Adidas Response Boost

Color: Collegiate Navy/Black-Silver

Intended use: Recovery runs, long distance. Use on all surfaces except trail.

Surfaces tested on: Road, 21° C/70° F

Upper: Stretchable mesh, synthetic overlays.

Midsole: Expanded TPU Infinergy foam made by BASF (Boost), EVA midfoot bridge and rim.

Outsole: Carbon rubber.

Weight: 285 gms/10.05 Oz for a half pair of US10.5/UK 10/EUR 44.5

Widths available: One standard width only.

US Retail: $ 100

Response Boost being the cheapest of the lot at $100, should ideally be less cushioned than the Supernova Glide Boost, but it isn’t. We tested the Response Boost against the Energy Boost, Glide Boost and Sonic Boost, and as far as cushioning feel was concerned, the Response Boost topped the Glide and Sonic. To trump over the Sonic was expected, but more than the Glide? adidas has tried to differentiate the Response from its $30 more expensive brother by glueing a cheap looking upper atop the Boost midsole, but what looks inexpensive does not necessarily translate into a cheap fit. After all, in running shoes, beauty is only mesh deep.  The synthetic leather used looks cut price and screen printing of the ‘Response Boost’ text in the heel and ’tech fit’ on the toe box looks tackily executed. The latter print isn’t even aligned across the left and right shoes, its position shifting slightly (see image above). If you were expecting the upper to top Response Cushion 22 standards, you will be disappointed. There aren’t any TPU welds over the heel anymore; all you get there are two ends of synthetic leather joining together in a seamed line. The lateral midfoot of Response Boost gets welded three stripes, but the cosmetic result ends up looking like embossing, which incidentally happens to be the case for inner midfoot.

The forefoot bases its design and fit on the $160 Energy Boost 2 Techfit, using similar stretch mesh and printed overlays. The fabric is very close in fit and feel to the one used on the Energy Boost, and for all we know, it could be identical. The key difference is in the way how the lines are printed on the forefoot. Lines painted on the mesh are shinier and thicker (compared to matte and thin finish of EB 2), which places it few rungs lower in the aesthetic scheme of things. The pointy ended plastic cage on the Energy Boost angled sharply down on the forefoot, causing that area to feel very snug. The Response Boost’s softer panels have more leeway in movement, easing off on the pressure. This higher than usual placement of the sockliner eats into precious forefoot space, making the fit very shallow, and hence snug. Not only that, forefoot base of the insole is wider than the midsole base it’s placed on – this oddity applies to both the EB-2 and RB. But the Response Boost has a toe bumper which has a much lower profile than the standard. In fact, it is so slim in the front that it forces the lip of the outsole to curve inwards. This also makes wearing the Response Boost Techfit barefoot a non-possibility. If you do that, you’ll feel the toe box catch on your feet – the area where the Techfit printing goes over your big toe. There’s an internal stiffener there, and it digs into your toe. Some poor engineering right there.

Collar is soft and comfortable, using the same mesh seen on the Response Cushion 22 and Glide Boost. Much foam padding resides inside the collared walls, and the Achilles tab is soft too. This is one area of the shoe upper which has no faults to pick.

The Response Boost gives us the impression that adidas is treating the Boost platform as a meal-replacement equivalent. If that is indeed their thinking, then it sets course for a potentially dangerous precedent. The Boost is a powerful supplement at best, and not a substitute for three meals a day.