Anyone retire their shoes at 200 miles and get a fresh pair?

Obviously the shoe has a lot to do with it. I do all my running in flats since around 2001 (NB rc210 - rc240 back in the early days, then Adizero Pros, now in Takumi-Sens). Forefoot striker, about 140lbs. I get about 250-300 miles a pair. I'm sure if I ran in trainers I'd get about 500 miles.

not ferris bueller wrote:

Anyone? I know you can milk them, but after 200 miles, they feel flat.

At 199.5 miles I throw my shoes in my fireplace pour a gallon of gasoline over them then light and throw a match at them. But I have house insurance. Don't recommend trying this if you don't.

Nitwit Lion,

I had similar problems with my Nike Pegasus. But I'm a diabetic, and found out that I could purchase high quality diabetic insoles, and replace the Nike originals with those insoles, and the Pegasus were even better than new. That allows me to double, maybe even triple the running life of my Pegasus shoes.

I usually hit 65-70 per week and I'd say I normally put like 700ish on a pair before getting new ones. I usually just get new trainers every 3 months (that's how I usually measure it, I don't really think about how many miles I've put on them, but rather how long I've had em).

I use them until there are at least a few inches of the secondary layer showing through.

NB 1400 v4

I weigh 130 lbs, run ~55 mpw

on my 3rd pair, 1st have 500 miles on them, 2nd have 370, 3rd have about 60

I like to rotate in new pairs at about 300-350 miles

have also gotten 500-600 miles out of previous racing flats

In college I would get 750+ miles on my shoes. Now that I am in my 30s with more disposable income I switch them every 300 miles.

I switch my shorts out every mile so I can avoid injury via compromised lining.

Seriously if you guys are this dumb as consumers, then boy do I have some things to sell you.

Btw don't give me this crap about how you "have plenty of money" because people who truly build wealth don't buy shoes every month because the jogging store tells them to. They aren't that gullible.

100% true: most (not all) shoes loose about 40%-50% of the cushioning they had when new. The shoes may then wear out more slowly, but most shoes have significantly less shock absorption after about 100 miles. That may or may not bother you depending on your age, mileage, and conditions.

I rotate three pairs of training shoes, and I prefer to change them out at around 350 miles max. Lightweight shoes for racing will have much shorter lives than more cushioned training shoes. As a 50+ runner, I want to maintain good shock absorption for training. The legs and feet just don't handle the shock of road training like they did 10-15 years ago. Injury prevention is essential.

If you can't run for more than 350 miles in a pair of shoes without getting injured then you have much bigger problems.

Would you like to buy my magic beans? They cost a million dollars but wait until I tell you what they do...

i see two main groups here:

the 300-to-400-mile-max-its-only-money-anything-to-stay-healthy group

the 700-and-up-until-the-shoes-fall-apart-crowd

i was in the latter group for many years a few decades ago. i suspect that's the primary reason i'm in the former group now.

Dial it up wrote:

If you can't run for more than 350 miles in a pair of shoes without getting injured then you have much bigger problems.

Would you like to buy my magic beans? They cost a million dollars but wait until I tell you what they do...

I didn't say I get injured from wearing shoes past 350 miles. It's about prevention, and that's my choice. No need to wear worn-out shoes, or near worn-out shoes, as I don't, and I haven't been injured for 3 years. YMMV. One less thing to worry about.

dcwonk wrote:

Dial it up wrote:

If you can't run for more than 350 miles in a pair of shoes without getting injured then you have much bigger problems.

Would you like to buy my magic beans? They cost a million dollars but wait until I tell you what they do...

I didn't say I get injured from wearing shoes past 350 miles. It's about prevention, and that's my choice. No need to wear worn-out shoes, or near worn-out shoes, as I don't, and I haven't been injured for 3 years. YMMV. One less thing to worry about.

And that's cool, you do you. Now let's get back to those beans...

not from here anymore wrote:

i see two main groups here:

the 300-to-400-mile-max-its-only-money-anything-to-stay-healthy group

the 700-and-up-until-the-shoes-fall-apart-crowd

i was in the latter group for many years a few decades ago. i suspect that's the primary reason i'm in the former group now.

TV doc Bob Arnot once wrote the a big advantage of the older athlete is discretionary income. I switch shoes fairly quickly and donate the old shoes to a local homeless shelter.

I have been running for 48 years, 20+ miles per week now. I usually rotate 3 pairs of running shoes and use them for at least 3-4 YEARS. I used to track miles, and had as much as 3000 miles before retiring them. I do use shoe goo on the heels to keep them built up, but the shoes last a long time.

I have no problem with others changing their shoes as often as they feel is needed. But I'm in the other group of using them until they fall apart. My highest mileage pair was back in college when I had no money - it lasted 4,300 running miles, with maybe another 1500-2000 miles of wallking. I probably walked about 6 miles a day back then. That pair was a cheap pair of Converses bought at $40 full retail, so it cost only 2/3rds of one cent per mile.

Nowadays, I my shoes typically go 500 to 1800 miles per pair. Even if they start falling apart earlier, I try to hit at least 500 miles. If they are really deficient in quality, such as falling apart within two weeks, or cause pain, and I bought them from REI, I will return them without shame. Otherwise, usable shoes that don't work out for me get donated to Goodwill or the drop box at the local running store.

not from here anymore wrote:

i see two main groups here:

the 300-to-400-mile-max-its-only-money-anything-to-stay-healthy group

the 700-and-up-until-the-shoes-fall-apart-crowd

i was in the latter group for many years a few decades ago. i suspect that's the primary reason i'm in the former group now.

good summary

i'm on the same boat