Shoe Replacement - Is 300-500 Miles just Marketing Propaganda?

yes

Yup, they're just pushing product. I get between 1000 to 1500 miles per pair. I've gone up to 2000 miles on occasion.

You win. 2,000 is solid miles on a pair of running shoes. Mine are usually getting pretty rough over 1,000. I thought I was easy on shoes.

It's the concept of Factor of Safety. The data probably shows most people will be fine at ~600-1000 miles per pair, so they recommend 300-500 as replacement to give a buffer. The difference between "you probably won't get hurt by our shoes" and "you DEFINITELY won't be hurt by our shoes".

On the same line, as an engineer working with lasers, we test all our products at twice the power we recommend. So you can use our products at twice the power and be like "wow, those liars!", but really we're just trying to make sure nothing bad ever happens.

I worked at running stores as a teenager and through college. Ran 100 mile weeks in the asics gel cumulus.

The answer is no, it is not just marketing propaganda. Some nike and adidas will max out at 350 or less. But it all depends.

People like Paula Radcliffe or Deena Kastor can probably get even more life out of their shoes due to mechanical efficiency and being lightweight. Rotating shoes is also recommended because it allows the materials in the shoe to decompress. This is particularly advantageous to 70+ mpw runners.

It will depend on the shoe and the runner. It's easy to check by looking at the wear on the bottom and by having a new pair in stock to compare how different the used ones feel to the new ones (old pairs get smushed down and lose their cushioning and support). I've known runners who regularly put 800 miles on pairs of shoes, and I've known runners who swore they got injured if they ever put more than 400ish miles on a pair. My own experience has been that I tend to be better safe than sorry and replace shoes every 400 or so miles, but I've also noticed that some shoes seem to break down a lot faster than others, and this was something I had to get a feel for when I switched shoes and shoe companies. Other runners' experiences might be different.

In general, I would expect lighter runners to get more mileage out of shoes as well as those with great running kinetics. If you're a major heel-striker and always land on the same quarter-sized spot of the heel, your shoes are probably going to wear out faster.

Ho Hum wrote:

we're just trying to make sure nothing bad ever happens.

to YOU in a COURTROOM that is

The fetzer valves usually go bad after 426 miles

So does your sphincter.

I bought several pairs of the same shoes. They are fast wearing and the first pair were worn through after 300miles.

I am on the second pair now, and after 500miles, they look like they should be good for at least another 100 or so. I find that odd.

Bad Wigins wrote:

Ho Hum wrote:

we're just trying to make sure nothing bad ever happens.

to YOU in a COURTROOM that is

Presumably they wouldn't be in court if there was no event to sue over in the first place, right genius?

Oh wait, you know about engineering huh?

Cheap advise wrote:

Yup, they're just pushing product. I get between 1000 to 1500 miles per pair. I've gone up to 2000 miles on occasion.

So have I, but the cushioning is mostly worn out by 500 miles. If you don't really need the cushioning then you are fine.

Fast Runner wrote:

Seems all the shoe companies and running stores say you should replace your shoes by 300 miles. I thought it used to be 500?

Sounds like they are engaging in misleading campaign of propoganda about shoe longevity just to sell more shoes.

Any reason to replace at 300? That is not even a month of running for me. I've gone up to 1000 in some pairs.

If you are reallt fat and heavy shoes will wear quicker half the grip on one of my shoes is worn right off.

I know some people who buy new shoes after logging only 25 miles and they really think their shoes are ready for the graveyard

Yes it's propaganda just like change your oil every 3Kmi. I have a pair of Adidas' with over 1600 miles in my rotation right now. The lowers and mid are still in great shape. Unfortunately the uppers have torn a bit and that will be the determining factor as to when I'll have to toss them. If it weren't for the uppers tearing, I'd think I could easily go another 1000 on them. The rubber soles are just starting to show some wear spots but the cushioning is still excellent...no visible compression lines on the mid soles whatsoever and still feel solid.

You're not a shoe guru. The "compression" theory is a total myth. This is why people can't even trust their local running stores.Cook, S. D.; Kester, M. A.; Brunet, M. E., Shock absorption characteristics of running shoes. American Journal of Sports Medicine 1985, 13 (4), 248-253.

Shoe Guru wrote:

I worked at running stores as a teenager and through college. Ran 100 mile weeks in the asics gel cumulus.

The answer is no, it is not just marketing propaganda. Some nike and adidas will max out at 350 or less. But it all depends.

People like Paula Radcliffe or Deena Kastor can probably get even more life out of their shoes due to mechanical efficiency and being lightweight. Rotating shoes is also recommended because it allows the materials in the shoe to decompress. This is particularly advantageous to 70+ mpw runners.

depends on the shoe.

My rotation at the moment is Zantes and Saucony Mirages. Bought them at the same time and have run ~same amount of kilometers on them, 800km [500 miles] per pair I guess. The Zantes are still completely flat at the bottom and are good for another 2/3 months. The Mirages are heavily worn down at the outside of the forefoot/ ball of foot because that's where I land first. I can still run in them but it wouldnt be a waste of product to replace them now, unlike the Zantes which are begging for more running.

Do you really wear one pair at a time? I don't have any empirical data, but I thought wearing the same pair of running shoes every day is not recommended. I try to rotate between 4 and 5 pairs, different ages, different brands/models, etc. As the shoes wear, I don't pick up any bad habits and it keeps my legs fresher.

The same pair would be OK if you run 3 days a week, but if you run 6-7, I rotate.

If I had the same pair of the same shoe, I would slowly introduce each shoe into the rotatation, so I had a pair with 200 miles, a pair with 100 miles and a new-ish pair in my rotatation.

Think of it from the shoe company's perspective -- you know some, or even most, people won't get hurt going over 400 or whatever miles, but you also know that people are going to start getting hurt BY YOUR SHOE at that point. So you recommend that everyone replace their shoes before anyone gets hurt by them. If people want to ignore your recommendation, that's fine.

I also question how many casual runners would get above 500 miles, anyway. Your average guy might run 500 miles in a good year, so he's probably tossing his shoes before they really wear out.

No, it's not a myth. Running shoes lose their responsiveness very quickly, due the material used, eva foam. This is to their advantage of course.

Runners who get lost of mileage from their shoes are just plodders. If you want to run fast it is not advisable to try and get high mileage from a shoe.