Free 5.0: Not really barefoot

There have been several threads recently about barefoot running in general and the Nike Free 5.0 in particular. Instead of posting in all those threads, I decided to start a new one to share my thoughts on the matter. Note from the outset that JackRabbit Sports is a Nike Authorized dealer under the Running Specialty store program, and we sell Nike shoes, apparel, and accessories. We do not accept any advertising or coop money from any of our vendors for shoes.

The general consensus among the running community is that the Free 5.0 does not really mimic running barefoot. Feedback from most people is that it definetly is flexible, and that the feel in the forefoot might be a little like being barefoot, but there’s an awful lot of material under the heel and there’s a little bit of arch support in the shoe (depends which insert you use). For those reasons, most people say that the Free 5.0 doesn’t mimic running barefoot.

I agree with those assessments – I don’t think that the shoe truly mimics running barefoot. For example, it is really forgiving to heel strikers, and your bare feet are not. However, Nike’s engineers are not to blame – in fact, I think they have done a VERY good job with the shoe, as I’ll explain below. Nike’s marketing is not to blame either – I think they’re doing a very good job introducting a completely new concept to a large population. In fact, in a very subtle way Nike says the same thing. The moniker “5.0” is supposed to designate that the shoe is halfway between a normal trainer (10.0) and actually being barefoot (1.0). That’s why the second insert that comes with the shoe is designated “4.5” – it’s supposed to be closer to the barefoot feel.

In my view, the Free 5.0 is designed as a tool to strengthen your feet. It is a shoe that provides very little suppport, which forces the wearer to use the stabilizing muscles in their lower leg that typically go underused, which in turn develops better form and economy. From a marketing perspective, this is a very complex concept – it is much easier to just say that the shoe mimics running barefoot.

From an engineering perspective, I personally think (with absolutely no inside knowledge to back this up) that Nike’s engineers realized that a lot of people were going to try the Free, even though they really need some support from their shoes. I know when we sell a pair it’s with a lot of caveats about not running long distances in it. Other retailers I’ve spoken to joke that they practically make customers sign a waiver before buying them. So I think Nike built up the heel in the shoe to accomodate rearfoot strikers (90% of the US market) and added a little bit of stability in the form of arch support. As a result, a lot more people can wear the Free 5.0 without really hurting themselves – but when I say “a lot” I mean a very miniscule sized market by Nike’s standards.

So I don’t put any fault on Nike’s engineering – I think they’ve done a great job designing a “barefoot” shoe for the mass market, which by necessity means that it’s not truly a barefoot shoe. And their marketing folks have done a good job introducing the concept of barefoot running to a large market. Keep in mind that companies like Nike have made a lot of money selling technology after technology for your feet (think “Air” and “Shox”), so to market a concept that basically says “rely on your body not on technology” is a move that must have created a lot of internal strife. As a first step towards a different philosophy of building and marketing footwear for runners, the Free 5.0 is a very, very positive move. It’ll be very interesting to watch this market evolve.

Part of the reason I say all this is that Nike also designed a shoe called the Free 4.0, which was originally slated for release this summer but has been delayed. I was able to buy a set of Free 4.0 samples from my sales rep and have been wearing them off and on for a few months. The Free 4.0 is a LOT closer to being barefoot than the 5.0. It has much thinner padding underneath the foot, especially in the heel. It doesn’t have laces, so the upper can really hug your foot. Some engineer at Nike is going to cringe when s/he reads this, but they feel like a REALLY comfortable pair of aquasocks. The Free 4.0 really does feel like you’re barefoot, which makes me believe that the engineers knew in advance that the 5.0 would not really feel like you’re truly barefoot.

I also think Nike realized that if they released the 4.0, a lot of people would wear it and get injured. I know that I overpronate more in the 4.0 than I do in the 5.0. I say this because the colors and patterns that were being offered in the catalog were absolutely hideous. There was a bright yellow that doesn’t match any article of clothing you would ever buy, a grey that looked like chain mail, and a couple of other colors. In contrast to the 5.0, which has some absolutely gorgeous color schemes (and custom colors through the Nike iD program), the 4.0 came in colors that only a real runner would dare to wear. Its almost as though they consciously didn’t want the casual customer to buy the 4.0. Someone in the finance department probably took a look at the business model for the 4.0 and decided, rightly so, that they wouldn’t sell enough of them and cancelled it. The article in the Times mentioned the 4.0 and Nike never lets that kind of thing happen casually, so my guess is that we’ll see the 4.0 this coming spring. I haven’t seen the spring line yet, though, so I have no more information than anyone else.

