3 ms·

but it doesn't have to be that way. even here in SF, we have DSG races that only cost 5$ for a 5K or 10K. Sure there's no timing chip or free bananas or trop

but it doesn't have to be that way. even here in SF, we have DSG races that only cost 5$ for a 5K or 10K. Sure there's no timing chip or free bananas or trophies, but you get your time and a chance to compete against others. As for shoes, I've been running 5-10 miles per week in the same pair for over 2 years and haven't worn them out yet. Yes, Nike/special performance ones do wear out much faster and fall apart in less then 1000 miles. But, if you get a cheaper pair from target or other department stores, they'll last a lot longer.

chrisfosterelli 8y ago
> but it doesn't have to be that way 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.