Forums >Gears and Wears>How do you clean your shoes?
If your shoes smell, then it's your feet, not the shoes that need help. Dr. Oz recommends washing your feet with Baking Soda twice a week to prevent smelly feet. I'm guessing that may also help with smelly shoes?
If your shoes are already smelly, leave them out in the sun for a while. It should evaporate the moisture and may kill some of the smelly stuff.
Until they get wet again... Once shoes smell bad they will almost always smell bad. I like to run without socks and I have had a few pair of shoes that I have thrown out because I could not get rid of the odor. Luckily I run enough that it usually happens when the shoes are starting to rack up the miles. Currently I run without socks in my kinvaras and they are not stinking thus far. We will see as the summer time heat continues to become worse.
"You may all go to hell, and I will go to Texas" Davy Crockett
Self anointed title
You and R2E need to meet....
"run" "2" "eat"
well, now.
r2e is always in command, that much is true.
i find the sunshine beckons me to open up the gate and dream and dream ~~robbie williams
very useful information shared by you people...
It is very important and useful topic for us....
Not wearing socks doesn't really make you look 'more sleek'. Nah. As for water weight, I guess my socks don't hold much. As for the other, my boys need a home.
Not wearing socks doesn't really make you look 'more sleek'. Nah. As for water weight, I guess my socks don't hold much.
As for the other, my boys need a home.
In your opinion it might not, but I know if I see someone running without socks and in racing flats then they're probably reasonably serious. [flame]Only hobbyjoggers spend lots of money on fancy ass socks [\flame].
With regards to water retention: Can you imagine running while carrying half a pound bag of sugar in each hand? It would get kind of tiring. Obviously legs are a lot more powerful and the benefit in terms of perceived effort reduction is -- relatively -- a lot smaller but it seems fairly sensible to remove a few hundred grams where possible. Particularly if you consider the increased rotational inertia because of the vaguely elliptical path your foot follows as you run.
But hell, you wear pink clothing so who the fuck am I to argue with you?
In your opinion it might not, but I know if I see someone running without socks and in racing flats then they're probably reasonably serious. [flame]Only hobbyjoggers spend lots of money on fancy ass socks [\flame]. With regards to water retention: Can you imagine running while carrying half a pound bag of sugar in each hand? It would get kind of tiring. Obviously legs are a lot more powerful and the benefit in terms of perceived effort reduction is -- relatively -- a lot smaller but it seems fairly sensible to remove a few hundred grams where possible. Particularly if you consider the increased rotational inertia because of the vaguely elliptical path your foot follows as you run. But hell, you wear pink clothing so who the fuck am I to argue with you?
How friggin' big are these socks you don't run in and what the hell are they made out of (with or without water weight)?
Hobbyjoggers don't have to spend lots of money on fancy ass socks. Some of us spend not very much money on our socks. Some of us have holes in our socks (socks that are synthetic, thin, cheap and don't seem to hold water) so there is no point in actually wearing them....apart from 1. Wanting to classify myself as a hobbyjogger (as if my running wasn't enough to do that already) and 2. Because I like wearing socks. I like the ritual of them.
(Having said that I don't wear them in my VFFs...but then some would argue that only hobbyjoggers spend money on fancy ass VFFs).
I also don't wash my shoes. Socks are less hassle than washing shoes.
MTA: I've just thought though that my socks are actually those weird foot ones, so they don't show above my shoes...makes my cankles appear less cankley and they feel less restrictive then having something around your lower leg. That could mean, that if I wasn't moving, and if you failed to observe any other aspects of the hobbyjogger phenotype that you might get a false impression. Although I think the cankles would prevent that.
"Don't walk in front of me; I may not follow. Don't walk behind me; I may not lead. Just walk beside me and be my friend."
Prince of Fatness
When my running has progressed to the point where I need to address a few ounces of water weight in my shoes / socks to improve my times, I will be a very happy person.
Not at it at all.
I heard Running World will be coming out in an upcoming edition with an article on racing your first 5K without underwear or socks.
I heard it will be a reveling article. Not very brief though.
I run ultras with a 20oz bottle in one hand, sometimes two.
So yeah.
I'm not sure how or what the tone of your post is trying for here (especially the pink clothes bit), but ok. You don't look "more sleek" without socks and you don't look "reasonably serious" just because you ain't got no socks. The racing flats look "serious" sometimes I guess. Except honestly? Sometimes you see people in racing flats because they think it makes them look bad ass and they are trying to improve their times when what really would have improved their times was better training.
There's a long continuum between "lots of money on fancy ass socks" and "no socks at all".
Am I doing this right?
Obviously appearance is everything.
Seems so easy, and here I thought runners were a fairly non-judgmental group. I'm an idiot.
No excuses....
I cannot believe that I've just done this.
I have weighed my husbands wet (and cheap, £2 a pair) running socks. 21g for the pair. That is nowhere near a few hundred grams or even several ounces.
I agree on the punters wearing racing flats too. That would include me and my husband. We're bad ass, like honey badgers.
So not a pound of sugar?
I'm shocked.
Good Bad & The Monkey
£2 a pair ... 21g for the pair.
Well, which is it? 2 pounds or 21 grams??
I'm running somewhere tomorrow. It's going to be beautiful. I can't wait.
Poor baby