Physical Therapists Using Clinical Analysis To Discuss The Art And Science Behind Running and The Stuff We Put On Our Feet

Post Page Advertisement [Top]

Reebok Floatride Energy 3.0 Adventure Review
By Chief Founder Matt Klein, Senior Contributor David Salas, and Contributor Andrea Myers

The Reebok Floatride Energy series has taken the running scene by storm in recent years for its versatility, durability, and wallet friendly pricing point. Reebok comes now with a variation to the Floatride Energy line by introducing the Floatride Energy 3.0 Adventure featuring a more robust and secure upper, elastic lacing system, and a proposed improved ability to take the shoe off-roading. Is it worth the bump in price? Let's see. 

Frontal view of the Reebok Floatride Energy 3 Adventure

Specifications for the Reebok Floatride Energy 3 Adventure (per Reebok)
Weight: 9.7 oz (men's size 9), 8.2 (women's size 8)
Stack Height: 26.5 mm / 17.5 mm
Drop: 9 mm
Classification: Lightweight Trainer / Varied Terrain Shoe

Medial side of the Floatride Adventure. The midsole rises somewhat on the midfoot.


Matt: The Reebok Forever Floatride Energy 3.0 Adventure is a Floatride Energy 3.0 with a more secure and durable upper. The same midsole and outsole make this shoe a great road to trail and multi terrain option with solid cushion and a lightly lugged outsole. The durability of the upper adds more security and protection with a new ripstop upper. The new elastic laces also add additional security along the length of the foot with an additional 30% of the upper now coming from recycled materials. For those wanting a Floatride Energy 3.0 with more durability and more versatility over varied terrain, the Adventure is an obvious upgrade (at only $10 more). 

David: The Reebok Forever Floatride Energy 3.0 Adventure (FFE3 A) is an adaptation of the original FFE 3 to incorporate a more multi terrain design. The shoe utilizes the same midsole and outsole with a more robust and secure upper. The upper is also more water resistant than the previous version. The lacing system also has an elastic component as well for improved lockdown.

Andrea: The Reebok Floatride Energy 3.0 is a hybrid road/trail shoe that is the latest addition to the Floatride Energy line. Reebok added elastic laces and a water resistant and more durable upper to make this shoe more trail worthy. The northeast is known for its technical terrain and I was curious to see how much these shoes could handle on my favorite trails.

The Reebok Floatride Energy 3.0 Adventure is an updated version of the Energy 3.0. The ripstop mesh kept my feet dry on wet, muddy trails. The elastic laces are supposed to provide better lockdown for better control on trails, but I found myself stopping at least once every run to re-tighten the laces. The Floatride Energy foam provides just the right amount of cushion for the trails, but I found it to be too firm for extended pavement running. Reebok retained the small lug pattern of the Energy 3.0 for the Adventure. The lack of more aggressive lugs limits the range of the Adventure to dry trails, but I was pleasantly surprised how well it handled the rocks and roots of my favorite singletrack.

Reebok Floatride Adventure upper seen


Matt: The Floatride Energy 3.0 Adventure fits me true to size in my normal US men's size 10. The new toe guard initially makes the toebox fit a little tighter and the shoe almost feels short. However I have had no blister issues over long miles. The width is fairly normal in the heel and midfoot. The forefoot does taper due to the toe guard and is slightly narrow at the toebox. There is a light and flexible heel counter in the rearfoot that I did not notice at all. The upper overall is much thicker and tougher with the new ripstop mesh. The tongue is gusseted and stays secure. There is additional padding on the tongue in the center, but this is not a shoe I would advise going sockless in as that edges of the top of the tongue are slightly sharp. The internal mesh is also harsh on bare skin, so make sure you use socks. The elastic laces were easy to tie down and I had no security issues even though I did not lace lock the shoe. Be advised that you do really need to tie the laces down or you won't get an optimal fit. Overall a tough upper that tapers in the toebox, but that toe guard will certainly protect your toes. 

