I’m hoping to buy another pair of running shoes today so that I will have 2 pairs of good trainers. One is the saucony flex, a 6mm heel toe differential shoe which won’t let me run slow in them. They basically force me to be faster, which can kind of suck for the 90 minute long run type stuff. I’ve been looking at the Brooks Adrenaline and the Saucony Mirage, but I wouldn’t mind if there was another shoe to consider too. I’m hoping to find a shoe that can handle about 1000 miles before It will need replacing. Thanks!
Also now looking at the glycerin following the competitor email I just got.
There really isn’t a shoe that will last for 1,000 miles. Running shoes typically only last around 400-500 miles. Depending on the surfaces you run on, how often you wear them, how much you weigh, etc.
Lightweight shoes: Racing flats, lightweight trainers will not last as long.
I worked at a local running store for 4years. (untill a month ago when I moved. I will start working for another ones near my new home shortly) I know shoes. I fit many, many people and have run in/tried loads of shoes.
You should go to a specialty running store to get fit to a running shoe. One that takes a look at your arches, watches you walk to see if you pronante or are neutral and then directs you to a type of shoe that best fits your arch type/gait.
The brooks adrenaline, saucony mirage and the brooks glycerine are all completely different. The mirage won’t last nearly as long as the adrenaline or glycerine. The more material in the shoe=the longer it will last.
The adrenaline is a stability shoe for people who pronante (similar shoes: Asics 2160’s, Saucony Guide, Nike Triax, K-swiss K-ona, and there are a few others)
The mirage is similar to the kinvara (low ramp angle, lightweight) but it has a little bit more cushioning and a tiny amount stability for the arch).
The glycerine is a neutral shoe for someone who has higher arches and doesn’t pronate. (similar shoes: Saucony Triumph, Asics gel-Nimbus, Nike Vomero, and others as well)
I normally run in a shoe that has a little bit of posting material (arch support) because I pronate a slight bit. I usually run in the Asics 2160. Right now I am running in the Brooks Adrenaline.
Those are just 2 of the shoes I use though. I have probably 6 other pairs for different purposes.
I hope this helps. Lemme know if you have any questions as I would be happy to help.
Collude, if I train in the Brooks dyad, which of the new Brooks pure shoe would work for me? I love running in my saucony kinivara because of thier light weight but use them mainly for racing since they don’t have a lot of support. I average about 20 mpw.
It depends upon what “wears out” for you on your shoes. When your shoes are done, how do the outsoles look? Are they nearly pristine or worn down quite a bit. If the latter, then get a tube of “Shoe Goo” and apply a clear coat to the areas that wear out. Do it when your shoes are new. Re-apply as it wears out (which for me is every 10-20 runs or so). Preventing outsole wear in this manner can make a substantial difference, depending upon how you run. I’m not guaranteeing you 1000 miles, but I do think it can buy you a few hundred at least.
Since I started doing this, I’ve not had a single pair of shoes that lasted less than 700 miles. Most have gone over 1000 and a couple over 1500. What wears out for me now is really the upper. Yes, midsole compression is a real phenomena, but it is dramatically overstated in my experience (particularly by people who want to sell you new shoes).
Anyway, try it. If your shoes still feel worn out after the same amount of miles, you’ll be out five bucks.
Thanks for the solid post mate! That’s exactly the kinda info I wanted. I was shopping online at runningwarehouse and those shoes were all lumped in the same category. Given what you said about the Glycerin that looks like a no-brainer. The nimbus has been one of my favorite shoes and has been a great training shoe the last several years, as was the vomero. I didn’t like the 5’s so I went with the saucony flex which is built fairly similarly if you’re familiar. Good to know that the glycerin is basically a good replacement for the vomero. They’re on sale on brooks.com for 65 bucks right now so I bought a pair.
Normally my outsoles don’t really wear down at all. Maybe a little in the forefoot where I tend to land, especially saucony’s they must use a different material that doesn’t last as long. But of the shoes I have most of the outer rubber is still in tact and in place when the 500 mile mark comes up so I normally continue training in them. Asics material seems weaker on the upper because I often get “wear” holes in it. This isn’t really a problem unless it’s wet outside.
Hey there.
I would say that either the pureflow or pure connect would both be good choices. The puregrit is more of a trail shoe (tried it on and loved it btw) and the purecadence has a little bit more support. I would say try a couple on and see which one feels the best. The dyad is a pretty unique shoe because of the two pods it has under it to guide the foot.
I don’t think that midsole compression is overrated. Yes I did sell shoes, but I didn’t get paid by how many shoes I sold. When a shoe is worn it can lose up to 40% of it’s springyness after 200-300 miles. I am not saying that the shoe wont still cushion your foot or provide it support, but after400-500 miles the shoe’s support and cushioning is starting to get compromised. That is usually when people will start feeling dull aches and pains in their shins, knees, or hips.
