Should I get a new pair of shoes or no?

xxeliza321xx
xxeliza321xx Posts: 15 Member
in Fitness and Exercise
I'm asking because even though my two pairs of shoes don't have wear or tear and they do NOT give me discomfort, some website said to replace them every 500 miles.
I know I've had them for much longer than 500 miles because I jog around 3 and a half miles, most days and I haven't bought a new pair of shoes in years.
Before I waste my money, should I buy a new pair because some website told me to or not, honestly? They look and feel fine to me and no injuries.

Replies

  • BrianSharpe
    BrianSharpe Posts: 9,248 Member
    All I can suggest is that you've gotten your money's worth out of those shoes.

    The mileage suggestion is based on the fact that the midsole cushioning breaks down over time reducing shock absorption, the heel wears down and the sole wears both potentially affecting stride and traction. The replacement of shoes at around 500 miles is a guideline that applies to the whole population of runners and everyone has a different foot strike, weight etc. Personally I go more by feel, when I start getting more fatigued feeling and develop more minor aches and pains I'll introduce a new pair into the rotation and usually find the niggles go away with the new pair.

    I think that every runner also knows someone, like you, who manages to go ages without replacing shoes and seems none the worse for wear. Whether it's good mechanics or just good luck do what you find works for you ( I do suspect if you were running longer distances your experience may be different)
  • pondee629
    pondee629 Posts: 2,469 Member
    "my two pairs of shoes don't have wear or tear and they do NOT give me discomfort"

    No signs of wear and no discomfort says you don't need to replace your shoes. The distance you believe you have on them, however, indicates that the time for replacing them is near. (if you distance estimate is correct).

    "They look and feel fine to me and no injuries." Pretty much gives you your answer. It would be a good idea to keep a watch going forward and switch them for new once they are less than comfortable. You really don't want to wait for discomfort or injury.
  • cricket490
    cricket490 Posts: 31 Member
    edited August 2016
    Yes, get a new pair of shoes. I actually track my running miles so when they hit 300-400 miles I change to a new pair. I always have an extra pair in my closet.

    This is from years of experience and running in shoes that eventually cause an injury.
  • cwolfman13
    cwolfman13 Posts: 41,865 Member
    I bet if you bought a new pair of shoes you'd realize how cruddy the one's you're wearing actually are if in fact it's been years and you've put that kind of mileage on them.
  • rybo
    rybo Posts: 5,424 Member
    I'm all for buying new shoes, even if not necessarily needed. Could explain why I have a bazillion pairs that aren't even close to being worn out. But to seriously answer your question, in my opinion, a lot depends on the type of shoes and your individual running style. When I tracked mileage I had several pair that I wore into the 700-800 range and others that got bagged at barely over 300. It won't hurt to buy a new pair, see if there is a big difference & go from there.
  • fitgamercatlady
    fitgamercatlady Posts: 63 Member
    If you're jogging and doing it for exercise (not competitive), I don't see a reason to waste your money on new shoes. If you want to see if new shoes will make your jogging better, you can pick out a pair and try them out. If you end up thinking you can keep your old shoes a little longer, you now have a back up pair for when your old faithfuls decide to poop out.

    But like I said, jogging is different than full on running around. I don't see the need.
  • enterdanger
    enterdanger Posts: 2,447 Member
    I replace mine about every 300-400 miles. I can always tell when they need to be replaced because my runs will start to feel bad....stressed out hammys, foot pain, etc. I'm with @cwolfman13 on this one. Your feet will probably feel super happy when you get the new ones.
  • MeanderingMammal
    MeanderingMammal Posts: 7,866 Member
    fitgamercatlady wrote: »
    But like I said, jogging is different than full on running around. I don't see the need.

    So how do you define the difference between jogging and running?
  • fitgamercatlady
    fitgamercatlady Posts: 63 Member
    edited August 2016
    MeanderingMammal wrote: »
    fitgamercatlady wrote: »
    But like I said, jogging is different than full on running around. I don't see the need.

    So how do you define the difference between jogging and running?

    Jogging is typically a slower, less strenuous, lower impact form of running. But I did say "full on running around," not just running.

    livestrong.com/article/475894-difference-between-jogging-running/
  • fitgamercatlady
    fitgamercatlady Posts: 63 Member
    edited August 2016
    fitgamercatlady wrote: »
    MeanderingMammal wrote: »
    fitgamercatlady wrote: »
    But like I said, jogging is different than full on running around. I don't see the need.

    So how do you define the difference between jogging and running?

    Jogging is typically a slower, less strenuous, lower impact form of running. But I did say "full on running around," not just running.

    I used a bad word in my last post and I pointed out the "kitten" filter, but I instead just took the bad word out. It was @$$ by the way.
  • MeanderingMammal
    MeanderingMammal Posts: 7,866 Member
    fitgamercatlady wrote: »
    MeanderingMammal wrote: »
    fitgamercatlady wrote: »
    But like I said, jogging is different than full on running around. I don't see the need.

    So how do you define the difference between jogging and running?

    Jogging is typically a slower, less strenuous, lower impact form of running.

    So running then...

    Given that the originator talks about running over three miles most days that's in the order of 15-18 miles per week, which is not insignificant.

    I was going to say that your advice was really bad, but you're right, the originator could chose to spend her money on a physio instead. Given that you're not a runner though, based on your profile, I can perhaps appreciate why you wouldn't appreciate the impact.


  • fitgamercatlady
    fitgamercatlady Posts: 63 Member
    MeanderingMammal wrote: »
    fitgamercatlady wrote: »
    MeanderingMammal wrote: »
    fitgamercatlady wrote: »
    But like I said, jogging is different than full on running around. I don't see the need.

    So how do you define the difference between jogging and running?

    Jogging is typically a slower, less strenuous, lower impact form of running.

    So running then...

    Given that the originator talks about running over three miles most days that's in the order of 15-18 miles per week, which is not insignificant.

    I was going to say that your advice was really bad, but you're right, the originator could chose to spend her money on a physio instead. Given that you're not a runner though, based on your profile, I can perhaps appreciate why you wouldn't appreciate the impact.


    You're talking it like I'm saying the OP isn't doing anything better than sitting on the couch--which I'm not. Please don't twist my words, nor put meaning behind them that isn't there. And actually, I used to be a cardio bunny. I ran 5 miles a day, 6 days a week. I also ran using walking shoes for the first month because I wanted to make sure I was going to stick with it before buying running shoes. Did the running shoes make a difference? To me, no it didn't. I was running on a treadmill for exercise, not trying to run a marathon. If OP is asking if she should spend $60 on a pair of shoes when she said hers a working fine for her, then she shouldn't.

    Also, don't take out my source in my quote. Unless you just want me to sound like a mean person with no evidence of my comment that's just bashing on the OP for sh*ts and giggles.

Categories