Time for New Shoes



K

Keith

Guest
I bought a pair of Brooks about 1.5 years ago (fitted by a running
store) that I have put about 400 miles on, with most of that in the
last 4 months. Lately, I've developed shin splints.

I don't think mileage-wise, that I've worn these shoes out, but could
the age have caused a breakdown that could be leading to this?

Thanks.
 
D

Donovan Rebbechi

Guest
On 2004-12-24, Keith <[email protected]> wrote:
> I bought a pair of Brooks about 1.5 years ago (fitted by a running
> store) that I have put about 400 miles on, with most of that in the
> last 4 months. Lately, I've developed shin splints.
>
> I don't think mileage-wise, that I've worn these shoes out, but could
> the age have caused a breakdown that could be leading to this?


Doubt it. But 400 miles could be enough to fry the midsole of the shoe.
Depends not just on you, but also the shoe. You might get 600 or so
on one pair of shoe, but only get 400 or so on a different model.

Cheers,
--
Donovan Rebbechi
http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/
 
F

FabulustRunner

Guest
>I bought a pair of Brooks about 1.5 years ago (fitted by a running
>store) that I have put about 400 miles on, with most of that in the
>last 4 months. Lately, I've developed shin splints.
>
>I don't think mileage-wise, that I've worn these shoes out, but could
>the age have caused a breakdown that could be leading to this?
>
>Thanks.


On the contrary, 400 miles is a new record for Brooks! You need new shoes.
 
D

Dot

Guest
Keith wrote:
> I bought a pair of Brooks about 1.5 years ago (fitted by a running
> store) that I have put about 400 miles on, with most of that in the
> last 4 months. Lately, I've developed shin splints.
>
> I don't think mileage-wise, that I've worn these shoes out,


Are you basing this on the shin splints alone or some aspect of the
shoe? or have you increased your mileage a lot recently (too much, too
soon) or some other change in training or rest of life issues that might
result in shin splints? The actual mileage people get from shoes will
depend a lot on the person, their biomechanics, running surface, etc. as
well as the shoe construction.

My current Brooks (Trespass, lightweight trail), I can probably get at
least 250 miles on, before I turn them into my snowshoe running and
hiking shoes, then maybe another 100 miles. I don't think I'd get 400
miles out of them, but that's me. Some people get 1000 miles on their
shoes, but more likely closer to 300-600 or so.


> but could
> the age have caused a breakdown that could be leading to this?
>

Doubt it and I hope not ;) The Brooks I'm currently running in are about
2 yr old (from when they were purchased). I have 3 more unopened pair
stockpiled that were bought 1 yr ago so figure it will be a couple years
before I get to them (at my present rate, anyway), so hope they can
stand storage that long ;)

The way I tell if my shoes are ready for retirement from running is to
have two pairs broken in and alternate them with the better pair being
used for longer or rockier runs. When I notice a difference in the two
is when the older gets retired from regular running, but may still be
used for snowshoe running (assumption of soft snow), hiking, etc (maybe
another 100 miles). I then start using a 3rd pair on short, flat runs
until it's comfortable, then add hills. Then use that as a standard to
tell if pair #2 is worn out. Repeat as necessary. I find this more
reliable than mileage or time figures.

For me, "breaking in" involves getting footbed matched to my foot and
orthotic, and flexing the forefoot (needed for hills).

Dot

--
"Dream Big, and dare to fail." --- Norman Vaughn
who was with Byrd in Antarctica and whose 99th birthday was Dec 19
 
D

Doug Freese

Guest
"Dot" <[email protected]#duh?att.net> wrote in message
news:[email protected]
> The way I tell if my shoes are ready for retirement from running is to
> have two pairs broken in and alternate them with the better pair being
> used for longer or rockier runs.


I do the same but want to add some additional words although I think
they are implied. I introduce the second pair after about 150-200 miles.
When a new pair is introduced the difference between the pairs will not
be much. After about 100 or so miles the differences will be more
noticeable.

Additional hint, especially if you run trails or even dirty roads,
number the pairs if they are the same model. After both pairs are dirty
it is very hard to tell the difference and you may mix pairs. I like to
write the numbers on the back of the heel because they take the least
beating. Since the numbers are small yet discernable people often ask me
if markings are Left and Right. :)

-Doug
 
P

Phil M.

