hoggyjobber wrote:
Quite the opposite. I get 700 out of asics, and my feet actually prefer my worn shoe to the new ones. They hurt for a couple weeks after new shoes. They're too soft, bouncy, flexible, and it stresses foot tissue that has adapted to a more worn shoe.
You should rotate multiple pairs during a week so you're not stuck with a new, uncomfortable shoe for several days. Unless you've been doing so already, then forget I said anything.
For standard midsole height of 12 to 24 millimeter the average wear is 400 miles. At this point you lose approximately 40 to 50% of shock absorption and the resiliency or "bounce back" will be diminished. This is the running industry standard.
However it varies from runner to runner.
Bob Schul Country wrote:
wear Hokas. Replace every 1,000
I've heard many people say that their Hokas last forever, but mine were just about done a bit after 300 miles. I've run in the Clifton 3s and Clayton 2s, and my Claytons don't even have 200 miles on them and they're pretty beat. They really need to work on outsole durability, a lot of the bottom of the Clifton is just exposed foam. I'm not sure if the 4 improved on this, but my 3s lost a good amount of traction at 300 or so miles. The Claytons are worse, as the entire outsole is their RMAT material which is great in theory, but wears down super quickly. The bottoms of mine are shredded, especially where my foot initially strikes the ground. They don't have much cushion left either.
To put this in perspective, I weigh about 130 lbs and I lightly supinate. Big fan of Hoka as a brand and I think they make some good shoes, but they didn't hold up nearly as long as I would have hoped.
Well, if you change to a softer, quicker, more forefoot stride, you can go a long, long time before switching. As a mini-experiment inspired by Born to Run, I went 3 years in a pair of Brooks. (Now I moved to minimalist shoes...) It's not as cushy feeling, but that's OK for me now (5'10, 175lbs).
It strongly depends on the shoe. I'm the guy who started the "I need a new shoe" thread that wears flats to train (like quite a few others here), and the variation is very noticeable.
Adizero Pro (I went through many, many pairs) would reliably last me about 250-300 miles. Same with Takumi Sen. The little rubber notched nubs on the sole are great for traction but wear down quickly. Once they become level with the soft foam/EVA underneath at any point, it's game over within a run or two.
I have a pair of Mizuno Wave Hitogami that has about 850+ miles on them (while I look for new flats!), and although the midsole is getting a little compressed, they are still surprisingly good enough to run in. The rubber on the outer sole looks almost close to new, which is astounding. I could upload a photo. I wish I liked them more. I have never worn a flat that had this durable a sole.
Ungainly heel strikers with an obsession for running slightly less slower must be a real boon for the shoe industry.
I don't like a lot of shoe so they don't last me very long. When I'm seriously training I skip counting the miles and just unbox a new pair of Kinvaras the first of every month. It's not that expensive, rather than buying the new version I scour the internet for deals on previous gen and buy as many as I can in one go. I've gotten them as cheap as $26 and as much as $64. Typically they cost me around ~$45. I guess the moral of the story is - wear popular shoes and you can find them cheap enough to replace them early.
belial wrote:
Ungainly heel strikers with an obsession for running slightly less slower must be a real boon for the shoe industry.
Not sure if you are talking to me, but if so: I may be ungainly (I do bump into stuff a lot!) and slow (I can only manage 16:4x but I'm in my late 40s so give me a break on that) but I'm definitely, 100% a midfoot/forefoot striker. Not that there's anything wrong at all with being a heel striker; Smoove is one; he's a pretty decent runner. I believe Bill Rodgers and Haile Gebrselassie are good examples of pros that heel strike. Perhaps you should help them out with learning to be a better runner like yourself.
running out of options wrote:
belial wrote:
Ungainly heel strikers with an obsession for running slightly less slower must be a real boon for the shoe industry.
