Running Shoes "Arc"

In article said:

good bye to a pair of Wave Mavericks with 250 or so miles on them. This was a great shoe...felt
broke in by mile 20/25 and gave me about 225 very sweet miles. However at mile 250 or so....the
"Thrill is Gone".....

The Maverick is a lightweight shoe, and you're not a lightweight runner -- so it will have a
shorter than usual lifetime. Most of the people who can truly get a lot of milage out of their
shoes are smaller and faster than you -- so they take less strides per mile, and have lower impact
with each stride.

Cheers,
--
Donovan Rebbechi pegasus.rutgers.edu~elflordOpen ↗

Each of us are different and each shoe is different. The standard 400-500 miles is only a general
statement and few of us are generals. So get more, some get less some shoes may be good for more
some less. Some of us may be more sensitive to the change others not so.

You make a very good point. Listen to your feet and let them make the determination. The 400-500
miles thing is just a guide.

--
Joseph E. Meehan

26 + 6 = 1 It's Irish Math

"Globaldisc" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

All this time when the manufacturers, podiatrist, etc. say you can expect about 400-500 or so mile
from a quality pair of shoes...I bought into

that. Now

Quoted message said:

I am hard one shoes but am convinced it's all wrong. I'm now thinking

300/350

Quoted message said:

miles or so max. The useful lifespan of a shoe is an "arc", plain and

simple

Quoted message said:

and it seems to me a lot of runners want to avoid acknowledging that. I

don't

Quoted message said:

even believe it's a symmetrical arc (or perfect bell shaped curve).

The "break in" miles will vary contingent on an array of factors. 25,

50, 75

Quoted message said:

miles to break in a shoe....whatever. If you're lucky you might get 200

miles

Quoted message said:

or so of a "sweet spot" with that shoe. However the shoe will

"peak"...and

Quoted message said:

thereafter the rest is downhill in every way...and I notice it. I was in

my

Quoted message said:

Mizuno Wave Mavericks the other night and it just did not feel the same as

the

Quoted message said:

shoe I was raving over a month ago. After a second night and run....I

had to

Quoted message said:

be honest with myself...and concede, "this shoe has peaked and I am now on

the

Quoted message said:

downside of the arc". Happens to all shoes.

I guess I've become enough of a running snob to where I don't want to run

in

Quoted message said:

shoes that have seen their best days. Theoretically I could run another 100-200 miles in lots of
shoes I have...sure...they're service-able...but

those

Quoted message said:

are "down side of the arc" miles. I'm convinced runners that talk about

500 +

Quoted message said:

miles in shoes have simply become content and satified in running in shoes well/far into the
downside of their arc. Methinks people condition

themselves

Quoted message said:

to believe the quality the shoe delivered at mile 400 = to the quality the

shoe

Quoted message said:

deliver at mile 150 for example.

I'm finding I'm dumping shoes immediately once I sense they've

"peaked"...that

Quoted message said:

sweet spot is gone....and the rest is the downside of what it used to be.

I'm

Quoted message said:

thinking if you're doing 500 miles in a shoe...miles 300-500 or so were on

the

Quoted message said:

downside of the arc....and you would have been better off running in a

shoe

Quoted message said:

still in it's sweet spot or ascending to getting to that sweet spot. I

think

Quoted message said:

a lot of people treat shoes like "stocks' and ignore or deny when it

peaked and

Quoted message said:

they should have "sold" and the "hold" longterm.....and run in the shoe hundreds of miles after
it's peaked and out of it's sweet spot.

Maybe I'm just thinking this to justify dumping shoes every 250-300 miles

and

Quoted message said:

not feeling guilty about it. Rambling thoughts on a Saturday morning as

I say

Quoted message said:

good bye to a pair of Wave Mavericks with 250 or so miles on them. This

was a

Quoted message said:

great shoe...felt broke in by mile 20/25 and gave me about 225 very sweet miles. However at mile
250 or so....the "Thrill is Gone".....

(Globaldisc) said:

All this time when the manufacturers, podiatrist, etc. say you can expect about 400-500 or so mile
from a quality pair of shoes...I bought into that. Now I am hard one shoes but am convinced it's
all wrong. I'm now thinking 300/350 miles or so max.

I just retired a pair of Asics 2080's with 1500 miles on them, and no injuries. Be real pal.