That’s my two cents; I’d love to hear other impressions.

Lee Silverman
JackRabbit Sports
Park Slope, Brooklyn

I am just getting over some foot troubles (PF). I have not run for a month. I want to start running this Sunday. If thing go well ,like no pain. Would this shoe be good for me or not ? I do over pronate. Could this shoe help with my foot problem ?

Thanks Dirt

That was a great write-up Lee. Thanks. I hope to get a pair of Frees sometime soon. I was wondering what feedback from your customers is in terms of best use for the shoes? Do people take them to the track for a few laps? Short, slow runs? Short, fast runs?

Thanks again for the detailed analysis.

It really trips me out that Nike is advertising the Free as a new concept. And I got a huge kick out of you stating that the 4.0 feels like a “…really comfortable pair of aquasocks…” Nike came out with a nearly identical concept back in 1989-90 and it more or less fell flat on its face. They more or less took the aquasock upper, added a strap around the arch/in-step with a small plastic clasp, and replaced the sole with a very flexible EVA “wedge” mid-sole and a better tread pattern. Voila! Didn’t sell 15 years ago, let’s add some laces, allow the buyer to pick their colors and try to sell them again. I only ever saw one guy wearing them and I couldn’t tell you where he got them. He thought they were pretty comfy and very light, but nothing to scream about.

I can’t comment on how the Free’s fit or run, but it just bugs me when something a decade and a half old is re-marketed as brand new…and no one seems to notice!

I run in the free’s for about half my runs. My impression of them is, they “encourage” running on your toes, but don’t really force it. If you hit a steep, fast downhill section where you’d like to control your speed by sliding back on your heals, these will let you get away with that. If you get tired and can’t run on your toes like you did at the start, these will let you move to more of a mid-foot strike. I love them, my only issue is why do they have to be such freeky ugly colors.

Lee, thanks for the info. Having owned a specialty running store from '98 to '03 I read your posts with great interest and I appreciate a dealer who’s willing to post his thoughts for all to see. Keep 'em coming please. With regards to shoes and form I concur with your assessment as there is an adaptation period required to go from a shoe that is “overbuilt” (like the Beast) to a shoe with less (Asics Flash ) support. Personally I’ve weened myself off of stability shoes over the last 5 years and do most of my running (even though I have flat feet) in lightweight trainers (Mizuno Precision) or “beefy” flats (DS Racers) and have found my form to be greatly improved.

Miguel in the 'No…El Tribato

First, thanks for the write up. I appreciate it.

Two questions:

  1. Do you have any “samples” of the Free 4.0 in a size 9?

  2. Is there any other running shoe that mimicks barefoot running?

Jeff

**I am just getting over some foot troubles (PF). I have not run for a month. I want to start running this Sunday. If thing go well ,like no pain. Would this shoe be good for me or not ? I do over pronate. Could this shoe help with my foot problem ? **

I would recommend getting healthy before trying something dramatically new like the Free. PF is one of the common conditions that people develop when they use the Free improperly, so might not be the right thing to try while you’re still recovering.

However, I would also encourage you to truly understand what caused you to get PF in the first place and remedy those causes. For many people, PF is due not just to insufficient length/flexibility in the fascia in your foot, but also from having calf muscles that are too tight. Very commonly, shoes with more arch support can help resolve PF issues.

Lee Silverman
JackRabbit Sports
Park Slope, Brooklyn

**I was wondering what feedback from your customers is in terms of best use for the shoes? Do people take them to the track for a few laps? Short, slow runs? Short, fast runs? **

Depends what you want to get out of them. If you’re trying to improve your form (neuromuscular control), very short intervals at a low level of effort with very long recoveries inbetween, paying close attention to exactly how your foot is touching the ground. Remember: you learn while you’re resting, not while you’re running. It’s just like swim drills; very low level of effort, focus on one thing at a time. The benefit of the Frees in this case is they let you improve your focus – regular trainers mask some of the feedback you get from your feet.

If you want to develop stabilizing strength, then short, slow, continuous runs which include some uphills would be the best bet. The exact program will vary a lot from person to person and it’s much better to work with a coach who can be conscious of your strengths and weaknesses than it is to rely on free advice you get on the Internet. :slight_smile: Stay at your aerobic pace, and go much shorter than you would for even a casual run. I would say no more than twice a week for most runners. After 2-3 weeks if that’s working OK then build up distance, but very slowly. Every single person who tries this gets very excited after the first 3 weeks and goes and does a blowout run and ruins their calves. If you can be more disciplined than the rest of us, you’ll be fine. If not, in all likelihood you’ll develop some of the same injuries the rest of us have gotten from being overenthusiastic and you’ll have to back off.