David: The FFE 3A fits true to size in my normal Men's 9.5 though perhaps a tad long in length. The shoe is normal width throughout maintaining normal dimensions through the heel, midfoot, and forefoot. The tongue is a little more rigid and rides up the dorsum of the ankle more than the normal version as well. This did require me to wear higher socks so it would not bite into the top of my ankle. The tongue is also gusseted and does help keep it from sliding.  The upper is so much more secure on the FFE 3A as compared to the original. The materials are a ripstop mesh that does not have much stretch to it which does seem to help keep the shoe on the platform well. The heel counter is extended a bit both medially and laterally providing a good and secure hold throughout the rearfoot. The upper is much more reinforced with the usage of light overlays. I will say however that I had some heel slippage and have had to re lace the shoe a couple of times. The laces have an elastic property to them which can work both for and against you. Because of the stretchiness if you don't lock the shoe down well and properly the first time it will certainly expand a tiny bit when running which resulted in my foot moving. If you are good about locking it down tightly from the beginning and double knotting the shoe it stays in place pretty well. Overall a good upper but the lacing system could be reworked.

Andrea: The Floatride Energy 3.0 Adventure fits true to size in my usual 9.5. I tend to have 5th MTP (outside ball of foot) pain if the forefoot of a shoe is too narrow, and I had no discomfort in these shoes. The rearfoot and midfoot are normal width and the shoes overall fit my feet well. I was concerned when I first put them on that the rough ripstop mesh would irritate the lateral aspect of my foot, but once I started running I did not notice the mesh at all. The gusseted tongue extends a little too far up the front of the ankle and I had to make sure to wear taller socks to prevent skin irritation. I would not advise running sockless in these shoes due to the potential for irritation from the mesh and the tongue. There is a minimally padded internal heel counter and an unobtrusive external heel counter that extends ⅓ of the way up the foot medially and laterally. The mesh does not stretch, which contributes to improved foot lockdown. The laces have mild stretch and required me to stop at least once every run to re-tighten. The overall fit of the shoe would be improved with a better lacing system (no stretch and possibly flat laces).

Outsole of the Adventure. Mirroring the Floatride Energy 3 with a minor cutout in the heel.


Matt: Like the original, the Energy 3.0 Adventure does fairly well on road, trail and combinations of the two. The Floatride Energy foam is slightly firmer in this version, but still has plenty of cushioning on road. It tends to firm up on trail, providing decent ground feel. The heel bevel does a fairly good job of easing the foot down on heel contact when combined with the slightly softer foam. The midfoot transitions well and the forefoot is very flexible. The lower forefoot, the lack of a rock plate, mild toe spring and high flexibility make for a smooth toe off that will require some mobility and strength. Those used to stiffer or higher stack shoes should transition slowly into this shoe. The Floatride Energy foam does have responsiveness to it and this shoe can handle some uptempo miles. This is not a road racing shoe, but the lighter weight and midsole make this shoe a good choice for those wanting to do longer races on varied terrain. For me this shoe is best as a daily trainer and lightweight daily trainer. Particularly on days I want something cushioned but a little more flexible, this is a go to for me if I want to get both road and trail miles in. There is a 9mm heel drop that is noticeable until the midsole compresses a bit. This is offset however by the heel bevel. The outsole has only a little wear despite aggressive trail use. The lugs are small, so while they provide some traction, the Energy 3.0 Adventure is best for less aggressive trails. Normal single track, dirt, road and gravel are fine, but mud, wet and aggressive terrain are not the best. The only issue is that there are no lugs on the posterior lateral heel, so heel landings require a quick transition to at least the midfoot for traction. Thus the Floatride Energy 3.0 Adventure is best for road to trail or varied modest terrain for those who want some cushioning with good ground feel and flexibility. 

David: The FFE 3.0A performs similar to the original FFE 3 but with much improved security through the upper. The shoe has a relatively firm but protective ride to it that does have some bounce through toe off. The heel has a significant central bevel that helps with initial contact and loading response through the rearfoot. The midfoot is much more secure than before with an upper that doesn't create sloppiness through that region. The shoe is relatively rigid through the rearfoot and midfoot but does have some forefoot flexibility up front. The result is a lightweight relatively natural feeling ride throughout. The shoe does seem to bottom out for me around 1 hour 15 minutes of running. I did great taking this out for 10 milers but once I seemed to go beyond that the shoe started feeling a little more flat with a bit more pressure to my foot. The shoe certainly does have some versatility and can handle some slight uptempo efforts as well (I did 14 miles at 6:26 average mile in them fine). I'm not sure I would go as far to say this is an "adventure" or trail shoe for I still had a decent amount of instability running through those regions due to the midsole, geometry, and outsole. I would think of it more as an improved version of the original with the ability to handle a little more off road conditions, but serious trails may need other footwear consideration.

