High School Bum wrote:
My shoes last 1200+ miles, and I get them for $40. It doesn't need to be super expensive.
What shoes are you wearing?
High School Bum wrote:
My shoes last 1200+ miles, and I get them for $40. It doesn't need to be super expensive.
What shoes are you wearing?
If you are buying brand new shoes at brand-defines prices with no discount, you are a grade A sucker.
I never pay more than $70 for shoes, and I get way closer to 1000 miles out of them than 500.
Try any other sport lol
Throw-away Society wrote:
I never bought into the "replace your shoes after XXX miles" flimflamery that Big Shoe pushes. Are their running shoes really that poorly made and short-lasting, or are they just trying to move as much product as possible?
Your "old" shoes are just fine.
Definitely.
UmbrellaMan wrote:
High School Bum wrote:
My shoes last 1200+ miles, and I get them for $40. It doesn't need to be super expensive.
What shoes are you wearing?
I wear the Saucony Cohesions
The whole carbon-plate craze, love ‘em or hate ‘em, has been the catalyst sought by shoe companies for recalibration of runners’ spending thresholds.
UmbrellaMan wrote:
Here's a scenario. A guy averages 100mpw for a year and gets about 500 miles out of a pair of shoes. If a pair of shoes cost $100 this guy is going to spend $1,000 a year just on training shoes! Not to mention the shoes needed for racing and other expenses.
You can try to get clearance shoes or last year's model and sometimes that brings the cost down but I can't imagine someone who runs a lot being able to spend less than $500 a year on shoes. There has to be a better way to buy shoes!
From my personal experience, Puma shoes are underrated for long distance training(not racing). I bought Puma Ignite 2018 model which is discontinued now for £40 and they are the best out of Nike, Adidas, Hoka, Reebok. I got 600 miles out of it and i really kicked myself for not buying atleast another 2-3 pairs before they went out of stock everywhere. By the way i'm in UK where prices are more expensive than US.
I don't buy that you NEED to replace your shoes every 500 miles. Use 'em til they fall apart!
high school bum1 wrote:
UmbrellaMan wrote:
What shoes are you wearing?
I wear the Saucony Cohesions
I’m running in circa 2013/2014 adidas adios. I have 4 pairs in the rotation. Each have about 1500 miles on them by now. I just retired the red 2011 adios and the yellow ones from 2012. Those got to 2000+ miles.
I run in a pair and once it starts to feel “old” I switch out to another for a different feel.
I do 25 to 30 mpw, mostly treadmill running.
I obviously don’t buy into the shoe company advise of replacing after 500 miles. That’s like trading in your car every 2 years for a new one
high school bum1 wrote:
UmbrellaMan wrote:
What shoes are you wearing?
I wear the Saucony Cohesions
I've done the same with the Nike Pegasus. As someone else already mentioned, you can usually find them pretty cheap at a Nike outlet.
I've paid more than $100 for two pairs of shoes in the 10 years I've been running. The first time was for my first pair of Hoka Clifton 3s (the 3) which I squeezed 600 miles out of. The second time was for the Vaporfly Next%s I bought for my fall marathon, which are currently sitting in a box, and which I will probably return, because I object to $250 super shoes for multiple reasons :)
Just Another wrote:
The second time was for the Vaporfly Next%s I bought for my fall marathon, which are currently sitting in a box, and which I will probably return, because I object to $250 super shoes for multiple reasons :)
I understand your concerns. Have you tried the vaporfly's out on a treadmill. Be honest, now. Do you think they really provide a noticeable mechanical advantage?
SuicidePace wrote:
If $1000/yr is too much for you to spend on something your willing to dedicate the time to do 100mpw then re-evaluating priorities should be in order. If you could run 15hrs/wk but don't have enough money for shoes, then maybe run less and work more.
This is my favorite response of the group, further bolstered by those who pointed out that you should be able to stretch shoes more than 500 miles/get shoes for less than $100.
spade detector wrote:
SuicidePace wrote:
If $1000/yr is too much for you to spend on something your willing to dedicate the time to do 100mpw then re-evaluating priorities should be in order. If you could run 15hrs/wk but don't have enough money for shoes, then maybe run less and work more.
