157 replies to this topic

[chrisso]

I'd like to see some scientific proof that shoes require more than 24hrs to 'recover'.

[TRAVY]

An anonymous running friend of mine (Sub 3:50 mara) got dressed in the dark one cold morning. She headed out to do her 30km long run. When she completed her long run satisfactorily she looked down at the shoes. They were odd shoes. One shoe was 1000 km the other 100. She noticed NO DIFFERENCE until day light when she could look at them.

Go figure.

So how important is it to your shoes over at 800-1500 km ?

[WetWeek]

TRAVY, on 05 September 2011 - 07:32 PM, said:

An anonymous running friend of mine (Sub 3:50 mara) got dressed in the dark one cold morning. She headed out to do her 30km long run......

....be still, my over-active imagination!

I guess once-off it's not an issue, but if she ran in the mis-matched shoes all the time eventually it could cause issues.

However, I take your point re. her not feeling the difference on that one run.

[kiwishaz]

So the idea that you have to "rest" shoes is a marketing push from the shoe companies? Or is it to try and extend the life of your shoes?
<-- Still slightly confused.

[southy]

Well I rotate shoes (different models & different brands) more for the benefit of my feet & lower legs, rather than the longevity of the shoe. I believe that each pair of shoes stresses my feet & lower legs slightly differently and it helps avoid those annoying niggles (and even worse - injuries).

[Caterpillar]

Caterpillar, on 19 March 2011 - 09:38 AM, said:

My ASICS 21xx only last around 400km. Frankly this is an unacceptable life span.

By the 300km mark I notice lots of lower leg niggles which are the telltale sign that the shoe is on its way out. I eke another 100 or so km out of them by only using them on the two to three recovery days per week for another few weeks.

Have just bought a pair of Kayano's which will only be used on my Sunday long runs, and might given the 21xx a chance to rest one day per week and last a little longer.

Just an update from my post in March. My kayano's are lasting considerably longer than the 21xx model; at least 100km more. Given the price difference between the two runners is only a few dollars on my favourite international seller's web site, the kayano's work out to be better value for money. Further, although they are supposed to be heavier than the 21xx, I don't notice any difference in speed during my standard training runs. They certainly feel more comfortable.

[Wiefranz]

The first running shoes of my life I bought more than 33 years ago. It was the Stone Age of running shoes, at least in Austria.  

I trained at a pretty high level: 70 - 120 km/week at 3:45 - 4:30/km. Heard about how long top shoes can last and should be worn but never thought about it. Usually I used them 600 - 1200 km. Buying new one's was a matter of intuition. Never had an injury that could have been related to my shoes.

Mileage and pace of my training and the running shoe's technology have changed since then but not the concept of replacement.

[triharddental]

Wiefranz, on 28 October 2011 - 04:04 AM, said:

The first running shoes of my life I bought more than 33 years ago. It was the Stone Age of running shoes, at least in Austria.  

I trained at a pretty high level: 70 - 120 km/week at 3:45 - 4:30/km. Heard about how long top shoes can last and should be worn but never thought about it. Usually I used them 600 - 1200 km. Buying new one's was a matter of intuition. Never had an injury that could have been related to my shoes.

Mileage and pace of my training and the running shoe's technology have changed since then but not the concept of replacement.

Wow wiefranz, they are extremely hot pb's. You must have been very competitive. Have to agree about intuition. A physiotherapist (her pb was sub 4 min/km pace over 1/2 marathon, so a good runner)  once told me running shoes will last up to 1500kms, depending on your weight. I must admit I changed them when I felt my muscles getting sore more easily. Still do.

Injuries are multifactorial: running surface(concrete the worst), running style, weight etc. Find a shoe that suits and stick to it. Mine? Nike air Pegasus.

