Shoe Replacement - Is 300-500 Miles just Marketing Propaganda?

stinkky wrote:

The fetzer valves usually go bad after 426 miles

It's all ball bearings nowadays son

Boy am I happy that I don't have to waste time on this stuff.

I've been running 'barefoot style' (for lack of a better description) for many years now, without any problems, and non of my shoes have any cushioning to speak of at all.

So my shoes are worn out when there's holes in the soles or when the upper is torn. I couldn't care one bit how many miles I've logged on my shoes :-)

But hey, replace your super duper cushioned wonder shoes every 300 miles, have an extra pair to rotate them in order to give them some much needed rest between runs, and if you don't get to 300 miles within a year then replace them anyway because in time the cushioning starts degrading. Shoe companies, running stores and advertisements tell you so, so it's probably for your own good, right!?

There is zero evidence of any correlation between shoe mileage and rates of injury. Link me one study in the last 20 years that shows a link between shoes and injury.

I believe where the 500 miles comes from is that the average hobby jogger does about 10 miles per week and the shoe companies come out with new models once per year.

sredlums wrote:

Boy am I happy that I don't have to waste time on this stuff.

I've been running 'barefoot style' (for lack of a better description) for many years now, without any problems, and non of my shoes have any cushioning to speak of at all.

So my shoes are worn out when there's holes in the soles or when the upper is torn. I couldn't care one bit how many miles I've logged on my shoes :-)

But hey, replace your super duper cushioned wonder shoes every 300 miles, have an extra pair to rotate them in order to give them some much needed rest between runs, and if you don't get to 300 miles within a year then replace them anyway because in time the cushioning starts degrading. Shoe companies, running stores and advertisements tell you so, so it's probably for your own good, right!?

That's cool bro. Do you live in a tiny house, buy local and work on a community farm share too?

sredlums wrote:

Boy am I happy that I don't have to waste time on this stuff.

I've been running 'barefoot style' (for lack of a better description) for many years now, without any problems, and non of my shoes have any cushioning to speak of at all.

So my shoes are worn out when there's holes in the soles or when the upper is torn. I couldn't care one bit how many miles I've logged on my shoes :-)

But hey, replace your super duper cushioned wonder shoes every 300 miles, have an extra pair to rotate them in order to give them some much needed rest between runs, and if you don't get to 300 miles within a year then replace them anyway because in time the cushioning starts degrading. Shoe companies, running stores and advertisements tell you so, so it's probably for your own good, right!?

2010 called, they want their "barefoot running" fad back. Loser.

Yes, this is largely a marketing propaganda. If the shoes feel good and comfy when you try them on then they will last long and will get even better with time.

I usually run all my shoes until they disintegrate (unless they are bad from the start). I put in at least 200 miles before I risk to race with any shoes. I know that my shoes are close to the end of their life when the sole is starting to wear off, that's when you should start looking for new ones.

I am a big fan of Asics Gel-Hyperspeed 6. I've got like 3 pairs of them. It's a shame they are not producing them anymore, these were the best shoes I've ever run in. The first pair has survived around 1500 miles already and still counting. I am easing in second pair now for the spring half-marathon with 100 miles already in.

i don't think the answer will be the same for different shoes, different people, or even different times of the year.

i never retire shoes (solely) due too mileage. occasionally i explicitly get rid of them. usually they just get used less and less in rotation until i realize that i won't likely wear them again and get rid of them.

i retire shoes due to excessive sole wear, uppers wearing through or falling apart, foul stench, or when their runs leave me more aches/pains/niggles/dings than i want. injury prevention is #1.

that said, i usually end up in the 300-500 range, but it's a coincidence of the above.

312Runner wrote:

That's cool bro. Do you live in a tiny house, buy local and work on a community farm share too?

I have my own company in IT services, but I do live quite small and try to be considerate of what I buy. Why? Does it invalidate anything i said in any way?

If you don't need cushioning, you don't have to buy cushioned shoes so you don't have to wonder if the cushioning is still okay or not. It's as simple as that.

jimmy jack wrote:

2010 called, they want their "barefoot running" fad back. Loser.

Yawn. Who's the real loser here? The one who cares about 'fads' being 'over', who still makes '… called, they want their … back' jokes, who buys all the gimmicky shoes and replaces them many times because the company selling them tells him so, without ANY proof whatsoever that those gimmicks work, who calls someone else a loser without reason? Or the one who just says he's glad he doesn't have to think about this stuff, doen't care if something is a fad or not and is just happy he has been running carefree and without injuries for years?

Oh by the way, you do know that people have been running since the beginning without cushioning or 'correcting' stuff and that those 'modern running shoes' are the real fad, right? Shouldn't injuries have been a thing of the past by now, if those shoes worked as advertised?

There's a difference between barefoot running when you grow up without (or with very light) shoes on your feet and growing up in an era or country without cushioned shoes. In any first world country today, you will need a shoe with proper support. If you have survived barefoot running, you probably aren't running high mileage, and/or you're born with good biomechanics.

Proof that these "gimmicks" work? Well, I'm perfectly fine handling 80-90 mpw with proper footwear. Yet, I get hurt from wearing minimalist shoes in consecutive days.

Injuries will never be a thing of the past because people train/run incorrectly. However, records are much faster now than they were 50 years ago. That's awesome if barefoot works for you. However, for most people it's a terrible idea.

