Long Lasting Shoes???

I was wondering if anyone has had any luck finding running shoes that are long lasting. I've heard of a Brynmar Running Company guy who got 1,000 miles out of a pair of Nike Shocks. Someone else told me they got as much out of Asics Konas.

I normaly spend about $65 on shoes and get maybe 400 miles out of them. I don't need fancy gimicks so I don't want to fork out the cash unless I'm getting more miles out of them.

-Barry

PS - I'm not looking for beginner advice. I'd prefer to hear from well seasoned competetive runners/coaches.

Thanks.

You probably won't find what you're looking for. There are more than a few runners on this board who get 1000+ miles out of house slippers.

it sounds like the problems isnt your shoes, its that youre too inefficient.

i ran 1200 miles in my adidas a3's... i wouldnt recommend it to injury-prone people though

shoes.. wrote:

it sounds like the problems isnt your shoes, its that youre too inefficient.

***********

I find it hard to believe that you can figure that out from what I wrote....though I won't rule it out as a possibility.

I defintely wear through shoes faster than some of my peers, however I weigh 160 which is 20 to 30 lbs heavier than most runners of my calibur (15 to 16 for 5K). I'm also generaly considered to be a very efficient runner, though I am injury prone....mainly due to some rotation between my shin and theigh.

Anyway, that veers away from the point. Even if I suck, the question still remains are there shoes that people have had experience with longevity?

It's likely not a question of longevity, but comfort. I once ran 800 miles on a pair of shoes. I now opt out and buy a pair after about 500 miles. I don't spend that much money on shoes, which is why it doesn't bother me.

If you're light, you can get away doing strange things until you hurt.

i used to get people coming into my store all the time looking for the longest lasting pair of shoes out there. you should be getting more than 400 miles out of shoes, but if you go for durability, you're going to sacrifice comfort. there's no other way to cut it. that being said, look to clunkers with a polyurathene midsole, like the beast, the shadow, etc. but you're better off alternating between two pair of good shoes and replacing them when you see signs of compression set.

nearly forgot. the rearfoot on the shox will take a hell of a beating, but the forefoot is still phylon, so it will break down at a normal rate. a lot of people see the double lasted construction found on some shox and think there is no phylon there; this is not true. and whatever you do, no matter what, do not buy the shox TL model. you'd be better off running with cinderblocks strapped to your feet.

I've taken two seperate pairs of New Balance 752's past 500 miles w/o getting hurt. I know this isn't uncommon, but I thought I'd list a long lasting shoe that I use.

Thanks for the advice. I've worn clunkers before and hated them. I'll try alternating shoes.....which I know I should have been doing all along but...well....I'm never thrilled about unloading $130 out of my wallet all at once.

yeah, but you more than double the amount of time in between shoe buying. you actually save more. and depending on where you go, you might ask for a 10-15% discount for buying two at once. just be nice.

I would love to hear some answers to those questions as well! Are there any shoe reps that read this board which have anything helpful to bring to this topic besides the same old BS that has permiated the ads and running shoe stores?

Very interesting. Your philosophy is actualy pretty consistent with some books I've been reading....though they talk more about proper posture and healthy life style...etc.

So, are you suggesting training in racing flats???

I may actualy try a few runs in racers.

Regular shoes put your feet in awkward positions and inhibit natural motion. True racing flats are definitely better, as thinner midsoles, lower heels and less pitch from heel to toe keep offer the feet less interference than normal shoes.

The difference is that most in the business see shoes as offering protection and support, whereas I see that as offering interference.

Years and years ago I remember reading a book from Galloway (before the walking break era) and on the front was a picture of a foot in an old pair of Asics with virtualy no sole. At the time I was a teen and was getting into all the corrective shoe science behind shoes built for "over pronators," "under pronators," etc. I found it very odd that he was running in virtualy nothing.

I saw another post that you put up about NB900's. Does this mean that *you* don't train in flats? Do you seriously know serious runners who do?

I run in the H Street

http://www.zappos.com/n/p/p/7163808.html

, the Maxcat Street

http://www.shop-british.co.uk/catalogue/kays/kays-catalogue_1653.html

and the NB 240

http://www.zappos.com/n/p/p/7138368.html

.

I know lots of people who train in shoes like me.

Thanks for the links.

Gotta go. It's football time and I live in Philly!

Trackhead

good topic and conversation here. I agree with much of what you are saying. "Back in the day", I learned to sell running shoes by giving the person the "least of what they need". Of course, this means the least amount of cushioning, and stability. In many stores today, I note that the "selling philosophy" is "more is better".

Stil, I would be careful putting just "anyone" in a minimal shoe. The average fitness runner today is probably not going to be ready, or conditioned for such a minimal shoe. We have to remember that the adaptation process for running takes time...this is even more challenging when the person has not been active on a regular basis, and perhaps carrying excess weight...Same thing here with heel heights.

No question the foot was designed to cushion, flex, adapt, etc. Still, the foot is not made to handle many of today's added variables...such as excess mass on the your frame, the training environment (concrete, pavement, hard surfaces, etc.), lack of conditioning, heel's, etc.

I believe you are on target with your main point regarding "too much" in many running shoes. (cushioning/stability). As you are aware, the average person on this board is not the average person buying shoes at the local specialty shop. Finally, as I get older, and more "banged up" from all the pounding on hard surfaces, my needs have changed regarding cushioning. I am now more sensitive to hard surfaces, especially concrete. Now I look to train even more on soft surfaces, including treadmills....this also helps me decide on my own shoe choice for the day. Like many, I use softer shoes for easy runs on hard surfaces.

Don't worry though, the shoe industry will keep making lots of "fun" shoes (racing flats, spikes, etc.) for you to train and race in....

Mike

Mike,

I agree that most of the people that come through the door aren't in line for minimal shoes. I would usually bring out the 900 along with the regular shoes, watch them run in it to make sure that all was well and then let them decide. More often than not, it won out.

Mind you, there are lots of people for whom I wouldn't grab a 900. I always brought it out, however, for any performance athlete, high schooler or anyone that had some problems that I felt were associated with high heels.

In the short time that it's been out, it's done very well.

Although, I will add that since NB has, in my opinion, gone in the wrong direction, you may be pleased to know that the best option that I'll recommend from Feb. on is the new Supernova Comp. We're bringing in full mens and womens runs and hope that it can take over where the 900 will leave off.

I bought the Air Max Moto that nike makes. Very neutral, long lasting shoe. I still run on them (only until Outdoor track starts), and i have easily run well over 1,000 miles in them. Great shoe!