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

I find that by buying a new pair of shoes every four months (January, May, and September) I've kept my knees and hips in fairly good shape.

I'm 5'7", 130lb and almost 50 and still average 150 miles per month, mostly on asphalt. I've bought thousands of dollars worth of asics GT, gel-lyte, 2010, and now Nimbus series shoes over the years, many times buying the exact same model. These may not be the best or cheapest shoes but for me they have worked best.

After buying a new pair, my current "new" pair become my backup shoes, and my current "backup" pair become my rain/mud-day shoes. My current "rain/mud-day" shoes become my grass-cutting shoes.

I use a fine-pt. sharpie to write the day I buy the new shoes, where I bought them, and price on the inside of the shoe, near the heal under the sockliner. On the outside of the shoe, on the EVA near the inner toe I use the sharpie to draw a slash. Backup pair gets two slashes, rain/mud-day shoes get three slashes. Grass-cutters get a diagonal line through the other three slashes. This helps at 5am when your digging for that pair and the shoes all look alike.

I know that buying a pair of shoes every four months gives me around 600 miles per pair which works for me.

Rule of thumb - do whatever the shoe companies, running store merchants, and message board posters tell you to do or you may get injured. And that would suck. This is not just propaganda. Decades of meticulously compiled anecdotal evidence has gone into this mileage range calculation. Running is dangerous and important things like shoe mileage recommendations should not be trifled with.

Decades of meticulously compiled anecdotal evidence has gone into this mileage range calculation

Watch it kid, you might cut yourself on all that edge.

I once sold running shoes retail.

My take has always been replace them when you think they need replacing. I have had shoes that needed replacing after a couple of hundred miles and others that last well over 500 miles.

But I would guess most people need to replace them in that range thus the number.

And that's true why? Because you say so? Any evidence to back that up? I'll spare you the trouble, there isn't any.

'Survived'? Really? I've not only survived it, I've become faster and enjoy my running more than I used to. My biomechanics are sorta okay, nothing special really, and I know quite a lot of other barefoot style runners in all shapes and sizes (and ages and mileages) who have all been doing great for quit some years now.

That's not proof, that's just anecdotal. I've never been injured much myself, but I know of plenty of runners who used to be injured quite a lot and are injured hardly ever since changing their running style. And yes, that's all anecdotal too, so let's get back to the evidence: there isn't any.

Fair enough, injuries will never be a thing of the past, because people will always go to the edge and beyond of their abilities. The better feedback of my uncushioned shoes and my running form however alert me when I reach that edge, so I can handle accordingly.

And yeah, records are faster now. If you really think that's because of 'better' shoes you are delusional. Swimmers have faster times than 50 years back. Yes, even if you exclude the short while that those faster suits were allowed. Is it because the pools are faster now? The water? Do they shave better?

Yes, people get better at things, in most sports and other activities. Better training, experience, knowledge, nutrition, etc. etc. are responsible for that. Oh and by the way, on average, marathon times have not gotten better the last decennia. Lot's a slow people nowadays running marathons.

And one more things, on what kind of shoes were all those fast records run? Nike Air Max? Aspics Gel Kayano's?

Why would I ever replace them? If they rip or fall off, yes, otherwise never. The more wear they have, the more flexible they are and the lighter they are. They get better with age. Unless you're one of those guys who thinks those motion control devices are doing anything other than destroying your feet and legs.

HardLoper wrote:

Cheap advise wrote:

Yup, they're just pushing product. I get between 1000 to 1500 miles per pair. I've gone up to 2000 miles on occasion.

So have I, but the cushioning is mostly worn out by 500 miles. If you don't really need the cushioning then you are fine.

This is the correct answer.

I work at a running store and agree that 300-500 miles is mostly sales bullshit. The only people getting less than 500 miles out of their shoes are bigger runners. So I usually tell the average runner to replace their shoes every 500 miles give or take a few hundred.

Personally, I have wore a pare of shoes over 2000 miles and tend to think that my shoe is better at 500 miles than at 50. That said my stride is smooth and developed, and I only weigh about 140-145 pounds.

After working at a running store for 4 months now, it is apparent that most people overthink their running shoes, so telling them they last 300-500 miles seems reasonable.

In fairness, this was a pretty obnoxious post. I was waiting for you to work in that vinyl has a warmer tone.But I agree with the content. I ran almost exclusively on NB Trail Minimuses for about 3 years. Got about a year out of each pair. The only reason I replace them is because I wore holes in the soles the size of quarters - which means they had holes the size of dimes, pennies, and nickels and I still wore them because I didn't even notice.Unfortunately the new ones look different and I do not like them ... so I may have to figure out how to patch some dead soldiers. Maybe harvest bits from the oldest and create some Frankensoles.

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!?

Coach Foo wrote:

The shoe companies don't make money off of you if you are injured.

Oddly, while this should be true, I'm not sure it is. It seems like the people I know who buy the most shoes, are also the ones who are always injured, don't seem to run ever, and frankly aren't a 'runner' in any meaningful sense other than how often they talk about running. They're always buying new shoes, they always say it's because they heard this new shoe will fix them and get them back into running, and it never works. I'm pretty sure they just like buying running shoes.

I wonder if running shoe buyers conform to a 'whale' model. [insert HJ joke here]

Ask The Ginger Runner on Youtube.