Sounds like they are engaging in misleading campaign of propoganda about shoe longevity just to sell more shoes.

Not really.

The shoe companies don't make money off of you if you are injured. Most runners are overweight, inefficient, middle aged, and run on concrete.

For this type of runner, shoes physically lose their protection after 300-500 miles.

HOWEVER, some people can get 1000+ out of their shoes. When I was 128 lbs, super efficient, and when I was running mostly on soft surfaces, I could squeeze way more life out of my shoes.

For the general public of hobby joggers, shoes need to be replaced. Many of them wear their shoes to go shopping and stuff too. This forces compression set on the EVA soles fairly quickly.

The shoe companies aren't "out to get you". If you "get got" then you deserved it for not thinking critically.

I agree with all of this. It also depends on the surface you run on, obviously. If you're doing a lot of running on dirt roads rather than pavement, your shoes will last a LOT longer. Lighter, more efficient runners don't need as much cushion, their muscles and tendons are more elastic (which gives them much better natural bounce and resistance to shock, and they don't land hard on the outside of their heels, where most heavier, less efficient runners do.

I also greatly depends on the materials used. As I've post on here several times, my Hoka One One Huakas are the best feeling shoes I've ever used, but they're good for about 300-350 miles on pavement because Hoka uses really cheap, crappy rubber in small patches on the outsoles. My Adidas Supernova Glide Boost, on the other hand, have about 500 mile on them, and the Goodyear Continental rubber outsoles could easily go another 500 or more because they show relatively little wear. Both the Hokas and the Adidas have great midsole materials (RMAT and Boost, respectively), so neither has noticeably lost any bounce or responsiveness. The uppers on both look great, with no holes or other breakdown.

Unless you're really on a very, very tight budget, though, why be cheap on yourself? You don't have to buy really expensive shoes, and last year's model is usually just as good as this year's model at a much lower price. Why not spoil yourself a little bit and just get some new shoes whenever you look at your old ones and start to wonder if you might like some new ones?

i don't care if it is myth or not. I replace when they fall apart or I get sick of em. 2000+ per shoe with no rotation is the norm.

it depends wrote:

i don't think the answer will be the same for different shoes, different people, or even different times of the year.

i never retire shoes (solely) due too mileage. occasionally i explicitly get rid of them. usually they just get used less and less in rotation until i realize that i won't likely wear them again and get rid of them.

i retire shoes due to excessive sole wear, uppers wearing through or falling apart, foul stench, or when their runs leave me more aches/pains/niggles/dings than i want. injury prevention is #1.

that said, i usually end up in the 300-500 range, but it's a coincidence of the above.

I am totally anonymous, so I have no reason to say this other than to add to the thread: 300 miles would be ~three weeks for me. I am not buying new shoes every three weeks. My shoes still look/smell fairly new after three weeks. I just looked at my calendar and I bought my current pair of Elite 8's on January 9th. I feel like that was just yesterday. I am looking at them now and besides for some mud from rainy runs over the past few days, they still look new. They feel new, too. My log says that these shoes have 312 miles on them.

How do you feel the need to replace shoes after 300 miles?

I find that when I "retire" shoes from running they become daily walk around shoes. Eventually when they get too ratty for that they become lawn mowing shoes/yard work shoes. At this point there is no cushioning and putting them on feels like a rock!

Then, the shoe recycling box at my gym. Turns them into playground surface material or something.

Anon For Sure wrote:

How do you feel the need to replace shoes after 300 miles?

Literally read his post.

Every runner is different. I used to be 128 lbs. Now I am 220 as a strength athlete.

I feel a shoe "running out" much quicker now, because of added weight and inefficiency compared to before.

I guess I am a slow hobby jogger (1000 to 1500 miles a year) for the past 35 years (30 halfs and 4 full marathons) but I have to change my shoes every 300 miles as my back and knees and feet start hurting more than usual and the soles are worn as the soles wear on one side. It seems I am always buying shoes even at that low of mileage and wish I could wear them longer and have tried and had a few get to 400 plus miles. I carried mail for 34 years and changed those work shoes every 4 months and I saw guys that had knee and back problems and wore shoes that were obviously wore out. If a person can afford new shoes, I think a new pair is cheap insurance against injury.

Anon For Sure wrote:

How do you feel the need to replace shoes after 300 miles?

i thought i was clear as to the why. when i was young, fast, and ran a lot of miles, many off road, i could get a lot more out of each pair.

now, in my 50s, a little heavier and a lot slower, in suburban hell with no off-road to speak of, with plenty of disposable income, i'd rather get rid of a pair than risk an injury (i've always been fragile, even when running 100mpw 30 years ago!)

my last 5 retirements, all of which i could have made go longer if money was an issue.

vomero 9. 400 miles. soles worn thin and started to leave me with aches and pains.

vomero 9. 260 miles. little wear. shoes felt flat and i hurt the day after each run towards the end. (disappointed in that i got 400 miles out of previous - same shoe!)

nimbus 15s. 400 miles. virtually no wear on the sole? collar wore through and was ruining my socks and skin on my ankles. if not for that, would still be in rotation and going strong.

vomero 10. 350 miles. probably too early, as they were doing ok. paranoia?

hoka clifton. 450 miles. upper was coming apart. sole inserts were starting to wear through. smelled too bad to bring in the house. plenty of cushioning left though! (and now hate the clifton 2)