NIKE FREE 5.0: My Four Week Review

another view: like freesicle, no affiliation with any shoe company -

i bought em because the concept sounded interesting and i'm a midfoot striker who doesn't need much in the way of support. unfortunately, i couldn't run in em. after a few days running, i had unbelievable pain on the inside of my knees, something i've never had before. i went back to a traditional trainer and the pain went away. when i get in better shape i'll try them again. maybe they didn't work because im coming to them out of shape. i dont know. but they didnt do it for me.

i have had the shoes for about 2 months. i have always had constant knee pain and a tendancy for IT band injuries from just the way i stride. I've been afriad to use the shoe on runs longer than 5 miles and everyday, but up to this point i've put about a 100 miles in on them i'd say. When i wear them i have little to no knee pain, and i feel great after a run in them, as opposed to my usual trainers. I don't plan on using these for long tempos but i'm going to start working them in more. My legs feel stronger in them, fresher, and theres a noticable change in form (as someone said before you feel taller in them). If you havn't tried them yet all i have to say to you is - what can you possibly claim against them? the heal is raised in the back but has no affect on the ride of the shoe, its comfortable, molds to your foot and i'd say cushions my landing better than my pegasus. I'd recommend these especially to anyone who is prone to injuries

Sooner: You are right on the money.

Nike does read these message boards; and if they were really smart, they would write the Bros. Johnson a very large check.

In the video on the Nike Free site, the designer says that they talked to the Stanford coach who said that running barefoot made their guys faster. If I had a crystal ball, I would guess that this guy was pretty jazzed about getting sent on a trip to Cali and hanging out with some fast smart kids. But I bet that this dude got pretty warm in the trousers when he realized what he was onto. But that is probably just half the story.

Chances are that there is also some guy on some Super Advanced Concept Group who gets paid way more that you or me to predict the future. For months, he was doing one of a couple of things: 1) training 2) checking out the LetsRun message board 3) going to random events and trolling for ideas. In the process, he noticed something like 20 different threads about minimalist running shoes, and that was all he needed to justify to Big Phil that there was a market for this shoe. Especially after the designer came to him with this crazy idea he got while hangin’ down at Stanford. At that point, the Free had two very important things: 1) a sellable story and 2) a market to justify its production.

Nike says that they are all about Innovation. But Innovation does not get built without a business case. And that is where LetsRun comes into play: This message board is the eBay of running ideas. None of us gets paid for it, but we drive the market by barking about what we want.

And this is my real beef about the Free. All of you purists do not realize what is going on here. This is more than a good shoe, this is an important shoe. Think back to the 180. Cushion was it. Nike introduced it, and all the other shoe vendors got all up in the place with their special cushioning goo. But Nike had already won, because there was nothing as soft or as light as nothing. Asics did the same in the early 90s with their 2000 series. They made a reasonable support shoe and all the other vendors fell neatly into place.

And the funny thing is that it does not even take a good idea to get the market to move. Look at Shox. These are terrible shoes, but adidas came out with their A3 series just because Nike came out so strong when they launched the Shox. Energy return? Give me a break.

The Free represents the birth of the minimalist shoe.

But all of you jokers out there complaining about heel height are killing the revolution. Right now, there are people at adidas, Brooks, Asics thinking hard about the Free. (And if they are not, they should be.) Let’s take an imaginary trip to adidas corporate headquarters in Germany. I will translate: “Holy Crap! What do we do about the Free? We must build a minimal shoe!” “Nothing to worry about Heir Dassler. All these guys really want are flats and we already make those.”

Nike innovates with the endgame in mind. They spend money on projects like the Free, and if they take off, they have the first mover advantage. But other vendors need to get into the game too if this thing is really going to take off. Imagine going to the website of your favorite shoe company and seeing shoes broken down into Cushion, Support, Minimal, Competition.

Reality: you are also right about the potential of them dropping the shoe. The real tragedy is that if they drop the Free, the idea of the minimalist shoe dies too. And then you miss out on all the crazy “Innovation” that Nike could pack into 10 ounces of material. Granted they may not have the Free dialed in to what you think a non shoe shoe should be, but it is the idea that counts.

All you complainers are all missing an incredible opportunity: not only to direct a multi billion dollar organization, but to launch a brand new type of running shoe.

