How often do you REALLY have to replace running shoes?

I wear my shoes until they fall apart or the sole in the forefoot is so worn, it hurts to run in them. Usually the side of the shoe blows out first. With the adizero rockets, I got over 1000 miles per pair. With the streak lt 3, I've come close to 400.

forget the mileage. the stench is what kills them for me, especially in the wet seasons.

stinky feet wrote:

forget the mileage. the stench is what kills them for me, especially in the wet seasons.

Oof preach. Running in the PNW winter is awful.

Mileage life depends on shoes. I have had some that fall apart at 300 before. I am in the nike vomeros and I can push them to ~800 no problem.

ClonedDuck wrote:

[quote]stinky feet wrote:

I am in the nike vomeros and I can push them to ~800 no problem.

Mine are done at about 450 currently. The forefoot is shot, the shoe is still fairly plush other than that.

For the past 6 months, I've been running in zero drop minimalist shoes. I've ran over 200 miles a week in the Merrell trail glove. Seriously, the more minimal the shoe, the better it works. Is it for everyone? Maybe? Maybe not? 1000 miles should be the norm for running shoes.

0 drop wrote:

For the past 6 months, I've been running in zero drop minimalist shoes. I've ran over 200 miles a week in the Merrell trail glove. Seriously, the more minimal the shoe, the better it works. Is it for everyone? Maybe? Maybe not? 1000 miles should be the norm for running shoes.

Right. It's generally cushioning that gives out in most running shoes. If you have shoes with little or no cushioning they'll last until the upper falls off or you poke a hole through the sole. I do a lot of running in cross country racing flats, Asics Hyper, I think it's called, Saucony Kilkenny as well as a pair of Asics Sortie Magics and I've been in each for well over a year and are showing no sign of needing replacement. But you need to be able to run with little to no cushioning.

I remember reading in Born to Run that our bodies compensate for what shoe we are wearing, and what surface we are landing on, in order to 'find' a stable surface to bear our weight. So if we run in a super cushioned shoe, we land hard. If we run barefoot, we land softly, and definitely not on our heels.

I'm not saying we should all run barefoot. Shoes protect us from rocks and stuff. But does cushioning prevent injury? I have never seen a study to say that.

Piano_Man87 wrote:

I remember reading in Born to Run that our bodies compensate for what shoe we are wearing, and what surface we are landing on, in order to 'find' a stable surface to bear our weight. So if we run in a super cushioned shoe, we land hard. If we run barefoot, we land softly, and definitely not on our heels.

I'm not saying we should all run barefoot. Shoes protect us from rocks and stuff. But does cushioning prevent injury? I have never seen a study to say that.

Cushioning does not prevent injury. It does take the stress off our feet but in return gradually makes our feet weak and teaches us to land too hard. I don't think we should all run barefoot either, instead we should gradually try to wear shoes with less and less cushion until you are running in something like racing flats or minimalist shoes.

The shoe companies have spent a ton of cash to convince runners that spending more for less shoe is actually the healthy thing to do.

An 11 oz shoe is now considered to be a brick.

Rely upon the way your body responds to training and wear as much shoe as you need to make it through the training cycle.

I've read many accounts of elite African runners training in heavy cushioned shoes even if they grew up barefoot.

ukathleticscoach wrote:

Runningart2004 wrote:

Cushioning is unnecessary for the vast majority of competitive runners.

Support is also unnecessary for the vast majority of competitive runners.

A shoe's main job is to protect you from the ground (rocks, nails, roots, etc).

Don't believe what the shoe reps tell you.

I used to run 100-140 miles a week in lightweight flats to include an old school Nike Waffle Racer rerelease. I would put in around 1000 miles before the outer would turn to shreds. Injuries? None.

Alan

That's just down to luck of not been injury prone

Did you ever consider maybe he wasn't injury prone because he wasn't swapping shoes all the f*cking time?

I put in 1500-2000 miles on a pair of shoes, basically until they get a rip in them and could fall apart during the middle of a run. Buying new running shoes after 300 miles is a gigantic f*cking waste of money.