Not sure if you are talking to me, but if so: I may be ungainly (I do bump into stuff a lot!) and slow (I can only manage 16:4x but I'm in my late 40s so give me a break on that) but I'm definitely, 100% a midfoot/forefoot striker. Not that there's anything wrong at all with being a heel striker; Smoove is one; he's a pretty decent runner. I believe Bill Rodgers and Haile Gebrselassie are good examples of pros that heel strike. Perhaps you should help them out with learning to be a better runner like yourself.
You'll get no breaks from me my friend... Just try harder. Be the best your unshakable heel striking will let you be.
belial wrote:
running out of options wrote:
Not sure if you are talking to me, but if so: I may be ungainly (I do bump into stuff a lot!) and slow (I can only manage 16:4x but I'm in my late 40s so give me a break on that) but I'm definitely, 100% a midfoot/forefoot striker. Not that there's anything wrong at all with being a heel striker; Smoove is one; he's a pretty decent runner. I believe Bill Rodgers and Haile Gebrselassie are good examples of pros that heel strike. Perhaps you should help them out with learning to be a better runner like yourself.
You'll get no breaks from me my friend... Just try harder. Be the best your unshakable heel striking will let you be.
It's hilarious watching novices try to troll.
200 miles is more like 1.5 weeks. 10 miles 2 times a day for 6 days with a 20-mile long run on Sunday is 140 miles. Unless you wear flats for tempos and spikes for intervals. So, maybe every other week you'd need to replace trainers.
@Saywhat2 wrote:
Saywhat2 wrote:
Replacing shoes every 200 miles is cheaper than doctor visits.
I must be fat on my feet cause trainers only get 200-250 in flats about 200.
Show your math.
My doctor/PT visits run $30 per visit. $60 in 1 week vs $60-80 for shoes
Roger58 wrote:
We're really in a pvssy generation.
i have 1700 miles on one pair of trail shoes. a friend has 2000 on a pair of racing flats.
my body is symmetrical, so i don't have biomechanical issues (hip, knee, ankle etc injuries). I have friends that are much faster (like 64 minute HMer's) who aren't as symmetric and have injury issues more frequently but also have minor shoe contracts - so no shortage of shoes to change as mileage piles up
it's nature man. body shape, foot strike, weight, ability to recover and be durable with mileage
all of it makes more of a helluva lot more difference than shoe mileage
i mean, people run barefoot
I get 2,500-4,000 miles per pair. I wear them until they are missing parts.
So I guess that means you don't support the barefoot running trend, or the "less is more" trend. Look, if you have good running form then you do not need all that cushion. Good running form means forefoot running... landing on your forefoot and not on your heels. I can easily get 1000 miles out of a pair of shoes. In fact they get better after 200 miles because the loosen up a bit. I never get injured and I am 47 years old. If you have horrible running mechanics then you need the cushioning. If you run correctly then your calf muscles and achilles tendon do all the cushioning for you. Maybe it is time for you to finally learn proper running form rather than buying new shoes every 4 weeks. Go to the Internet and look up "pose running" watch the videos....and try to do it yourself. Start slow though. Give your body time to adjust. Take the extra cash and put it to work. Our economy needs help.
replace them every week? like I have that kind of money???
then again maybe I would if I wasn't running 200 miles a week
I don't wear shoes. Problem solved.
By rotating pairs, they seem to last a lot more because they "rest and decompress". Anyway, I'm fairly sure that my Adios Boost is probably close to 800 miles. (it's the 4th season with them, and the only problem is the upper mesh really.
200miles is like 3,5 weeks, just under a month. If I only used a shoe for everything I'm sure I could stretch it to 4 months no problem, but I'm a feather at 130 pounds.
Rockstar Games wrote:
By rotating pairs, they seem to last a lot more because they "rest and decompress".
That myth has been debunked.
you're kidding, I hope wrote:
Rockstar Games wrote:
By rotating pairs, they seem to last a lot more because they "rest and decompress".
That myth has been debunked.
Probably, but running in different types of shoes keeps the body guessing.