[halfway]

Gday all

IMHO

im on my 4th pair of brooks gylcerins the first 3 pairs each did about 1500 kms

they are all still structuraly fine but the cushioning support has gone in the heal(still fine to walk in but not to run)

the first 2 pairs i bought from athletes foot

the next 2 pairs i got off the internet for around 65% of the retail cost and have been just as good

cheers

Edited by halfway, 04 November 2011 - 04:20 PM.

[SlowManiac]

halfway, on 04 November 2011 - 12:36 PM, said:

Gday all

IMHO

im on my 4th pair of brooks gylcerins the first 3 pairs each did about 1500 kms

they are all still structuraly fine but the cushioning support has gone in the heal(still fine to walk in but not to run)

the first 2 pairs i bought from athletes foot

the next 2 pairs i got off the internet()both for around 65% of the retail cost and have been just as good

cheers

It is best not to mention websites please....

[halfway]

SlowManiac, on 04 November 2011 - 02:25 PM, said:

It is best not to mention websites please....

Sorry about that

wont happen again(just deleted that reference out of my first post)

1\2 way  

Edited by halfway, 04 November 2011 - 04:21 PM.

[Wiefranz]

triharddental, on 02 November 2011 - 08:05 PM, said:

Have to agree about intuition. A physiotherapist (her pb was sub 4 min/km pace over 1/2 marathon, so a good runner)  once told me running shoes will last up to 1500kms, depending on your weight. I must admit I changed them when I felt my muscles getting sore more easily. Still do.

Injuries are multifactorial: running surface(concrete the worst), running style, weight etc. Find a shoe that suits and stick to it. Mine? Nike air Pegasus.

I absolutely agree with you. It's multifactorial: running surface, running style, weight, intensity, technique and last but not least climate resp. temperature. Rather different whether you train at 20° C to 30° C or at -5° C to + 5° C.

My favorite shoes in the late 70's and early 80's were the legendary Adidas TRX. Now Nike Vomero 6 for easy and long runs, New Balance 890 for faster workouts.

[SpecBGT]

Just retired my first pair of VFF Sprints. Only started recording the distance done in them since the beginning of this year. Just ticked over 600km and I estimate probably around another 200km before that. I have worn through the sole in one spot on one shoe and there are other areas that are paper thin, so time to go.

[Morley]

For the last month I have been running with sports orthotics. Off the shelf stuff from Chemist Warehouse. I wonder if it increases the life of the running shoe? I log the Kms and usually retire them about 700K. It depends on how they feel. I have chucked some pairs as early as 500K. The orthotics are working out well. The packet recommends changing them every 12 months. How would they know how many Kms I log in 12 months? Cheers.

[Phanta]

I did a couple of runs last week in an old pair of Brooks Adrenaline 8s - with about 900k on them. My usual training shoes are either the Adrenaline 10s or Mizuno Wave Nirvana at the minute... but was packing in a hurry and grabbed the wrong shoes without noticing.

I noticed about 5k into the first run that the feel was different, and my legs were noticeably sorer by the end of the run than usual with the newer shoes - the pattern repeated the next day too. Both runs on concrete.

So for mine i usually replace the shoes when i can feel the fatigue setting in too early and i feel the jarring is geting worse. I keep a track of the mileage of each shoe and usually plan to replace after around 800k but then use intuition from there.

[Supersam1979]

Mileage in shoes is infinite until the show wears through the sole or otherwise.

Injuries are caused mainly by weakneses through lack of strength and those running too much for their current strength.

I had a pair of asics that I took past 2000km an d only gave them away due to a small hole in the top and gave them to a chap in Africa who has run two more years of comrades with them. Must be now well over 5000km and he is still running well in them.

Mileage is a myth really.

[ChloeP]

Phanta, on 10 February 2012 - 12:01 PM, said:

So for mine i usually replace the shoes when i can feel the fatigue setting in too early and i feel the jarring is geting worse. I keep a track of the mileage of each shoe and usually plan to replace after around 800k but then use intuition from there.

