Nike free Everyday?

Are the frees "better" than running in a minimalist shoe like the nb790?

The Frees ARE a minimalist shoe.

ruler wrote:

The Frees ARE a minimalist shoe.

No the Frees aren't a minimalist shoe.

Just to get something straight here, there are at least THREE versions of the Free. The OP was asking about the Everyday, not the 5.0 The versions are as follows:

Free Everyday-good to wear around but not good really for running. Much stiffer from the other ones.

Free 5.0-This is the most popular. While it does lack stability like a minimalist shoe and it is extremely flexible as a result, the sole is still pretty high and it's pretty well cushioned compared with a flat (real minimalist shoe).

Free 3.0-There is a new version now with which I am not familiar, but I can say this. The old version was not the same as the 5.0 with just a lower sole. It was a strangely fitted shoe that wrapped around your ankle in a weird way almost like a boot but it was low. The new version looks more like a 5.0 with much less of a sole. The old version of the 3.0 didn't work for me.

There was and still may be a 7.0 version but that's useless to run in. There was also a trail version that was discontinued.

ruler-you're dumb

So back to my question, which is more like running barefoot, the frees or a minimalist shoe like the NB790?

I hadn't seen these Everyday versions, but I doubt they are for running -- they are for "everyday".

They just came out with a new 5.0 version, but I ordered a new pair of 3.0 (v2) to use as my everyday shoes. I assumed they still sell the 7.0. I may eventually run a few miles in them and see how it feels, but I don't want to wear supportive running shoes all day every day. I hate/can't always wear sandals, so I decided to go with Free 3.0s to get the benefits of bare foot walking/foot strength etc.

I considered Vibram Five Fingers, but they are just too weird and I don't want to call attention to my feet.

as I said in earlier threads, I was plagued w/ this achilles insertional crap - for a year. I was doing alright in the recommended stability shoes, but when I tried that 3.0 v.1, it really helped. Two days ago I pulled out my Fasttwitch 3 cause I like 'em - slight heel pain the whole run. I don't know - I'm staying w/ this Free 3.0 for the summer.

dez wrote:

ruler-you're dumb

So back to my question, which is more like running barefoot, the frees or a minimalist shoe like the NB790?

Although I used to wear the Frees, they aren't really like running barefoot. Next to being barefoot ( the five fingers notwithstanding) I find that flexible XC flats like the Saucony Killenny to be really great. I can't wear Frees anymore they bother my arch.

[quote]Not really wrote:

Just to get something straight here, there are at least THREE versions of the Free. The OP was asking about the Everyday, not the 5.0 The versions are as follows:

Free Everyday-good to wear around but not good really for running. Much stiffer from the other ones.

Free 5.0-This is the most popular. While it does lack stability like a minimalist shoe and it is extremely flexible as a result, the sole is still pretty high and it's pretty well cushioned compared with a flat (real minimalist shoe).

Free 3.0-There is a new version now with which I am not familiar, but I can say this. The old version was not the same as the 5.0 with just a lower sole. It was a strangely fitted shoe that wrapped around your ankle in a weird way almost like a boot but it was low. The new version looks more like a 5.0 with much less of a sole. The old version of the 3.0 didn't work for me.

[quote]

I just got off the phone with Nike and the fit specialist told me that the Everyday is absolutely a RUNNING shoe. She said that is what you should start with to prepare your foot for the new challange of barefoot running. The everyday, then the 3.0, then the 5.0 moving eventually if you choose to the 7.0. The Everyday is called that because it is meant to be run with EVERYDAY with limitted discomfort as you awaken the unused muscles in your feet. She discouraged me from jumping right into the 5.0 unless I was going to alternate my runs with a more traditional shoe.

I used to think I needed stability shoes, everything with a roll bar. I got a pair of 3.0's v2 and jumped into running about 30-40 miles out of my total week in them. I've had no issues, not even IT problems like I was worried about. They're great if you're forced to run on cement all the time. Running in flats on cement/asphalt seems more jarring to me, but the frees are fine on it.

My only complaint is that the insole sometimes moves a little during the run.

So, for all of you who say you would never run in them and then call them garbage, I must ask: How do you know what they are like to run in? I have put over 500 miles on a pair and I love them. I am a neutral runner with medium/high arches and they provide just enough support and cushioning for most runs. I wouldn't recommend them for heavy heel strikers but they are great if you are a forefoot striker. If you don't like all the overbuilt shoes flooding the market now, these are perfect.