Guest
Leafing through rec.running, I read a message from [email protected]#duh?att.net of 24
Dec 2004:

> My current Brooks (Trespass, lightweight trail)


How do you like these? I am very fond of the Brooks Adrenaline GTS 5. It's
what I use for every long run and my last marathon. Since I want to start
doing more trail running, I bought a pair of Adrenaline ASR trail shoes. It
is supposed to have the same support features as the Adrenaline GTS 5, but
has a more aggressive tread for improved traction for moderately rugged
trails (whatever that means). Other than that, it appears to be identical
to the GTS. I think it's not as trail specific as your Trespass shoe, but
many of my runs involve running on the street to get to the trail.

Phil M.

--
"What counts in battle is what you do once the pain sets in." -John Short,
South African coach.
 
D

Dot

Guest
Doug Freese wrote:
> "Dot" <[email protected]#duh?att.net> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]
>
>>The way I tell if my shoes are ready for retirement from running is to
>>have two pairs broken in and alternate them with the better pair being
>>used for longer or rockier runs.

>
>
> I do the same but want to add some additional words although I think
> they are implied. I introduce the second pair after about 150-200 miles.


Since I haven't run a complete cycle yet (very close, I think), I tend
to introduce the new pair by about 100 miles, so I always have either
(1) 2 broken in or (2) 1 almost to be retired, one comfy, one just
entering the cycle. This equals 2 essentially runnable shoes at all
times. I think I got about 150 miles out of one of my pairs of Saucony's
Grid Stabils, more like 100 on the others. So I played it safe on my
first pairs of Trespasses to be sure I had something broken in by 100
mi, and that seems to be working. Actually I have 3 pairs in my cycle,
including the ss pair.

Where I am now (approximately)
1 - 350 total miles = 250 normal miles + 100 miles snowshoe running,
hiking, etc. (probably put it for snowshoes before I really needed to;
will probably only use it on soft snow in the future)
2 - 250 normal miles (still feels fine, but will probably start to use
it on hard-packed ss running as #1 is starting to feel flat for that)
3 - 90 normal miles - comfy before snow started and haven't used them
since.

It takes about 25 miles before I'll try a new pair on some of the bigger
or steeper hills around here. That forefoot section needs to be flexed a
lot to get it like my feet like it, and first couple runs don't feel
that great. I've found that some of my AT problems stemmed from stiff
soles - like my Saucony's as well as hiking boots - so I manually flex a
new shoe, then run flat or relatively so for a few runs before I take it
up anything steeper than 10%.


> When a new pair is introduced the difference between the pairs will not
> be much. After about 100 or so miles the differences will be more
> noticeable.


Right. I tend to break them in earlier, just because I like to have 2 at
all times. Initially I'll use the older shoe for longer runs and some
short runs; maybe only using the new pair one day a week for short, dry
runs, just to be sure it's broken in. Once it's comfortable, I may not
use it much (or at all), depending on where the other one is and what
type runs I'm doing. When I start to feel a difference or the older pair
doesn't feel right on gravel downhills, then the newer one gets used for
long runs or the gravel downhills (about like 10% on concrete), and the
older one gets the short, easy run duty. They're still fine for that,
but I like a little more firmness underfoot for some types of running.

>
> Additional hint, especially if you run trails or even dirty roads,
> number the pairs if they are the same model. After both pairs are dirty
> it is very hard to tell the difference and you may mix pairs. I like to
> write the numbers on the back of the heel because they take the least
> beating. Since the numbers are small yet discernable people often ask me
> if markings are Left and Right. :)


Yep. Picked up that trick from David (SWStudio) a few years ago (thanks,
David) ;) Mine are labelled just on the inside of the heel (between
feet, not inside the shoe) on a smooth surface. The other parts had too
much design to mark them reliably.

But this isn't foolproof, as I discovered the other day when I took the
shoes off - one from pair #1, one from #2. The funny thing is, the ss
pair has duct tape on the back to resist wear so I *should* have
noticed. I was ss running on soft snow so any differences weren't
apparent. but yes, I am mentally taking note that #2 didn't feel
different from #1, which may be close to lawn mowing duty. I do think
that's a result of the snow though. #1 feels fine on soft snow.