Dennis T Reynolds wrote:

ukathleticscoach wrote:

That's just down to luck of not been injury prone

Did you ever consider maybe he wasn't injury prone because he wasn't swapping shoes all the f*cking time?

I put in 1500-2000 miles on a pair of shoes, basically until they get a rip in them and could fall apart during the middle of a run. Buying new running shoes after 300 miles is a gigantic f*cking waste of money.

Except for the fact that both of your experiences are completely worthless, yeah, cool story bro.

Fun fact, I put 10,000 miles on a shoe once

my friend retires his at around 2,000 miles. somewhat minimal shoes tooruns 90-100 miles a week.no injuries.genetics and body symmetry matters more than shoe age

Yeahyeahysah wrote:

So I have a pair of saucony triumph iso 2 running shoes that I've been wearing since November. At my average training week of 50 miles (some weeks were at 40 some weeks were at 70 it really depends on the week and when in the season I was). Also wear them all the time just to school or out in general.

So at this rate I have run 800-900 miles in them. Plus another 100-200 miles of walking probably.

If they don't feel like they need to replaced am I at the point where it would be detrimental not to replace them soon? The sock liner is all torn up and the toe areas have some holes but honestly they feel fine to run in.

It depends on how often do you run and how much time and the distance and many other things that should be taken in the sight. To cut it short you better choose a great pair of running shoes that will perfectly fit you and your preferences and use them until they won't tear down. So to say, you need to chose some running shoes for your habits and for the kind of sport you are practicing. If you want to choose the correct shoes for you, I would recommend you to read this sport blog https://westrank.ru/sports, because on this blog is perfectly described how you need to choose your shoes, and what kind of shoes will fit you and your needs. Believe me, after reading this blog you will become a proficient in the question of sport shoes.

Rockstar Games wrote:

There is a reason yes: Marketing

I started to do endurance tests after I listened to Youtubers telling that a lifespan for a shoe is 200-300 miles and that was based on a 50 or 100 miles of running. I had replaced a shoe before 1000K and wanted to communicate it. Since then I have reviewed more than 10 pairs. I basically write my final review after 500 mls but most shoes are fine, some look almost brand new that I haven't had any reason to stop running in them. I retire my shoes after 1000K but could run even after that. The role changes in rotation once the shoe gets older but it is fine. Older trainers are fine for slow paces whereas newer are worn for more demanding workouts where shock absorption is needed. The only real difficulty is to get miles on older flats because they are kind of good for only running in forests and on sanddust path.

So I agree with you it's all about marketing. Everybody involved is lying. Shoe companies, shoe salesmen, reviewers. They just want you to buy more shoes even when the old pair is still fine. That is okay, they are allowed to do it but you don't need to buy a need pair of running shoes more often. When you have a well built shoe rotation and allocate wisely runs to each pair, you can get at least 600 mls out of any shoe.

Ad man wrote:

I've read many accounts of elite African runners training in heavy cushioned shoes even if they grew up barefoot.

Don't know about African's, but certainly most Western elite runners/teams use heavy trainers for their daily distance/recovery runs. I don't know why they are doing it, as they use extremely lightweight flats for anything that's fast, but you often see them running around in the Pegasus (not turbo!), Brooks Ghost, Adidas Solarglide, and other super heavy shoes (but without stability). This is especially true for taller elites, 6'0" or taller.

LateRunnerPhil wrote:

Don't know about African's, but certainly most Western elite runners/teams use heavy trainers for their daily distance/recovery runs. I don't know why they are doing it, as they use extremely lightweight flats for anything that's fast, but you often see them running around in the Pegasus (not turbo!), Brooks Ghost, Adidas Solarglide, and other super heavy shoes (but without stability). This is especially true for taller elites, 6'0" or taller.

What's so hard to understand?

Have you ever gone out for an easy 10 the morning after doing 10k of fast intervals in spikes? They're wearing trainers because trainers feel better when your legs are trashed. They're wearing flats for workouts because flats help you run fast and engage your lower leg.

Incidentally, none of those are "super-heavy shoes."