Andrea: The Floatride Energy 3.0 Adventure surprised me with its versatility on trails. I took them on a dirt rail trail, a moderately rocky bridle path, and very technical singletrack trails (rocks, roots, and steep terrain). They performed fairly well in most settings, even handling shallow mud without loss of traction. There were two surfaces that they did not handle well: wet rocks and wet blacktop, with poor traction on both due to the shallow lugs. There is no rock plate, so sharp rocks are definitely more apparent in these shoes as compared to a more traditional trail shoe. There are better shoes for technical and muddy trails than this shoe, but it performs moderately well as an all-around shoe. The Energy 3.0 Adventure performed best on the dirt rail trail and the bridle trail. It is interesting to note that the tread is recessed at the posteriolateral rearfoot in this shoe. This is a feature that is found in some bike tires to increase grip on wet pavement and dry dirt roads. I wonder if this shoe would actually perform better on wet blacktop and rocks with more recessed treads and fewer lugs. I definitely felt the slippage occurring in the midfoot and forefoot, where the small lugs extend away from the shoe. The outsole does appear to be extremely durable, with no visible wear after 40 miles.

The geometry of the shoe contributes to a smooth, comfortable ride. The heel bevel and moderate toe spring encourage an easy transition from rearfoot to forefoot without feeling like the shoe is forcing movement. All of my runs in this shoe were over an hour, with my longest being 10 miles. They were as comfortable at the end of these longer trail runs as they were at the beginning. The Floatride Energy foam provides just enough cushioning off-road, but feels too firm during extended time on pavement. I would choose a different shoe for a 100% pavement run.

Heel of the Floatride Adventure. Minor ribbed pull tab seen.

Rear lateral view of the Adventure. A fuller upper seen than the original 3.0 model separates the Adventure from it's sibling.


Matt: The Reebok Floatride Energy 3.0 Adventure is a neutral shoe. It has a more narrow midfoot and a softer sole, so not the best choice for those that need stability. The heel hevel is more centered, which if it was more lateral would create more stability. However, the increased security of the upper help lock the foot on better. There is sole flare in the heel and forefoot, which help center the foot. The works better on road than trail as more unstable terrain really changes this shoe. Overall this is a neutral shoe for both road and trail, although the upper security is an upgrade in stability.

David: I think the FFE 3A is exponentially better than the FFE 3.0 in stability. The midfoot for me in the original was slopping and I had some difficulty with that transition point. The upper integration on the FFE 3A is much better and reinforced better. The full contact outsole does help with providing both torsional rigidity as well as traction throughout indirectly improving stability. The heel bevel is done pretty well and the forefoot is done good as well with enough flexibility. Overall the shoe is pretty stable on road or light trail conditions. The midsole, geometry, and traction still don't seem to be stable enough for me to take into real trail conditions though for my foot still seems to translate slightly and I don't seem to trust the traction underneath me.

Andrea: The Floatride Energy 3.0 Adventure is a neutral shoe. There are features that help to stabilize and center the foot in the shoe, but none that prevent motion. The heel bevel and toe spring help to promote a smooth transition, but does not force motion like the Saucony Endorphin Shift. The mild heel counter and sole flare keep the calcaneus centered in the rearfoot of the shoe, but do not inhibit rearfoot motion. The mesh upper helps stabilize the foot in the shoe, but the laces create unwanted instability. The tread pattern provides sufficient traction on dry terrain and shallow mud, but the lack of traction on wet pavement and rock is a major detractor from the shoe’s overall stability.


