Ignorance about running shoes

Quoted message said:

I don't know what sort of "runner" I am or anything like that. Looking

The best thing to do would be to go to a proper running store who know
what they're doing.

Failing that, your arch height is at least a good starting point. Google
for "pronation".

Quoted message said:

around on the web, the Nike Air Pegasus seems an affordable option. If

That and the Trigon are solid picks out of the neutral shoes.

Quoted message said:

I did buy a much cheaper pair of shoes such as the Nike Vaporfly,

I think that's a racing shoe (?). Racing/light shoes aren't as durable, so
you're not going to save money by using them.

Quoted message said:

would there be a significantly raised risk of doing myself an injury,
or a much shorter lifetime?

Someone on this group mentioned getting a good lifespan from a Saucony
Trigon shoe. I'm a bit confused about the different "Trigon" numbers,

read up at the manufacturers website. They are either different version
numbers of the same shoe, or different parts of the stiffness / weight
spectrum . trigon come in three different grades, varying from soft/light
to stiffer/heavier -- choice probably depends on your height/weight, if
you're heavier get the heavier one, otherwise start with the midweight
version.

Cheers,
--
Elflord

email hidden said:

I'm going to be starting to do some running. I haven't run for many
years, and even then only occasionally. The first problem I have is to
choose a pair of shoes.

I don't know what sort of "runner" I am or anything like that. Looking
around on the web, the Nike Air Pegasus seems an affordable option. If
I did buy a much cheaper pair of shoes such as the Nike Vaporfly,
would there be a significantly raised risk of doing myself an injury,
or a much shorter lifetime?

Someone on this group mentioned getting a good lifespan from a Saucony
Trigon shoe. I'm a bit confused about the different "Trigon" numbers,
but a pair of Saucony Trigon 3 shoes is again affordable, even though
I don't need a free rucksack. Are these generally considered to be
good shoes? Or would I be trading comfort and safety for the long
lifespan.

As Elflord said, go to a proper running store. Wear an old pair of
shoes with much mileage on them when you go there so the associate can
look at the wear patterns and maybe determine if you need a motion
control or stability shoe. Once you've put some real running onto the
new ones you'll be in a better position to decide on your next pair.
Remember running is a lifelong sport, so get good equiptment and don't
overdo it.

Eric

Eric

Thanks for the pointers. I'm about 179cm, and about 84kg. I'm not
aware of having an unusually high or low arch. I'll look into
pronation and overpronation further.

Would it be a "plan" to buy a super-cheap pair of shoes, such as the
Saucony Grid Envy shoes, and then after a month or two, "retire" them
to everyday non-running shoe usage, and buy a better pair based on my
early experiences? I'm unlikely to be pounding out mile after mile
after mile early on.

Charlie Pendejo said:

robotiser said:

I must admit I'm tending towards the "cheap shoes for a
month or two then look into it again" strategy.

Why? That sounds more expensive than buying only the right shoes to
begin with.

I agree with Chuckie. It often sounds cheaper to try and find some magic trick
to save $10-$20 on the first pair. But there's a good chance that you get sick
of that pair half way through its life (or less), so it's nowhere near as big a
money saver as you might think it is.

If you're only running 20 miles a week or less in the beginning, the first pair
will be good for about 6 months or so, assuming that you pick the right pair. In
that time, you'll probably spend more than that cost of a pair of shoes
commuting to and from weekend runs, and/or paying racing fees. So saving a back
or two perhaps shouldn't be a major consideration.

Cheers,
--
Elflord

Elflord said:

Charlie Pendejo said:

robotiser said:

I must admit I'm tending towards the "cheap shoes for a
month or two then look into it again" strategy.

Quoted message said:

Why? That sounds more expensive than buying only the right shoes to
begin with.

I agree with Chuckie. It often sounds cheaper to try and find some magic trick
to save $10-$20 on the first pair. But there's a good chance that you get sick
of that pair half way through its life (or less), so it's nowhere near as big a
money saver as you might think it is.