That's a great way to do it! Most sports stores recommend buying new shoes every 2-3 months. But it does depend on how much you use them over that period..

ChloeP

[seris]

Write up on my blog about 2,300 plus kms in Hokas.

http://ultrasmall.wo...lly-yes-really/

Edited by seris, 26 July 2012 - 02:03 PM.

[mytym]

Why would you replace your runners if they are still in good nick? It doesn't matter if you've done 10,000km in them, if they are not worn or deteriorating, they don't need replacing.

[triharddental]

mytym, on 26 July 2012 - 09:15 PM, said:

Why would you replace your runners if they are still in good nick? It doesn't matter if you've done 10,000km in them, if they are not worn or deteriorating, they don't need replacing.

With all due repect, the rubber in running shoes (EVA , I think) eventually flattens out, becomes harder and loses it's cushioning ability. This will increase muscle soreness and risk of injury. When my shoes are no longer fit to run, they usually get to mow the lawn.

[Rob28D]

My Nimbus 14's have had it after 6 - 700km, found out the hard way after getting shin splints twice

[toolittletoolate]

triharddental, on 03 September 2012 - 07:49 PM, said:

mytym, on 26 July 2012 - 09:15 PM, said:

Why would you replace your runners if they are still in good nick? It doesn't matter if you've done 10,000km in them, if they are not worn or deteriorating, they don't need replacing.

With all due repect, the rubber in running shoes (EVA , I think) eventually flattens out, becomes harder and loses it's cushioning ability. This will increase muscle soreness and risk of injury. When my shoes are no longer fit to run, they usually get to mow the lawn.

That is awesome I wish I could get my old New Balance 1260's to mow the lawn for me

[Non_Elite]

I'm a heavy runner, and even with soft cushioning shoes (Nike Vomero), I get at least 1500km before starting to feel niggles like shin pain.

[Skinman]

They say 350-500M depending on weight, length of runs and regularity of hitting the road for that pair.
That might not sound like much but I'm talking about avoiding injuries.
Its also advised for marathon runners that cover 90+km/week to have 2 or more pairs to put on rotation.
1500km is way too much and using niggles like shin pain is kind of unwise to use as a gauge.

Edited by Skinman, 05 November 2012 - 11:19 PM.

[Bellthorpe]

Who say?

[aDrain]

They, you know - them

[tyotfo]

A dutchman i met before the Sydney marathon told me that by rotating two or more pairs of running shoes, you are giving those shoes more time to rest, which in turn means they will last longer (in mileage). A 'rested' shoe doesnt deteriorate as quickly as one that is getting constant pounding every day. Seems to make sense.

This dutchman then went on to complete a 2.50 marathon so he probably knows what hes talking about.

That said, i have two pairs of runners at the moment but i use my favourite pair 100% of the time. The other pair are Vomero's which are like running on a bouncy castle.

[sportsphysio]

tyotfo, on 06 November 2012 - 09:16 AM, said:

This dutchman then went on to complete a 2.50 marathon so he probably knows what hes talking about.

Let's not mix up running performance with running knowledge.

The old wisdom of letting cushioning rebound has been around for years...despite vast improvements in quality of cushioning. For that reason, I'd question whether it still applies, if it ever did.

Getting 1500km out of a pair of shoes can be done if you use shoes simply to cover your feet. If you don't need the cushioning or support, it doesn't matter that it's been dead since 2004. Essentially a 1500km-old pair of shoes would be similar to many minimalist shoes out there in it's characteristics.

For those of us that need cushioning and/or support, signs of deterioration (http://sydneyrunning...s-of-shoe-wear/) are progressive so it's not as simple as "see this and throw them out". If you need lots of cushioning or support, you'll need to change shoes more regularly. If you don't, you can probably hold on to them for longer without issue.

One benefit to rotating two pairs, ideally one new pair and one older pair, is that you can constantly compare the newer pair to the older and know when they've lost their key features (support, cushioning, etc).