The useful lifespan of a shoe is an "arc", plain and simple

Quoted message said:

and it seems to me a lot of runners want to avoid acknowledging that. I don't even believe it's a
symmetrical arc (or perfect bell shaped curve).

The "break in" miles will vary contingent on an array of factors. 25, 50, 75 miles to break in a
shoe....whatever. If you're lucky you might get 200 miles or so of a "sweet spot" with that shoe.
However the shoe will "peak"...and thereafter the rest is downhill in every way...and I notice it.
I was in my Mizuno Wave Mavericks the other night and it just did not feel the same as the shoe I
was raving over a month ago. After a second night and run....I had to be honest with myself...and
concede, "this shoe has peaked and I am now on the downside of the arc". Happens to all shoes.

I guess I've become enough of a running snob to where I don't want to run in shoes that have seen
their best days. Theoretically I could run another 100-200 miles in lots of shoes I
have...sure...they're service-able...but those are "down side of the arc" miles. I'm convinced
runners that talk about 500 + miles in shoes have simply become content and satified in running in
shoes well/far into the downside of their arc. Methinks people condition themselves to believe the
quality the shoe delivered at mile 400 = to the quality the shoe deliver at mile 150 for example.

I'm finding I'm dumping shoes immediately once I sense they've "peaked"...that sweet spot is
gone....and the rest is the downside of what it used to be. I'm thinking if you're doing 500 miles
in a shoe...miles 300-500 or so were on the downside of the arc....and you would have been better
off running in a shoe still in it's sweet spot or ascending to getting to that sweet spot. I think
a lot of people treat shoes like "stocks' and ignore or deny when it peaked and they should have
"sold" and the "hold" longterm.....and run in the shoe hundreds of miles after it's peaked and out
of it's sweet spot.

Maybe I'm just thinking this to justify dumping shoes every 250-300 miles and not feeling guilty
about it. Rambling thoughts on a Saturday morning as I say good bye to a pair of Wave Mavericks
with 250 or so miles on them. This was a great shoe...felt broke in by mile 20/25 and gave me about
225 very sweet miles. However at mile 250 or so....the "Thrill is Gone".....

Yes but Donovan....once you hit that tipping point.....and have an awareness that the shoe has
"peaked" and is now on the downside of its life span "arc"....do you stick with them?

I guess I'm wondering....at what point do you "dump" a shoe? When it starts hurting your "shins"
or "feet" or anything seems to me a point when perhaps you've ran a 100+ miles in a less than
decent shoe...

I don't know, Globe. I will acknowledge that you may be right. But I am not convinced, and I will
tell you why. I, too, doubt the 500 mile-lifespan argument. But I doubt it because I think it may be
too short. I typically run shoes out to 650-800 miles. I almost always run in NB87x's, and it may be
that they have so much cushioning that even after 500 miles they are better than many.

Or it may be that I am just insensitive to the ailments that arise out of running too long in a pair
of shoes. But during one particularly poverty stricken period in my life, I ran 1200 miles in a
pair. I will be the first to admit that they were well beyond serviceable life, but I think maybe
everybody is throwing away some pretty good shoes.

Another thing I have done to save $ is to use my older shoes for the shorter runs. They don't bother
much, and it does reduce the mileage on the new ones.

Brian Jones "Globaldisc" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

All this time when the manufacturers, podiatrist, etc. say you can expect about 400-500 or so mile
from a quality pair of shoes...I bought into

that. Now

Quoted message said:

I am hard one shoes but am convinced it's all wrong. I'm now thinking

300/350

Quoted message said:

miles or so max. The useful lifespan of a shoe is an "arc", plain and

simple

Quoted message said:

and it seems to me a lot of runners want to avoid acknowledging that. I

don't

Quoted message said:

even believe it's a symmetrical arc (or perfect bell shaped curve).

The "break in" miles will vary contingent on an array of factors. 25,

50, 75

Quoted message said:

miles to break in a shoe....whatever. If you're lucky you might get 200

miles

Quoted message said:

or so of a "sweet spot" with that shoe. However the shoe will

"peak"...and

Quoted message said:

thereafter the rest is downhill in every way...and I notice it. I was in

my

Quoted message said:

Mizuno Wave Mavericks the other night and it just did not feel the same as

the

Quoted message said:

shoe I was raving over a month ago. After a second night and run....I

had to

Quoted message said:

be honest with myself...and concede, "this shoe has peaked and I am now on

the

Quoted message said:

downside of the arc". Happens to all shoes.