This is my favorite response of the group, further bolstered by those who pointed out that you should be able to stretch shoes more than 500 miles/get shoes for less than $100.
My first post was just an example. Some shoes last longer than 500 miles and some shoes cost less than $100. I've worn some shoes to 800 miles and they cost around $80. I got a pair of Skechers for $35 and they are doing quite well.
I think that there could be a better way to sell shoes to people who are consistently running high mileage.
Another poster said that I should try and work out a deal with the guy who owns the local running store. That seems like a good plan, he gets consistent business from me and doesn't have to worry about me going online to buy shoes.
WhyRegisterHere? wrote:
Apparently shoes didn't exist before capitalism. Capitalism is a beast that must be aggressively bridled through regulation and even more aggressive taxation.
Lol. You think taxing and regulating the shoe industry more heavily will result in cheaper shoes.
It is pretty easy to cut that $1000 in half if you look hard to find high value shoes. There are plenty of good options out there:
- Rotate shoes should be able to stretch from 500-600 miles
- Find old models on sale for $50-$60 that you can get 600 miles on
- Find older models with better durability (TPU foam + plenty of rubber) for $100. I put 1000 miles on Saucony Freedoms and they still felt pretty good. I'm 160 lbs for reference. Below are a couple shoes that fit the bill:
- Saucoy Freedom ISO 2 - $90 - 1,000+ miles
- Lots of Adidas shoes with Boost - $80-$160 - 1,000+ miles
UmbrellaMan wrote:
spade detector wrote:
This is my favorite response of the group, further bolstered by those who pointed out that you should be able to stretch shoes more than 500 miles/get shoes for less than $100.
My first post was just an example. Some shoes last longer than 500 miles and some shoes cost less than $100. I've worn some shoes to 800 miles and they cost around $80. I got a pair of Skechers for $35 and they are doing quite well.
I think that there could be a better way to sell shoes to people who are consistently running high mileage.
Another poster said that I should try and work out a deal with the guy who owns the local running store. That seems like a good plan, he gets consistent business from me and doesn't have to worry about me going online to buy shoes.
And the point is that once you apply those tactics to get it down to 600, 700, 800 dollars a year or whatever it is, that is something you should be able to afford for an activity that you spend over 500 hours a year doing.
UmbrellaMan wrote:
High School Bum wrote:
My shoes last 1200+ miles, and I get them for $40. It doesn't need to be super expensive.
What shoes are you wearing?
Saucony Cohesions
Consider more hiking and less running if you are over age 50.
"Hiking boots of solid construction will carry you for at least 600–700 miles, generally maxing out at 1,000."
spade detector wrote:
SuicidePace wrote:
If $1000/yr is too much for you to spend on something your willing to dedicate the time to do 100mpw then re-evaluating priorities should be in order. If you could run 15hrs/wk but don't have enough money for shoes, then maybe run less and work more.
This is my favorite response of the group, further bolstered by those who pointed out that you should be able to stretch shoes more than 500 miles/get shoes for less than $100.
Why? If it turns out that shoes can last longer than 500 miles or cost less than $100 why would you not want to know that and act on it? Do you actually want to pay more for shoes than you need to?
Just for fun I sat down and figured out all the running shoes I've ever had. Turns out the number is 28. I just hit the 70,000 mile mark last year. Before listing them all I guessed my shoes average 2100 miles per pair. The actual number is 2500 to my surprise and all but one pair I paid less than $100 and that was for my Adidas Boston 7; my 2nd pair was <$100. When I first started running I decided to train for a quiet step; maybe that's the key-touch down lightly. Thru the years: gymnastic shoes-1(barefoot running was banned in races in HS), Tiger Marathons-4, Adidas Gazelles -1, Etonic Reactions -2, Turntec -1, Asics-6, Brooks Radius-1, Adidas Supernova -1, Adidas Bostons-6, New Balance -1, Altra Torin-1, Saucony Peregrin(trails only)-2, Brooks Hyperion-1(5k only).