101–110 of 214 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm not convinced you need cushioning. I spend zero on running shoes, and I've run two marathons like this.
I'm convinced you don't need it, but my shin splints disagree, and I'm happy to buy new shoes after 300-500 miles.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> and the fact that they have a summer house where at least one pair resides. This person lives differently to me. He seems to live in Finland. It's a sparsely populated country covered in forests and with an abundance of lakes[0] which has led to a quite democratic summer house culture. It's completely normal even among working class to own a summer house by a lake. There's of course variation. A large summer house…
Thanks, didn't know that. Still, the guy is spending wild amounts of money on clothing. Eur442 per year on shoes? I spend maybe £30-50 on an everyday pair that'll last me a couple of years. I also have a couple of pairs of dress shoes, hiking boots, running shoes, and lifting shoes, but all of those have been going for 5-10 years.
I think $10/toe/year is worth more than whatever I can buy for $30 for a pair of somethings, that can keep my feet warm, allow me to wear crampons, and kick steps.
(ok ok, some of you will say if I lose all my toes, I wouldn't have to worry anymore, but hey, I like my toes!)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It depends how much walking / hiking / running / whatever else you do. A typical pair of running shoes lasts somewhere around 300-500 miles. (You could probably stretch a pair further than that, but you run much higher risk of injury once the cushioning wears down.) If you put in a modest 5 miles a day and have two pairs in rotation, then expect to replace both pairs every 6 months (if not more often). It is not unco…
I'm not convinced you need cushioning. I spend zero on running shoes, and I've run two marathons like this.
An average of 102 USD for a pair of shorts¹ is something else though, and like other people in the thread note, … Larry, I'm on DuckTales. (171 USD, real / pair of shoes.) (Board member/CEO/VP/etc., if you're curious what profession gets one such a lifestyle.)
I … I struggle to find enough time in my life to keep the fuel efficiency spreadsheet for my car up to date. (Though even that did reveal some findings: we get better fuel economy when the bike rack isn't attached. Not a terribly surprising conclusion, and the difference really wasn't that great.) I'd like to have this for some things in my life, … but it's never clear whether it's worth it.
Especially for clothing. This tells you post facto whether a purchasing decision was good, or not. What good does that do me…? Unless it is something I'll purchase again, but I feel like for clothing that is rare to begin with, and even where I do, it's dominated by more mundane filters like "is there even another supplier that I know of in this area?" Shoes³ are a good example: most stores' stock is so utterly pathetic that the answer is "the store has exactly 1 pair in your size" (and it's hideous, or doesn't actually fit, etc.) (Same problem with dress shirts, jeans. I have gotten the impression that this is mostly a me problem — my build is suffering reverse economies of scale as most of America outweighs me substantially.)
At purchase time is when I need the data … and there, reviews are terrible. I'd truly love to ban reviewers who fail to give me the trifecta of "what size are you, what size did you purchase, and how did it fit?", esp. on Amazon. "It fits" does little good if I have no idea what size you are. Did you buy "your typical size" or did you buy based on your measurements? Etc. Lots of reviews, but next to no data. Compound with false advertising (e.g., "Silk" items made of polyester: my top hit on "silk pajamas²" is 95%/5% poly/span, i.e., 0% silk, and has silk in the title; multiple material listings that contradict each other etc.)
¹7 shorts at an inventory value of 535 EUR. 535/7 = 76.42 EUR. 76.42 EUR to USD (at today's exchange rates; this is a bit wrong I know) => 85.31 USD. Adjust for inflation (the article is (2021)) => 102.66 USD
²I choose silk as, given its luxuriousness, it is more susceptible to this. If you ask for polyester, I'm pretty sure you'll get true to the word there. With silk in particular, there's also a lot of preying on consumers probably not understanding the difference between silk and satin.
