High mileage in budget shoes?

I used to marathon in NB minimus I got for about $30-40 usd no problem.

Every brand sells a low end shoe that is kinda clunky but totally fine to pound mileage in.

I ran about 4,300 miles in $39.9x MSRP Converse ABM-400s. Granted that was 31-32 years ago, so inflation make that more like $80-$85 in today's dollars.

I'm at 2,168 miles in my adidas Terrex Agravic Flows. The MSRP is $130, but I got them for $62 or $63 in 2019 straight from the adidas US website when it was a new model (with a coupon code that they provided right on the site). The deals on the adidas website have been stingier this year - the same shoe is currently selling for the $130 MSRP.

Adidas has sales constantly where you can pick up some of their best running shoes for around $50.

zzzz wrote:

...Granted that was 31-32 years ago...

I'm at 2,168 miles in my adidas Terrex Agravic Flows.

Respect. Question for you, what surface(s) are most of those miles being run on?

so far almost all of the responses are exactly what the OP asked you not to answer.

I'm interested too - I've noticed some Amazon shoes that are a fairly obvious Brooks Ghost ripoff, for $40 I've almost bought them several times, but always bail because I've been trained by Big Shoe to assume that they wouldn't actually work to run in.

Almost all the answers gave insight that you can purchase discounted shoes. YMMV, and a key point on longevity of a shoe is the amount of cushion that can unevenly deform, and the surfaces the shoes are being run on.

Cheers.

I recently went to the Nike outlet near me to get some discounted "top end" shoes. None were really discounted into my budget range. Then I saw a pair of Renew Run for ~$50 and I did a quick Google search for reviews. Found a link that suggested the midsole was lunarlon. I bought them thinking that they would suck, but they'd get the job done. I was wrong. Poor fitting upper, some rubbery heavy midsole, and a hard plasticy fast wearing outsole. Clunky is an understatement. Quite frankly, these are walking shoes and I made a mistake on purchase.

Most major running shoe brands sell budget models that do work at getting 500+ miles. They just aren't sexy. Expect straight EVA midsole and proprietary rubber outsole.

Nike Downshifter

Saucony Cohesion

Asics Gel Venture or Contend

crisscrosscountry wrote:

I always see on here how people get insane mileage out of their shoes and squeeze every cent out of a normal pair of $110-130 running shoes. But I'm curious if people do similar numbers in pairs of cheap shoes. And I'm not talkin' a pair of last year's top end models on clearance, we're talkin' $65 MSRP down to Payless/Walmart specials. Let's hear 'em!

Nothing new. We're not buying shoes for $110-130. I can usually find good shoes (last year's model typically) for $35-60. I got a pair of Kinvara 11's and Zante Pursuits each for $45 this year. The average price I paid per pair of shoes over my last 12 pairs is ~$60/pair, and that includes the fact that I did pay a full $160 for a pair of Endorphin Speed's.

Nutsack McGee wrote:

The average price I paid per pair of shoes over my last 12 pairs is ~$60/pair, and that includes the fact that I did pay a full $160 for a pair of Endorphin Speed's.

Good stuff. You consider old-school dense EVA is still the best midsole foam when it comes to withstanding compressive set? And how do you like those Endorphin Speeds? Is the Saucony pellatized Peba more durable than ZoomX?

hr measurement wrote:

Nutsack McGee wrote:

The average price I paid per pair of shoes over my last 12 pairs is ~$60/pair, and that includes the fact that I did pay a full $160 for a pair of Endorphin Speed's.

Good stuff. You consider old-school dense EVA is still the best midsole foam when it comes to withstanding compressive set? And how do you like those Endorphin Speeds? Is the Saucony pellatized Peba more durable than ZoomX?

hr measurement: you seem to know what you're talking about. what kind of midsole material do you consider to be superior for longevity and injury prevention?

I'm certainly not an expert. My last competitive stint was at least eight years ago, with a couple of short periods of running since then, which brings me to last May, when I started up again. Most of these new foams did not exist back when I took running seriously. I experienced shoe sticker-shock probably when I bought a 2nd generation Boost around the 2014(?) timeframe. Soon after I left the store, I was disappointed how thin the forefoot area was (I'm a forefoot/midfoot striker), and I did eventually develop pain in my left big toe metatarsal joint.

I've been using Skechers Speed 6's for reps on the track. I wanted to believe in the Hyperburst, particularly on price/point. I like their light weight, and have probably 50 miles on them, but I can stick my hand inside and feel a pretty good depression set right at the maximum toe-off point; some of that compressive set is probably in the thin, glued-in insole. Maybe mating a plate with hyperburst will better stabilize the foam, and better distribute the toe-off load. I have some Altra Vanish (4 oz flats) possessing what I think is denser EVA, but I haven't put too many miles in them, because the cushion and energy return of Hyperburst was noticeably greater.

And I have a pair of Kinvara's, still with low mileage, that I put on the back-burner after getting the faster (for me, primarily due to their light weight) Speed 6's.

With all of the hype the new high-stack plated shoes are getting, I was surprised to find out the 10k road world record was set this year by a guy wearing Adidas flats (not the newer high stack Adizero Adios Pro).

hr measurement wrote:

And I have a pair of Kinvara's, still with low mileage, that I put on the back-burner after getting the faster (for me, primarily due to their light weight) Speed 6's.

And I've acquired some other shoes, like the heavy NB 1080 trainers...but I was previously referring to shoes for racing. Nonetheless, maybe old-school dense EVA in a flat is workable for training, depending upon the surface. More cushion, I guess particularly at my age, is alluring, thus my interest in the Endorphin Speed's, and my question about their compressive durability.

hr measurement wrote:

zzzz wrote:

...Granted that was 31-32 years ago...

I'm at 2,168 miles in my adidas Terrex Agravic Flows.

Respect. Question for you, what surface(s) are most of those miles being run on?

Dirt trails>asphalt>snow>treadmill>rocky trails

A pair of $10 Athletic Works lightweight shoes from Walmart can last me 200-300 miles depending on weather.

A pair of $18 Avias can last a bit longer.

I've been racing or training in both types for the last 10 years.

Stoppit Smith wrote:

A pair of $10 Athletic Works lightweight shoes from Walmart can last me 200-300 miles depending on weather.

A pair of $18 Avias can last a bit longer.

I've been racing or training in both types for the last 10 years.

Now this is what I was looking for! None of this cookie cutter BS about getting a great deal on a quality pair of running shoes. It takes a real man to walk into a Walmart or Big 5 with nothing but a $20 bill.

Yep.

And the Athletic Works shoes are between 8.3-8.4 ounces for a size 12.

I recommend them and use them and do not nor have ever worked for Walmart or Athletic Works.