Number of miles before a shoe goes bad?

Arthur Newton would run +4000 miles on his shoes - basically until they were trashed.

Shoes can be worn on opposite feet, well past "recommended" mileage, with no adverse effects. don't believe me? Try it. I did - nothing happened. It feels odd, but no injuries result.

Shoe companies are in the business of selling shoes. So they will tell you to replace your shoes, and pull popular lines to encourage hoarding. Their shareholders expect nothing less, especially from a sport such as running where the average spend/customer is at the low end of the range.

800 might be a bit much, it depends on quality of shoe and your size and stride. i was using mine to 500 about. If you get injured easily i would suggest asking the employee at a running store and follow their guidelines.

I always get at least 1,000, commonly get 1,500 and occasionally 2,000. It's not the shoe so much as the runner and what kind of stress they place on the shoe. I am lucky enough not to put much twist on my shoes and they wear evenly, not everyone is so fortunate.

A very good physio told me that after about 300 miles, the midsole will be compressed by about 50pc, so after that you're walking the line in terms of injury, of course, not everyone is made of money. I go 400-500 normally.

Put 2500 on my last pair of mizunos and about 3k on my brooks axoims before that. no injury problems and a 3:46 1500 to boot.

1200, but by then I have worn through the rubber on the bottom in 2 places.

Over 9000.

Off the Grid wrote:

Arthur Newton would run +4000 miles on his shoes - basically until they were trashed.

Shoes can be worn on opposite feet, well past "recommended" mileage, with no adverse effects. don't believe me? Try it. I did - nothing happened. It feels odd, but no injuries result.

Shoe companies are in the business of selling shoes. So they will tell you to replace your shoes, and pull popular lines to encourage hoarding. Their shareholders expect nothing less, especially from a sport such as running where the average spend/customer is at the low end of the range.

Well, it looks like someone read Born to Run.

lol

I occasionally get injured wearing my shoes normally. Now I know to wear them on opposite feet. Thanks, problem solved.

dictionpy wrote:

A very good physio told me that after about 300 miles, the midsole will be compressed by about 50pc, so after that you're walking the line in terms of injury, of course, not everyone is made of money. I go 400-500 normally.

This is (just my opinion, now) more myth than reality. Way back in the early days of EVA maybe but I just don't see this ever. I regularly get at least 800 miles out of shoes now. I've got one particular pair of lightweight Nike traainers with 1800 miles on them. I've also got a brand new pair, with almost no miles on them. The uppers on the 1800-mile pair have torn and split but the midsole is just fine. When I put on the new pair pair the difference is minimal. I regularly notice this.

Not to say there isn't a difference but it sure as hell isn't 50%. More like 10-20% tops.

I've mentioned this before but it bears repeating: A lot of the wearing you experience is likely on the OUTSOLE, not the midsole. You can't always see how much the outsole has worn unless you compare it with a brand new pair. A tube of Shoe Goo will prevent that. When the shoe is new, apply it liberally to the parts of the outsole that wear. Re-apply every 10-20 runs. You will likely dramatically extend the life of your shoes.

I've always went with 500-750.

I wear the asics 21 series and by 500 miles they feel like shit.

For most the runners the average is 300-500 miles. Depends on the size of the runner, the surface they run on, even weather conditions they run in. All have an effect on the life of a running shoe.

I think Average_Joe is basically right. It depends on things like: 1) how heavy you are and how much force you put on the shoes; 2) how well you treat them; 3) how much you wear them other than for running; 4) the make and purpose (i.e., racing, training, speed work); how robust your running is (i.e., are you easily injured, etc.). Cold also plays a role, it seems with shoes feeling harder in very cold weather (i.e., typical weather for months in the upper midwest).

I tend to wear use a couple of pair at the same time, with the motions and excesses of one shoe not being exactly the same as another and making me less vulnerable (plus Movin' Shoes gives a discount for buying two).

"it seems with shoes feeling harder in very cold weather (i.e., typical weather for months in the upper midwest)"

So, you're saying that we in the upper midwest still have very cold weather? Seems odd that the global warming crazies think that we are on our way to devastation, doesn't it?

I've been running in the Asics 2100 series and Brooks Adreneline Series for the last two years. I use to go until my knees started to hurt. I have no idea how long that is. But on these two I go 500-800. I only went in the 800's once and it was because I was being cheap and didn't want to buy knew ones. I usually start bringing in new ones around 300-400 miles on old shoes.

I agree with you and this is what I don't understand about the minimalist - barefoot movement. I have worn all of the traditional brands and when the midsoles breakdown (which tends to be around 500 miles) I can feel my back ache, my knees hurt and my legs feel dead. Once I get a new pair all the pains go away and my legs feel fresh again. In college I recovered from a stress fracture of the femur but when my shoes got too worn down I would start to feel it again. One time I thought I went too long and was sure I had another stress fracture. I then went out and bought a new pair of my favorite shoe at the time the Asics Epirus and was running pain free again. Seems like this "born free" stuff is more of an anti-establishment, anti-big business stand than anything else. Oh, and I think the guy gets paid when his book sells too.

uh yuck wrote:

"it seems with shoes feeling harder in very cold weather (i.e., typical weather for months in the upper midwest)"

So, you're saying that we in the upper midwest still have very cold weather? Seems odd that the global warming crazies think that we are on our way to devastation, doesn't it?

What an appropriate addition to the thread.

Thanks, really. You are quite intelligent.