Rather than get our running shorts in a twist about this issue, we’re going to cut to the chase and ask the question: How do you know when you need to replace your shoes?
The answer we’ve always heard is ‘a total 300 to 400 miles of running on them’. Last time we went to buy new shoes at the local running store, we mentioned this statistic to the fairly knowledgeable guy bringing them out, and we received a quick Look of Correction, or LoC (a lesser version of The Angry Runner’s Scowl of Dissaproval). ‘300’ he said, as if the Spartans would never have fought the Persians if they were stupid enough to be wearing Grid Hurricanes with 400 miles on them. We could’ve received an eyeroll, too, but we were too busy shoehorning Chinese rubber over our feet to notice.
So after a quick search for the answer at Runner’s World and Running Times, we pretty much found the same vague answer. So does anybody know of any sort of scientific evidence that would support 300 miles or 400 miles (or maybe 500 miles)? Is this just a shoe company marketing strategy to get us to buy shoes more often? After hearing Steve Jobs say once that he foresees consumers buying a new iPod ‘two or three times a year’, we wouldn’t put it past the shoe manufacturers to jump on that bandwagon, but we’d like to give the shoe guys the benefit of the doubt. Today’s heat and humidity must be mellowing us out.
We ask because we bought a pair of Mizunos in mid-May, and with the 300-mile rule, that means we’ve got two more weeks left before the damn things self-destruct, Mission Impossible-style. And it’s kind of tiring plunking down another $80 (and that’s cheap these days) for another pair so soon.
Well, if anybody knows of any evidence pro or con, leave a comment. And in a related question, if you happen to know if bike tires are also timed to self-destruct, head over to The Angry Runner and share the bad news with him, too.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
Man, my iPod must be worn out! It gets fewer running miles than my shoes by a lot, but it certainly gets more subway miles.
I've always heard the 300-500 miles thing. Frankly, I've always picked the middle road of 400 to be safe. Safe from believing industry and bad knees all at once.
I've wondered this myself. Wouldn't it depend on how you run and where you run, as well as how far you run?
The 300-400 mile rule has just always been there, like a security blanket, or the rule that says you should change the oil in your car every 3k miles.
It's either that or wait until you realize your shins keep hurting...
In the past, I've used the metric of changing shoes with "every new injury"...but since I fell in love with my Adrenaline GTS6's and bought 3 pairs off the internet for cheap all at once, I now just rotate my orthotics every week or so.
Otherwise, when your shoes start to smoke and disentigrate while doing your favorite hill repeats and your feet begin to "feel like they're REALLY on fire", you'll know The Man is trying to hold you down and it's time for some new kicks.
besides that i "kinda feel" it when it's time to replace my shoes, it is also good just replace them, because new shoes make running so much more fun, nope? but often after the very first runs I fall back to wearing my old ones..I guess they are more comfy considering they adjust to your feet - ahhhh it's not easy!!!!!!!!
As I suspected, we're all in agreement about the maximum mileage, usually somewhere between 300-400 miles and 'how you feel'. I did read somewhere that lighter shoes, like racing flats, wear out faster, but that makes (common) sense.
I may write some shoe manufacturers, or at least check their websites, for some solid information. What I'd really like is a New England Journal of Medicine study that compares shoe mileage and rubber and insole decay to foot/leg injury rates, but just typing that in a blog comment box makes me laugh. But if I find anything useful, I'll post it faster than a Kenyan.
Post a Comment