve worn Kinvara 3 wides for over 2 years, but since they don’t make them in wide anymore, I went searching for a new shoe. I picked up a pair of GoRide 3s for $18 and love the (They were 50% off the second pair at the Skechers store, actual price $35).

I did it again. I picked up a sweet pair of running shoes for less than $20. I’m awesome!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *