Local stores banning Nike Free

Function Over Fashion wrote:

You're an idiot---and im guessing not really a doctor

You're half right. :-)

[quote]hadit wrote:

who are you to decide what shoes every runner should wear... recommendations fine, but the fact of the matter is you haven't done extensive reseach on incidence of injury and wearing the frees

[quote]

Let me get this straight you as a consumer should be able to choose any shoe you want to buy but the Store Owner should not be able to choose whatever shoe he wants to buy? The store owner is choosing to not carry a "training device that was NEVER manufatured to be a running shoe" in his running store and you see that as a problem. What if consumers decided that they want to run in Converse Chuck Taylor's? Would the running store then be obligated to carry them even though Converse did not design the shoe to be a running shoe?

yes that is right - let the runners (consumers) decide what they want and don't want, they will 'vote' with their dollarsat this point in time there is no demand for chucky t's as running shows thus the store doesn't carry them if there is demand for nike free's then the store should carry themlet consumers make their own decision... we don't need to have things censored by some person or body that supposedly knows betterin fact, letting consumers choose should eventually lead to the "best" running shoes having the highest demand - the running market will figure out what is best, not some know-it-all store owner

Woody Hayes wrote:

[quote]hadit wrote:

who are you to decide what shoes every runner should wear... recommendations fine, but the fact of the matter is you haven't done extensive reseach on incidence of injury and wearing the frees

[quote]

Let me get this straight you as a consumer should be able to choose any shoe you want to buy but the Store Owner should not be able to choose whatever shoe he wants to buy? The store owner is choosing to not carry a "training device that was NEVER manufatured to be a running shoe" in his running store and you see that as a problem. What if consumers decided that they want to run in Converse Chuck Taylor's? Would the running store then be obligated to carry them even though Converse did not design the shoe to be a running shoe?

Look at it this way..

The two largest shoe companies have each done one huge foot/shoe study in the past 6 or so years. Both reached the exact same conclusions. Nikes research led to the Free while adidas' led to the Feet You Wear concept.

Both sets of research concluded that the ideal running shoe is one that lets the foot function naturally with a minimum of interference from a shoe.

That research of course directly contradicts the marketing efforts of all shoe companies, podiatrists and retailers over the past 25 years. (i dont think this is some vast conspiracy but a simple case of people being unable to grasp new information that contradicts a long held belief)

It is also a concept that is 'unpatentable'. A company can always invent some widget that 'helps' some foot malady but if the idea is to make a shoe with minimal 'stuff' then anyone can do it.

Lastly, as i have noted before, I think the Free is the best shoe I have ever worn. Its the first shoe in years that does not lead my pf to flare up, got me thru a 2:41 marathon at a ripe old age and lasts forever.

Woody Hayes wrote:

a "training device that was NEVER manufatured to be a running shoe"

this is patently false

JTH wrote:

Lastly, as i have noted before, I think the Free is the best shoe I have ever worn. Its the first shoe in years that does not lead my pf to flare up, got me thru a 2:41 marathon at a ripe old age and lasts forever.

Good for you. Buy it, run in it, don't go to the "fascist running stores".

I wish you another PR (or age improvement).

force recon wrote:

i actually like them quite a bit, i think banning them is a stupid idea, they are great for walking and running(not a ton, but 30-40 miles a week), plus some of the colors are great, and i use my old pair for running around after i race at xc meets

Managing a running store myself, I think you're right on. They're great for walking and designed for recovery runs. Plus remember Mr Salazar anmd his disciple Galen Rupp who got a stress fracture from running barefoot and excessive miles in the Free.

Even though they have this shoe in the stores you are allowed to think for yourself. (As a European I'm not that afraid of being sued by my customers, so probably different for Americans).

And Dr. Bong has either read what Vin Lananna has said about the Free and barefoot running, or he has to be Mr. Lananna.

Why even bother with the Free? You can pick up a pair of Nike Aqua Socks for 19.95. Or get a generic pair at your local campground store.

Good for you that it worked out, but any running store employee who thinks they know better than I do about what kind of shoes I need to be wearing has too big of an ego to be believed. No way would I ever get into a "heated" argument with a shoe store employee over what kind of shoes I should get. If that ever happened, I'd walk out and that would be the last time they'd see a dollar from me. Fine if an employee wants to suggest something, but once a runner tells them what's what, then they need to shut the hell up and go get the shoes the runner (the CUSTOMER!) asked for.

Damon Bailey wrote:

Because they sell and the makers know that 1/2 inch midsoles won't sell.

But why is that so? You raise the midsole, you raise the center of mass/gravity, thus making you MORE unstable on your feet (~like an SUV ready to tip over). Shoe company's are doing the public a disjustice by advertising cushioned shoes as 'protective' devices, when actually they make you more unstable on your feet. And as research illustrates, they're ability to 'absorb shock' better than a bare foot is questionable, not to forget how they maladaptively change the distribution of stress from the ankle to the knee as the main shock absorber. At least midsoles appear to be getting somewhat thinner, as compared to 10-15 years ago. The shoe company's know they would be discredited if they suddenly wiped away 1+ inch midsoles.

The midsoles are getting thinner because the substances being used to make the midsole are higher quality. Same cushioning properties with less foam.

I love the free's and train 80-100 mpw in them. I've done this for the last 10-11 months without injury or problem. I actually had leg pain when I tried to do some runs in "normal" training shoes again. The only thing I don't like is that they don't last very long. I only get about 2-3 months of running per pair of shoe. Slightly less than I got out of my training shoes before I started wearing them. I do believe I would get injured if I continued to run in them past that time frame.

thats funny because I have had the same experience. I was given a pair of Landreths and have been really sore each time I have tried to run in them.

I have had good luck with durablity on the Frees, i end up replacing them just because the get really smelly and funky.

[quote]guppie wrote:

I love the free's and train 80-100 mpw in them. I've done this for the last 10-11 months without injury or problem. I actually had leg pain when I tried to do some runs in "normal" training shoes again. quote]

Fat people want soft shoes.

I should amend that:

Soft people want soft shoes.

Jogging with Twins wrote:

After running (20-30 miles/week) in various versions of Nike Zoom Air shoes, I bought a pair of Nike Free v.1s and loved them. I recently bought a pair of 5.0s and like other people, have not enjoyed them as much. However, I'm willing to stay with the Free because overall, I like the idea and the feel. Our local "premier" running store refuses to carry them because they insist they are not a running shoe, and shouldn't be worn more than 20-30 minutes a week. Anyone else encountered this?

What is the big deal? The only Frees I have are the 5v.2, and they're just like any other lightweight trainer so far as I'm concerned.

I've noticed that a lot of running stores have a great resistance to stocking lightweight trainers and flats in general. I ask why their Big Wall o' Trainers hasn't a shoe under 10oz and they tell me it's because most of their customers are just casual runners who run on pavement, and they'd hurt themselves (if they didn't have a lot of cushioning and control).

A lot of stores are working an outdated business model, thinking that their job is to pander to joggers who don't can run correctly without hurting themselves. But the smarter outlets are giving training runs, selling lighter shoes, and making a lot more money into the bargain.