dez
Nike Free 5.0 vs. Nike Free 3.0 6/2/2009 10:43AM Reply | Return to Index | Report Post
Im debating getting a pair of one of these shoes. If the point of the shoe is to mimic running barefoot, what is the point of the 5.0? Does anyone run in these shoes as a daily trainer? How durable are they? Do they size like normal Nike running shoes?

Does anyone else have any opinions on whether these shoes do what they claim?
Answer Mann
RE: Nike Free 5.0 vs. Nike Free 3.0 6/2/2009 10:49AM - in reply to dez Reply | Return to Index | Report Post
1) to kinda mimic running barefoot
2) yes
3) pretty durable
4) i think so
5) yes
jabes Teammate
RE: Nike Free 5.0 vs. Nike Free 3.0 6/2/2009 10:54AM - in reply to dez Reply | Return to Index | Report Post
The old 3.0s you had to wear a whole size larger than the old 5.0s. The old 3.0s were kind of crappy and gave me an injury whereas the 5.0s were never a problem. They are pretty durable I ran 60-80mpw in them. They don't really mimic running barefoot at all especially the 5.0 because the heel is way too high. The nicest thing about them is that the sole is very flexible. I don't run in them anymore I just run in xc flats and they work better for me than the frees.
dez
RE: Nike Free 5.0 vs. Nike Free 3.0 6/2/2009 11:32AM - in reply to jabes Teammate Reply | Return to Index | Report Post
Does anyone have any experience with the newer Free 3.0?
dez
RE: Nike Free 5.0 vs. Nike Free 3.0 6/2/2009 3:20PM - in reply to dez Reply | Return to Index | Report Post
anyone.....
That Navaro Kid
RE: Nike Free 5.0 vs. Nike Free 3.0 6/2/2009 10:21PM - in reply to dez Reply | Return to Index | Report Post
Hey, I've been running in the 3.0v2s for a little over 150 miles now into my summer base. Just consistent easy to moderate running with 6x200 on the minute twice a week. I have never run in the original 3.0s and never run before in any of the frees. My trainer before this was the asics hyperspeed 3.

So far the 3s have been great. They are much heavier than the earlier frees i've been told (about 7 oz compared to 5 i think), but the very flexible forefoot has been great and the overall proportions of the shoe are really nice. They made the shoe upper seamless and so that raw fabric is where a lot of the weight comes from but the sole is pretty uniform without the huge bump on the heel most conventional trainers have and the lockdown is really good because of, what i can only describe as a little outcropping of plastic that stretches from the toe of the shoe over the tips of all your toes. Just holds the shoe tighter to your foot.

I bought the shoes in my exact size and they're a bit loose, not to the point where they're uncomfortable and i actually like them but if you enjoy a more snug fit possibly buy a half size smaller.

You may have to stop every couple miles, also, if you run on the roads to pick out stones as they can get lodged into the shoe bottom in the worst way.

At first I felt the extra bit of impact on the bottoms of my feet (forefoot supinator if you were wondering my strike pattern) and had a little pain my knees and achilles for the first week or so. My plantar fascitis (sp) also really flared up those first couple of weeks. After, though, all that went away and now I couldn't think of running in anything more cushioned.

Definitely a shoe I plan to stick with.
nextnext
RE: Nike Free 5.0 vs. Nike Free 3.0 6/2/2009 10:25PM - in reply to That Navaro Kid Reply | Return to Index | Report Post
the free's are a gimmick shoe.
FBTC
RE: Nike Free 5.0 vs. Nike Free 3.0 6/2/2009 10:46PM - in reply to dez Reply | Return to Index | Report Post
My buddies and I all wear the Free (5 and 3) on both regular runs (lots of trail and roads) and on tempo days. The new 3.0 is great for tempos or shorter easy days, good fit, true to size, super light and flexible. The new 5.0 is also super comfortable, light and has just enough extra beefiness to hold up on longer runs and rougher trails. I've worn the 5.0 on 15 mile trail runs and had no problems at all.


I have been impressed with the durability of the free as well - in the original 5.0s the upper was definitely the first thing to go, but they fixed that and now they last at least as long as standard trainers, probably longer. The outsole is amazingly durable.

If you have a neutral footplant and are pretty efficient, you'll love the Free. It is not a gimmick and definitely fits in with the whole minimalist trainer discussions that have made the rounds here on the letsrun boards.
evolutionist
RE: Nike Free 5.0 vs. Nike Free 3.0 6/2/2009 11:18PM - in reply to dez Reply | Return to Index | Report Post
I've been wearing the 3.0's for 2 years now. I don't run in them at all though. I have gotten all my pairs in my exact size and they all fit perfectly! I agree with the gimmick comment though. They are just comfy as shit to walk around in and I highly endorse them as a casual shoe.