The Brooks Glycerin Max is a HOKA Bondi in All But Name

Originally published at: The Brooks Glycerin Max is a HOKA Bondi in All But Name - Slowtwitch News

The years 2008 to 2015 were an absolute wild time to work in footwear. In the span of 7 years we went from traditional running footwear to Born to Run inspired minimalism to “natural running” and then all the way over to maximalism and the rise of HOKA. To say that it was a confusing time to be a runner — and a retailer — is an understatement. Forecasting the right type of shoes to bring in was a complete adventure; sometimes it felt like throwing darts would be more successful.

Through it all, Brooks was nibbling around the edges of the trends. They were a very classic run shoe company in 2008, with the Glycerin, Ghost, and Adrenaline making up the bulk of their sales. They were the second major brand (behind Saucony) to dip their toes into the so-called “natural” running trend, bringing out the Pure line-up of lower drop but still decently cushioned offerings. (Side note: the PureCadence and PureFlow were all-time great offerings and I am still mad they dropped them from the line all those years ago.) And as more brands utilize a bucket-style construction for support, as opposed to medial posting, Brooks was there, too.

The place they didn’t really play in? True maximalism cushioning, in the kind of way that HOKA’s classic Bondi put out. Although the Glycerin offers a plush ride as their halo neutral cushioned shoe, it’s not the same boundary-pushing, shockingly well-cushioned for as light as it is, as the Bondi has been.

Well, until now. Meet the Glycerin Max, where there’s just more cushion for the miles pushin’ than ever before.

Tech Talk: A Totally Different Glycerin

First, let’s talk about the name, Glycerin Max. Anybody remember when HOKA tried to make the Clifton Edge, and it just wasn’t a Clifton? That’s pretty much the same here — if you’re expecting a shoe that’s similar to the standard Glycerin, it just isn’t. It’s a totally different animal entirely.

The first clue? This shoe features a 6 millimeter heel-toe drop, half that of the standard Glycerin. Although I subscribe to the philosophy of miles, not millimeters, this is still a radical departure from the rest of the Glycerin product line. It’s also a World Athletics flouting 45 millimeters tall in the heel, meaning this shoe is technically banned for most racing. Heck, the forefoot, at 39 millimeters, is just a millimeter from the maximum allowable under the WA rulebook.

And there’s a brand new midsole foam here, dubbed DNA Tuned. The nitrogen-infused EVA sees two different cell structures for the foam in the same midsole. The heel features larger cells / greater injection, which improves the cushioning experience. The forefoot structure is tighter, which Brooks says improves responsiveness. Combine that with a pretty severe rocker profile, called GlideRoll, and getting to toe-off should be easier than ever.

Like with the Ghost, there’s a lot of recycled materials used in construction. A full two-thirds of the upper is made from recycled materials. Eight water bottles worth of plastic was diverted from landfills during construction. The upper is mostly spun, with just the oversized Brooks chevron logo featuring any kind of overlays that could cause any irritation.

Putting it all together, and you come out with a shoe that weighs in at 10.5 ounces. Conveniently, that’s the exact same weight as a pair of the recently launched new HOKA Bondi. But it’s also 0.3 ounces heavier than the new “regular” Glycerin. And it’s also a full $35 more expensive than a standard Glycerin, coming in at $200. Ouch.

OK, it’s Different. How is the Run?

The Brooks BlueLine Lab is the brand’s innovation arm, which was responsible for putting together this model. And it’s clear they did their homework on the Bondi as they created the Glycerin Max, as they’ve effectively made the first real competitor that feels like a HOKA does underfoot.

Well, at least in the heel, anyways. But more on that in a second.

Before you get to the run feel, you have try-on feel. And, to their credit, the Glycerin Max feels like a premium shoe when you try it on. There’s a lot of soft material in the collar and tongue which gives off a luxurious try-on experience. That material is needed, as this is otherwise a very roomy shoe; some would say it borders on boxy, particularly in terms of width. I would say this runs true to size, but errs towards some higher-volume feet that may not fit into, say, a Ghost. (Or, you know, a lot like the Bondi has fit during its run).

Within the first few strides in the shoe and you find that maximal cushioning experience that was promised, and has made HOKA successful. Where Brooks has diverged is with that DNA Tuned experience in the forefoot; that firmer foam eliminates the overly marshmallow sensation that can plague a Bondi, particularly when trying to run uphill. Instead, when coupled with the rocker profile Brooks put here, you get a snappier run experience. To be clear, it’s not the pop that you get out of a carbon plated shoe, but it’s faster feeling than you might expect it to be.