Upper Integration, by David Salas
Upper integration can do a lot of things. For me the refined upper of the FFE 3.0A made the ride significantly more fluid. I felt I could trust it more when taking it off of the main road and that my foot was not collapsing or translating through the midfoot region. Reebok accomplished this through a couple of different ways. The shoe improved its lockdown by having a lacing system that holds the foot to the platform better and also changed the material of its upper entirely. The new upper is a rip stop mesh that does not have much stretch to it. Because the dimensions of the upper are dialed in pretty well, the lack of elasticity in the upper materials is actually a good thing. It makes the foot feel nice and secure. This ultimately is the job of an upper. No matter how cozy a material may be, if it is unable to hold the foot on the shoe's platform the ride of the shoe will dramatically change. The foot may translate or have slippage which results in micro adjustments with each step ultimately changing the relationship the foot has with the shoe.

This is especially important when taken in off road conditions for the stability and proprioception demands increase significantly. For the previous version I had a hard time with the midfoot medially and felt my foot would translate in that region. That was irrelevant in this model. Uppers should definitely not be overlooked.

The Science of Traction vs. Performance, by Andrea Myers
Traction is an important performance feature of running shoes, whether on the track, road, or trail. Logically, we know traction is important in running, because we all have experienced a decrease in pace on wet roads or muddy trails. We also logically know that increased traction is desirable, or we wouldn’t put spikes in our track or cross country racing shoes. What does the scientific literature say about the relationship between shoe traction and performance?

Researchers at the University of Calgary set out to answer this very question. They compared the Adidas adiZERO Adios racing flat to a modified version of the shoe with a soft rubber outsole manufactured by Continental, the tire manufacturer (Worobets et al 2014). The Continental version was called the High Traction shoe and the standard version was the control. The researchers quantified the traction of each shoe using a portable footwear traction testing system that was validated in lab conditions. The subjects were tested on a maximal effort timed running course that included a curved acceleration, an abrupt change in direction, and a straight acceleration. They were tested on two surfaces: asphalt and a tartan track surface. The subjects were blinded to which shoe they were testing and 10 trials per shoe were conducted on each surface. The results found a statistically significant improvement in course completion time during trials with the High Traction shoe. The subjects also reported a statistically significant increase in perceived traction with the High Traction shoe (using a Visual Analog Scale).

The authors discussed the possible rationale for a shoe with increased traction to result in increased running performance, including “greater traction allows an athlete to direct the ground reaction force more horizontally, which would increase accelerations and decelerations in the transverse plane.” They also discussed the mental aspect of increased traction, specifically that athletes will perform better if they have more confidence in their shoes.

When running on trails, a runner is more likely to change directions or push off of an unstable surface more quickly if they have confidence in the traction and other performance characteristics of their shoes. The Floatride Energy 3.0 Adventure gave me confidence on dry terrain, but I certainly took it easier on wet rocks and pavement because I could feel the shoes slipping.


Worobets, J., Panizzolo, F., Hung, S., Wannop, J., & Stefanyshyn, D. (2014). Increasing Running Shoe Traction can Enhance Performance. Research Journal of Textile and Apparel. 18. 17-22.

Women's colorway, with pink accents


Matt: Although the Adventure is an improvement, there are many things that could be done to improve this shoe for trail use. I already mentioned stability in the previous version, but the midfoot could be filled in to make a more stable platform through that area. The heel bevel also should be moved slightly more posterior as that will further smooth at heel transitions (most people land at the posterior lateral heel, not central heel). The toe guard is very obvious when putting on the shoe, so potentially widening the toe box may be helpful. Especially on long efforts with foot swelling, the toebox needs to be more accommodating. 

David: Though I like the upper of the FFE 3A I do think it could still improve. The tongue does seem to run on the long side and forced me to wear longer socks so it wouldn't bite into my ankle. I would like that a little shorter. I also think either the laces could be a little thicker or have more texture so it does not expand so much or slide as easily. The length of the shoe could also be shortened just a tad for improved fit. Overall it is all small adjustments though and I otherwise like the shoe.

Andrea: Any shoe that is marketed as a crossover is going to involve compromise. In the case of the Floatride Energy 3.0 Adventure, it is a shoe that I found uncomfortable on pavement and performed poorly in wet conditions. I would recommend that Reebok decide what this shoe is really for, and change the features accordingly. I think it is better as a trail shoe and should be designed accordingly. I would recommend improving the laces for better lockdown and modifying the tread for improved performance in wet conditions. I would also recommend improving the material and length of the tongue to reduce the risk of anterior ankle irritation.


