[notacoward]

A good pair of shoes will only last a year or two if you hardly run at all or don't care about the risk of even more expensive injury. For example, I run about 900 miles per year. A pair of shoes typically lasts 300-400 miles before the sole is worn enough to affect my gait or the uppers are worn enough to be providing inadequate support/cushioning. That means two or three pairs a year for me. Every marathoner or ultra-marathoner I know runs even more than me, so three to four pairs a year sounds perfectly reasonable. We're not all young and invulnerable running occasionally on the most forgiving surfaces in the mildest climate.

You're over-generalizing from a small non-representative sample, or maybe you're just oblivious how much your friends are spending. You must be very proud of how little you spend, but it's really not that helpful to pretend that your experience negates others'.

[zimpenfish]

> You're over-generalizing from a small non-representative sample

Sure, of course, everyone is posting anecdata. But I've also run with a lot of people averaging 50+ marathons a year and they're dismissive of the 300-400 miles claim for shoe life. I know one of them did well over 50 marathons in the same shoes, for example. I managed a 4:50 with year old shoes that had about 750 miles on (through running and walking) and no injuries.

I can imagine that if you're going hard, fresh shoes with cushioning and support are important, definitely. But most people won't be going hard, they'll be bumbling along for a 5-6h pace in their every day trainers.

> We're not all young and invulnerable running occasionally on the most forgiving surfaces in the mildest climate.

Kind of you to suggest that I might be young but I'm approaching my half century. Most of the people I've run with are the same or older. I will concede that South East England does have a relatively mild climate for most of the year.

[notacoward]

> I've also run with a lot of people averaging 50+ marathons a year and they're dismissive of the 300-400 miles claim for shoe life

They might say that, but it hasn't been my experience. I can tell blindfolded which of my shoes are older, either by the texture of the outer sole or the springiness of the inner. I know from experience that if I run on shoes with over 500 miles or so on them I'm risking plantar fasciitis, and that's with what most people would consider a gentle fore/outer foot landing. Heel strikers and overpronators wear out their shoes (and knees) even faster, needing more expensive shoes more often to stay on the road.

Believe me, I wouldn't buy shoes as often as I do if I couldn't feel the difference with every step and know what it portends. But I do, and AFAICT millions of other runners do too. Whatever your friends or mine might say, most of the advice out there from runners more experienced than any of us seems to center around 300-400 miles for a pair. I hope you never find out that saving a few bucks/pounds on shoes ended up costing much more.

[zimpenfish]

> They might say that, but it hasn't been my experience.

Sure but it has been mine and theirs. Like I said, we're all posting anecdata, there's no real science going on here.

> I hope you never find out that saving a few bucks/pounds on shoes ended up costing much more.

Well, I ran/walked just over 2000 miles in 2014 with another 1400 in 2015 on largely three pairs of shoes[1] with no new issues (I have a long standing bust knee from 2003.)

[1] I did a couple of hundred miles in Vibrams and Fila Skeletoes. But it was almost all my Altras and Hokas (one pair got replaced because the achilles support wore through and the stiff plastic cut me up on a long walk.)

[johnminter]

I suspect that the useful lifetime of running shoes depends upon the runner's weight. As a heavier runner/walker trying to control my weight, I found the 500 mi/pair to be reasonable when running.

I could walk longer in them w/o problems. I'm currently rehabbing a strained hip and walking 35-40 mi/week and need to replace shoes about every 750 mi. I suspect a lightweight runner could get a longer useful life from the same shoe. Like many others, I have found the uneven wear patterns on my shoes reflect issues with my foot strike that I have improved but not eliminated.

[notacoward]

Lighter is probably better, to be sure. Less mechanical stress per step. Faster generally means less steps per mile, and being lighter often means being faster too so it's a double bonus. Maybe I could wear shoes twice as long if I lost twenty pounds. But I think we all know by now that weight is more affected by diet than exercise, so there are a lot of us "Clydesdales" out there.

P.S. For any who don't know, "Clydesdale" is a real running term at least in the US. Many races let men over a certain weight (e.g. 185 pounds) register in that division instead of their normal age group, with its own leaderboard etc. "Athena" or "filly" are slightly less common equivalents for women.

[johnminter]

I'm definitely a Clydesdale. We just called it "old, fat, and slow" :)

[zimpenfish]

> As a heavier runner/walker

Same, though. Although I was reasonably light (~85-90kg) when I spent a year running on the same shoes. Currently on 1250km (mix of run/walk) for my Hoka Bondi and I've been considerably about 85kg for all of that.

It's all anecdata, really. Everyone is different.