[Skinman]

here's some good advice on the subject.http://www.rei.com/l...lace-shoes.html
Tried to find a study quickly but couldn't.

1500km is just ridiculous. It raises many questions as to weight, height, foot striking method, pace, length of runs, rest days, ect ect.

I only got 450km out of a pair of asics gel Nimbus before they turned to absoulte planks, and i was only doing like 60km/week back then.
Recently I got about 580km out of my Zoot ultra kane 1.0 before the r suddenly went while I was half way out on a 31 so i just made a more conscious effort to land more midfoot (I heel strike and take big strides, yeah yeah, well I've been doing alright with it so far)  , it seemed fine on the run but when I stopped, my back was kind of jarred and when I got up from an arvo nap it felt like I had stress fractures in my feoral shaft around the hip.
They literally looked brand new still, hardly even any wear on the soles but when I tried on the 2 pairs I got from the AUS distributor, I noticed they were no where near as good anymore.

Long story, dr was a clown with a "wait and see " approach, I now have 2 labral tears in my hip, have to allow bone odeama to settle before I can get back on again early Dec and I will probably be looking at getting hip resurfacing done.  

If you're running big k's/week and serious, don't take the chance for the sake of a couple hundred dollars. 350-500M is a good number  (560-800km).
Use it for troll food or take it on board, either way,enjoy.

[jockster]

i just retired my current "training" shoe... just a tad under 4000k's - been wearing the same ones all year for training, probably closer to 3500k's after you take out races.  Would have kept them longer, but one of the shoes was noticeably unbalanced after a chunk missing at the back so was rolling...  my previous training shoe also was retired around the 4000k mark and the one before that.  I also re-introduced a couple of older shoes that i had previously retired about 1500k mark but still had plenty of life in them.  i figure why waste spending more $'s on shoes... AND i've still got at least another 3 brand new training shoes waiting for me to use them sitting in the garage.

Whats the point of changing them if no injuries and comfortable to wear ?

[jockster]

I should note I've had pretty much zero injuries in 8 years of marathon running; yes I once had a back injury (3 weeks downtime), and then again ITB knee injury (4 weeks downtime) but apart from that nothing - touch wood.   Also last 6 years I've been "averaging" 100k's per week, every week for those 6 years (or very close to).

In the early days I use to retire shoes about 1000-1200.  In the last 4-5 years, probably closer to 2500-3500 per shoe.  Also a relatively lightweight... about 57kg's...!  And my last 11 marathons I've been wearing flat racing shoes, eg Brooks racer, Nike Lunar Racer, Asics DS Trainer.  I do actually keep a shoe log, here are some shoe odometer "retired" readings that i've had;  5900, 4050, 3600, 1900, 1800, 1700

[Skinman]

http://www.posetech....cs-05-2001.html
The above is a  very good article.

Running can be considered an uninterrupted series of small jumps from one foot to the other (16,34). During each foot strike the body is exposed to repeated impact forces estimated to be two to three times the body weight of the runner (2,13, 16,17,21,36). Applying this fact to a 150-pound runner, who has an average of 400 foot-strikes per foot per mile, during a one-mile run each foot would endure between 60 and 90 tons of force (14). Typical runners training from 40 to 80 miles per week could expect to expose their bodies to approximately 16,000 to 32,000 impacts per leg per week, equivalent to about 2400 to 7200 tons of force (10). This is an astounding amount of stress to the lower extremities that increases the likelihood of injury.

I was watching that video I made last year of us at Rotto, You have a good cadence Jon and I'd put $ on you being a mid foot striker.
I'm a hard heel striker and take longer strides with a big spring but not as high a cadence.
When we're talking a 23-24kg difference those 2 points go a long way.

