Comments: I have run in a lot of shoes, and the pure cadence 2's are the best. The only complaints about the cadence 1's were that the tongue slips to the side and the toe box is a bit sloppy, though I do have to still tighten them a lot because I have very narrow feet, the shoe still feels snug and they connected the tongue on one side so it does not slip anymore. The shoe encourages you to forefoot strike- the general placement of the cushion and support feels better than the saucany mirage, which I ran in for a year. I am a mid distance runner and I am also comfortable using them in speed workouts where I should really be wearing spikes or flats.
From: Mitch, Minnesota, USA
Comments: I was big fan of the Cadence 1, but the new upper in the 2 was a huge disappointment. The 2s are less snug, the toe box seems deeper which gives the shoe a slappy feel. In addition, the whole thing feels bulkier and less flexible. I didn't like the new lacing design primarily because they did away with the extra hole at the top. As a result, the heel slips. Finally, the new tongue is sewn in solid so you can't cinch it up for a more secure ride. If you are intent on trying these shoes you should definitely get a half size smaller than you would in the 1s. Overall, I didn't think changing an upper could hurt a shoe so much but the Cadence 2 proved me wrong. Why did you mess with a good thing?! I think I'll try the Virrata or Mirage from Saucony.
From: Will, Louisiana
Comments: I am a moderate overpronator and have never been able to successfully use an elemental or minimal shoe for regular training runs until I tried the 1st generation Cadence. I found them on sale at a local store and thought I'd give 'em a try. Found out they work for me for daily distance and long runs. It's great! Then I got a pair of the Cadence 2 during the Holidays. The new upper works very well with the sole unit and the shoe feels more like a single piece than the predecessor. However, the Cadence 1 has more reinforcement in the midfoot upper than the Cadence 2. This small difference has a substantial negative result for me. Less reinforcement in the arch area allows my arch to flex just a little too much. After medium distance runs in the Cadence 2, I feel aches in all the wrong places (feet, knees and hips). The next day, I can do a 2-hour run in the old Cadence 1 and feel great afterwards with no aches. The Cadence line has allowed me to use an entirely new shoe category and for that I remain a big fan. But I'm disappointed that I cannot use the Cadence 2 for the variety of runs that I can with the 1st generation model.
From: Jeff, Scottsdale, AZ, USA