I wear 13 EEEE in the asics gel foundation and until recently the gel mc plus which was discontinued.

Indsofar as they offer shoes in multiple widths I'd say yes they fit wide feet.

I've been running in asics for years because they traditionally have a wide toe box. For some stupid reason I decided to try saucony this time. It's a fine shoe, but much too narrow around the toes.

My wife has short wide feet and she wears exclusively Asics, so I would certainly look into them.

A trifle too stiff for me but plenty wide enough, although I have pretty average feet. The shock absorption just doesn't seem to be there.

---

Tom Demerly
The Tri Shop.com

Asics narrowed the toe box on the Nimbus IV. My son and a friend could no longer fit in them after using them for a couple of years.

Bob Sigerson

Maybe they've done more to redefine their shoes lately, but I've always viewed Nike, Reebok, and Mizuno as the wide shoes, Saucony and Asics as sort of middle of the road shoes, and Adidas and New Balance as narrower shoes. Of course, it really depends on which shoe you look at within the line and whether or not the brand offers different widths (New Balance is the poster child for this). For instance, I don't wear EEEE shoes, I'm more a C width, but I have definitely liked the Asics I've worn (and they wouldn't have fit an EEEE). The brands have also changed their fit through the years. For instance, Asics were generally narrower back when they were Tigers and, more recently, Adidas Ozweegos have changed widths every year since inception. Really frustrating. Again New Balance gets my vote for keeping fit the same throughout the years, since, if they change a shoe too much, it gets a new number. Nice and logical.
But always try on shoes! Comfort is important and sore feet are the infuriatingly exhausting thing!

Regarding the DS Trainer specifically, I tried it on after running in the 2060s for a while and the DS Trainer was A LOT narrower than the 2060s. My foot isn't very wide, standard D width shoes usually suffice, but the DS Trainers were too narrow. I ended up going with the Mizuno Precision IIIs and I love them, plenty of room in the toe box.

---

Dave in WI
-----------------------------------------------------
"What you once were isn't what you want to be anymore" - Wilco

I'd be surprised if the EEEE width shoe fit a C width and I'm not surprised that your regular width shoe wouldn't fit an EEEE, but I suspect the EEEE version just might.

Either I totally missed the boat here or someone else did.

Fred Flinstone's feet are like a dinky ballerina's next to my planks. I've been using Asics almost exclusively for 10 yrs now.

---

Brian Stover USAT LII
Accelerate3 Coaching
Insta

I second the post that DS trainers are very narrow. If you are fairly biomechanically correct I recommend the Verdict for a lightweight shoe. I have medium to wide feet and they fit fine. I never met a DS trainer I could wear.

Most of the Asics shoes are nice and wide - thats why I run in them... that would includ the Kayonos and the 20X0 series.

I have bought 2060's and 2070's and run 18 or 19 miles the first run with no problems. Hanen't even thought about trying another brand in the last 4 years.

I am now running in Koji's and Creeds - they have pretty much the same roomie toe box.

I have had troble with some of the DS trainers and especially the DS lights... to narrow for me. Fortunately RRsports knows about them and will take them back if they don't work.

?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

it seems to me koz might be confused or just mixed up. i worked at a shoe place selling running shoes. nike's run narrower than most as do saucony. reebok, mizuno, NB are fairly average (not always though)...and asics and definitely adidas run wider. did anyone else notice it seemed to be opposite or backwards??? anyways...cheers. i have to much free time, i should train or something.

You cannot generalize about "Asics" or "Addidas" or "Nike" being wide or narrow. It depends on the particular shoe and it's last. In Asics, for example, the Cumulus and Nimbus are basically cushion shoes, but the Cumulus has a wide toe-box, whereas the Nimbus is generally narrower. I called Asics directly and got the scoop. Surely you can also go to your specialty running shop and discuss your needs and they will point you in the right direction. For me, I have a narrow heel and wide forefoot and I run in the Asics Kayano, which fits me perfectly. Creed fits too, I think. Good luck.

---

___________________________________



http://irondad06.blogspot.com/

http://irondad.blogspot.com/

"...Of course, it really depends on which shoe you look at within the line and whether or not the brand offers different widths..." --Koz, earlier

I've got skis for feet. They're those new fancy hyperbolic ones. On every pair of Mizunos I've tried the heel is slightly too wide and the toe box is about an inch too wide. Reebok's are waaay wide around the arch. The Nike's I've tried have all been wider (and reeeally abusive to my feet...except for their flats). Saucony have generally fit better, but are better on turf than asphalt IMO. Adidas shoes have gotten wider in the last few years, I admit. Back before they were totally mainstreamed in the US, they made much better fitting shoes for me. Asics, likewise (oh, for a pair of Onitsuka's...). I haven't gotten a pair since the mid-90's. New Balance is my shoe of choice right now and, since they make different widths in every style, it's a great brand to look at for uniquely shaped feet. With all of the appearance-based marketting and marketting around the newest trendy cushioning system, shoes haven't improved in many years, if not gone downhill. The more mass-produced a shoe, the fewer people it will fit correctly and comfortably.
Here's a pretty random question, does anyone even remember where the word Asics comes from?