Sports & Recreation

Saucony VS New Balance, for running

  • Last Updated:
  • Oct 28th, 2011 4:24 pm
Tags:
None
[OP]
Banned
Oct 20, 2011
147 posts
1 upvote

Saucony VS New Balance, for running

Which is better?
13 replies
Deal Fanatic
User avatar
Jul 20, 2004
6935 posts
78 upvotes
They're both good, but this is like saying 'whats better for driving, Ford or Chevy'. I'd say try on both and see what fits better, and keep in mind that both brands have low, mid, and upper-tier models (and prices to match), so an upper-tier Saucony is going to be better than a low-tier NB.

I personally prefer Saucony, but if you have wider feet, New Balance is worth a look. It's all about fit, price point, etc. No one will be able to tell you one or the other - just go and try a few yourself. If you can, go to Running Room and get them to help you. Even if you don't buy the shoes there, you can at least get an idea of what works for you.

Also try out Asics, Puma, and Mizuno. I've had great runners from all three.
Deal Addict
Jan 14, 2009
1072 posts
76 upvotes
search the net on how to measure your foot size accurately. you have to trace on paper. foot size increase each year until you die. studies show expensive shoes equal more injuries. there also tests for arch height on net.
Deal Fanatic
User avatar
Sep 24, 2005
9454 posts
977 upvotes
N/A
freeonboard wrote:
Oct 27th, 2011 4:04 pm
search the net on how to measure your foot size accurately. you have to trace on paper. foot size increase each year until you die. studies show expensive shoes equal more injuries. there also tests for arch height on net.

it may be, but it could just be a correlation and not a cause.
“Children see magic because they look for it.”
Sr. Member
May 18, 2006
992 posts
23 upvotes
I found Saucony had better styles and fit for my severe over-pronation.
Deal Fanatic
Sep 21, 2004
7583 posts
387 upvotes
ippon wrote:
Oct 27th, 2011 5:14 pm
it may be, but it could just be a correlation and not a cause.

That's exactly it.

IMO the correlation is due to people who have running injuries buy expensive shoes as a band-aid solution to their woes. It's no coincidence that the most expensive shoes are they super cushioned, extra motion control, super this/that featured shoe for people who "need" the extra help. Instead they should be correcting their running.

None of the pro atheletes were this kind of stuff. They all wear super lightweight racing flats with minimal to no support or cushioning and manage just fine.

I'm not an advocate of barefoot running, but anyone with interest in running should read "Born to Run".
Deal Addict
Jan 14, 2009
1072 posts
76 upvotes
Stock R wrote:
Oct 28th, 2011 12:39 pm
That's exactly it.

IMO the correlation is due to people who have running injuries buy expensive shoes as a band-aid solution to their woes. It's no coincidence that the most expensive shoes are they super cushioned, extra motion control, super this/that featured shoe for people who "need" the extra help. Instead they should be correcting their running.

None of the pro atheletes were this kind of stuff. They all wear super lightweight racing flats with minimal to no support or cushioning and manage just fine.

I'm not an advocate of barefoot running, but anyone with interest in running should read "Born to Run".

No sane person thinks correlation equals causation. Do you seriously think I would refer to a study that was not scientific and peer reviewedÉ The study was not conducted by a 10 yr old. by your argument, every study is invalid. studies are designed to eliminate what you are claiming.
Deal Addict
User avatar
Nov 3, 2006
3390 posts
71 upvotes
Mississauga
By saying
studies show expensive shoes equal more injuries.
You are implying expensive shoes cause more injuries, without qualifying. There has to be more than just the price of the shoes alone.
Deal Fanatic
Sep 21, 2004
7583 posts
387 upvotes
freeonboard wrote:
Oct 28th, 2011 2:43 pm
No sane person thinks correlation equals causation. Do you seriously think I would refer to a study that was not scientific and peer reviewedÉ The study was not conducted by a 10 yr old. by your argument, every study is invalid. studies are designed to eliminate what you are claiming.

I'm not saying the study is invalid. I actually cite that study to people. I'm saying that you can't cite that study without throwing in some additional qualifiers or it will be misinterpreted.
Deal Fanatic
Sep 21, 2004
7583 posts
387 upvotes
twotterdhc6 wrote:
Oct 28th, 2011 2:52 pm
By saying

You are implying expensive shoes cause more injuries, without qualifying. There has to be more than just the price of the shoes alone.

Exactly. And I'm adding that the missing factor is running technique.
Deal Expert
User avatar
Jun 14, 2003
23140 posts
177 upvotes
For OP, both are good. My last pair was New Balance. My current pair is Saucony. I usually buy a pair whenever it is on sale before the current pair wear out.

Regarding "studies show expensive shoes equal more injuries. ", it can be interpreted as those who bought expensive shoes run more than those who bought less expensive shoes. In terms of possibility, the more you run the higher the chance you can be injured.
Too many people spend money they haven't earned to buy things they don't want, to impress people they don't like. -- Will Smith
Growing older is mandatory. Growing up is optional.
Stay hungry, stay foolish.
Deal Addict
Jan 14, 2009
1072 posts
76 upvotes
gman wrote:
Oct 28th, 2011 3:35 pm
For OP, both are good. My last pair was New Balance. My current pair is Saucony. I usually buy a pair whenever it is on sale before the current pair wear out.

Regarding "studies show expensive shoes equal more injuries. ", it can be interpreted as those who bought expensive shoes run more than those who bought less expensive shoes. In terms of possibility, the more you run the higher the chance you can be injured.
ok, i guess i better start smoking because the studies that say smoking is bad are based on correlation analysis.
× < >

Top