So going by the 3x increase in force exerted on the bones whilst running mentioned , in a marathon my structure takes 10'800 tonne of force,
yours takes 7182 tonne.
In an average 100km training week mine takes 24'000 tonne
yours 17'100 tonne.
In a month its 96000/68400
Thats a 40.3% increase in a month.
Your shoe life still greatly exceeds that so there are obviously more differences than the foot and a half in height I have over you lol

Haven't found one which states the force comparrison between mid foot and heel striking but we know mid foot acts as a better shock absorber and thats why I'm on the side of replacing them earlier , coz I place a higher demand on them.

[Skinman]

oops I calculated that with the same stride rate and just as 1m/stride.
As mentioned I make an effort to take big strides and you know I'm all leg.
Our stride rates would be VASTLY different and setting us further apart as far as impact received goes.

[sportsphysio]

Skinman

I love my stats but I can't stand by and see them treated this way. Some comparative stats using the same logic:

Average person walking per day = 10,000 steps (5000 per leg) x 70kg x 1.2 impact loading x 7 days = 3000 tons of force. That's within the range of the average running load you've listed above and is "astounding" for a walker to survive this!

I don't know if cumulative load gives a false representation of the forces exerted on a leg/shoe as it's submaximal, therefore not incurring cumulative damage, and 10 running strides wouldn't be equal to one stride with a 630kg backpack on.

Not trying to be confrontational, just presenting the other side of the argument.

[Fossil]

Did 8.5km on mine today and worn them down just a fraction, mostly on the forefoot and toes but they are already regenerating! - 57 years so far and still working fine :-)

[Fossil]

Basically the foot/leg are there for support - ideally once you are moving at a constant speed the impact force is the same as for standing still - motion has nothing to do with it. However, if you land with your foot in front of your Centre of mass then you are increasing the forces - and also reducing the ability to cushion using leg flex - and the return of energy that comes from natural elasticity. We all necessarily slow a little on landing but reducing this is the key. Heel striking is the worst as far as impact goes. Try jumping on the spot (eg skipping) - you'll naturally land forefoot - now try landing whole foot, then on the heels :-)

As with foot height, the stretching out of the body is a result of your momentum and the foot stopping while the rest of the body continues. Stretching forward with the legs simply puts the foot in front of your centre of mass. And doing this on a hill is even worse - it is your hips (Centre of Mass, roughly) that need to get from A to B - try pushing along on a scooter (that's doing the support function of the legs) and stick the foot out ahead - the more it is ahead the higher the impact :-)

If you run well the impact forces are 1. greatly reduced 2. spread out over time 3. spread out over the whole leg - after a run you'll feel like you've been for a swim :-)

[sportsphysio]

You raise some good points Fossil but I'd have to disagree with:

Heel striking: it's not the foot strike that makes the biggest difference, it's the impact point relative to the body. A mid-foot striker who lands in front of their centre of mass will have more impact than a heel striker landing at the centre of mass.

Downhill running: while landing in front of your centre of mass adds more impact forces to the bony structures, it's also more efficient than absorbing most of the force through muscle/tendon units. It really depends on whether the runner is aiming for efficiency (eg. in an ultra) or injury risk minimisation (eg. in high mileage training).

Impact forces once you've reached a steady pace: the forces are still greater than body weight as the body must be descending towards the ground due to the flight time of a normal running stride as well as some deceleration (as you've mentioned "We all necessarily slow a little on landing"). I agree that it'll be less with a foot strike under centre of mass rather than in front. This is why impact forces associated with running are often expressed as a range.

[Skinman]

I used a study as a point of reference, how can it be disregarded and recalculated with some number which is totally

sportsphysio, on 07 November 2012 - 05:53 AM, said:

Skinman

I love my stats but I can't stand by and see them treated this way. Some comparative stats using the same logic:

Average person walking per day = 10,000 steps (5000 per leg) x 70kg x 1.2 impact loading x 7 days = 3000 tons of force. That's within the range of the average running load you've listed above and is "astounding" for a walker to survive this!