³Ironically one of my most recent shoe purchases was via Amazon, and a real risk given how low the price was. Astoundingly they fit not too bad (not perfect) but the low cost means they definitely have a low CPW, and they've seen a fair bit of use with little degradation. The old adage about the better pair of boots … IDK. I'll pay up for shoes, but that pair is providing a stark counter-example to "you get what you pay for". But, I have a mid-range pair from Amazon too that degraded after a few wears. (I repaired it, but still. It was much too young, and it was basically that the lining was not well attached. But it makes me still wary that the good pair was one-off stroke of luck that I can't replicate.)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There have certainly been years when I bought almost or actually no clothing. For people who buy clothing frequently, this might be unimaginable, but I assure you that there are people who are happy with the clothing they own and do not buy more except to replace things that wear out or develop holes. And I do this by choice!
I doubt anyone is spending 3 bucks per year on average on clothing. Unless you're in Bangladesh or something.
> For people who buy clothing frequently, this might be unimaginable
I too have not bought any clothes in the last 3 or 4 years. I have no need to. My current clothes fit me perfectly fine and my shoes are not in a bad state.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm not convinced you need cushioning. I spend zero on running shoes, and I've run two marathons like this.
Counterpoint: I've run 7 marathons in 7 consecutive days, whilst wearing some low-profile altras, and after the mid-way, I was switching to more cushier ones.
But if cushioned shoes work well for you, I wouldn't expect you to change anything. Invest in HOKA.
My audience is all the runners who have problems, and keep turning up the dial on cushioning, orthotics, etc. ... before finally giving up on running by their forties. Or they run on NSAIDs and trash their kidneys.
I did a double-take at the 3.5k Euro spend per year on clothing. My own spending is probably 2-3 orders of magnitude smaller. But then I saw how many shoes they own, and the fact that they have a summer house where at least one pair resides. This person lives differently to me.
I'm not sure whether you really spend so little on clothes, or have misunderstood the term 'order of magnitude'. If it were 3 orders of magnitude less you would be spending €3.50 on clothes per year. Even 2 orders less is €35, which I find doubtful a grown person can do (in America/Europe at least). Did you actually mean that? As I'm surprised your socks/underwear don't cost at least €35 per year, eventually they get…
I figure holes in socks are heavily dependent on slipper use. I wear slippers 95% of the time indoors, and my regular-rotation socks that I wear every couple weeks seem to be lasting 15-20 years (so, say, 200-250 days/washes since I wear different socks seasonally) before their elastics fail.
The average is a bit of a weird number... e.g. I buy a couple weeks' worth of underwear at a time, and they last a decade or so. So 9 out of 10 years my cost is $0, but my yearly cost is in the $30 range.
edit: And as noted by another comenter, I hang dry my socks/underwear, which presumably contributes to longevity.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's more than I spend, but you're on a tech forum full of nerdy engineers -- gaming rigs and their upgrades, hot new phones and laptops, travel, collectibles, legos, shop tools and materials, music gear, sporting and camping gear, etc each burn through that kind of budget real quick. And nobody would call out that kind of spend were it for one of those.
Yes I would, anyone spending this kind of money regularly is a rube. Most of the shit you mentioned are up front one time costs with a minimal maintenance requirement. Anyone who is paying several grand to upkeep this stuff is an idiot and deserves to be parted with their money.
> The 90 euro Converse sneakers and the 30 euro Mywears have a similar CPW of 0.87 euros and 0.70 €, respectively. Their effective cost is roughly the same, which means that walking around in the cheap Mywears is roughly as expensive as walking around in Converses. In this case, money buys quality, at least when measured by durability. I don't think there's anything wrong with the author spending a lot of money on cl…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Counterpoint: I've run 7 marathons in 7 consecutive days, whilst wearing some low-profile altras, and after the mid-way, I was switching to more cushier ones.
I'm not disputing that cushioning "feels" comfortable. So does Vicodin. But if cushioned shoes work well for you, I wouldn't expect you to change anything. Invest in HOKA. My audience is all the runners who have problems, and keep turning up the dial on cushioning, orthotics, etc. ... before finally giving up on running by their forties. Or they run on NSAIDs and trash their kidneys.
If there's one thing barefoot running does emphasis though, is improvements in foot strike. If you can carry that over to more cushioned shoes I believe that to be a win-win, versus a dogmatic view of barefoot or nothing.