The Nike invincible run is a terrible shoe

Clydesdale clogs wrote:

disagree with you wrote:

My BMI is 19, and I love that shoe. I wore them last night while doing a 3x mile workout averaging 5:52, and they felt perfectly fine.

Only downside is the cost, but it's still worth it.

Who does mile repeats in 11 oz shoes? Are you running tempos in Adrenalines? It's a maximum cushion shoe. I call BS that anyone is running sub-6 mile repeats in that shoe, just because you ought to know better and have shoes that fit the activity.

Not everybody has Cinderella feet requiring a 4 oz shoe for faster efforts. I'm 5'7 130 and frequently run faster reps in heavy trainers just because racing in light shoes feels so much faster. Granted, heavy is relative because I'm only a size 9 and most high cushion shoes are around 10 and a half ounces but some people just enjoy different things. Heck, I repped 200s in the pegasus last year just because racing 800s in spikes felt so much better.

disagree with you wrote:

Clydesdale clogs wrote:

Who does mile repeats in 11 oz shoes? Are you running tempos in Adrenalines? It's a maximum cushion shoe. I call BS that anyone is running sub-6 mile repeats in that shoe, just because you ought to know better and have shoes that fit the activity.

You don't have to believe me, but there are others who've run faster than sub 6 pace in those shoes:

https://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?thread=10619270

On the last post, there's another guy who averaged 74.9" for a 10x400 session.

I don't believe that post either. A random sub-5 miler who never trains just shows up to the track with his boots to do a 10x400 workout? sure. His post about "I know I have no chance at doing 10x400 with 60" recovery" is a giveaway - you could easily make up the recovery time with better shoes and having done a similar workout the week before. The whole thing is a set-up humblebrag.

nike shill wrote:

Clydesdale clogs wrote:

Who does mile repeats in 11 oz shoes? Are you running tempos in Adrenalines? It's a maximum cushion shoe. I call BS that anyone is running sub-6 mile repeats in that shoe, just because you ought to know better and have shoes that fit the activity.

Not everybody has Cinderella feet requiring a 4 oz shoe for faster efforts. I'm 5'7 130 and frequently run faster reps in heavy trainers just because racing in light shoes feels so much faster. Granted, heavy is relative because I'm only a size 9 and most high cushion shoes are around 10 and a half ounces but some people just enjoy different things. Heck, I repped 200s in the pegasus last year just because racing 800s in spikes felt so much better.

Noone said 4 oz. The Zoom Fly, Pegasus, and Tempo Next are all lighter than the Invincibles. If you incorporate other brands, there are probably 30 better shoes to choose from. They're not workout shoes. They're the heaviest "performance" shoe Nike makes.

Lol @ the bitter posters. I actually think the ZoomX foam rewards good form. I did a 20 miler averaging 6:41 in the Invincible last weekend. I will say the instability did irritate my ankles a bit but the shoe is much quicker than my 1080s or my Puma Velocity Nitros, in my opinion.

birdbeard wrote:

Lol @ the bitter posters. I actually think the ZoomX foam rewards good form. I did a 20 miler averaging 6:41 in the Invincible last weekend. I will say the instability did irritate my ankles a bit but the shoe is much quicker than my 1080s or my Puma Velocity Nitros, in my opinion.

you're implying that those three are comparable? the Invincibles are much heavier and taller than the others. But hey, you're obviously ready for a 2:20 marathon if you're out at 2:54 pace for 20 miles wearing clogs.

Clydesdale clogs wrote:

birdbeard wrote:

Lol @ the bitter posters. I actually think the ZoomX foam rewards good form. I did a 20 miler averaging 6:41 in the Invincible last weekend. I will say the instability did irritate my ankles a bit but the shoe is much quicker than my 1080s or my Puma Velocity Nitros, in my opinion.

you're implying that those three are comparable? the Invincibles are much heavier and taller than the others. But hey, you're obviously ready for a 2:20 marathon if you're out at 2:54 pace for 20 miles wearing clogs.

I’m saying notwithstanding the weight, they are faster than the 1080 and Velocity Nitro.

birdbeard wrote:

Clydesdale clogs wrote:

you're implying that those three are comparable? the Invincibles are much heavier and taller than the others. But hey, you're obviously ready for a 2:20 marathon if you're out at 2:54 pace for 20 miles wearing clogs.

I’m saying notwithstanding the weight, they are faster than the 1080 and Velocity Nitro.

Hard to know who to believe, random LRC poster with braggy numbers, or literally every review of the shoe plus my own experience.

hmmm.

tough call.

"The Nike ZoomX Invincible Run Flyknit... exceeded expectations on longer, slower-paced runs...."

"These are perfect for someone that wants a super-cushioned daily trainer for long runs, slower-paced efforts..."

"The only thing I wouldn’t use it for is short races that are 21 kilometers or under because its midsole is too compressive and it’s too heavy...The Invincible can handle a lot of different types of runs and paces but it feels best on easy or steady runs at 5 minutes per kilometre or slower."

"This shoe is not meant to go fast. I mean, any shoe is fast if you want it to be (anyone who’s been passed in a race by a runner wearing adidas Ultraboost knows this). But the Invincible is a cruiser, not a bruiser. It’s soft, so you are not going to get that pop you want if you’re trying to pick up the pace..."

"If you are expecting the Invincible to be a speed shoe without a plate, you will be disappointed. This is a soft comfy daily trainer that can go the distance. Just not as quickly as its siblings..."