Actually I almost went out the door without my running shoes the other
day, and did go out without my running socks. Noticed before I had
gotten too far and made a quick trip home.

Brand names of shells isn't the only things I've been messing up lately :)

Merry Christmas!

Dot

--
"Dream Big, and dare to fail." --- Norman Vaughn
who was with Byrd in Antarctica and whose 99th birthday was Dec 19
 
J

Joshua Steinberg

Guest
FabulustRunner wrote:
> On the contrary, 400 miles is a new record for Brooks! You need new shoes.


I get 900-1500 miles per pair of Brooks Radius IV's. Part of that is
being stubborn and thrifty, but part is that the shoes seem to hold up.

Obviously, you have a different experience with Brooks, but it is not my
experience.

-- Josh
 
J

Joshua Steinberg

Guest
Keith wrote:
> I bought a pair of Brooks about 1.5 years ago (fitted by a running
> store) that I have put about 400 miles on, with most of that in the
> last 4 months. Lately, I've developed shin splints. I don't think mileage-wise, that I've worn these shoes out, but could
> the age have caused a breakdown that could be leading to this?


Y'know, in my experience, shin splints is from muscle imbalance and
increased running burden, not from shoe issues. The part in your post
above that reads, "400 miles, most in the last 4 months" suggests that
you've been ramping up your workouts, and makes me think that an equally
good if not better explanation for your shin splints is the increased
running, not breakdown in your shoes. But maybe others here will chime
in with contrary opinions...

-- Josh
 
F

FabulustRunner

Guest
>Obviously, you have a different experience with Brooks, but it is not my
>experience.


You prance, I run.
 
K

Keith

Guest
On Sat, 25 Dec 2004 13:29:44 -0500, Joshua Steinberg
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Keith wrote:
>> I bought a pair of Brooks about 1.5 years ago (fitted by a running
>> store) that I have put about 400 miles on, with most of that in the
>> last 4 months. Lately, I've developed shin splints. I don't think mileage-wise, that I've worn these shoes out, but could
>> the age have caused a breakdown that could be leading to this?

>
>Y'know, in my experience, shin splints is from muscle imbalance and
>increased running burden, not from shoe issues. The part in your post
>above that reads, "400 miles, most in the last 4 months" suggests that
>you've been ramping up your workouts, and makes me think that an equally
>good if not better explanation for your shin splints is the increased
>running, not breakdown in your shoes. But maybe others here will chime
>in with contrary opinions...
>
>-- Josh


And I would agree with you, but I've tapered off my running quite a
bit over the past few weeks due to travel, etc. The shin splints are
a fairly recent occurance.
 
J

Joshua Steinberg

Guest
FabulustRunner wrote:
> You prance, I run.


Wow, you're so right. I'm a forefoot runner. My heels never touch the
ground. I like to think of my running as a slow sprint, but call it
prancing if you like.

Quite tired of FabulustRunner and his 10% running comments and 90%
asshole comments. Spam-filter engaged. Goodbye to you.

-- Josh
 
T

Tom Phillips

Guest
Dot wrote:
>
> Phil M. wrote:
>
> >
> > On the ultra list there was some discussion about trail shoes versus road
> > shoes. Many of the listers felt that road shoes were fine on trails. I
> > think Doug F feels the same way.

>
> Right. But the critical factors are (1) which road shoes, (2) which
> trail shoes, (3) what kinds of running surfaces, (4) runners' biomechanics.


I say the critical factor is which trail. Some
trails are like groomed highways (dirt but well
maintained.) Some are nothing but rocks and
slippery scree.

> snip...It just happened I started running with a lug sole in Colorado


In the rockies anything I could stick crampons on
would be my preference. I've seen very experienced
runners try to run snow encrusted passes without..
....slip...crash...call for med evac... :)

Course I've been known to run in my 2 lb. lug
soled boots, but _never_ in crampons.
 
D

Dot

Guest
Tom Phillips wrote:
>
> Dot wrote:
>
>>Phil M. wrote:
>>
>>
>>>On the ultra list there was some discussion about trail shoes versus road
>>>shoes. Many of the listers felt that road shoes were fine on trails. I
>>>think Doug F feels the same way.