Matt: The Reebok Forever Floatride Energy 3.0 Adventure is for those with neutral mechanics wanting a daily training/mild uptempo shoe for varied terrain. The new durable and more secure upper makes taking corners on light trails and road more secure, while the gently lugged outsole provides traction on a variety of moderate terrain. The forefoot is more flexible, allowing for more natural foot motion although the significant toe guard protects but narrows the toebox. The improved durability and security of the upper is well worth the $10 price tag, particularly if you want to feel confident taking this shoe off road on light but not aggressive terrain.

David: The Reebok Forever Floatride Energy 3.0 Adventure is a daily training option for those that want to add a little off road conditions to their runs. I wouldn't go as far to say that this is a trail shoe, but provides decent enough lockdown and traction for light trail conditions. The shoe is a neutral riding shoe with adequate protection for daily mileage. I had a little bit of difficulty with long run mileage but those used to firmer rides for long periods could still use it for that. The shoe is normal width throughout and should work well for most foot types. For me the $10 dollar price bump for the FFE3 A is worth the extra ten bucks. The shoe is much more stable and I am a lot more confident running in it than the original version.

Andrea: The Reebok Floatride Energy 3.0 Adventure is for runners looking for a neutral trainer for off-road running. It performs best on dry, less technical terrain, although it can handle rocks and roots in dry conditions. For me, this is an ideal rail trail or bridle trail shoe. This shoe is a great value for runners with neutral mechanics who need a light trail shoe.

The Matt Shot: Adventure pair in one hand, top pair shows lateral upper, bottom pair laying beneath.

National Geographic colorway. Reebok partnered with the brand to do a
host of colors to celebration exploration.


Fit: (Secure and durable upper. Toeguard however narrows the toebox quite a bit. Comfortable rearfoot and midfoot)
B+ (Flexible responsive sole that has enough responsiveness for uptempo efforts and daily training)
Stability:  B- (Increased security from upper, but this is a very neutral shoe, especially on trails)
DPT/Footwear Science: B- (Good security from upper, but narrow midfoot and softer sole make the shoe less stable on trail)
Personal:  B-  (I want to like this shoe more, but it is not stable enough for me, particularly at the midfoot. The narrow toebox also puts more pressure on my toes than I would like.)
Overall: B- (A solid upper upgrade, but needs more stability and robust sole to really make this a full trail shoe)

Fit: B+ (significantly improved reinforcement throughout, length a tad long, lacing could be improved with texture or thickness, tongue length shortened)
B+ (Nothing overly flashy, but able to handle daily paces in most conditions and footing (light trail) and can handle some light uptempo, difficulty with long mileage)
Stability: B (Midsole and geometry still a little difficult in trails, but otherwise significantly better than the original FFE3 with better upper security)
DPT/Footwear Science: B (Nothing overly revolutionary but upper integration was done much better with this model allowing for a natural placement and ride on the platform)
Personal:  B (A pleasant daily training option in the neutral category that can handle a decent variety of footing and paces)
Overall: (A good neutral training option that should work for most. The shoe is versatile throughout and a good option at the price point. A jack of all trades but master of none.)

Fit: B+ (true to size, but laces need improvement to promote better lockdown)
Performance: B (great for dry trails, poor traction in wet conditions, too firm for prolonged time on pavement)
Stability: B (great neutral geometry, but laces and tread create instability)
DPT/Footwear Science: B (reduced traction on wet surfaces reduces runner confidence and performance)
Personal: B+ (great rail trail shoe, but limited overall use due to technical CT trails)
Overall: B (good value shoe for runners with neutral mechanics, best use limited to light trails in dry conditions)


The Floatride Adventure is currently only available at Reebok.

Check out Gear We Love
Mizuno Wave Rider 25: New full length Enerzy is a simple joy. Soft, flexible forefoot is unique
Hoka Arahi 5: One of the best stability shoes of the year, and the best walking shoe as well. Versatile.

