Mileage limit for wearing running shoes = propaganda?

I've put close to 1300 miles on a pair of Mizuno Wave Revolver's with absolutely no running related problems/pains/etc... I ran in them until they literally fell apart. The "mileage limit" is a myth in my mind. I'm a D1 runner and most of my mileage is on the roads (75%) although we do get to some pretty soft stuff (trails/dirt roads) Plus speed sessions and track workouts. Knowing your limits will keep you healthy, but I say go for broke.

I think most of the time shoe companies are pretty conservative when they say "500 miles" is all a shoe is good for. Of course, that benefits the company as you have to buy more shoes, but in my experience, they are good for far, far longer than that. It is sort of like the oil companies telling you that the oil in your car needs to be changed every 3000 miles.

remind me of that when you're selling me your used car.

I've never seen a shoe company say that shoes need to be replaced after 300-500 miles, but specialty running stores and sources of "running axioms" like Runner's World.

I'd throw it in the same pile as the 10% rule, with good intentions but not superior to personal experience.

Some shoes feel like crap after 800 km, others still have bounce. I have a pair of shoes with close to 1000 km on them, and they feel more cushioned than my Saucony Jazz that have 200 km. I opted to do Sunday's 11 mile long run in the older shoes.

for instance the nike miler trainer shoes.

those are proably good for an average of 50km

My take on this is that it's a personal thing. I do believe that EVA is very sensitive to repeated compression and that a bigger athlete will get less mileage than a smaller one. I also believe that some materials used in the "old" shoes, like unblown rubber (no air bubbles) had almost unlimited durability because its resilience only changed after lots of aging, so minimalists, esp. those in retro shoes may get away with crazy volumes in a pair.

I would run for them for a month then pick up a new pair and leave them in the closet. Then when your shoes do start hurting you'll have a back up.

I easily put 1400 on a pair.

it has nothing to do with size (assuming no one is overweight) and everything to do with efficiency. If you had someone who was bigger, but no overweight, and ran barefoot everywhere they'd never need to change their feet.

jorvack wrote:

I would run for them for a month then pick up a new pair and leave them in the closet. Then when your shoes do start hurting you'll have a back up.

I easily put 1400 on a pair.

of Miler Trainers?

they damn sure wouldnt last that long here to many rocks.

what does being "overweight" have to do with it? wouldn't more body mass (not relative to anything) translate to more newtons of force per foot strike per square meter of shoe, as per newton's third law of motion?

there are plenty of examples of NBA centers who aren't necessarily overweight that have had foot problems, so i'll have to disagree with your second statement as well.

Bill7 wrote:

Hi buddies!

I have been wearing Asics Gel 2090 for 800 miles now (4 months). They do not appear worn out, nor do I have any particular pain. I run almost exclusively on soft surface.

Should I change my shoes now, at least rotate them with another pair (I intend to buy Nike Zoom Elite), or should I consider the much publicized 400-500-mile limit as propaganda from the shoe manufacturers and keep my current shoes for another 800 miles? Thanks.

Bill

HAve you run in the 2100's yet....I think the 2090's I had held up better than the 21's. I think there is better quality in Asics EVA vs. the other manufacturers. Just my observation.

Overweight in terms of weight vs. frame. The difference between being 15 stone and 6'4" and 15 stone and 5'6".

Also -- you want to talk about NBA players -- look at their shoes -- horrible chunks of crap -- no wonder Kobe has PF...

I think the Adidas material (Adiprene) is the most resilient to compression and wear, from my experience with the Cubatos. Much more so than New Balance, I think.

brooks adrenaline gts's are great shoes but I do believe they just have a limit of 400 mi but can be stretched to about 500, i can start to feel shin pain when they get higher in mileage. I am an effecient runner, 5'10, 125... pretty good form

there's more to it than that. when all the efficiency and strength is there, cushioning becomes much more of the interference it is than any protection. funny how most people say the GTS and 2100 last 500 miles while most people I know running on the H Streets have 1000 mile minimums before the upper starts to seperate from the midsole and they geet some tape to fix it so that they can keep running on it.

The proprietary technologies employed by the major shoe manufacturers (Air, Shox, Gel, etc.) seem to be the limiting factors in terms of shoe breakdown. I can't count how many times I've had to stop running in a shoe because the "gimmick" failed (i.e., popped Zoom Air unit), despite the fact that the outsole and upper showed little signs of wear. The purpose of a shoe is to reduce friction on the foot when running on unnatural surfaces like concrete, not to employ technologies that provide over-cushioning during their early lives only to fail after extensive use.

It seems like Nike, Adidas, and the other footwear companies don’t understand this problem. If any of you recall the Talaria, it was an awesome shoe until the sensitive air membrane on the sole ruptured. Nike somewhat solved the problem with the early Elite, but then proceeded to completely change the shoe after the next design iteration. New Balance had a great thing going with the RC-150, but it was discontinued. The design of the Puma H-Street was on the right track, but it was marketed as a fashion shoe. I don’t know about you, but I’m still waiting for a serious, resilient, lightweight, minimalist flat/ trainer.