Does this happen to everyone? Not at all. I know people, like you, who could wear shoes forever and have 0 problems. I have a couple pairs of shoes that are laying around that have over 1000 miles that I use to kick around it or run in if I forgot a pair somewhere. Then I have seen people who after 350miles in a shoe need new ones because their feet, knees, hips are not getting the quality support/cushioning they need anymore because the shoe has broken down.
There is a world of difference with a new pair of shoes to shoes that have 1000 miles on them.
If one is on a budget then I would say its a good idea. Even putting a new insole in the shoe can help sometimes too.
But in the world of investments I don’t think that skipping over getting a new pair of shoes is the best idea. Your feet and legs are a pretty big deal 
Usually last year’s model can be found for anywhere from 25-60%off too depending on when and where ya look too.
I don’t think that midsole compression is overrated. Yes I did sell shoes, but I didn’t get paid by how many shoes I sold. When a shoe is worn it can lose up to 40% of it’s springyness after 200-300 miles…
Yes I’ve often heard numbers like this 40% thrown out. I’m sure you heard it from someone else and dutifully passed it along. Not sure who is making them up but I suspect it’s someone in the marketing department. Or maybe I am just buying the wrong shoes. Blindfolded, I could never tell the difference between the Adizero Manas I’ve got with 800 miles and the pair I just started using, not as long as I prevent the outsole wear.
There really should be some solid experimental data for this somewhere, but I haven’t seen any. The skeptic in me says that is real data existed that cushioning was gone after x distance, some shoe company would reference this data in their marketing, and there would be a battle between shoe company to produce the “longest lasting” shoe. But this doesn’t seen to happen. If evidence existed that said cushioning really lasted a very long time, there wouldn’t be a magic “40%” number that the marketers could use.
Like JoeO I have been using Shoegoo on my shoes, which are Newtons, and its working great so far and I expect to be wearing these until the upper goes (or somehow those lugs unique to Newton break). As for midsole cushioning, because I run on my forefoot, my calves obsorb most of the impact forces. Also if you think about those minimalist shoes, they have almost no cushion to start with and that’s how they’re designed. So my point is that if you land on your forefoot when running, any deterioration in the midsole is really not that important to the life of the shoe IMO. Additionally, while it may (or may not) be true that the midsole loses 40% of cushioning after the first X miles, I suspect like most other things the rate of deterioration is front-loaded, meaning you probably won’t see another 40% deterioration in the next X miles you put on the shoe. Bottomline, ShoeGoo rocks - its saves your wallet and the environment too.
In general, Asics last forever. Whatever compound they use for tread seriously outlasts the competition 2-to-1.
I’ll second that. Asics Kayno 16 have lasted way more than any other shoe I have run in. i use those for long runs. and brooks ghosts for faster/shorter stuff. I know I’m not on the less shoe bandwagon yet.
Thats because Asics uses a much stiffer rubber in the forefoot than do most shoes. Makes it last longer, but for me, the ride quality is much more important than getting an extra hundred miles out of the tread. The cushion wears out much faster than the tread ever does for me, why would I care if the rubber holds up for 700 miles if the foam only lasts for 450?
I am bad about keeping mileage on my shoes, but my NB 100 have a hell of a lot on them. I have worn them for long trail runs for over 2 years. They are on life support, so I will replace them with some 101s soon. The soles are actually pretty good, but the midsole is pretty well toasted. I’d be happier if they had less of a heel drop, but the drop has felt a lot lower than 10mm since they were a couple of months old. They don’t feel much higher than my A4s, which last pretty well for such a minimal shoe, BTW.
You could also go minimalist and not rely on the midsole. Once you’ve done that, it doesn’t matter if your shoes have 2000 miles on them - as long as your skin isn’t touching pavement, you can still run in them.
+5 shoe-goo
.
I couldn’t agree less. It sounds like you’re just relayng an anecdotal rule of thumb that you read in Runners World. I consistently get 1000 miles out of racing flats. They last long because there’s no structure to break down.
People ditch shoes because they get dirty and ugly. But there’s plenty of life left in them. Americans ship these ‘worn out’ shoes to Africa where Kenyans run another 800 miles in them at 5-minute pace.
I agree with that. The last pair of Asics I used (Cumulus) is the only pair of shoes I put 700 miles on. By then the tread was wearing through.
The only issue I had was it took 100 miles before they started to feel good to me. Compared to the Mizuno Wave Rider that only takes me about 50 miles to break in, they were a little better value but I still get ~600 miles out of my Riders.
jaretj
Thats because Asics uses a much stiffer rubber in the forefoot than do most shoes. Makes it last longer, but for me, the ride quality is much more important than getting an extra hundred miles out of the tread. The cushion wears out much faster than the tread ever does for me, why would I care if the rubber holds up for 700 miles if the foam only lasts for 450?
Totally agree; however, its a fine line. I don’t care about the ride quality if the outsole trend is eroded down to the midsole foam after 200 miles (Saucony, I’m looking at you).
Maybe Saucony should go back to their “Indy 500” rubber…anyone remember that marketing pitch?