If you're only running 20 miles a week or less in the beginning, the first pair
will be good for about 6 months or so, assuming that you pick the right pair. In
that time, you'll probably spend more than that cost of a pair of shoes
commuting to and from weekend runs, and/or paying racing fees. So saving a back
or two perhaps shouldn't be a major consideration.

Cheers,
--
Elflord

My concern is that I might buy an expensive pair of shoes, and through
ignorance find I've bought the wrong pair. I.e. the price of a cheap
pair plus a suitable expensive pair is less than the price of an
unsuitable expensive pair bought through ignorance followed by an
expensive suitable pair.

Plus the cheap pair is the price that I'd expect to pay for a usable
pair of leisure shoes anyhow, so there would be no loss.

But, if I can trust a store to do a proper job in helping me choose a
pair of shoes then that is probably th best bet.

robotiser said:

My concern is that I might buy an expensive pair of shoes, and through
ignorance find I've bought the wrong pair. I.e. the price of a cheap
pair plus a suitable expensive pair is less than the price of an
unsuitable expensive pair bought through ignorance followed by an
expensive suitable pair.

There's few ironclad guarantees in life or running shoes, but buying a
cheap pair with the benefit of neither experience nor direct
comparison to several other models is a terrific way to minimize your
odds of getting a suitable shoe.

Exercise for the reader: what will getting (hopefully; see above
regarding guarantees) competent, experienced help at a good running
store and trying on a variety of contenders do for your odds?

These shoes are gonna be your feet and legs' best friends for the next
three to five hundred miles. I suggest it's worth a bit of legwork
and minor expense to get the best, comfiest ones you can find. Most
runners agree it's no fun having an ankle rubbed raw and bloody
(especially three miles into a twenty miler in middle-of-nowhere South
Dakota, dammit, on a run where you also battle diarrhea) or toenails
turn black and fall off because of ill-fitting shoes. Nor is it
reportedly a barrel of laughs getting sidelined for weeks or months
with a running injury because you were in an inappropriate shoe.

I think the black toenail is an initiation rite.
I got one the first month of running, then never again.

Quoted message said:

Elflord said:

Charlie Pendejo said:

robotiser wrote:
> I must admit I'm tending towards the "cheap shoes for a
> month or two then look into it again" strategy.

Quoted message said:

Why? That sounds more expensive than buying only the right shoes to
begin with.

I agree with Chuckie. It often sounds cheaper to try and find some magic trick
to save $10-$20 on the first pair. But there's a good chance that you get sick
of that pair half way through its life (or less), so it's nowhere near as big a
money saver as you might think it is.

If you're only running 20 miles a week or less in the beginning, the first pair
will be good for about 6 months or so, assuming that you pick the right pair. In
that time, you'll probably spend more than that cost of a pair of shoes
commuting to and from weekend runs, and/or paying racing fees. So saving a back
or two perhaps shouldn't be a major consideration.

Quoted message said:

My concern is that I might buy an expensive pair of shoes, and through
ignorance find I've bought the wrong pair. I.e. the price of a cheap

Could happen, but you improve your odds by getting someone who knows what
they're doing to help you.

Quoted message said:

pair plus a suitable expensive pair is less than the price of an
unsuitable expensive pair bought through ignorance followed by an
expensive suitable pair.

How do you know that the second expensive pair would be suitable though ?
Seems to me you have the same or similar gamblers odds on the expensive shoes in
both cases.

Quoted message said:

Plus the cheap pair is the price that I'd expect to pay for a usable
pair of leisure shoes anyhow, so there would be no loss.

But, if I can trust a store to do a proper job in helping me choose a
pair of shoes then that is probably th best bet.

You can trust them to at least heavily stack the odds in your favour. The odds
are that you almost certainly will get a shoe that you can live with if you have
one fitted for you, and from there you can search for the "dream shoe" (which
you're a little less likely to get first try).

