Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

The Masked Tulip

Saucony Running Shoes - Anyone Owned A Pair?

Recommended Posts

Never seen these before but there are good reviews online and I need to order a pair of running shoes. Sadly, my only option locally is sportsdirect and I can't find a pair in there that feel cushioned. Not even NB or Asics. Most feel that there is no cushioning at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Never seen these before but there are good reviews online and I need to order a pair of running shoes. Sadly, my only option locally is sportsdirect and I can't find a pair in there that feel cushioned. Not even NB or Asics. Most feel that there is no cushioning at all.

Oh dear. You got in a year or so too late. The trend now is to reduce the cushioning and this is supposed to be better for you. Personally I think its a load of guff, but my guess is that it will spark a week long debate on here with similar parallels to the you should only eat peas and lard to lose weight threads.

I had a pair of sarcony and they were great. I ran maybe 20-30 miles per week for three years in them and they were starting to lose their bounce so I swapped them for some asics with less cushioning on the advice of mr running shop man. The asics are, ok. I haven't been great for injuries this year, a lot worse than last year. I don't really know whether this is due to the change in trainers or just one of those things, you have good years and bad ones. The sarcony were great. The juries out on the asics.My guess is I will adapt to them by the time the 3 years is up. If I had a choice I would have had another pair of sarconys identical to the original ones. But I didn't.

interesting the asics were 30 quid less than some more fancy ones that were there and felt better. I'm no expect on the gait analysis, but I looked like I was running smoother in the cheaper ones. Trainers are like wine, you pay increasing amounts for increasingly little benefit. My guess is about £100 quid is the price point where the benefit tails off for the vast majority. Hours are probably better spent running than spent analysing fine scientific details of trainer composition on the web. In my opinion anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've been using Sauconys (successive versions of the Triumph) for quite a few years now as they fit my running style. They aren't hugely cushioned but that suits me. I think they've done some that are bouncier but when I tried them last time I bought trainers, I decided I was better off with the older style ones.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh dear. You got in a year or so too late. The trend now is to reduce the cushioning and this is supposed to be better for you. Personally I think its a load of guff, but my guess is that it will spark a week long debate on here with similar parallels to the you should only eat peas and lard to lose weight threads.

I had a pair of sarcony and they were great. I ran maybe 20-30 miles per week for three years in them and they were starting to lose their bounce so I swapped them for some asics with less cushioning on the advice of mr running shop man. The asics are, ok. I haven't been great for injuries this year, a lot worse than last year. I don't really know whether this is due to the change in trainers or just one of those things, you have good years and bad ones. The sarcony were great. The juries out on the asics.My guess is I will adapt to them by the time the 3 years is up. If I had a choice I would have had another pair of sarconys identical to the original ones. But I didn't.

interesting the asics were 30 quid less than some more fancy ones that were there and felt better. I'm no expect on the gait analysis, but I looked like I was running smoother in the cheaper ones. Trainers are like wine, you pay increasing amounts for increasingly little benefit. My guess is about £100 quid is the price point where the benefit tails off for the vast majority. Hours are probably better spent running than spent analysing fine scientific details of trainer composition on the web. In my opinion anyway.

Thanks.

Did you buy the Saucony's a half or one size bigger or your normal size. I have wide feet and most of the Saucony's come in a D width which is good for me. I assume that is because they are an American make.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks.

Did you buy the Saucony's a half or one size bigger or your normal size. I have wide feet and most of the Saucony's come in a D width which is good for me. I assume that is because they are an American make.

Can't remember. One great thing about going to mr running man is you outsource all of that sort of stuff. To be fair the video analysis is good. If you are serious about going running then I would definitiely recommend it, because some trainers are supposedly more suited to different gaits as they offer support in different places. This sort of stuff costs though.

You have to remember though that a lot of this sort of stuff is just manufacturers swapping stuff round for "all the gear no idea" people and building up trends with some sort of vague scientifc backing in order to justify why you should pay them a small fortune.

I would controversially speculate that no matter what kind opf trainers you had, you would eventually adapt your running style to suit them in fairly short order if you were doing any sort of distance. Either that or you would break yourself pretty quickly (which is what I have done in the past).

