The general rule is replace your trainers every 400 miles, though some may need to replace sooner and others much later (I've heard of 1000 miles/pair before). However, what if you do workouts in flats, like threshold runs, intervals, etc? Or how about if you run in flats all the time? How many miles to a pair?
if you run in flats all the time you still get the same number of miles for every pair of trainers, it just takes longer to accumulate them.
You replace shoes after 400 miles? Have you heard that the earth has limited resources?
I recommend putting 400 or so miles on your trainers, throw them through the washing machine, then sell them on Ebay. You can get $30 or so usually.
idea read... and taken. Brilliant.
I usually go 450-500 on a pair of trainers. As to the flats I think it depends largely on what kind of running you are doing in the flat and what kind of flat it is. I usually go 250ish on flats I use for workouts. You're not getting much support from flats anyway, so if you have good feet and no injury you could basically run them until they fall apart.
Lots of running stores have recycling bins for old shoes. Maybe the OP makes use of those.
oh dear wrote:
You replace shoes after 400 miles? Have you heard that the earth has limited resources?
Easily over 1,000. I've often gone over 2,000.
College Student here - buying a new pair of shoes every 400 miles would be too expensive for me.
you can get more if you alternate 2 or 3 pairs of shoes.
I train in flats and replace them roughly every 1000 miles or so - or when they fall apart (often happens before 1k miles)
I too run in flats. I reckon I get 1000-1500M on a good pair, but that will include a resole. Currently counting the miles on a pair of Asics Piranhas so I know exactly how many miles they last for (expensive shoes - want to make sure they are value for money). Done over 500M and not close to resoling yet...
Flats very pretty widely. It all depends on what type of flats they are and how you are using them i.e. speed, terrain, your weight etc. I would also point out that the reason people usually adopt a 400 mile rule with trainers is to avoid injuries. My friend religiously threw out trainers at 400 miles and he stopped getting injuries, I however would often take his old shoes and put another 400-600 miles on them. I just never had a problem with high mileage shoes but everyones body is different. If you are worried about getting injured then i would not recommend doing your work outs in flats in the first place. If injures are not a huge worry for you then try to get away from a strict mile count philosophy, just pay attention to when your feet and legs start hurting you.
some crazy runner guy wrote:
If you are worried about getting injured then i would not recommend doing your work outs in flats in the first place.
I'd say the opposite. Switching all my miles to flats helped prevent injuries - just need to be patient.
Pantman wrote:
some crazy runner guy wrote:If you are worried about getting injured then i would not recommend doing your work outs in flats in the first place.
I'd say the opposite. Switching all my miles to flats helped prevent injuries - just need to be patient.
I think we are confusing terms because everyone calls shoes be different names. Here are defs i was using for this discussion based on what the original poster called them.
Trainers: normal running shoes meant for daily runs not lighter or spiked. Usually heavy and designed pounding out miles.
Flats: Lighter racing shoes that usually have cushioning tailored to the race i.e. more cushion for marathon less for XC etc. Usually made with light weight materials and built with minimal comfort for racing. Often used for fast training sessions or intervals.
No, we are using the same terms. And I mean the ligher variants of flats not the ones with extra "cushioning tailored to the race".
Switching trainers every 400 miles is just ridiculous. I would almost 10 pairs a year if I did this. (Myself, I usually get a new pair every four months or so.) It's not that I can't afford it, but I just couldn't be bothered since they feel just fine right up to 1000 miles or so.
There is no reason that the shoe itself should require replacement so soon -- if the sole (or any other element) is worn that quickly, you need to try another shoe.
And if injury risk is your concern, you may need to face facts and admit that your weight, form, etc just don't allow you to run as much mileage as you'd like in lightweight trainers and flats.
I know so many 150+ pound runners who want to do all of their training in minimal shoes. Face it, you're not built like Geb, Hall or Ritz and you don't run like them either. Embrace the cush. (BTW, I myself am really light and have great form, so I do all of my training in minimal shoes.)
some crazy runner guy wrote:
I would also point out that the reason people usually adopt a 400 mile rule with trainers is to avoid injuries. My friend religiously threw out trainers at 400 miles and he stopped getting injuries...
I have one achilles that acts up from time to time if I'm not careful. The two times it got really bad (4+ weeks off of running) were the times I was putting just over 400 miles on my shoes. I was actually going to switch shoes at the end of the week, but I never got there.
As for flats, I feel great in them at all paces. My lower legs actually feel stronger after running a few workouts in them, and the year I did all my workouts in spikes or flats I had almost no injuries at all. It's also helping me to land more midfoot (I have always been a terrible heal striker). I'm very hesitant to adopt a fully minimalist running style, at least at the present time, but barefoot running and flats/spikes definitely have their place.
I can see it both ways. On one hand, flats are built lighter and would thus wear out sooner. On the other hand, flats aren't really about support anyway, so it doesn't matter if they wear out (as long as they're not falling apart). I can get flats/spikes online for $20, so if I could run in them instead of $80 trainers, I could save quite a bit of money, not to mention the benefit in biomechanics. ...
Midwestern wrote:
Switching trainers every 400 miles is just ridiculous...
There is no reason that the shoe itself should require replacement so soon
Two common reasons.
(1) If you don't alternate them and run in a wet climate too often without them drying out, they can start to stink of mould. Office colleagues and family members complain!
(2) a younger, sexier model presents itself in a sale and you rationalise yourself into upgrading ;-)
For sheer wear and tear, I can easily get 600-1000 out of a pair of Pegasus, and I'm a fat bastard.