As suggested in the well being secyion of October TGO. how many people can afford to do this?
How many people do do this? I've heard that trainers used for running should be changed every 500 miles or so, but this is the first time anybody has suggested changing walking boot every 400 miles!!!
Obviously it will depend on your use but for me it work out at new pairs a year.
In the days when I used to run regularly I was forced to use a fairly heavyweight trainer ( Brooks Chariots) because of my tendency to supination (leading to shin-splints).
Logging running miles is obviously a bit easier than those walked, but I reckoned to consistently get about 600 miles from each pair before the innersole started to seriously break down. It's not exactly a like with like comparison, but I did as many miles as possible 'off road', partly from preference and partly to minimise impact on joints.
I don't have the stats to prove this, but instinct tells me that I get many more miles per pair of walking boots or trail shoes than the 600 or so I was getting from a pair of Chariots. The one notable exception to that was actually the most expensive pair of 'multi-activity shoes' I've ever purchased - perhaps it would be best not to mention the brand.
I guess it would be a good idea to replace boots on a mileage-done basis if they've a running shoe style midsole (eg. a lot of Brashers) but otherwise I'd expect a lot more wear from a decent footwear.
I clock up at least 2000 walking miles a year so things would get very expensive at that rate.
WB - name that brand. I can have a guess if you like.
I think it depends on the type of footwear and how long the midsole lasts. I used to get around 1200 miles out of boots with Vibram Montagna soles before they needed resoling. With Brasher Hillmaster/Superlight boots I get around 800 miles. I've had sandals last 500-600 miles before the tread was worn out.
Soft running shoe type midsoles do collapse more quickly than firmer midsoles - I wore one pair out in 200 miles. I don't think such midsoles are good for hillwalking anyway. They're designed to absorb shock when road running. In the hills I find soft midsoles unsupportive and unstable. A thinner, firmer midsole is better and will last longer.
I've posted a very similar answer to Chris's on the other thread about this. Running shoes tend to use EVA for cushioning which compresses with use and eventually damages both the cushioing and biomechanical effectiveness of the shoe. Runners also put more impact per foot strike into the shoe than walkers I think.
Most boots still use a PU mid-sole rather than EVA and are more durable, plus have a stiffer, more durable overall structure which makes them longer lasting.
Some lightweight walking boots do use EVA, but it tends to be a stiffer grade and, like I said, the impact forces are less. With running shoes you can usually see the collapse of the EVA midsole as it tends to fold.
Agree with Jon about the EVA midsoles. It does seem to collapse very quickly and the cushioning, while it can vary from shoe to shoe, isn't always effective enough. Last year I wore a pair of Asolo Axis trainer-stryle shoes for the last 1000 miles of my PCT hike and found them excellent - the first really comfortable pair of shoes, with goo cushioning, that I'd had on the trail.
I've just done 100 miles in the French Jura with a pair of Asolo Fulcrum shoes - the nearest thing there is to an Axis successor, I'm told - and have found them similarly excellent and hope to get another 900 miles out of them. On the other hand I've a couple of pairs of shoes at home that I'll be ditching long before the 400 mile mark as they're just not good for my feet offering no real cushioning and inadequate support.
400 miles was a bit worrying. With the shape of my feet it normally takes 400 miles before they stop hurting me! And 400 miles would be about two TGO crossings. My last pair lasted me about 2000 miles. Must admit that the guy in the shop laughed when I asked about them being resoled. He muttered something about having something left to stick the sole onto. Still they were value for money.
