Thinking of switching from Brooks Adrenaline to Nike Free 3.0 or 5.0

Training in racing flats gave me plantar fascitis.

Caveat emptor.

The logical choice would be to use a more minimalist version of the current shoe you are using. In that case, buy the Brooks ST racer. The Free and the Adrenaline aren't even the same type of shoe, but the ST Racer is like Adrenaline Light. I've raced several halfs in the ST Racer, and it's a great shoe for racing and training.

Another thing... if you want to try "barefoot like running", just run barefoot occasionally. Find a nice golf course or grass landing strip and go for it. Start with just a couple miles a week.

I'll consider that too, and to the poster above you the Free's are not racing flats and have a little more support.

Why not just incorporate Nike Frees into what you're already doing. If you're wearing an Adrenaline + superfeet my guess if that your body will not be able to handle switch 100% of your running to a Free. However, if you do 20% of your miles in Frees, you might be just fine.

After almost a year running in free 5.0 I've come to the conclusion that they're really not a "minimalist" shoe at all. True, they are flexible which is nice, but they have a very elevated heel, allowing you to continue heelstriking comfortable. And I see moving from heavy heelstriking to midfoot striking as the most desirable goal of minimalism.

I actually think the best way to get to "less shoe" is simply to cut the heels off of your current trainer. It looks like the adrenaline has a plastic midfoot plate but has got a nice soft heel. I would just take a serrated knife and slice off the rubber outsole and the colored part of the padding on the heel up to the plastic plate. Once you get comfortable with this try a pair of lightweight trainers or road flats with the heel cut off (I'm training in mizuno ronins with the heel cut). This will get you up on your forefoot without all that spongey stuff underfoot like with the frees.

OK, so you're not injured and have a shoe you like and you want to start wearing more minimalist shoes because?? Because some idiot wrote a book about a bunch of indians running in sandals? I don't get it. If it works don't fix it.

Historian wrote:

OK, so you're not injured and have a shoe you like and you want to start wearing more minimalist shoes because?? Because some idiot wrote a book about a bunch of indians running in sandals? I don't get it. If it works don't fix it.

exactly. i run in minimalist shoes because i was getting hurt in the bulkier shoes. if it ain't broke don't fix it.

I'm bumping this because I think it's really important for people to really think about why they want to jump on the barefoot bandwagon. Kind of a risk reward thing, is the risk worth the reward? If you're not injured is there really a reward at all? Is the reward "sticking it" to the shoe companies? Barefoot strides after practice make sense to me but we were doing that in the 60's and 70's.

I think the reward is pretty high actually. If you watch any of the great runners, the biggest thing they have in common is they all land mid-forefoot with their foot right under their center of gravity. I don't think that's a coincidence - the more races I see, the more I believe that good form is an essential determinant of success.

So how does cutting the heel off your trainer help? First off, a raised heel makes it physically harder to midfoot strike. That's why I cringe when I hear people saying they want to start midfoot striking but they insist on wearing high heeled trainers - you have to point your toe down so much to midfoot strike in some of these trainers. And, as I think this video shows pretty well:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9itkEkcQ8WM&feature=related

there's a mental aspect to this. Knowing you're wearing a cushy trainer, your brain tells you to point your toe up when impacting the ground. Get used to the fact that your heel is more exposed and some of that goes away.

twig mzungu wrote:

After almost a year running in free 5.0 I've come to the conclusion that they're really not a "minimalist" shoe at all. True, they are flexible which is nice, but they have a very elevated heel, allowing you to continue heelstriking comfortable. And I see moving from heavy heelstriking to midfoot striking as the most desirable goal of minimalism.

.

It took you almost a year? Did you ever look at your shoes? I think after about a second it is clear that the free is not, and never was a minimal shoe.

Historian wrote:

I'm bumping this because I think it's really important for people to really think about why they want to jump on the barefoot bandwagon. Kind of a risk reward thing, is the risk worth the reward? If you're not injured is there really a reward at all? Is the reward "sticking it" to the shoe companies? Barefoot strides after practice make sense to me but we were doing that in the 60's and 70's.

There's a huge difference between barefoot running and Frees; the Free is just a nice light trainer that happens to have a very flexible sole. Also, my favorite part of them is that they're actually made to last (unlike most trainers). I can easily get 1000+ miles out of a pair without getting shin splints and the other crap I used to get in Asics' trainers starting at ~400 miles.

I can recommend the Free 3.0s and logged many miles in them in training for Boston. First few runs resulted in sore calves, but felt great after that. I like the lower heels of the 3.0 over the 5.0. I wouldn't wear them for racing, as I seem to be a little slower in them - they're so flexible that there's no springy rebound. Get them a half size large; the toe box has very low volume. Good luck finding them other than a Nike specific store.