pros and cons? what's the real difference??
pros and cons? what's the real difference??
one is a shoe, the other is a glove
My question is...with the Vibran Five Fingers, if you can't wear socks with it, will they start smelling after a few weeks? Definitely curious to try out a pair at some point this spring.
youre going to really want to strengthen your achilles before going to the vibrams. the vibrams are more minimalist than the free. might want to start with the free, if you are asking.
riley stops wrote:
My question is...with the Vibran Five Fingers, if you can't wear socks with it, will they start smelling after a few weeks? Definitely curious to try out a pair at some point this spring.
They are easy to wash if you so desire. Soap and water is preferred, but you could put them in the washing machine. Also, you can get socks such as injinji brand socks that have individual toes, but are technical running socks not those fashion/cotton ones teenage girls wear. Any good Vibram dealer should have something.
quack wrote:
They are easy to wash if you so desire. Soap and water is preferred, but you could put them in the washing machine. Also, you can get socks such as injinji brand socks that have individual toes, but are technical running socks not those fashion/cotton ones teenage girls wear. Any good Vibram dealer should have something.
Excellent. Thanks for the answer!
Also, you can get socks such as injinji brand socks that have individual toes, but are technical running socks not those fashion/cotton ones teenage girls wear.
Yeah, because every runner doesn't mind shelling out $12-14 for a single pair of socks. My $3 crew cut toe socks from Walmart do me just fine.
I got a pair of Five Fingers this year and used them for part of most of my off day easy runs from spring to fall. I carried them to a park, changed into them, and ran about 3 miles at a time on soft grass. It took a few runs to get used to them, but I did, and I loved them. Obviously, it was like running barefoot, but with some protection. My feet felt stronger in the Achilles and plantar areas for doing so. I suppose I could try it in the snow, but I think I'll wait until spring to start it again. I wore Injinji socks in them
BarefootBilly wrote:
pros and cons? what's the real difference??
the frees are just running shoes that have less of everything; the vibrams aren't even close to a shoe, they simply put a rubber sole between your foot and the rocks you're running on.
I wear both exclusively for my runs. I dont really enjoy running too much hard surface with the Five Fingers, so that is where the Frees come into play (3.0's if it matters). They have an ENTIRELY different feel. The Nike's didnt take me that long to adjust too, and they feel great on your feet. Vibrams, however, take a while to adjust to. I prefer to run with them on golf courses, parks, trails, etc. You have to adjust slowly with them, but they are an upgrade over traditional barefoot for me due to the protection factor.
Just an FYI, I have run up to 15 miles and 60-70 mpw in the Nike Free, and I would say 5-6 miles at one time in the Vibrams. Legs recover quicker from the Nike Free than they do with the Vibrams. At least for me. All of my injuries have dramatically gone away, and I have actually become faster too. This is likely a result of no injury setbacks vs the shoes.
so what would be the difference between the Nike Free and some minimal racing flats?
(i'm asking because i'm trying to figure out what to buy...)
also: thanks for everyones input - i appreciate it!
I heard lots of runners training in the Vibrans are improving their 5K prs to as high as 18 minute 5Ks and 3 hour marathons!!
Which model of VFF are most runners using?
Yeah, because every runner doesn't mind shelling out $12-14 for a single pair of socks. My $3 crew cut toe socks from Walmart do me just fine.
we're so happy for you.
biggus dickus wrote:
Which model of VFF are most runners using?
Whichever you prefer. I have the KSO's and love them but the Sprint's look like they would be good for running too and I have seen other people running in them. I wouldn't recommend running in the Classic because it could slip off. The Flo's are much thicker and will obviously be hotter on your feet. I like the KSO because it keeps stuff out of the shoe while you run but is still breathable.
so what would be the difference between the Nike Free and some minimal racing flats?
The Nike Frees have too much heel lift, too thick (unstable), and are too mushy. You want to feel stable on your feet. I'd recommend a firm but flexible flat, with as little heel lift as possible (but remember, it will take time to adjust, so don't go bang out a 20 miler in them cause they "feel good"). It's all personal choice, so go to a store with a wide selection of flats, and start trying on shoes. Personally, I like the Brooks T6s (right combo of being firm but soft), Mizunos (wide forefoot, less heel lift), and the whole Adizero line (firmest shoe, thin midsole depending on the model).
The Free 5.0 has too much heel, but the 3.0 has less. I love the 3.0, but Nike has stopped making it as far as I know, at least for the the time being.
Compared to racing flats, the 3.0 is much more flexible than flats with the same amount of cushioning. If you want less cushioning, a flat such as the Asics Pirahna can be pretty flexible as well. I just prefer more cushioning since I run on asphalt and concrete more often than I should.
I wear the 3.0 mostly on easier runs and wear a racing flat (either the Nike Lunaracer 2 or the Adidas AdiZero Rocket) for when I want to run faster because the racing flats are more responsive. By the way, I sliced deeper flex grooves in the Lunaracer to make them more flexible.
I have not tried the Vibrams because I don't want to spend $85++ for practically going barefoot. I know that's the point, but I'd rather just run barefoot if that was my goal, which I've done, but it's hard to run fast, especially on hard surfaces.
For a nice low heel flat, I wear NB 790s which I think have been replaced by the 100.
I haven't run in the Five Fingers.
I've been going relatively minimalist (first road flats and now spikeless xc flats) for about 7-8 years. I have run single runs of up to about 25 miles and weekly miles up to around 70 or so in both the Free 5.0 and Asics Hyper XCS (spikeless XC flat), mostly on concrete (some asphalt, no grass or dirt or anything).
I find XC flats to fit my feet better and feel closer to the road than road flats, though I was a big fan of the long-discontinued Fila Corsa Sette (light, flexible, one-piece midsole-outsole). My footstrike feels most natural and least inhibited in the spikeless XC flats, especially after the rubber studs have worn away (this doesn't take long when doing all of your running on concrete sidewalks).
The xc flats, obviously having virtually no cushioning or shock absorption, have taught me to strike the ground more gently (I'm not sure "strike" is even the right word now; it definitely was the right word 10 years ago).
The Free is obviously thicker and more cusioned than the spikeless XC flats are (one could probably get away with "striking" in the free), but surprisingly they are also much much more flexible. Although the XC flats obviously do not provide any support, I don't find them to be overly taxing on the muscles of my feet. In the frees, I feel like I use more energy having to actively stabilize myself, which I suspect is due to the soft, thick, almost infinitely flexible midsole. Overall, I find them (the Frees and spikeless XC flats) to complement each other quite well (XC flats to reinforce gentle footstrike; Frees to strengthen stabilizing muscles), so I have been alternating between the two for a while now.
I have had far fewer injuries since transitioning to frees and XC flats, most notably, I haven't had any problems with my plantar fascia since about 2003, whereas it had been flaring up routinely for years previously when running in Brooks Adrenaline / Asics GT2XXX / those sorts of shoes).