'If you are expecting the Invincible to be a speed shoe without a plate, you will be disappointed. This is a soft comfy daily trainer that can go the distance. Just not as quickly as its siblings...."

missed one:

It is worth highlighting that this shoe weighs 11.07-ounces for a half pair of US 10. Though that’s much higher than the other ZoomX models, it’s also indicative of the Invincible Run’s intentions.

This isn’t your race-day shoe, nor is it a versatile daily trainer that feels at home doing higher speeds. This uber-cushy shoe is the one for easy runs or walking around town.

Agreed with the OP. Too clunky and heavy even for a shoe priced much less than this is. At its actual price, no effing way.

Lmao @ the guy who'a running mile repeats with literal bricks for shoes

Clydesdale clogs wrote:

missed one:

It is worth highlighting that this shoe weighs 11.07-ounces for a half pair of US 10. Though that’s much higher than the other ZoomX models, it’s also indicative of the Invincible Run’s intentions.

This isn’t your race-day shoe, nor is it a versatile daily trainer that feels at home doing higher speeds. This uber-cushy shoe is the one for easy runs or walking around town.

What can I say, it’s faster than other trainers. Weight isn’t everything. 🤷🏻‍♂️

I don’t wear them for tempo or interval days, but I don’t wear any daily trainers for tempo or interval days. I wear them for long & easy runs and they’re quicker than other trainers, no doubt.

Clydesdale clogs wrote:

nike shill wrote:

Not everybody has Cinderella feet requiring a 4 oz shoe for faster efforts. I'm 5'7 130 and frequently run faster reps in heavy trainers just because racing in light shoes feels so much faster. Granted, heavy is relative because I'm only a size 9 and most high cushion shoes are around 10 and a half ounces but some people just enjoy different things. Heck, I repped 200s in the pegasus last year just because racing 800s in spikes felt so much better.

Noone said 4 oz. The Zoom Fly, Pegasus, and Tempo Next are all lighter than the Invincibles. If you incorporate other brands, there are probably 30 better shoes to choose from. They're not workout shoes. They're the heaviest "performance" shoe Nike makes.

Was exaggerating on the 4oz part, hoped that that was obvious. The Invincible also come in at ~9.5 oz for a mens' 9 (runningwarehouse claims 9.3 but I don't buy that, other places say 9.5, 9.65 or 9.8) which is lighter than the pegasus and vomero, around the same as the zoom fly 4, and a little higher than the tempos. I'm not saying that they're some amazing speed shoe but it's not like they're cinder blocks, especially in terms of weight.

Also do realize that my name is meant to be ironic so I'm not defending their shoe out of the kindness of my heart. In fact, I hate most all of Nike's training shoes except for the invincible and the pegasus turbo (RIP). Racing is their niche.

OozmaKappa wrote:

Lmao @ the guy who'a running mile repeats with literal bricks for shoes

Bricks are hard, but even the haters will admit that the Invincibles are nice and comfy.

They are clearly not just for clydesdales: go to the LRC homepage right now. Scroll down to the picture of Stew McSweyn and Nic Bideau. Look at McSwen’s shoes—that’s right, Zoomx invincibles. Not exactly a plodder.

HUGE caveat: he is also wearing nike compression underwear/ boxer briefs with nothing else, so take his shoe/apparel choices with a grain of salt.

shoetester wrote:

I was just looking at the reviews, there are a lot of 5 star ratings and I am scratching my head as this was honestly the worst shoe I have ever run in. I expected a lot because it is all zoomx and it is expensive, but it is incredibly clunky, cumbersome, the response is spongy and muted and the heel collar has so much padding it rubbed my skin off. It is also very noisy. I thought the pegasus 37 was bad but at least the react foam was somewhat responsive and had a predictable feel.

I returned the pair I bought. I was very disappointed in the midsole. It absorbed impact but gave very little energy return and had zero road feel. For midfoot strikers the heel is ridiculously wide and provides unnecessary weight.

I have to disagree, I LOVE THIS SHOE.

Yes the upper is bad. Too much bizarre padding.

Yes it is ugly. You'll look like a fool at the grocery store.

HOWEVER -- it is the soft cloud that I need. After 375 glorious miles I strayed to the Novablast and Rebel 2, neither of which brought me the goodness I need. I just bought my 2nd pair of Invincibles and I'm back in love.

Invincible is the foundation for a perfect 3-shoe rotation. Pair it with some Endorphin Speeds and your favorite carbon racer. The Invincible will float you through a season's worth of long runs and easy days.

shoetester wrote:

I was just looking at the reviews, there are a lot of 5 star ratings and I am scratching my head as this was honestly the worst shoe I have ever run in. I expected a lot because it is all zoomx and it is expensive, but it is incredibly clunky, cumbersome, the response is spongy and muted and the heel collar has so much padding it rubbed my skin off. It is also very noisy. I thought the pegasus 37 was bad but at least the react foam was somewhat responsive and had a predictable feel.

Agreed. It is one of the worst shoes Nike have produced, except the pegasus 37 and 38.

Clydesdale clogs wrote:

disagree with you wrote:

You don't have to believe me, but there are others who've run faster than sub 6 pace in those shoes:

https://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?thread=10619270

On the last post, there's another guy who averaged 74.9" for a 10x400 session.

I don't believe that post either. A random sub-5 miler who never trains just shows up to the track with his boots to do a 10x400 workout? sure. His post about "I know I have no chance at doing 10x400 with 60" recovery" is a giveaway - you could easily make up the recovery time with better shoes and having done a similar workout the week before. The whole thing is a set-up humblebrag.

I don't believe it either. There is a lot of fabrication on this forum. I get the feeling that the only people who like this shoe must be heavyset.