Freesicle, thanks for putting all that effort into your post. It answered a lot of questions I've been having about the FREE. Will give them a try

Freesicle,

Why spend lots of money on a not-so-minimalist minimalist shoe? Because the "idea" is good? Nike makes a great minimalist shoe already: the waffle racer. Why not just buy that. As long as XC racing shoes exist, we've got good trainers.

Crambles wrote:

Freesicle,

Why spend lots of money on a not-so-minimalist minimalist shoe? Because the "idea" is good? Nike makes a great minimalist shoe already: the waffle racer. Why not just buy that. As long as XC racing shoes exist, we've got good trainers.

No, freesicle has a point.

I run almost exclusively in New Balance RC150s - I have 15 pairs at home and happily put in 100+mpw in them. I totally sold out to the minimalist approach.

I tried on a pair fo Nike Free 5.0s the other day and they were without doubt the most comfortable shoes ever. Also they were near perfect - well, 3/4 perfect - the upper and the front of the midsole! Yeah, the heel sucks - way too high. I tried them without the insoles (so would be 4.0 presumably) and my impression was that I would not run in them until they were down to 2.0 at most.

BUT I do want them to get there. I believe that if it happened the resulting shoe would be vastly better than standard racers. And Freesicle has a point - we neeed to get behind this shoe and support it if we ever want to see the Free 2.0...

It would be great for someone making the transition to minimalist slowly (I did it "cold turkey" myself).

So let's get behind it and encouarge its use so that one day we have a Free 2.0 - now THAT would be my perfect shoe.

I mean think about it: Over the past years, when did you ever hear the word "minimalist" in the context of running shoes? The idea of "less is more" flies in the face of shoe "technology." Tech sells - minimal doesn't... at least until now. So when Nike is perusing these boards, and they note the volumes written on training in nothing (shoes that is..), some dude says, "...hey, we need to market to these LetsRun.com people; they're gettin' quite a following." Next thing: the Free is born.

Come on: Put on your H Streets, 150s, 15-50s, and slap Nike's face. It ain't Blue Ribbon Sports anymore...

I went to go pickup a new pair of shoes this weekend at a certain local running store that is the thinly veiled arm of a certain nationally popular recreational jogging guru. Since I knew what I wanted, and couldn't get past the low toe on the Precision and the bizarre heal on the Litestrike, I spent the allotted time shooting the shit about all the lightweight shoes with the girl that was helping me. Invariably, the Free came up...When ever I'm in a running shop that carries the shoe, I make a point to ask the staff about it candidly as a casual aside to get their opinion on something that could be a revolutionary paradigm shift in running or just the next "air pump." Not surprisingly, she said the same thing I've heard from everyone so far that perfectly encapsulates where Nike is screwing up with this shoe: the price. She said she'd pay $50 or so for it, but $85 for a shoe that you cant do real miles on? $85 for a shoe that prides itself on how little technology and material are involved in it? If Nike wants to keep that price firm, they need to shift it from the specialty shops which, lets face it, cater to the recreational runner to the spike wall and downgrade production volume accordingly. If you want to get a ton of people in these shoes and move them better, because from what I gather in conversation they aren't flying off the shelves at walking retail level anywhere near the clip online stores are selling, knock the price down. If the store employees are reluctant to sell the product because of its value you aren't winning the "battle for the hearts and minds" of the joggers their stores live by.

Oh, and, if Nike is really reading this: I think you may want to have the display case for the Free moved to other places in the stores: having something that damns the amount of technology in shoes that hinder the foot's natural motion right under the Milers and Swifts is very very hypocritical and greatly calls into question the sincerity of this product.

By the way, the shoes feel great if a bit more elivated than you'd think.

Pantman,

They may be the most "comfortable" shoes ever, but that doesn't mean they are the most effective minimalist shoes ever. I think the 150s, H streets, and certain XC racers would be better for a single reason. Less cushioning. The concept of the Free is that it tries to cushion the way your foot naturally moves by changing the cushioning and getting rid of most of the support. The Free could still be considered a cushioned shoe. From what I can tell from the videos, they analyzed normal movement for a number of people barefoot, and tried to make a shoe that lets people run like that. What about someone who runs differently than the research subjects? The Free will not work for them, but a minimalist racing shoe would. They also forget that an elevated heel is the reason they had to put support mechanisms into their shoes in the first place.