I will check the size tonight for you. I did like those sarcony trainers (wistful look into the distance and exhale).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can't remember. One great thing about going to mr running man is you outsource all of that sort of stuff. To be fair the video analysis is good. If you are serious about going running then I would definitiely recommend it, because some trainers are supposedly more suited to different gaits as they offer support in different places. This sort of stuff costs though.

You have to remember though that a lot of this sort of stuff is just manufacturers swapping stuff round for "all the gear no idea" people and building up trends with some sort of vague scientifc backing in order to justify why you should pay them a small fortune.

I would controversially speculate that no matter what kind opf trainers you had, you would eventually adapt your running style to suit them in fairly short order if you were doing any sort of distance. Either that or you would break yourself pretty quickly (which is what I have done in the past).

I will check the size tonight for you. I did like those sarcony trainers (wistful look into the distance and exhale).

Sportsshoes have some down from 100 to 48 and I have an online voucher code that might give another 10% off and free delivery.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Been done to death - but why not again !!

I have been running in fairly minimal shoes for over three years now. Only had one running related injury in that time. Massive improvement on when i ran in 'support shoes'

And i am someone who used to tell people to wear 'proper' running shoes. And i even spent about £200 iirc on custom made orthotics.

Its not so much the cushioning or not - its the way they force you to run more naturally - which shock horror appears to be better for us humans.

Before Nike etc introduced 'support' shoes in the 80's - they had never before existed in our millions of years of history. And now these same companies are selling us all 'minimal' shoes as they help to strengthen our feet and lower legs.

Have a think about it. Classic. Create a problem > sell everyone a solution to a problem that never even existed.

Also - think about any other area on your body that was 'weak' - would you try to work to increase the strength ? Or get a bit of plastic or rubber under it to make it look and feel like it was stronger ?

I have made a complete 180 turn about this in the last few years. And that's not something i do very often.

Do your own research. A great intro is a paper by Harvard. Just Google Harvard and bare foot running.

Ps i don't run barefoot. But i do now run with a style as if i was. Massive difference. But you have to take it very very slowly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's old fashioned Plimsoles for "ccc" then! :huh:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Been done to death - but why not again !!

I have been running in fairly minimal shoes for over three years now. Only had one running related injury in that time. Massive improvement on when i ran in 'support shoes'

And i am someone who used to tell people to wear 'proper' running shoes. And i even spent about £200 iirc on custom made orthotics.

Its not so much the cushioning or not - its the way they force you to run more naturally - which shock horror appears to be better for us humans.

Before Nike etc introduced 'support' shoes in the 80's - they had never before existed in our millions of years of history. And now these same companies are selling us all 'minimal' shoes as they help to strengthen our feet and lower legs.

Have a think about it. Classic. Create a problem > sell everyone a solution to a problem that never even existed.

Also - think about any other area on your body that was 'weak' - would you try to work to increase the strength ? Or get a bit of plastic or rubber under it to make it look and feel like it was stronger ?

I have made a complete 180 turn about this in the last few years. And that's not something i do very often.

Do your own research. A great intro is a paper by Harvard. Just Google Harvard and bare foot running.

Ps i don't run barefoot. But i do now run with a style as if i was. Massive difference. But you have to take it very very slowly.

Agreed. I used to run in the Asics 1100 range which were okay but bulky. I now run in either New Balance 1420's or New Balance minimus.

I have always been a forefoot striker (cue jokes about Michael Owen) so my transition may have been easier for me than others.

My only complaint about the minimus is when you step on a sharp stone on trail run - ouch.

But I would never go back to anything more bulky than the 1420's - which I really like.

If anyone doubts that cushioning was brought in to solve a problem that didn't exist. Google Arthur Lydiard/Peter Snell and look at the distances they were running in the sixties pre the Nike waffle iron.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the missus speaks......