I guess I've become enough of a running snob to where I don't want to run

in

Quoted message said:

shoes that have seen their best days. Theoretically I could run another 100-200 miles in lots of
shoes I have...sure...they're service-able...but

those

Quoted message said:

are "down side of the arc" miles. I'm convinced runners that talk about

500 +

Quoted message said:

miles in shoes have simply become content and satified in running in shoes well/far into the
downside of their arc. Methinks people condition

themselves

Quoted message said:

to believe the quality the shoe delivered at mile 400 = to the quality the

shoe

Quoted message said:

deliver at mile 150 for example.

I'm finding I'm dumping shoes immediately once I sense they've

"peaked"...that

Quoted message said:

sweet spot is gone....and the rest is the downside of what it used to be.

I'm

Quoted message said:

thinking if you're doing 500 miles in a shoe...miles 300-500 or so were on

the

Quoted message said:

downside of the arc....and you would have been better off running in a

shoe

Quoted message said:

still in it's sweet spot or ascending to getting to that sweet spot. I

think

Quoted message said:

a lot of people treat shoes like "stocks' and ignore or deny when it

peaked and

Quoted message said:

they should have "sold" and the "hold" longterm.....and run in the shoe hundreds of miles after
it's peaked and out of it's sweet spot.

Maybe I'm just thinking this to justify dumping shoes every 250-300 miles

and

Quoted message said:

not feeling guilty about it. Rambling thoughts on a Saturday morning as

I say

Quoted message said:

good bye to a pair of Wave Mavericks with 250 or so miles on them. This

was a

Quoted message said:

great shoe...felt broke in by mile 20/25 and gave me about 225 very sweet miles. However at mile
250 or so....the "Thrill is Gone".....

In article said:

Yes but Donovan....once you hit that tipping point.....and have an awareness that the shoe has
"peaked" and is now on the downside of its life span "arc"....do you stick with them?

I guess I'm wondering....at what point do you "dump" a shoe? When it starts hurting your "shins"
or "feet" or anything seems to me a point when perhaps you've ran a 100+ miles in a less than
decent shoe...

I can go 300 miles or so in most of my shoes without any problem, then I get rid of them regardless.
For example, the NB 806 that I used t wear, and the Saucony Trigon RC that I use now have held up
very well. I agree that they should be dumped once they start going downhill.

It's possible that the Mizuno wave has a shorter lifespan than shoes with other cushioning
mechanisms (such as gel or air or even solid rubber like NB) I haven't really tested this theory,
because I don't have that many miles on my wave riders yet.

Cheers,
--
Donovan Rebbechi pegasus.rutgers.edu~elflordOpen ↗

Curious Brian....mind sharing your height and weight? I suspect you're under
155 .lbs or less....or so? You're probably also a midsole striker?

(Globaldisc) said:

Yes but Donovan....once you hit that tipping point.....and have an awareness that the shoe has
"peaked" and is now on the downside of its life span "arc"....do you stick with them?

I guess I'm wondering....at what point do you "dump" a shoe? When it starts hurting your "shins"
or "feet" or anything seems to me a point when perhaps you've ran a 100+ miles in a less than
decent shoe...

When it starts to hurt you anywhere. After 400 miles you should know what to expect after a run,
when you feel discomfort then it's time.

Globaldisc said:

All this time when the manufacturers, podiatrist, etc. say you can expect about 400-500 or so mile
from a quality pair of shoes...I bought into that. Now

..

Quoted message said:

The "break in" miles will vary contingent on an array of factors. 25, 50, 75 miles to break in a
shoe....whatever. If you're lucky you might get 200 miles or so of a "sweet spot" with that shoe.
However the shoe will "peak"...and thereafter the rest is downhill in every way...and I notice it.
I was in my Mizuno Wave Mavericks the other night and it just did not feel the same as the shoe I
was raving over a month ago. After a second night and run....I had to be honest with myself...and
concede, "this shoe has peaked and I am now on the downside of the arc". Happens to all shoes.

Shoes does not need break-in for me. New pairs gets a 2 mile run before a race, and are perfect
after that. I feel it going downhill from there, and will usually take the shoes into my rotation
after 100 miles, getting a new pair for racing.