>>
>>Right. But the critical factors are (1) which road shoes, (2) which
>>trail shoes, (3) what kinds of running surfaces, (4) runners' biomechanics.

>
>
> I say the critical factor is which trail. Some
> trails are like groomed highways (dirt but well
> maintained.) Some are nothing but rocks and
> slippery scree.


I would agree, but since the comment was in comparing shoe types, I
started with that. One of the annoying things I find in many groups (and
some books, for that matter), including this one, is people state a
generalization like what's true in their corner of the universe is true
elsewhere - frequently because they don't recognize the specifics of
their running environment. That's why the generalization "road shoes
were fine on trails" (I know Phil is pulling this from elsewhere - *he*
would never make such an unqualified comment ;) is so misleading. Or
they work in "snow" or "mud". Jeez, how many kinds of snow and mud are
there - 30 or more? Some shoes work under more kinds of conditions than
others, and no shoes work under others ;)
>
>
>>snip...It just happened I started running with a lug sole in Colorado


talk about overlooking critical data: this was around athletic fields at
CSU ;) It just happened that the shoe recommended in a running shoe
store was a Brooks with triangular lugs. I was also suffering from the
delusions created by a jr hi coach that 20 min was a long run (and on a
basketball half court, it was painful.)
>
>
> In the rockies anything I could stick crampons on
> would be my preference. I've seen very experienced
> runners try to run snow encrusted passes without..
> ...slip...crash...call for med evac... :)


I was just reading a report on multi-day run up here. One day was over a
glacier. The folks with ice axes did the loop. One guy also had crampons
besides his ice axe. The others did an out/back. No snow over the
glacier like it usually had because of the heat - so was really
slippery. I guess a rock also got loose and just missed the group. This
isn't the kinda thing that I want to run. I'm far less adventurous.

Dot

--
"Dream Big, and dare to fail." --- Norman Vaughn
who was with Byrd in Antarctica and whose 99th birthday was Dec 19
 
D

Doug Freese

Guest
"Joshua Steinberg" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]
> Keith wrote:
>> I bought a pair of Brooks about 1.5 years ago (fitted by a running
>> store) that I have put about 400 miles on, with most of that in the
>> last 4 months. Lately, I've developed shin splints. I don't think
>> mileage-wise, that I've worn these shoes out, but could
>> the age have caused a breakdown that could be leading to this?

>
> Y'know, in my experience, shin splints is from muscle imbalance and
> increased running burden, not from shoe issues. The part in your post
> above that reads, "400 miles, most in the last 4 months" suggests that
> you've been ramping up your workouts, and makes me think that an
> equally good if not better explanation for your shin splints is the
> increased running, not breakdown in your shoes. But maybe others here
> will chime in with contrary opinions...


I think Steve Pribut does a excellent job at describing both Medial and
Anterior splints at
http://www.drpribut.com/sports/spshin.html

Once a stress factor is ruled out the problem is soft tissue. I don't
know if imbalance is the best synopsis for every case. In some cases
running on crowned roads or over pronation are the "cause." I'm not
sure that is a muscle imbalance but rather we have managed to use/abuse
one muscle over another.



-Doug
 
P

Phil M.

Guest
Leafing through rec.running, I read a message from [email protected]#duh?att.net of
26 Dec 2004:

> Phil M. wrote:
>
>>
>> On the ultra list there was some discussion about trail shoes versus
>> road shoes. Many of the listers felt that road shoes were fine on
>> trails. I think Doug F feels the same way.

>
> Right. But the critical factors are (1) which road shoes, (2) which
> trail shoes, (3) what kinds of running surfaces, (4) runners'
> biomechanics.


Claro que sí. I'm not in to anything technical either. The trails are
hard packed dirt/gravel, for the most part. So for me, a stability shoe
that works on the road will also work on my usual trails.

> Two years ago my PT had recommended Adrenalines for my foot
> biomechanics. They felt great on the treadmill, but flimsy for outdoor
> use. Then he realized I ran trails, and offered the Trespass as a more
> durable alternative. (He just happened to have a pair in my size for
> another patient, but she hadn't been by to pick them up. That has to
> be one of the most fortuitous things to happen in my running.)
>
> The Trespass had just enough more material between me and the
> ground that it felt much better.


