> there's just no good reason why amateur runners should care
Qualifying for marathons is a good reason to care. If these shoes could make the difference between me qualifying for Boston, and me not qualifying for Boston (or same for NYC, Tokyo, London, etc etc), $250 would be cheap if that's a big goal for me.
edit: really, $130 or so since my shoes _already_ cost $120
>I suppose one could reserve them for races and train with cheaper shoes.
That's what I would do. You'd have a slight boost on top of the usual race day boost and $250 to get ~4 marathons/8 half marathons isn't bad. I mean that would probably be 4+ years for a lot of non-serious runners.
> 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.
> -i probably really should get better running shoes, though running on a gravel road and in private has made it more tolerable
Good running shoes are very under-rated. When I started out a year ago, I didn't bother with shoes as much as I did on beating my previous run time. I noticed I couldn't sustain the routine (I had to take a rest day after 3 or 4 days of running), and very nearly gave up on the habit. Then I bought a pair of comfortable running shoes and it made all the difference in the world. I increased my mileage significantly, and I manage to run 6kms every day of the week without feeling too tired or longing for a rest day.
> Next step: Buy good shoes and convert some of that walking distance into running distance
I highly recommend going to a running shop and getting fitted. They'll watch how you run and give you the correct sort of shoe. If it's a quality shop, they really aren't trying to up-sell you or anything (most high-quality running shoes are about the same price anyways).
If you have the money, you can buy the shoes there too (I would feel guilty if I didn't, but that's just me). Otherwise they're typically 10-30 dollars cheaper online.
I did that and I even paid extra for the "running assessment" that they were offering to those interested in running the Berlin marathon. It took me ca. 4 years to recover from the damage those shoes did to my knees.
I would say "go to a doctor", but the first one I visited just googled "running shoes" on his computer and told me to get something like that. At least the second one actually knew what he was doing.
My point being: I would suggest everyone to try really hard to get a good recommendation instead of trusting someone blindly.
I have to say, running is a little more than a hobby to me, (obsession perhaps?). So I understand how runners think about running, and the gear they purchase for running.
There's literally NO WAY I'd buy a pair of shoes I can run in for 100 miles for $250. I wouldn't be able to NOT think about every mile just costing me $2.50.
Call me frugal, but that's two pairs of any other shoe, and I can run in those for most of the summer.
A $250 pair of shoe is nothing but a luxury item for an extremely simple pastime. It's absolutely marketed to make you first feel inferior, then offer a solution. You always lose out when you fall for marketing.
Even with these shoes (provided these shoes do what they say they do), there are literally hundreds of thousands of people who can run faster than me, even if they all wear flip flops. I would be embarrassed to even consider purchasing shoes that promise to make me faster like these are marketed to do.
> This is the "Why go to that expensive restaurant?" argument all over again.
I mean, I guess so: "expensive" doesn't mean, "best". It just means, "expensive". The food may be good, or people pay because of the exclusivity the price creates. I'm not really about that sort of classicism. I like good tasting food too, but you know what I learned to do?
Cook.
To be a better a runner, I decided to run. Running taught me a lot about keeping things simple, and to get rid of the b.s.
> you can get shoes that will serve you for the rest of your life, you need 6-8 total, not multiple pairs a year
I have never had a pair of running shoes that didn't structurally break down after around 600 km maximum. I don't do any unusual running and have tried multiple brands and price points over the years. I think they do just have a reasonable life-span. How are you having shoes that last a life-time? I have to replace mine three or four times a year.
>despite the aid of a shoe that designers say will make runners 4 percent more efficient.
Seems like this could be a big factor. A shoe itself acting as a spring and helping the runner make bigger strides with the same effort. I won't be surprised if the official race wouldn't allow these "enhanced" shoes.
Of course, as I mentioned it's a really extreme example used to demonstrate that, even being frugal on 9/10 of those, you still hit the amount mentioned in the article.
> same pair for over 2 years and haven't worn them out yet
I think it's important to understand that "needs replacement" is not the same as "falling apart". It's essentially an industry-wide recommendation to replace running shoes between 500km-800km.
At that point, my shoes always look functional, and I have pairs I've continued to use for years for other, non-running activities, but they without a doubt feel "dead" and aren't providing proper support for long runs. The shoes might work fine, and at 10mi a week you might not even ever notice a problem until they start actually falling apart, but you are increasing your risk of injury.
There might be a simpler explanation. People that are willing to spend $250 on racers mmay be more serious than average runner. It might also be that the act of putting on $250 shoes may have purely psychological effect to stimulate runner as not doing their best could have additional perceived cost of wasting money spent on very expensive shoes.
>I used to run a bit. Did an informal "couch to 5k" over a couple of months, before I'd even discovered that was a thing. The single most effective thing I did for my running was to buy a pair of Vibram Five-Fingers shoes.
The single most important thing I've done for my running, is run more and lose weight. This is a universal thing. Everyone who gets good gets good via more running and losing weight. Running more can be hard. If there is a shoe that helps you do it, go for it. But as pace increases sometimes a shoe as minimal as a vibram can be problematic. Its certainly isn't necessary for everybody. People set world records without ever using a strange shoe.
> 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.
> Marathon shoes are much closer to Vibrams than to regular running shoes.
No, they aren't. Track spikes maybe, marathon shoes definitely not.
Have a look at the Adidas Adizero Adios [1], a shoe that Kimetto ran in to set the world record. It has a heel of 26.7 mm, and a heel to toe drop of 9.3 mm, and is quite stiff. A Vibram has maybe 4 mm of rubber, no drop, and is very floppy.
Yes, they are less cushioned than the average running shoe, but they are very far removed from Vibrams. I say this as an amateur runner, but I regularly run 100+ mile weeks.
Qualifying for marathons is a good reason to care. If these shoes could make the difference between me qualifying for Boston, and me not qualifying for Boston (or same for NYC, Tokyo, London, etc etc), $250 would be cheap if that's a big goal for me.
edit: really, $130 or so since my shoes _already_ cost $120
reply