I have been using leightweight shoes (Gel DS Lyte) for some years now, and they do have a shorter
lifespan than big fat shoes. I am usually getting 400-650 km max out of them, before I feel they
have lost their cushioning.

I can run with pretty dead shoes anyway, and sometimes does it. But I am aware when they are dead.
But on short runs they are good to help strengthen the muscles. The body will get more feedback.

I wish with all my heart that I was 155lb. However, I am an honest 179 lbs., and 5-11. But you are
correct in that I am a midsole/ball-heel type runner.

Brian Jones "Globaldisc" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Curious Brian....mind sharing your height and weight? I suspect you're

under

Quoted message said:

155 .lbs or less....or so? You're probably also a midsole striker?

Povl H. Pedersen said:

I feel it going downhill from there,

You are mentally defecient. Only a complete [censored] would make such a ridiculuous statement. Get
off the crack, or go get your little pea-brain checked out.

I was in my

Quoted message said:

Mizuno Wave Mavericks the other night and it just did not feel the same as

the

Quoted message said:

shoe I was raving over a month ago. After a second night and run....I

had to

Quoted message said:

be honest with myself...and concede, "this shoe has peaked and I am now on

the

Quoted message said:

downside of the arc". Happens to all shoes.

Have you tried upgrading the insert? Some of them compress well before the midsole material.

Zipper brain said:

(Globaldisc) said:

All this time when the manufacturers, podiatrist, etc. say you can expect about 400-500 or so mile
from a quality pair of shoes...I bought into that. Now I am hard one shoes but am convinced it's
all wrong. I'm now thinking 300/350 miles or so max.

I just retired a pair of Asics 2080's with 1500 miles on them, and no injuries. Be real pal.

And someone may have retired theirs after a 100 miles. It's all averages and personal comfort. As
for the 80's I found they wear out even faster than the 20-70's and agree with Andrew that this
model starts to waver about 350 miles and I tend not to push them past 450 or so. I'd much rather
buy an extra pair of shoes or two then the cost of doctor and down time.

More power to you if you get 1,500 miles. This says your biomechanically strong and/or have a high
tolerance for pain. Then again, why the hell should we believe anything you say. Trollers are
notorious prevaricators and storytellers often bleating incessant cockalorum.

--
Doug Freese "Caveat Lector" [email hidden]

Doug Freese said:

And someone may have retired theirs after a 100 miles. It's all averages and personal comfort. As
for the 80's I found they wear out even faster than the 20-70's and agree with Andrew that this
model starts to waver about 350 miles and I tend not to push them past 450 or so.

Ridiculous!

Quoted message said:

I'd much rather buy an extra pair of shoes or two then the cost of doctor and down time.

But I've had no down butthead, that's the point!

Quoted message said:

More power to you if you get 1,500 miles. This says your biomechanically strong and/or have a high
tolerance for pain.

Both.

Quoted message said:

hen again, why the hell should we believe anything you say. Trollers are notorious prevaricators
and storytellers often bleating incessant cockalorum.

Leave it to you invent a word with "[censored]" in it. Believe me because you know I'm for real, because
my advice is usually right on the mark, and as a direct result of it you have personally improved
this year by taking it.

Gutter.Snipe. said:

Leave it to you invent a word with "[censored]" in it.

Main Entry: [censored]·a·lo·rum Pronunciation: "kä-k&-'lOr-&m, -'lor- Function: noun Inflected Form(s):
plural -rums Etymology: probably modification of obsolete Flemish kockeloeren to crow, of imitative
origin Date: circa 1715
1 : a boastful and self-important person

I think it fits you and it has that clever root word that titialtes your third grade thrist for
potty mouth sounding words. Maybe navel-gazing is better.....

--
Doug Freese "Caveat Lector" [email hidden]

Doug Freese said:

Gutter.Snipe. said:

Leave it to you invent a word with "[censored]" in it.

Main Entry: [censored]·a·lo·rum Pronunciation: "kä-k&-'lOr-&m, -'lor- Function: noun Inflected Form(s):
plural -rums Etymology: probably modification of obsolete Flemish kockeloeren to crow, of imitative
origin Date: circa 1715
1 : a boastful and self-important person

I think it fits you and it has that clever root word that titialtes your third grade thrist for
potty mouth sounding words. Maybe navel-gazing is better.....

You just love saying "[censored]" don't you Doug? I bet you got a stiffie