I have recently changed over to Saucony after wearing Asics for few years, couldn't get any more than 300 miles from Asics, knees started to get sore plus toe has come out of every pair of Asics I have owned. I know they are correct size as I wear men's trainers and they are size bigger than normal trainers. Since changing to Asics am able to get 400 plus miles out of trainers and toes intact! Plus trained for last marathon in Saucony, remained injury free throughout training, I overpronate so wear Saucony progrid. Have tried Brooks in past too, definitely a Saucony convert :-)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Had a few pairs of Saucony Grizzly Approach ones and found them very comfortable. I stopped running though, I could feel my knee giving up on me, doubt that was the shoes though. I've got some Saucony walking shoes now (Jazz WR) and they're good but they don't make them any more.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Another thumbs up for Saucony here.

I switched from Nike to Saucony Progrid Guide about 3 years ago and never looked back.

Progrid 5 is what I have seen online for 42 quid. No idea how the fitting is but I am fed up of trying on trainers that, although brand new, feel less support and cushion in the sole than my current knackered ones.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Progrid 5 is what I have seen online for 42 quid. No idea how the fitting is but I am fed up of trying on trainers that, although brand new, feel less support and cushion in the sole than my current knackered ones.

At a guess there's a progrid 6 either just out or just about to come out. I always get last seasons trainer. The price of the latest model of trainer is crazier than the price of the latest model of car.

Edit: Just had a quick look online - Progrid Guide 6 are indeed £90!

Edit 2: Sportsshoes is a great site. I remember back in the day me and my mates used to look at the magazine ads for what was then sportsshoes unlimited and take the bus trip from Wakefield to Bradford to get trainers from their store. No idea if it's still there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Agreed. I used to run in the Asics 1100 range which were okay but bulky. I now run in either New Balance 1420's or New Balance minimus.

I have always been a forefoot striker (cue jokes about Michael Owen) so my transition may have been easier for me than others.

My only complaint about the minimus is when you step on a sharp stone on trail run - ouch.

But I would never go back to anything more bulky than the 1420's - which I really like.

If anyone doubts that cushioning was brought in to solve a problem that didn't exist. Google Arthur Lydiard/Peter Snell and look at the distances they were running in the sixties pre the Nike waffle iron.

The heel drop in those minimus must be close to zero ?

My shoes are about 9mm for the road and 3mm for my off road.

As long as they are light and don't have a huge heel i don't think it matters a huge amount.

How long was your transition ? Inov8 say it should be about a year to do it proper. That was my experience. Although for you it seems you had a head start which must have been nice.

People don't realise they are running in high heels. If they did they would perhaps be a bit more open to the minimal running chat !!

I 'over pronate' when i run with a heel strike. When i run with a forefoot strike that instantly disappears. Its so simple and that is what annoys me with people being taken for a ride.

As Mr pin says - plimsoles it is. People should ask their parents how many times they heard of shin splints or similar issues back in the day when nobody had any sort of 'support' shoes. An eye opener.

A great example is the running on the beach scene at st Andrew for chariots of fire. Some fantastic natural form on show there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Been done to death - but why not again !!

I have been running in fairly minimal shoes for over three years now. Only had one running related injury in that time. Massive improvement on when i ran in 'support shoes'

And i am someone who used to tell people to wear 'proper' running shoes. And i even spent about £200 iirc on custom made orthotics.

Its not so much the cushioning or not - its the way they force you to run more naturally - which shock horror appears to be better for us humans.

Before Nike etc introduced 'support' shoes in the 80's - they had never before existed in our millions of years of history. And now these same companies are selling us all 'minimal' shoes as they help to strengthen our feet and lower legs.

Have a think about it. Classic. Create a problem > sell everyone a solution to a problem that never even existed.

Also - think about any other area on your body that was 'weak' - would you try to work to increase the strength ? Or get a bit of plastic or rubber under it to make it look and feel like it was stronger ?

I have made a complete 180 turn about this in the last few years. And that's not something i do very often.

Do your own research. A great intro is a paper by Harvard. Just Google Harvard and bare foot running.

Ps i don't run barefoot. But i do now run with a style as if i was. Massive difference. But you have to take it very very slowly.

Before the 80s, did fat ******s do much running?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Agreed. I used to run in the Asics 1100 range which were okay but bulky. I now run in either New Balance 1420's or New Balance minimus.

I have always been a forefoot striker (cue jokes about Michael Owen) so my transition may have been easier for me than others.

My only complaint about the minimus is when you step on a sharp stone on trail run - ouch.

But I would never go back to anything more bulky than the 1420's - which I really like.