Niggles? Despite being advertised at the same weight, a Glycerin Max feels every bit of its weight as compared to a Bondi. That’s probably a result of the outsole; although it’s pared back with fingers cut through it, the durable carbon rubber treatment is the thing furthest away from your foot and likely the source of that feeling. (In my size 13s, both shoes weighed the same). And I do worry about fit deteriorating as that plush inner lining material begins to wear; I would not size down here, but if the shoe feels loose to you in terms of fit, it’s probably not the right match.

And then there’s price. This is a $200 trainer, folks. It’s anywhere from $30 to $40 more expensive than the shoes it compares against. And although I feel that this is a better shoe than a current generation Bondi, I don’t know if it’s $30 better. That’s ultimately something you’ll have to determine for yourself.

Brooks Glycerin Max
Price: $200
Available: Now
Shop Men’s | Shop Women’s

2 Likes

So, technically, is this shoe legal for triathlons?

1 Like

This is the shoe I have been running in this calendar year, and I have to say I really like it. Some of my takes:

Hoka’s always dug into my pinky toe, and so I have never been able to run in those shoes. Brooks toeboxes do not do that, going back to the 2012 Pure Flow. The original Bondi’s foam has nothing on the foam in the Glycerin Max - foam has come so far in 14 years. I remember the OG Bondi foam soaking up water and sweat and getting heavier as the run went on…

I have really been loving Nikes and Addidas super-training shoes with their wide toeboxes and well cushion forefoots for 10 years now, but during the winter, when the roads and trails are a bit rougher, the way the cushion is nonexistent under the mid foot can cause the entire shoe to roll out from under the foot. those shoes are limited to dry and smooth dirt/paved road conditions. These Brooks Glycerin Max’s don’t have that foam cut away under themidfoot, so these shoe do not have this problem on rough roads and trails.

My only complaint is that these shoes feel a little bit dead compared to something like the Nike Air Zoom Tempo, but but the Brooks Glycerine Max have been really good winter trainers for logging miles

1 Like

Well it depends(which is why I find the way they’re doing this rule ridiculous)

The new Cielo X1 2.0 which is 48mm underfoot in a size 10 BUT in the size that gets measured(which I think is a 8.5) it’s only 40mm and therefore is legal for competition.

So if the Glycerin Max is under 40mm in the size that they measure for compliance then it doesn’t matter what the stack in the other sizes is apparently.

I can’t wait for race directors and athletes to have to police this

Race directors won’t police anything. Athletes can appeal to referees, who then need to know the prohibited shoe lists.

In the case of the HOKA, the stack height is determined by the location of the foot in the shoe as opposed to just a standard measurement of foam. It’s where bucket-lasting has benefits.

But Brooks basically put their hand up to say “nope, this is for training, have fun.” Which is fine. It’s a really good shoe. I just don’t know if I’d call it $30 than a Bondi.

Pure Flow was an incredible shoe, also came in some awesome colorways.

3 Likes

The Flow and Cadence ruled. Great color ways, and a lot of the upper fit and weaving techniques that they developed for those shoes migrated into the regular product line.

Wish they’d dust one of the old lasts out and use that DNA Tuned foam in it.

Closest thing they have to those now are the Hyperion / Hyperion Max (Flow) and Hyperion GTS (Cadence).

Trying to get my paws on the new Hyperion Elite.

I’m really loving this shoe. Feels great. Soft in the heel without being too soft and firm where you need it without it being hard

I’m seeing a lot of customers leave the Bondi for this and some other brands top end offerings

They call it “Glycerin” cuz they’d need a TON of lube for me to give up $200, sorry LOL

Buddy, get ready, because we’re gonna be paying even more for shoes come this fall.

@desert_dude it’s a very good shoe. I just wonder if we’ll see other shoes move to the Max price point, or if on Gen2 it comes down slightly against its competitive set.

1 Like

If it comes down in price point it’ll would only drop to $190. Although I do not see Gen 2 being lower. I think they’ll hold the price point.

At $200 it’s still $25 below the Hoka Skyward X and IMO on par for feeling good under foot. It’s also more accomodating for people through the toe box and without the weird 3/4 plate feel I sometime get with the Skyward X.

If the LRS brought out the Skyward X, the Glycerin Max and something like a Clifton for customers who wanted the most cushioning possible, 8/10 times the Glycerin Max will go home with them.

I’m interested to see if Hoka brings out a Skyward X gen 2 and if it’s in wide. If that shoe came in wide I’d have a pair for everyday walking around/dog walking/grocery shopping etc

Not me, buddy - I’m strictly a discount store / brand outlet shopper

“You don’t want this. This model is three years old!!!”
“Does that mean I can no longer get parts for it?”

2 Likes

I suppose one advantage of the move to different midsole compounds beyond EVA is that it extends shelf life.

Like, adidas Boost doesn’t expire the same way EVA does.

1 Like