Cheers,
--
Elflord

Quoted message said:

I'm going to be starting to do some running. I haven't run for many
years, and even then only occasionally. The first problem I have is to
choose a pair of shoes.

I don't know what sort of "runner" I am or anything like that. Looking
around on the web, the Nike Air Pegasus seems an affordable option. If
I did buy a much cheaper pair of shoes such as the Nike Vaporfly,
would there be a significantly raised risk of doing myself an injury,
or a much shorter lifetime?

Someone on this group mentioned getting a good lifespan from a Saucony
Trigon shoe. I'm a bit confused about the different "Trigon" numbers,
but a pair of Saucony Trigon 3 shoes is again affordable, even though
I don't need a free rucksack. Are these generally considered to be
good shoes? Or would I be trading comfort and safety for the long
lifespan.

Saucony Trigon is a great shoe. I got 1000 miles from my first pair. I
currently have 800 on my second pair. I just took out my third pair
yesterday. Check out these photos for a comparison.

http://tinyurl.com/39c2zo
http://tinyurl.com/2remw3

The first time I put them on, they felt super-comfortable. So
comfortable that after a few more runs in them, I bought a few more pairs.

I know others have mentioned going to a shoe store, but here's my story.
I went to a store to get myself a good fit and walked out with an Asics
mild stability shoe. After a few runs in them, they just felt clunky. I
put ~200 miles on them before retiring them to other uses like cycling.
The problem was that the guy in the store made me run in the store - a
little stretch of maybe a 100 feet, and based on that, he made his
recommendation. It was a good store with a good reputation. However, the
test strip wasn't long enough. So, you do have to be aware that it is
not simply a matter of you going in there and guaranteed to be walking
out with the best fit. A little bit of experimenting in conjunction with
all that would be good.

Hope this helps,
jobs

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

jobs said:

I know others have mentioned going to a shoe store, but here's my story.
I went to a store to get myself a good fit and walked out with an Asics
mild stability shoe. After a few runs in them, they just felt clunky. I
put ~200 miles on them before retiring them to other uses like cycling.
The problem was that the guy in the store made me run in the store - a
little stretch of maybe a 100 feet, and based on that, he made his
recommendation. It was a good store with a good reputation. However, the
test strip wasn't long enough. So, you do have to be aware that it is
not simply a matter of you going in there and guaranteed to be walking
out with the best fit. A little bit of experimenting in conjunction with
all that would be good.

Just my opinion, but ending up with a shoe that keeps you uninjured for 200
miles and yet feels somehow suboptimal ("clunky" or whatever) is pretty much
a best case scenario for the first try.

I think the guy could have run right behind you for a half marathon and still
ended up concluding that this was the right shoe. You just can't tell that stuff
by watching.

Anything heavier than a light trainer feels like a boat anchor to me, yet a
biomechanics expert could watch me run in the Asics Nimbus, the heavy model of
trigons, or Mizuno Creation, and they'd swear black and blue that my gait
looked just fine in those shoes.

Cheers,
--
Elflord

On Apr 1, 10:25 am, jobs <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I'm going to be starting to do some running. I haven't run for many
years, and even then only occasionally. The first problem I have is to
choose a pair of shoes.

Quoted message said:

I don't know what sort of "runner" I am or anything like that. Looking
around on the web, the Nike Air Pegasus seems an affordable option. If
I did buy a much cheaper pair of shoes such as the Nike Vaporfly,
would there be a significantly raised risk of doing myself an injury,
or a much shorter lifetime?

Quoted message said:

Someone on this group mentioned getting a good lifespan from a Saucony
Trigon shoe. I'm a bit confused about the different "Trigon" numbers,
but a pair of Saucony Trigon 3 shoes is again affordable, even though
I don't need a free rucksack. Are these generally considered to be
good shoes? Or would I be trading comfort and safety for the long
lifespan.