Do you mean they physically felt better or that you felt more confident
going over rocks and roots, etc.?

>> I haven't worn the ASRs yet. They're still sitting under the
>> Christmas tree ;-). I compared the specs from www.brooksrunning.com.
>> Almost every spec is identical, so I don't know why they fit
>> differently for you.

>
> Toe box width isn't in the specs.


They are both made on a combination last and the "Universal Platform."
They don't say the shoes are made on the exact same last number, but if
they were, that would mean they "should" fit the same, toebox included.

> Original Trespass in only one width
> was about a D, same as Adrenaline wide. Trespass II, same last, is
> closer to a B. I think the ASR's are probably closer to a D in their
> standard width. I think it may have been the tighter weave of the
> upper that made it "feel" a little snugger, even if it wasn't.


That could be it.

>> There were 2 differences. The ASR has a "water and wind resistant
>> mesh body with synthetic overlays," while the GTS5 has "Air mesh."

>
> I'm guessing, but I think what made them feel a little narrower was
> the weather resistant mesh - that is my feet were feeling warmer and
> hence felt snugger.


Another good point. I wore my ASRs yesterday for a 4-mile run on mostly
asphalt. They felt a little warm, but I also had on my new SmartWool
socks. Normally I wear Wigwam Ultimax. At any rate, they did seem a
little snug. Today I plan on a 15-miler at the Kennesaw Mountain National
Battlefiled Park. http://www.nps.gov/kemo. If the ASRs had been perfect,
I would be wearing them today, but the GTS5s will have to do until I get
used to the ASRs.

>>The other difference was the outsole. The ARS has "forefoot
>> contact rubber" while the GTS5 has "durable sponge rubber."

>
> Hmmm, the ARS sounds like it might have more material between me and
> the ground, so might actually work for running for me. It did feel a
> little firmer.


I couldn't really compare, since my GTS5s have about 200 miles on them.
The ASR soles do seem firmer. The ASRs weigh 15.7 oz in a 12M. The GTS5s
weigh 14 oz (new). The advertised weight of both shoes is supposed to be
identical. So my guess is that the extra weight is from the lug sole
and/or the water-resistant upper. Measuring where the shoes have "PDRB"
emobossed on the side of the sole, the ASRs are 4 millimeters thicker. Of
course my GTSs are worn, but not so much on this side of the shoe.

> When I first heard about the Cascadia, I had heard that it was
> "innovative" or "revolutionary". yawn. Now that I see the description
> of improvements, I'm really intrigued, esp. if they work. The upper is
> not the loose mesh of the Adrenalines and original Trespass so appears
> more weather resistant - and less debris coming through the mesh. But
> it appears to have drainage holes (or is it a decorative pattern)
> mid-foot. This could be a nice combo to address the wet foot issue
> like stream crossings.
>
> It also uses a membrane rather than a nylon plate for rock protection
> = more flexibility in forefoot area. This shoe could be really nice if
> the things work as advertised. Although I'm not sure I understand the
> double pivot.


Not that I trust Brooks' weights anymore, but I noticed that the weight
of the Cascadia is 12.2 oz in men's 9M. That's less than the GTS5. I'm
not sure how that could be with all the bells and whistles attached to
this shoe.

Phil M.
 
F

FabulustRunner

Guest
>Quite tired of FabulustRunner and his 10% running comments and 90%

Oh, we are SOOOO hurt.

>asshole comments. Spam-filter engaged. Goodbye to you.


Jew boy.
 
D

Dot

Guest
Phil M. wrote:
> Leafing through rec.running, I read a message from [email protected]#duh?att.net of
> 26 Dec 2004:
>
>
>>Phil M. wrote:


>>
>>The Trespass had just enough more material between me and the
>>ground that it felt much better.

>
>
> Do you mean they physically felt better or that you felt more confident
> going over rocks and roots, etc.?


physically felt better on my normal trails. I seem to be more
comfortable with "shock absorption" between me and the ground, which in
my mind, is firmer than cushioned in- or mid-soles that are unstable for
me. The lugged soles seem to add just the right amount of material.