Feetures Socks: Massively grippy socks that will make you feel more one with the shoe
Spring Energy Gel: Smooth and goes down easy. Great flavors
Trigger Point Foam Roller: Help get those knots out post-run and feel better for tomorrow
Coros Pace 2 Watch: Excellent watch for various running goals and a massive battery life
Theragun Massager: This small version is great on the go for working tired legs


Feel the Floatride!
Reebok Floatride Energy 3.0 Review -
The OG shoe that's sparked this year's lineup
Reebok Floatride Run Fast 3 Review -
The lighter, fast-paced sibling
Reebok Floatride Energy Grow Review -
The sustainable variation of the Energy 3, with a soft, relaxed upper and both natural and recycled elements throughout

Recent at Doctors of Running
Maximal vs Minimalist Shoes - Podcast Episode 57
XTEP 160x 2.0 Review -
Update to the Chinese brand's carbon plated racer
Hoka Bondi X Video Review
August Round Up at Doctors of Running
New Balance 860v12 Review -
The premium stability trainer gets a big upper update to make the ride plush and comfortable for long miles

Thanks for reading!


Facebook: Doctors of Running 
Youtube Channel: Doctors of Running 
Instagram: @doctorsofrunning 
Strava: Doctors of Running
Podcast: Virtual Roundtable
Pinterest: Doctors of Running


Doctor of Physical Therapy
Board Certified Orthopedic Clinical Specialist
Fellow of the American Academy of Orthopedic Manual Physical Therapists

Dr. Matthew Klein is a 150 lb male with notable PRs of 14:45 for 5k and 2:32:44 for the full marathon.  He typically runs 70-100 miles per week and trains at a variety of paces from 8min per mile recovery runs to 4:40 per mile 1k repeats.  He prefers firmer and responsive shoes with snug heels and medium to wide toe boxes.  The stability guy of the group, he also prefers a little stability in his footwear. However, as a researcher, clinician and running shoe aficionado, he will run in anything. 

David Salas PT DPT CSCS
Doctor of Physical Therapy
Certified Strength and Conditioning Specialist

Dr. David Salas is a 135 lb male with notable PRs ranging from 3:54 in the 1500m to 1:08:36 for half marathon. He typically runs 60 to 70 miles per week and trains from about 7:30 recovery runs to fast shorter efforts at 4:30 pace. He normally prefers neutral shoes with a firmer ride, but is completely open to other types of shoes.  He is a footwear enthusiast at heart and will always appreciate a high quality shoe when it comes around. For updates on training or testing,

Andrea Myers, PT, DPT, OCS
Doctor of Physical Therapy
Founder of BiciVita LLC Sports Performance and Bike Fitting at Class Cycles in Southbury, CT 

Dr. Andrea Myers is a 5’7”, 130 pound female with PRs of 3:04:48 for the marathon and 18:41 for the 5k. She typically runs 35-60 miles per week with recovery runs at 8:00-8:30/mi pace and 5:30/mi pace for shorter efforts. She prefers firmer, neutral shoes with 4-8mm of drop and high volume toe boxes.

Editor's Note: As always, the views presented on this website belong to myself or the selected few who contribute to these posts. This website should not and does not serve as a replacement for seeking medical care. If you are currently injured or concerned about an injury, please see your local running physical therapist. If you are in the Los Angeles area, I am currently taking clients for running evaluations.

***Disclaimer: These shoes were provided free of charge in exchange for a review.  We thank the  people at Reebok for sending us a pair.  This in no way affected the honesty of this review. We systematically put each type of shoe through certain runs prior to review. For trainers and performance trainers, we take them on daily runs, workouts, recovery runs and a long run prior to review (often accumulating anywhere from 20-50 miles in the process). For racing flats we ensure that we have completed intervals, a tempo or steady state run run as well as a warm up and cool down in each pair prior to review. This systematic process is to ensure that we have experience with each shoe in a large variety of conditions to provide expansive and thorough reviews for the public and for companies. Our views are based on our extensive history in the footwear industry and years testing and developing footwear. If you are a footwear rep looking for footwear reviews or consultations on development, we are currently looking to partner with companies to assist, discuss and promote footwear models. Partnership will not affect the honesty of our reviews.

Please feel free to reach out, comment and ask questions!
Contact us at

Bottom Ad [Post Page]

// ]]>