what are the LEAST DURABLE RUNNING SHOES you've worn?

That's funny. I read your post title and immediately thought of Kinvaras. Agree with poster the poster above. Great shoe, maybe 200 miles. I go with Boost or the new Brooks foam now.

Brooks of any model, I've owned ghost 10s that wore through the sole in 250 miles, Launch 4s that only lasted 300, as well as Launch 5s that also wore through in under 350. I find that Sauconys work much much better for me, although it's important to note that I don't have an odd stride - neutral pronation, etc.

I also run exclusively in Kinvaras, I put 400 miles on each pair but really start to feel it from mile 300 to 400. Last pair I had 439 miles on, my last run was supposed to be 24 miles but every step felt like someone was bashing my quads with a baseball bat, so I shuffled 16 then quit. Went home and got a pair of the 9s and all was right on my next run. Sucks to buy shoes every 6 weeks or so

Hoka Clifton 4s. They felt great but exploded after 220-250 miles. Hip Flexors and Lower back started to go

HeyYoMikey! wrote:

I also run exclusively in Kinvaras, I put 400 miles on each pair but really start to feel it from mile 300 to 400. Last pair I had 439 miles on, my last run was supposed to be 24 miles but every step felt like someone was bashing my quads with a baseball bat, so I shuffled 16 then quit. Went home and got a pair of the 9s and all was right on my next run. Sucks to buy shoes every 6 weeks or so

funny story. My last run was supposed to be 10 miles. Fealt like the muscles in my calves disappeared and were replaced with wooden pegs. excruciating pain all 5 miles back. And when my new ones shipped in, they were the womens size 12 not the mens. Worst day ever, had to wait another week for the new pair, for a total of 2 weeks after the miserable 10 miles until I got a new pair

Welllll.... wrote:

You guys run full time in Kinvaras? Do they advertise as that?

I feel like they are closer to a flat than a trainer. I think you are lucky to get 200+ miles out of them with daily wear.

Love that shoe though

I can't run in any other shoe. Not kidding. I get injured, or my foot is super uncomfortable.

Onsauc wrote:

Saucony triumph ISO...got maybe 200 max miles out of them...no bounce or support, zapped the life out of my legs every time I wore them...waste of money

On cloud flow... I kind of like the concept of ON but they are just that...a concept shoe...ran in them for 6 weeks and also left me feeling drained all the time...maybe if I ran on soft surfaces that would be different but I have to run on mostly roads

Don't understand the hate on the mizuno wave sayanora...the original of that shoe is my 2nd favorite shoe of all time...held up nicely and was super versatile

We are the complete opposite.

I don't know how many miles I have on my Saucony Freedoms, but they still feel great.

The Wave Sayanora just might be too thin for me out of the box, which is why they felt dead to me so soon. I don't find them versatile at all, because my feet really start to feel the pavement in them after an hour or so of running.

anti brooks shoes wrote:

Brooks of any model, I've owned ghost 10s that wore through the sole in 250 miles, Launch 4s that only lasted 300, as well as Launch 5s that also wore through in under 350. I find that Sauconys work much much better for me, although it's important to note that I don't have an odd stride - neutral pronation, etc.

Odd, I have Brooks that lasted forever and I find the recent version of the BioMoGo foam to be some of the best EVA foam I have ever experience.

mucus pus dairy wrote:

Saucony Ride and Brooks ghost did not last long for me. Rubber came off of the Ride when I ran in the rain with them, I land forefoot though so this impacts how I wear them out. Nike pegasus has been great 1000+ miles on them.

I agree with the Pegasus sentiment, I have had two pairs and they both held up to at least 900+ miles and this pair is still going

Saucony. This was like 6 years ago when I had heard they had quality control issues. Sole split after like 20 miles.

central_park_laps wrote:

NB Fresh Foam Zante needs to make an appearance in this thread. You'd be lucky to get 250 in them.

Yeah, I had a pair of Zantes that I loved but they went from hero to zero faster than a french fry. I probably got 350km (200m) before the outsole pretty much evaporated.

Easy answer. Back in the late 1970s, Nike put out a racing shoe called the Eagle. Super light, really a fine shoe. I bought a pair.

Inside the box was a tag saying something to the effect that a runner should expect to get about 50 miles from the shoes. Fifty miles! Seriously, Nike was completely upfront about that.

I think I got more than 50 miles out of my pair, but maybe not. It's hard to remember. But for sure those suckers wore down quickly. But I loved them.

The Mariah, which came next, wasn't quite as bad. But it too was a seriously fast-wearing shoe.

I've worn the zoom elite as my primary trainer since the 5. The 9 is a great shoe, feels amazing underfoot, etc, but it breaks down way too quickly. I got over 700 miles out of a pair of 7s, but I can barely break the 200 barrier in the 9s. The rubber wears so quickly, and I actually blew out the upper on my right shoe as well. I still buy the occasional pair because they're so fun to run in, but it seems like nike has been using cheaper rubber compounds and prioritizing lightweight uppers over uppers that can handle more than 200 miles.

You might want to find a pair of flyknit streaks before they disappear. The flyknit upper is definitely more durable than the original streak 6 upper.

Is there a MOST durable thread?

I would think something made by adidas would be up there. Maybe the adios or boston. They certainly use really durable rubber on some of their shoes and boost seems to hold up pretty well too. Uppers are generally pretty sturdy.

slowmsrunner wrote:

Kinvaras????

I got easily over 1,000 Miles on my last 2 pairs of Kinvaras and I'm not that light either. I feel like specifically in the 8s it only got more soft/flexible the more I wore it, though I may just be a weirdo.

I'm going to second this. I have gotten over 1000 miles on my last 4 pairs of Kinvaras. No injuries. I would have ran even more in them, but I'm afraid the world will implode if I get over 1000. Honestly, I don't understand the whole concept of shoes "losing their spring". I've always thought people give too much credence to shoe durability. In general, I don't think the shoe matters as much as some people think

Sauconys in general don't last long at all. I went through 3 different pairs cus I kept finding good deals and they all broke down in a few weeks.

Nike air Mariah pictured below. Lasted about 100km, that's right, about 62.5 miles before the bottom rubber sole at the front under the big toe lost all the adhesive against the foam and became flapping out. A waste of good money back in those days. I am told the earlier versions were no better. To think that they are one of the most sought flats for collectors is mindboggling.

https://sneakernews.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/nike-air-mariah-og-release-date.jpg?w=570&h=399&crop=1

https://media.hypedc.com/media/blog/19062017_Blog_02.jpg

73 and still doing distance wrote:

Easy answer. Back in the late 1970s, Nike put out a racing shoe called the Eagle. Super light, really a fine shoe. I bought a pair.

Inside the box was a tag saying something to the effect that a runner should expect to get about 50 miles from the shoes. Fifty miles! Seriously, Nike was completely upfront about that.

I think I got more than 50 miles out of my pair, but maybe not. It's hard to remember. But for sure those suckers wore down quickly. But I loved them.

The Mariah, which came next, wasn't quite as bad. But it too was a seriously fast-wearing shoe.

I remember those, Salazar wore them.