Saucony Trigon is a great shoe. I got 1000 miles from my first pair. I
currently have 800 on my second pair. I just took out my third pair
yesterday. Check out these photos for a comparison.

http://tinyurl.com/39c2zohttp://tinyurl.com/2remw3

The first time I put them on, they felt super-comfortable. So
comfortable that after a few more runs in them, I bought a few more pairs.

I know others have mentioned going to a shoe store, but here's my story.
I went to a store to get myself a good fit and walked out with an Asics
mild stability shoe. After a few runs in them, they just felt clunky. I
put ~200 miles on them before retiring them to other uses like cycling.
The problem was that the guy in the store made me run in the store - a
little stretch of maybe a 100 feet, and based on that, he made his
recommendation. It was a good store with a good reputation. However, the
test strip wasn't long enough. So, you do have to be aware that it is
not simply a matter of you going in there and guaranteed to be walking
out with the best fit. A little bit of experimenting in conjunction with
all that would be good.

Hope this helps,
jobs

--
Posted via a free Usenet account fromhttp://www.teranews.com

Plenty of running shoes probably have the ability to last
1000 miles if they have a hard rubber outsole. I think the common
belief among runners is that you shouldn't use them for running for
that long. Although they may look fine, the midsoles are made of a
cushioning material that breaks down after a while. I keep track of
my mileage and that of each pair of shoes I run in, usually at some
point between 350 and 400 miles the shoe retires to casual use even if
it feels good. I've got so many pairs of retired shoes that I have to
throw some out occassionaly to make room for newer ones.

Eric

bluezfolk said:

Plenty of running shoes probably have the ability to last
1000 miles if they have a hard rubber outsole. I think the common
belief among runners is that you shouldn't use them for running for
that long.

I will respectfully disagree. The life of a shoe is dependent on a
combination of many factors - the build of the shoe, the runner's gait,
the weight, etc. So, it's not just a hard rubber outsole. From what I've
seen, the Trigons don't seem to have a particularly hard rubber outsole.
Indeed, my Asics seemed much harder but they didn't last long.

As for the common belief, I'd rather go with my own experiences. It's
like what they tell you about an oil change for you car every 3000
miles. ;-) Try going 4000 and nothing bad really happens. The thing is I
was not trying to get 1000 miles out of it. It just happened. With the
second pair, I have 800 miles, and I'm beginning to feel that it's time
to retire them. Not that I have aches or pains, but they don't feel as
comfortable as they used to. I've had these since late 2003, though.

Quoted message said:

Although they may look fine, the midsoles are made of a
cushioning material that breaks down after a while. I keep track of
my mileage and that of each pair of shoes I run in, usually at some
point between 350 and 400 miles the shoe retires to casual use even if
it feels good.

Methinks you are erring on the conservative side. How about this for an
experiment - with your next pair, see how long they go without tracking
mileage on them on a daily basis. When they finally start feeling
uncomfortable, go back and add up the mileage and see what you get. I'd
be curious to see what you get.

Quoted message said:

I've got so many pairs of retired shoes that I have to
throw some out occassionaly to make room for newer ones.

Give them to your local shoe store. They can find ways to recycle them 🙂

jobs

Quoted message said:

Eric

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

On Apr 2, 12:36 am, jobs <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

bluezfolk said:

Plenty of running shoes probably have the ability to last
1000 miles if they have a hard rubber outsole. I think the common
belief among runners is that you shouldn't use them for running for
that long.

I will respectfully disagree. The life of a shoe is dependent on a
combination of many factors - the build of the shoe, the runner's gait,
the weight, etc. So, it's not just a hard rubber outsole. From what I've
seen, the Trigons don't seem to have a particularly hard rubber outsole.
Indeed, my Asics seemed much harder but they didn't last long.

As for the common belief, I'd rather go with my own experiences. It's
like what they tell you about an oil change for you car every 3000
miles. ;-) Try going 4000 and nothing bad really happens. The thing is I
was not trying to get 1000 miles out of it. It just happened. With the
second pair, I have 800 miles, and I'm beginning to feel that it's time
to retire them. Not that I have aches or pains, but they don't feel as
comfortable as they used to. I've had these since late 2003, though.