I don't know if cumulative load gives a false representation of the forces exerted on a leg/shoe as it's submaximal, therefore not incurring cumulative damage, and 10 running strides wouldn't be equal to one stride with a 630kg backpack on.

Not trying to be confrontational, just presenting the other side of the argument.

Yeah thats fine chief but that number isn't in the study, it says" 2-3x the runners weight".
Walking is far less impact, I'm actually doing incline treadmill walking with a weigh vest atm as part of my recovery.
Gotta use studies and reputable sources gents other wise its just here-say and conjecture and "that ain't worth a velvet paintin of a whale and a dolphin gettin it on"- Rick Bobby.
The calculations I made are as close as I could quickly get without measuring both our strides and cadence.
If anyone can find more studies I think that would be a good way to lift this topic above personal experience.

goddamn thing, that line up the top's not supposed to be there. As you can see I'm a "noob" to this forum stuff.

[omy005]

Fossil, on 07 November 2012 - 08:13 AM, said:

Did 8.5km on mine today and worn them down just a fraction, mostly on the forefoot and toes but they are already regenerating! - 57 years so far and still working fine :-)

Did 10km on mine today (1076.5km so far according to my log) and worn them down just a fraction, mostly on the forefoot and toes but they are already regenerating! - 46 years so far and still working fine.

I don't ever intend to replace them.

Andrew

[sportsphysio]

Skinman

I don't want to drag this topic away from the intended point so I'll make this brief.

No need to refer to me as "chief" just because I have a different opinion than yours. Welcome to the notion of a forum, where different opinions will be expressed.
Your stats are taken from a study, as are mine (http://www.ncbi.nlm....pubmed/21770753, http://www.ncbi.nlm....pubmed/17980941, http://www.ncbi.nlm....pubmed/17451958, just to name a few).
My point wasn't about who can quote stats, it's that cumulative load is irrelevant. It's a number that sounds big but means nothing. Single impact loading is far more relevant, as referred to by Fossil above.

I can see by your picture that you're wary of trolls. Understand that a troll isn't someone who disagrees with you, it's someone who posts deliberately inflammatory remarks without adding any value to the conversation. Let's move on from any confrontational chest-poking and try to get back to the topic at hand.

[Supersam1979]

My own humble thoughts are that minimal shoes with zero gel, air or bounce systems etc only have to be replaced when the sole wears through.

There is a bloke on these forums (won't mention names) who runs in something that he still has from the late 70s. The concept then was largely the same as what we have in the free running shoes today. Doesn't harm him.

I am not that familiar with all the science, but as Jockster said above 'why change if it aint broken and you aint injured?'

[Fossil]

 sportsphysio, on 07 November 2012 - 08:58 AM, said:

You raise some good points Fossil but I'd have to disagree with:

Heel striking: it's not the foot strike that makes the biggest difference, it's the impact point relative to the body. A mid-foot striker who lands in front of their centre of mass will have more impact than a heel striker landing at the centre of mass.

Downhill running: while landing in front of your centre of mass adds more impact forces to the bony structures, it's also more efficient than absorbing most of the force through muscle/tendon units. It really depends on whether the runner is aiming for efficiency (eg. in an ultra) or injury risk minimisation (eg. in high mileage training).

Impact forces once you've reached a steady pace: the forces are still greater than body weight as the body must be descending towards the ground due to the flight time of a normal running stride as well as some deceleration (as you've mentioned "We all necessarily slow a little on landing"). I agree that it'll be less with a foot strike under centre of mass rather than in front. This is why impact forces associated with running are often expressed as a range.