If anyone doubts that cushioning was brought in to solve a problem that didn't exist. Google Arthur Lydiard/Peter Snell and look at the distances they were running in the sixties pre the Nike waffle iron.

Another 'minimalist' convert here. I got back into running a few years ago, and started off in the ultra cushioned style of shoe, quickly getting injured when I managed to turn my ankle on a small rut on some relatively flat stretch of lawn. I looked into buying new trainers and found the whole barefoot running debate a massive eye-opener. As ccc states, it's not so much about running without shoes (though some people do take it to this extreme), but more about running with much less shoe so that your body receives feedback from the ground (arguably why I twisted my ankle - zero feedback) and forcing you to adopt a healthier running style that doesn't put undue stresses on joints in the body that have evolved over a very long time to be used in a particular way and no other.

I use some incredibly lightweight NB racing flats (probably only a few mm difference heel-to-toe) and a pair of Merrell Trail Gloves for stoney ground (they have a rock plate in the forefoot so no pain from sharp stones, but you lose some ground feel). I'll probably buy a pair of NB Minimus next when my NB flats finally give up the ghost... :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sportsshoes have some down from 100 to 48 and I have an online voucher code that might give another 10% off and free delivery.

I could not tell the size as the ink on the label had worn off. It was either an 8 or a 9. I don't know about the w. The ascis are US 9 (no uk size) and seemed almost exactly the same size, maybe just a tiny bit bigger. I am normally a 7 in standard leather shoes.

So not very helpful I'm afraid.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Before the 80s, did fat ******s do much running?

What has someone being fat got to do with whether they should run in a pair of high heeled running shoes or not ?

The logic is the same for all.

Run in the way nature intended = everything will work better.

There are very few things out there that are 'black and white'.

But i think this one is. The common sense and logic is overwhelming.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The heel drop in those minimus must be close to zero ?

My shoes are about 9mm for the road and 3mm for my off road.

As long as they are light and don't have a huge heel i don't think it matters a huge amount.

How long was your transition ? Inov8 say it should be about a year to do it proper. That was my experience. Although for you it seems you had a head start which must have been nice.

People don't realise they are running in high heels. If they did they would perhaps be a bit more open to the minimal running chat !!

I 'over pronate' when i run with a heel strike. When i run with a forefoot strike that instantly disappears. Its so simple and that is what annoys me with people being taken for a ride.

As Mr pin says - plimsoles it is. People should ask their parents how many times they heard of shin splints or similar issues back in the day when nobody had any sort of 'support' shoes. An eye opener.

A great example is the running on the beach scene at st Andrew for chariots of fire. Some fantastic natural form on show there.

My minimus shoes aren't the latest 'zeroes' but the previous version so probably around 4mm and the 1420's look to be around 10mm, so similar to you.

I last ran in the Asics 1100's in June 2012, and have been alternating the aforementioned since then.

Re Chariots of Fire: The executive producer was one Dodi Fayed, maybe we could tie this thread to the Diana thread!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What has someone being fat got to do with whether they should run in a pair of high heeled running shoes or not ?

The logic is the same for all.

Run in the way nature intended = everything will work better.

There are very few things out there that are 'black and white'.

But i think this one is. The common sense and logic is overwhelming.

How many people run as "nature intended" ?

Is 30 miles a week at a constant but relatively slow speed on tarmac/concrete as nature intended ?

Or is it the odd 200m sprint now and again barefoot over mud and grass to chuck a spear at an animal ?

In the old days were people sprinting around 3 stone overweight in their 50's ?

Or were they mostly thin and dead before they were 30 ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I could not tell the size as the ink on the label had worn off. It was either an 8 or a 9. I don't know about the w. The ascis are US 9 (no uk size) and seemed almost exactly the same size, maybe just a tiny bit bigger. I am normally a 7 in standard leather shoes.

So not very helpful I'm afraid.

Thanks anyhow.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • The Prime Minister stated that there were three Brexit options available to the UK:   211 members have voted

    1. 1. Which of the Prime Minister's options would you choose?


      • Leave with the negotiated deal
      • Remain
      • Leave with no deal

    Please sign in or register to vote in this poll. View topic


×

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.