Quoted message said:

Although they may look fine, the midsoles are made of a
cushioning material that breaks down after a while. I keep track of
my mileage and that of each pair of shoes I run in, usually at some
point between 350 and 400 miles the shoe retires to casual use even if
it feels good.

Methinks you are erring on the conservative side. How about this for an
experiment - with your next pair, see how long they go without tracking
mileage on them on a daily basis. When they finally start feeling
uncomfortable, go back and add up the mileage and see what you get. I'd
be curious to see what you get.

Quoted message said:

I've got so many pairs of retired shoes that I have to
throw some out occassionaly to make room for newer ones.

Give them to your local shoe store. They can find ways to recycle them 🙂

jobs

Quoted message said:

Eric

--
Posted via a free Usenet account fromhttp://www.teranews.com

I guess we'll just have to each do our own thing. I'd rather
change my oil frequently and also my running shoes, its the ounce of
prevention being worth a pound of cure thing. In both instances just
because something looks good don't mean it is good. Maybe I'll give
the Trigons a try, haven't worn Sauconys since the Jazz 4000. Good
idea about recycling the shoes, I'll check if the local store does it.

Eric

jobs said:

p.s.: How's your training going? You haven't posted your training in a
while.

Thanks for asking. It's been somewhat unstructured because I've started a new
job and also just moved apartments. But I still get in a speed workout every
week with Bob Glover's group, and I am getting in what I think is about 50mpw or
so.

Cheers,
--
Elflord

bluezfolk said:

On Apr 2, 12:36 am, jobs <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

bluezfolk said:

Plenty of running shoes probably have the ability to last
1000 miles if they have a hard rubber outsole. I think the common
belief among runners is that you shouldn't use them for running for
that long.

I will respectfully disagree. The life of a shoe is dependent on a
combination of many factors - the build of the shoe, the runner's gait,
the weight, etc. So, it's not just a hard rubber outsole. From what I've
seen, the Trigons don't seem to have a particularly hard rubber outsole.
Indeed, my Asics seemed much harder but they didn't last long.

As for the common belief, I'd rather go with my own experiences. It's
like what they tell you about an oil change for you car every 3000
miles. ;-) Try going 4000 and nothing bad really happens. The thing is I
was not trying to get 1000 miles out of it. It just happened. With the
second pair, I have 800 miles, and I'm beginning to feel that it's time
to retire them. Not that I have aches or pains, but they don't feel as
comfortable as they used to. I've had these since late 2003, though.

Quoted message said:

Although they may look fine, the midsoles are made of a
cushioning material that breaks down after a while. I keep track of
my mileage and that of each pair of shoes I run in, usually at some
point between 350 and 400 miles the shoe retires to casual use even if
it feels good.

Methinks you are erring on the conservative side. How about this for an
experiment - with your next pair, see how long they go without tracking
mileage on them on a daily basis. When they finally start feeling
uncomfortable, go back and add up the mileage and see what you get. I'd
be curious to see what you get.

Quoted message said:

I've got so many pairs of retired shoes that I have to
throw some out occassionaly to make room for newer ones.

Give them to your local shoe store. They can find ways to recycle them 🙂

jobs

Quoted message said:

Eric

--
Posted via a free Usenet account fromhttp://www.teranews.com

I guess we'll just have to each do our own thing. I'd rather
change my oil frequently and also my running shoes, its the ounce of
prevention being worth a pound of cure thing.

But, like oil changes, shoe changes have ways of telling whether they're
needed or not. If your oil is still relatively clear when you change it,
you probably could get a little more mileage. If it's black at 3000mi,
change more frequently. (I only drive maybe 5-6000 mi in a year, but
usually get oil changed when tires get changed, at least before the
winter changeover since most miles are winter.)