No worries sportsphysio - I agree with you :-)

Wasn't considering downhill there - just flat, constant speed - explanations in text always tricky but confirmed all my thoughts with 2 Physicists last week so happy we are on the right track :-)

I get masses of people who used to heel strike with a massive over stride and have changed to a slightly smaller over stride with a forefoot strike - a good number who have suffered stress fractures from that :-(

Anyway - back to my holiday - good to discuss these things

[jockster]

skinman - yep you are right... my cadence is right up there around 180, regardless of whether I am training, racing, or intervals etc...!  numerous runners have mentioned i seem to be very efficient and have a good natural turnover.  Agree probably am mid foot striker.  I guess some of us are lucky and some not so... a bit like the dentist, i've had zero fillings and have an extremely sweet tooth!  meanwhile my wife who doesnt have a sweet tooth has probably had 15-20 fillings and some replaced too.

[Skinman]

 sportsphysio, on 07 November 2012 - 09:18 AM, said:

Skinman

I don't want to drag this topic away from the intended point so I'll make this brief.

No need to refer to me as "chief" just because I have a different opinion than yours. Welcome to the notion of a forum, where different opinions will be expressed.
Your stats are taken from a study, as are mine (http://www.ncbi.nlm....pubmed/21770753, http://www.ncbi.nlm....pubmed/17980941, http://www.ncbi.nlm....pubmed/17451958, just to name a few).
My point wasn't about who can quote stats, it's that cumulative load is irrelevant. It's a number that sounds big but means nothing. Single impact loading is far more relevant, as referred to by Fossil above.

I can see by your picture that you're wary of trolls. Understand that a troll isn't someone who disagrees with you, it's someone who posts deliberately inflammatory remarks without adding any value to the conversation. Let's move on from any confrontational chest-poking and try to get back to the topic at hand.

Chill out mate, I call every one Chief, I usually use it for friends and especially for those who exhibit intelligence and whose intellect I respect. I should have used a capital letter but it slipped, sorry.
If anyone is being aggressive it's you and actually being quite personal mentioning pictures and stuff.

THere's no solid right or wrong answer for this topic especially as Jon is one of the top 20 in WA as am I and we both cover similar mileage at similar pace (when I'm not injured anyway) and present valid arguments for low and high mileage replacement especially considering there doesn't seem to be any studies conclusive or otherwise conducted on it.

[Dan2009]

The New York Times Well blog http://well.blogs.ny...a-running-shoe/ refers to a number of studies with no clear outcome.  It also quotes a number of manufacturers as saying that shoes should last around 400-500miles (600-800klms roughly).

[Bellthorpe]

Exactly. No-one can say. The mileages mainly quoted in that article are astonishingly low.

And when he said "Think of Wonder Bread" I almost puked.

[wakeboardandy]

I have brooks adrenline gts 12 and done about 600km on concrete/asphalt and sole is worn out near forefoot so probably need to buy some new ones now. Only problem is finding an overseas site to buy from. Last year I had no problems but seems brooks has stopped international sites shipping to Australia! so annoying!

[chrisso]

Finally given up on 2 pairs NB1080's,.. these would both have well in excess on 1200km each (gave up counting ages ago)... the biggest issue is the sock liners have worn through to the plastic support which now digs into my skin, and the sole is coming away on one shoe

Just brought a pair of 1080v2, haven't read to much good about them yet, but got them at a good price

[Brendan90]

Ive been rotating two pairs of Asics Gel Kayano 19s now which have both done about 200km, but for some reason the left shoe's outsoles at the back is looking really worn down, almost as much as I'd expect to see from a pair of previously used Kayano 18's after 500km. I've been told the 19's are prone to faster wear due to a different gel structure so it's not that my gait has changed at all, but I'm a little concerned I might become injured because of them.

Does outsole wear matter a great deal if the shoes have only done minimal km and the midsoles are still nice and soft and have a lot of cushioning left in them?

[sportsphysio]

 Brendan90, on 14 March 2013 - 08:53 PM, said:

Does outsole wear matter a great deal if the shoes have only done minimal km and the midsoles are still nice and soft and have a lot of cushioning left in them?

No.