Additionally, price and mileage is a huge issue for me. One of the draws of minimalist shoes, beyond less injury, is that 3 pair of H Streets, 150s, waffle racers, Ultimate 81s, etc. can last me a year. Total training shoe cost for a year works out to about $150. Looking at the Free in a store, I could not help but think that it would be toast in 3-400 miles.

We are much better off buying up the H Street, 150 and similar shoes, and letting those companies know that we are using these shoes for training. The shoes we need are out there. The Free is simply trying to capitalize on a trend in the traditional Nike more-is-better way.

Too early to tell much, but most of what Freesicle wrote seems on. The shoe does feel different; I did a 4 miler today and I enjoyed it. I don't see much point to joining in the business and marketing debate issues; from a purely running point of view, they are worth checking out if you are curious and open to trying new things.

how does the heel height compare to the asics ds verdict? lower? higher? What is the difference between the free low and the free 5.0?

Pantman (and other minimalists...)... How do you rate the Air Streak Vapor? I've used it for a few races and love them. I noticed when cooling-down that I felt efficient and had a lighter strike than in trainers. The heel:forefoot ratio seems very good. Any input?

Freesicle wrote:

Nike does read these message boards; and if they were really smart, they would write the Bros. Johnson a very large check . . .

But all of you jokers out there complaining about heel height are killing the revolution . . .

First you say that the board has given Nike valuable feedback. Then you say some of that feedback is counter-productive. I disagree. I think all feedback is good. Imagine what Nike would have to pay a marketing research company for it.

Based on my experience, I think a shoe with a heel lift is harmful. Shoes like that hurt my achilles tendons. I bought a pair of Nike Air Streaks (the racing "flat") for training and when they arrived was disappointed to see what a mondo heel lift they had. I couldn't run in them. I felt like I was grinding my heels into the pavement and slapping my forefoot down. So I had my local cobbler cut down the excess in the heels (cost: $17). Now they're the perfect shoes for me. Much, much smoother footplant and transition through to pushoff. Now I run silently in them. And they have Air in the forefoot, which is nice.

Why would anyone buy a shoe if they think it would hurt them?

If Nike were smart, they'd make two versions of the Free (or 3, since there's already a cross-training version): a version with an elevated heel for people who prefer a higher heel or want to make the transition to minimalist shoes, and a version with no heel elevation for those who prefer no heel lift or have already made the transition.

Would that be too much to ask?

I'm more in the "transition" category, so I don't mind the heel. Although I like the idea of a choice with a "Free 2.0" or whatever less heel might be, I'd probably pick the 5.o for now. I suspect the number of people such as yourself who would buy the low-heel Free haven't (yet) justified the company into producing it. In the meantime, couldn't you shave off the heel of the 5.0?

old schooler wrote:

In the meantime, couldn't you shave off the heel of the 5.0?

I supposed I could if I liked all the other aspects of the shoe. But for $85, I'd expect Nike to shave it off for me.

stipe wrote:

Pantman (and other minimalists...)... How do you rate the Air Streak Vapor? I've used it for a few races and love them. I noticed when cooling-down that I felt efficient and had a lighter strike than in trainers. The heel:forefoot ratio seems very good. Any input?

If it has the word "Air" in the title it cannot, by my definition, be minimalist. So i wouldn't know...

Why put junk in the heel when I'm not landing there?

I agree about the price, 85 bucks is way too much for me to consider switching from my h streets, which I got for 50 bucks. The upper does look really nice, but the heel still looks too big. If nike came out with a $50 version with that upper and a sole like the h street, Id be first in line (hint hint nike...).

I was wondering if the Free 5.0 are good for casual use. My mother is a nurse and is always looking for comfortable shoes. She is on her feet for many hours at a time and was wondering if these shoes would work for her.

Please let me know your thoughts.

I haven't used the Frees, but just tried them at a Niketown a few days ago. I wouldn't recommend them for a Nurse because they are elevated with no lateral stability. I would guess she would need something that would perform well for twisting and turning. Honestly, if you want a more minimal recommendation, how about a low profile volleyball shoe (possibly retro)? It also depends what she has been using. Otherwise, how about Birkenstock? Just remember that since she is on her feet for so long, a change will require a transition period, just as with a running shoe.