Runners and the 500 mile rule

TheRoadRunner

Hi

Retired my current training shoes this afternoon and will start wearing a new pair I had in reserve.

I was just wondering do people in general change their shoes every 500 miles as is usually suggested (can't find links at the moment) or do you think it is a ploy by the shoe companies to get runners to buy more trainers ?

I don't mind shelling out for runners as I get so much use out of them. And in the long term if they keep me injury free it's cheaper than the physio. However I wonder is 500 miles a bit of an underestimate ? Obviously there are some variables such as the weight of the runner and the surface he/she usually trains on but I was just wondering what the general consensus is.

TFBubendorfer

I used to swap them out after 400+ miles, and have gradually increased the distance per pair. Now I generally put on slightly over 600 miles per pair. What's important is that I always have at least 2 "active" pairs, and I never wear the same shoes on successive days.

I tend to get niggles in my knees and ankles of I wear a pair for too long. It could be just my imagination, but a new pair of shoes always solves the problem.

I do virtually all my running on tarmac, btw.

Abhainn

I also get just about 400 miles out of my shoes before I semi retire them. I would then use them on shorter / easier runs for a bit. No hard stuff
I tend also to get knee niggles if I wear them too long. All my runs are on tarmac / footpath. No grass. Never been to a physio for any legs complaints.

TheRoadRunner

TFBubendorfer wrote: »

I used to swap them out after 400+ miles, and have gradually increased the distance per pair.

bloody recession :rolleyes:

Stupid_Private

I used to just use one pair until they got close to 400 miles then get a new pair. I'd interchange them for a while then - old pair every other day, making sure I had the new pair for long runs. Going that way I'd get close to 600 miles before I'd start to feel pains in my legs.

In December I got 2 pairs at the same time and have just been swapping them day by day. Both of them would be just shy of 300 miles now (thank god for my excel sheet that tracks this crap for me). I'd be interested to see how far they'll reach before I need to change them - hopefully more than 600 miles, although I wouldn't like to be doing a long run in runners with 500 miles on them... maybe I'll get a third pair when that time comes about...

Magnet

I bought a new pair (nike)at xmas for the Ultra and a new pair(aisics) in the sales and Ive my dublin marathon (old aisics) ones too.
I run 99% on road.
I rotate them so they get a chance to dry out from sweat/rain/mud/snow.
I read somewhere that it prolongs the life of the runner and personally I think my feet/legs would be stronger for it.
Maybe its in my head but I get different niggles from each pair but none while I rotate them :rolleyes:

shels4ever

I'm down to one pair at the moment but will pick up a second in 2 weeks time, The pair I'm in at the moment only have about 160 miles in them , my old pair had about 400 and have been retired after after a run last week that felt like someone took a hammer to my legs.....

RoyMcC

TheRoadRunner wrote: »

do you think it is a ploy by the shoe companies to get runners to buy more trainers ?.

Yes. I'm well over the 1,000 mile mark now with my Asics Gel Cumulus. I'm on a mission to see which will be the earlier of (1) me getting niggles - none so far and (2) the things falling apart. I just don't believe what the shoe companies say.

I even read that the cushioning of new shoes 'breaks down' in 12 months even if they remain in the box Does anyone have the science to confirm this?

However I might just be lucky. There are very experienced runners on this thread already who wouldn't agree with me.

earlyevening

After 6 months (500 miles approx) my mizuno wave creation 9 runners will have worn through in spots and definitely need replacement. I think its accurate enough advice from the manufacturers to replace them at that stage.

jlang

TheRoadRunner wrote: »

bloody recession :rolleyes:

I worked out simplistically that petrol in my car was cheaper than shoe rubber in cents per mile. On that basis, I decided not to replace my car with running everywhere.

35mpg @ EUR1/litre = 13c/mile
500 miles at EUR100/pair = 20c/mile

Although if I could get a few pairs on sale and push them to 750 miles by alternating them, ...

Running Bing

RoyMcC wrote: »

Yes. I'm well over the 1,000 mile mark now with my Asics Gel Cumulus. I'm on a mission to see which will be the earlier of (1) me getting niggles - none so far and (2) the things falling apart. I just don't believe what the shoe companies say.

Id be inclined to agree with this.


I dont know how people ran in the 60's/70's/80's....surely they all would've been permanently injured because they didn't have the latest motion control xflon techfoil cushioned shoes or whatever the shoe companies are trying to flog.

I think having the right shoes in good condition is beneficial but Im not sure its the be all and end all to the extent the shoe companies make out.

thirstywork

my current runners(mizuno ultima)have 130miles on the clock now.
I plan on training in them for another 300miles max.
i think 500miles is about right for the general runner but im carring alot of weight so 400 would be my limit.

rainbow kirby

I had to swap out my old runners after less than 200 miles, they had started to give me shin splints. I'm at about the 200 mile mark now on my current Kayano 14's, I'll probably replace them in the summer, or if they need to be replaced before then I will. I'm heavy though, so I'm probably fairly hard on my shoes in relation to the mileage I do.

TheRoadRunner

Babybing wrote: »

I dont know how people ran in the 60's/70's/80's....surely they all would've been permanently injured because they didn't have the latest motion control xflon techfoil cushioned shoes or whatever the shoe companies are trying to flog.

Yep, this has occurred to me as well. However I do definitely feel the benefit of a new pair of runners, could be mental though. Maybe if the shoe company recommended 1,000 miles I wouldn't notice the wear and tear up to 500 miles