Lee Silverman
JackRabbit Sports
Park Slope, Brooklyn

Do you have any “samples” of the Free 4.0 in a size 9?

Nope.

**Is there any other running shoe that mimicks barefoot running? **

Not that is specifically engineered that way, no. But many racing flats will let you accomplish the same thing. My favorite are the Brooks T4, which is the Styofoam coffee cup of running shoes – they’re about as light and about as durable as styrofoam.

Lee Silverman
JackRabbit Sports
Park Slope, Brooklyn

Lee,

Have you ever heard of shoe called MBT (Masai Barefoot Technology). I believe they were developed in the UK by a researcher studying the Masai Tribe and how they walk with a very proper position and never have joint or back problems. You can find info on it at www.mbt-uk.com. I think you will find it very interesting.

Have you ever heard of shoe called MBT (Masai Barefoot Technology).

Yes, I’ve heard of them but I don’t know much about them. I decided not to pursue carrying them for financial reasons (I didn’t think we’d sell enough of them in our market to make it worth the investment in shoes and training for the staff) so I didn’t really investigate them seriously. There are a couple of stores in Manhattan that have them.

Lee Silverman
JackRabbit Sports
Park Slope, Brooklyn

First off Lee, your thread is as timely as it is informative. My first run in the Nike Free 5.0 was this morning.

I am an Asics man personally: My favorite shoes and they work great for me. Perfect fit, long lasting, and the features and benefits I need and like ina running shoe.

That said, I am not at all a “natural” runner. As Lew Kidder once told me, “You are just not built for running”. At 155 pounds and 5’9" I am just too heavy to really do well at it. At my fastest I had a 10K P.R. of 33:15. Right now I couldn’t crack 40 minutes. I can run 50 miles at the same speed (or lack thereof) that I run a marathon at, and not much slower for 100 miles.

I didn’t want to try the Nike Free and had no interest in the idea. Clearly, for a guy like me, it seemed like it wouldn’t work.

Now I think I was wrong about that.

This morning I noticed it was easy to run in these. It was substantially different than I originally thought. My first impression was that it would hurt to run in these. I did use the 5.0 set of insoles (I didn’t know the difference until I read your thread). There is certainly adequate cushioning in these for short runs for me, and I was on concrete, so it worked out much better than I anticipated.

I actually did read your thread about barefoot running and found the information very useful, particularly the comment about shortening your stride slightly. I also remember some of the comments Dr. Phil Maffetone made about shoe selection and recall them being skewed toward less motion-control oriented shoes and toward a concept like the Nike Free.

I can visualize how using these as an occaisional workout tool may create a more injury-resistant musculature and skeletal adaptation- or at least “tune” my perception of my stride and how I run.

I’m not sure how this will affect my trasition back to more normal training shoes- I tend to like cushiony shoes- but running is these was intersting and I can imagine a benefit.

Thanks again for the info Lee, I found it very helpful.

Thanks for your thoughts, Lee. As was the case with Tom, the timing was perfect. I had just come home from purchasing Free 5.0s when I read your post. It clarified much that I had been thinking about this shoe. Here’s a summary of my thoughts after an easy 35-minute run in them this morning.

As you noted, it’s not like running barefoot. You can heel strike and get away with it, but the shoe definitely doesn’t encourage that. Because the sole is so flexible, it doesn’t force the forefoot downward the way a support shoe does. Heel striking also makes the foot move around in the shoe.

That last point is one my favorite aspects of running in the Free. Any contact that includes other than a vertical component results in immediate feedback. I think it will help me improve my forefoot strike.

I’ve been working on a forefoot strike for a while now, so I didn’t particularly notice increased stress in the soleus. I definitely did notice increased lateral stress in my calfs, however, particularly on the outside. Running in the Free is something I’m going to have approach very carefully and patiently.

I’m also skeptical about running on irregular surfaces, such as gravel, in these shoes. There’s plenty of cushion in the heel but not much at all in the forefoot. I suspect I would feel every irregularity a bit too intimately.

Finally, based on your explanation, I expected to feel stress in my feet as they went from supinated to pronated, but at least for my brief run, I didn’t notice that. Then again, my prior attempts at forefoot running may have toughened them up a bit.

Anyway, so far, so good.

David