Asics Gel-Pulse 16 vs Asics Gel-Pulse 17:
Which to Choose

These two are close cousins, and the differences are evolutionary rather than transformative. Start with the midsole: the 16 runs on FF Blast+ Eco, a lighter, partly bio-based foam, while the 17 switches to standard FF Blast and adds a rearfoot GEL unit for heel impact. Counterintuitively, that means the newer shoe actually feels a touch firmer underfoot, but it dampens heel landings more noticeably and carries more foam — the 17 grows to a 39mm/28mm stack versus the 16's 36.5mm/26.3mm, and its heel-to-toe drop climbs from 8mm to 11mm, a more traditional, heel-biased geometry. That extra material shows up on the scale: the 17 weighs about 275g in a men's US 9 against roughly 241g for the 16, a meaningful jump of around 14 percent. Neither shoe is lively — both are plateless and prioritize calm, planted transitions over energy return — but the 17 nudges cushioning from a 3/6 to a 4/6 and responsiveness from 2/6 to 3/6, and its effective pace range extends a little lower, to around 5:00–5:30 min/km before the firm foam runs flat, versus roughly 5:30 for the 16. Stability is unchanged at 4/6 for both, delivered the same way: a wide, well-balanced platform with no active pronation control. In short, the 17 is the more cushioned, more heel-protective, slightly more capable shoe over distance, while the 16 is the lighter, lower-slung, lower-drop option.