With shoes, if you rotate a newer pair with a more used pair, you can
tell the difference and when one is ready to retire. Looking at some of
my old records the other day, I noticed I never got more than maybe
150mi on my Grid Stabil's before my feet started bothering me. PT
explained they were wrong shoes for me and switched me to Trespasses.
I've never gotten less than about 350 mi/pair, and if their senior miles
are spent on snow, I can get close to 500 mi on a pair with no problems.
I've not taken a pair that far on dirt. I tried going back to my
original pair which only had low 300's on them, iirc, to see if I could
get a few more miles out of them, and they really didn't feel right, so
they are permanently retired, but most of their life was on dirt (little
snow that winter). I judge retirement of shoes by their relative
feeling. I do keep track of mileage, but primarily as a caution signal
to consider the shoe's experience level if something doesn't feel right.

jobs appparently has a fairly efficient stride and shoes last a long
time for him. Shelf life of unused shoes could be a serious issue for
him. I don't think he's going by appearance of soles.

Some runner-shoe combinations have long-life expectancies while others
don't.

Just a different perspective.

As for retired shoes, they can probably be donated to any of the local
charities - drop boxes in grocery-store parking lots work for me since I
seldom get to running shoe store.

Dot

--
"The goal is training and adaptation, not destruction and injury."
- John Hardy
http://www.mountainrunning.coolrunning.com.au/misc/training.shtml

Dot dot.h@#duh?att.net said:

bluezfolk said:

On Apr 2, 12:36 am, jobs <[email hidden]>
wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

bluezfolk wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> Plenty of running shoes probably have the ability to last
>1000 miles if they have a hard rubber outsole. I think the common
>belief among runners is that you shouldn't use them for running for
>that long.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I will respectfully disagree. The life of a shoe is dependent on a
combination of many factors - the build of the shoe, the runner's gait,
the weight, etc. So, it's not just a hard rubber outsole. From what I've
seen, the Trigons don't seem to have a particularly hard rubber outsole.
Indeed, my Asics seemed much harder but they didn't last long.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

As for the common belief, I'd rather go with my own experiences. It's
like what they tell you about an oil change for you car every 3000
miles. ;-) Try going 4000 and nothing bad really happens. The thing is I
was not trying to get 1000 miles out of it. It just happened. With the
second pair, I have 800 miles, and I'm beginning to feel that it's time
to retire them. Not that I have aches or pains, but they don't feel as
comfortable as they used to. I've had these since late 2003, though.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>Although they may look fine, the midsoles are made of a
>cushioning material that breaks down after a while. I keep track of
>my mileage and that of each pair of shoes I run in, usually at some
>point between 350 and 400 miles the shoe retires to casual use even if
>it feels good.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Methinks you are erring on the conservative side. How about this for an
experiment - with your next pair, see how long they go without tracking
mileage on them on a daily basis. When they finally start feeling
uncomfortable, go back and add up the mileage and see what you get. I'd
be curious to see what you get.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>I've got so many pairs of retired shoes that I have to
>throw some out occassionaly to make room for newer ones.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Give them to your local shoe store. They can find ways to recycle them 🙂

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

jobs

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>Eric

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

--
Posted via a free Usenet account fromhttp://www.teranews.com

Quoted message said:

I guess we'll just have to each do our own thing. I'd rather
change my oil frequently and also my running shoes, its the ounce of
prevention being worth a pound of cure thing.

But, like oil changes, shoe changes have ways of telling whether they're
needed or not. If your oil is still relatively clear when you change it,
you probably could get a little more mileage. If it's black at 3000mi,
change more frequently. (I only drive maybe 5-6000 mi in a year, but
usually get oil changed when tires get changed, at least before the
winter changeover since most miles are winter.)

