What the heck happened to running shoes?!

If you could find shoes you liked just a few years ago you can find shoes you like today. You will however have to ditch old models.

OP has a point. Products are often intentionally 'junked' after pro forma income statements reveal gaps. It is a risky move, with either increased revenue from more purchases or lost loyalty from frustration as the result. In my experience, basic Brooks sneakers, like the Heritage, have withstood abuse and time.

You may want to try adidas trainers. They're gaudy and expensive af, but I've gotten ~900 miles out of my pair.

How much do you spend on shoes? I spend no more than $50 per pair. For lightweight performance trainers, I buy New Balance Zantes on sale for under $50 (after discount). For trainers, I buy the ugly older model Brooks Ravennas for a similar price. You can get these at runningwarehouse.com on sale, with free shipping and no taxes. Be sure to find a 15% discount code. My club gets one, but I think there are many codes out there you could find.

That won't fix your durability issue, but it won't sting as much to buy a crap load of shoes. FWIW, I get more than 400 miles out of both of those models.

I bet they purposely make the shoes break down easily, so people spend more money and buy new ones more frequently. And I'm not kidding. Many products are designed with that in mind. They also have to come out with new models every 6 months (even though 99% the same as the last), so people will buy those too. It's all a marketing ploy for more $$$. My mom used to work at a vacuum place. She would show off the model vacuum, which was immaculately designed to be great and last forever. But the ones sold in store (supposedly the same as the model one) would be designed with imperfections, and breakdown easier/not be as efficient. Marketing ploys are everywhere.

I was running in a pair of Brooks Launch 2s and was surprised at how quickly the tread wore down. I'm talking like 225-250 miles, and they were bald on the ball of my foot. I'm not a big guy either - 155 lbs., soaking wet.

This is my first time getting back into running after college, some 10 years later, so maybe I'm just mis-remembering how many miles I could get on a pair of trainers. Regardless, I wasn't expecting to be buying a new pair of shoes so soon.

I typically get between 400-1000 on my Nikes. They wear down, but still work great.

Launch wearer wrote:

I was running in a pair of Brooks Launch 2s and was surprised at how quickly the tread wore down. I'm talking like 225-250 miles, and they were bald on the ball of my foot. I'm not a big guy either - 155 lbs., soaking wet.

This is my first time getting back into running after college, some 10 years later, so maybe I'm just mis-remembering how many miles I could get on a pair of trainers. Regardless, I wasn't expecting to be buying a new pair of shoes so soon.

I wear the Launch too. You should be able to get 400-500 miles on them, more if you're adventurous. Maybe you just got a dud pair.

fellow cheapskate wrote:

How much do you spend on shoes? I spend no more than $50 per pair. For lightweight performance trainers, I buy New Balance Zantes on sale for under $50 (after discount). For trainers, I buy the ugly older model Brooks Ravennas for a similar price. You can get these at runningwarehouse.com on sale, with free shipping and no taxes. Be sure to find a 15% discount code. My club gets one, but I think there are many codes out there you could find.

That won't fix your durability issue, but it won't sting as much to buy a crap load of shoes. FWIW, I get more than 400 miles out of both of those models.

This^ and when done with them, resell them on ebay with the original box. The shoes almost always look nice. After all, if used exclusively for running, they likely have less than 60 hours of wear in them. That usually nets a return of $10-15 and now you are knocking on the door of paying $35-40 per pair or 8 cents per mile.

Try Adidas. I'm surprised by how well the the thin strip of tread slapped under the Boost material holds up. My current Supernova Glide Boost 7s are a year old and have run 2 marathons, several half marathons and most of my training miles thru rain, snow and summer heat and there are still in great shape. Not much visible wear on the tread at all. I also use a pair of year and a half old Adios Boost. The tread on those are still good, but mesh upper is not as durable as the upper on the Supernova and my toe is starting to wear thru on the Adios.

After "Born to run" lighter shoes became all the rage. If a new shoe weighs more than 9oz (US9) or so, you immediately begin to read negative comments in reviews and in the comments on places like Runningwarehouse.com comments field. Problem is you can´t have it both ways: lighter and more durable shoes.

Just lose like 20 pounds. The shoes will last longer.

Who Dat? wrote:

Launch wearer wrote:

I was running in a pair of Brooks Launch 2s and was surprised at how quickly the tread wore down. I'm talking like 225-250 miles, and they were bald on the ball of my foot. I'm not a big guy either - 155 lbs., soaking wet.

This is my first time getting back into running after college, some 10 years later, so maybe I'm just mis-remembering how many miles I could get on a pair of trainers. Regardless, I wasn't expecting to be buying a new pair of shoes so soon.

I wear the Launch too. You should be able to get 400-500 miles on them, more if you're adventurous. Maybe you just got a dud pair.

That could be. It was my first pair of them, and I really, really liked them, but for that issue. Thanks for chiming in...I might give them another shot now.

I would consider giving them another shot. I think the Launch is one of the better neutral cushioned trainers around. Brooks is onto the Launch 3 now. The original is still the best. If you ever see a cheap pair of the original Launch in your size pick up a pair. I think the original launch is the lightest and most flexible and responsive version but 2 and 3 are good too.

Launch wearer wrote:

Who Dat? wrote:

I wear the Launch too. You should be able to get 400-500 miles on them, more if you're adventurous. Maybe you just got a dud pair.

That could be. It was my first pair of them, and I really, really liked them, but for that issue. Thanks for chiming in...I might give them another shot now.

MEL Rnr wrote:

Try Adidas. I'm surprised by how well the the thin strip of tread slapped under the Boost material holds up. My current Supernova Glide Boost 7s are a year old and have run 2 marathons, several half marathons and most of my training miles thru rain, snow and summer heat and there are still in great shape. Not much visible wear on the tread at all. I also use a pair of year and a half old Adios Boost. The tread on those are still good, but mesh upper is not as durable as the upper on the Supernova and my toe is starting to wear thru on the Adios.

100% agree about the Supernova Glide Boosts . I was rotating two pairs I got in December 2015 and they lasted until early this November. I was probably averaging around 80-90 miles a week in them, too! They're great shoes and are very durable.

I just got about 900 miles out of a pair of Saucony Guides and the Triumphs have always been as tough or even tougher. I do a fair amount of running on grass and cinder but the Triumphs spend most of their life on the roads (as I use them for long runs) and hold up very well.

billburr wrote:

I guess it's okay if you're a millionaire and can afford to change shoes every three months, but that's not me. Have a nice run!

3 months should be 900 miles. Are you saying you can't afford to run 900 miles?

Don't understand 400mi/pair. Say wah? Thats a pair a month if you are taking it seriously. When I was student weight, I rarely got less than 1500 and got over 2K once or twice. It's true, todays shoes are I think a bit less durable - improvement stalled sometime in the mid '80's - but what the hell are you guys doing to get through them so fast?! For the record, I do best with ASICS, go out about every other day, and typically get a pair a year.

...and yes back in the day my training diary (still got 'em) had a sepatate column for shoes worn, and I was cheap/obsessive about shoe longevity.