I don't have enough rocks and roots to say too much along those lines.
Although some of the gravel roads during the summer had been compacted
almost into lumpy concrete. So I have a feeling I'd like a little
forefoot protection for other types of trails.

>
>
>>>I haven't worn the ASRs yet. They're still sitting under the
>>>Christmas tree ;-). I compared the specs from www.brooksrunning.com.
>>>Almost every spec is identical, so I don't know why they fit
>>>differently for you.

>>
>>Toe box width isn't in the specs.

>
>
> They are both made on a combination last and the "Universal Platform."


Hmmm, I was assuming the "universal" (printed on insole) was the last.
It is the same between the Trespass orig and II, and they fit *very*
differently for a number of people. I'm not sure about whether it was
combination or not between the two (doubt that the specs of original is
on web page anymore), and I'm not sure I trust myself to determine what
last it's on just by looking.


> They don't say the shoes are made on the exact same last number, but if
> they were, that would mean they "should" fit the same, toebox included.


Keep in mind GTS come in widths, neither the Trespass nor the ASR (I
think) come in widths. I use a wide, if available.

>


>>I'm guessing, but I think what made them feel a little narrower was
>>the weather resistant mesh - that is my feet were feeling warmer and
>>hence felt snugger.

>
>
> Another good point. I wore my ASRs yesterday for a 4-mile run on mostly
> asphalt. They felt a little warm, but I also had on my new SmartWool
> socks. Normally I wear Wigwam Ultimax. At any rate, they did seem a
> little snug.


If you get up in the mountains in the snow, and you may find them about
right, I'll bet. That's what I was considering them for - winter use.

For curiosity, do you use standard or wide in the GTS? I know men's
shoes are different, but even many men complained about the TII toebox.

Sounds like Santa was good to you :)


>Today I plan on a 15-miler at the Kennesaw Mountain National
> Battlefiled Park. http://www.nps.gov/kemo. If the ASRs had been perfect,
> I would be wearing them today, but the GTS5s will have to do until I get
> used to the ASRs.


Good move :)
>
>
> Not that I trust Brooks' weights anymore, but I noticed that the weight
> of the Cascadia is 12.2 oz in men's 9M. That's less than the GTS5. I'm
> not sure how that could be with all the bells and whistles attached to
> this shoe.


I agree.

Dot

--
"Dream Big, and dare to fail." --- Norman Vaughn
who was with Byrd in Antarctica and whose 99th birthday was Dec 19
 
D

Donovan Rebbechi

Guest
On 2004-12-26, Phil M. <[email protected]> wrote:

> I couldn't really compare, since my GTS5s have about 200 miles on them.
> The ASR soles do seem firmer. The ASRs weigh 15.7 oz in a 12M. The GTS5s
> weigh 14 oz (new). The advertised weight of both shoes is supposed to be
> identical. So my guess is that the extra weight is from the lug sole
> and/or the water-resistant upper. Measuring where the shoes have "PDRB"
> emobossed on the side of the sole, the ASRs are 4 millimeters thicker. Of
> course my GTSs are worn, but not so much on this side of the shoe.


(-; I discovered much the same thing when I was weighing shoes a while back.
What your gut tells you about the shoe weight is probably going to be more
accurate than the manufacturers "label claim".

> Not that I trust Brooks' weights anymore, but I noticed that the weight
> of the Cascadia is 12.2 oz in men's 9M. That's less than the GTS5. I'm
> not sure how that could be with all the bells and whistles attached to
> this shoe.


(-; thicker uppers, thicker/more durable outsole, thicker (and possibly more
durable midsole) -- this is a heavy shoe. Most manufacturers don't do a very
good job at accurately representing the weight of their lineup.

Cheers,
--
Donovan Rebbechi
http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/
 
P

Phil M.

Guest
Leafing through rec.running, I read a message from [email protected] of 26
Dec 2004:

> (-; thicker uppers, thicker/more durable outsole, thicker (and
> possibly more durable midsole) -- this is a heavy shoe. Most
> manufacturers don't do a very good job at accurately representing the
> weight of their lineup.


Yep. I'm finding that out. Surely they must have a scale that is at least
as accurate as mine. Or maybe they just forgot to weigh it and figured
nobody would notice if they just slapped 12.8 oz on the spec sheet.

Phil M.