With shoes, if you rotate a newer pair with a more used pair, you can
tell the difference and when one is ready to retire. Looking at some of
my old records the other day, I noticed I never got more than maybe
150mi on my Grid Stabil's before my feet started bothering me. PT
explained they were wrong shoes for me and switched me to Trespasses.
I've never gotten less than about 350 mi/pair, and if their senior miles
are spent on snow, I can get close to 500 mi on a pair with no problems.
I've not taken a pair that far on dirt. I tried going back to my
original pair which only had low 300's on them, iirc, to see if I could
get a few more miles out of them, and they really didn't feel right, so
they are permanently retired, but most of their life was on dirt (little
snow that winter). I judge retirement of shoes by their relative
feeling. I do keep track of mileage, but primarily as a caution signal
to consider the shoe's experience level if something doesn't feel right.

jobs appparently has a fairly efficient stride and shoes last a long
time for him. Shelf life of unused shoes could be a serious issue for
him. I don't think he's going by appearance of soles.

Some runner-shoe combinations have long-life expectancies while others
don't.

Just a different perspective.

As for retired shoes, they can probably be donated to any of the local
charities - drop boxes in grocery-store parking lots work for me since I
seldom get to running shoe store.

Dot

--
"The goal is training and adaptation, not destruction and injury."
- John Hardyhttp://www.mountainrunning.coolrunning.com.au/misc/training.shtml

I've been told that roughly 90% of the stuff that gets put
into those drop boxes is sold as rags, only the very best stuff makes
it to distribution to those in need or to thrift stores. My old shoes
would not qualify.

Eric

bluezfolk said:

On Apr 2, 2:50 pm, Dot <dot.h@#duh?att.net> wrote:

......

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

As for retired shoes, they can probably be donated to any of the local
charities - drop boxes in grocery-store parking lots work for me since I
seldom get to running shoe store.

Dot

I've been told that roughly 90% of the stuff that gets put
into those drop boxes is sold as rags, only the very best stuff makes
it to distribution to those in need or to thrift stores. My old shoes
would not qualify.

Eric,

When I talked about recycling shoes, I wasn't thinking of their getting
used by other folks. What I had in mind was the recycling program where
they break it down into small pieces which they then use in surfacing
playgrounds, indoor courts, etc. I didn't know about this either at the
time when I was looking around for recycling options. But I did a bit of
searching around on the internet and came upon it. I even got a couple
of dozen shoes from colleagues at work. This was my experience (I posted
this a week or two ago in reply to one of Phil's posts):

http://runjobsrun.blogspot.com/2006/03/recycling-old-shoes.html

jobs

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

Elflord said:

jobs said:

p.s.: How's your training going? You haven't posted your training in a
while.

Thanks for asking. It's been somewhat unstructured because I've started a new
job and also just moved apartments. But I still get in a speed workout every
week with Bob Glover's group, and I am getting in what I think is about 50mpw or
so.

Changing apartments and jobs at the same time can be a big pain. I'm
surprised (in awe) that you are even getting 50 mpw. When I had to go
through that a couple of years ago, my running suffered quite badly.

Good luck,
jobs

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

On Apr 2, 8:01 pm, jobs <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

bluezfolk said:

On Apr 2, 2:50 pm, Dot <dot.h@#duh?att.net> wrote:

.....

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

As for retired shoes, they can probably be donated to any of the local
charities - drop boxes in grocery-store parking lots work for me since I
seldom get to running shoe store.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Dot

Quoted message said:

I've been told that roughly 90% of the stuff that gets put
into those drop boxes is sold as rags, only the very best stuff makes
it to distribution to those in need or to thrift stores. My old shoes
would not qualify.

Eric,

When I talked about recycling shoes, I wasn't thinking of their getting
used by other folks. What I had in mind was the recycling program where
they break it down into small pieces which they then use in surfacing
playgrounds, indoor courts, etc. I didn't know about this either at the
time when I was looking around for recycling options. But I did a bit of
searching around on the internet and came upon it. I even got a couple
of dozen shoes from colleagues at work. This was my experience (I posted
this a week or two ago in reply to one of Phil's posts):

http://runjobsrun.blogspot.com/2006/03/recycling-old-shoes.html

jobs

--
Posted via a free Usenet account fromhttp://www.teranews.com

I'm all in favor of recycling. Thanks for the info.

Eric