Oops – I meant ‘What shoe’!

I do agree that it is a step in the right direction. And that’s a good thing. The problem I have is that they are marketed by Nike as a “barefoot” shoe that give you all the benefit of being barefoot, when in reality this is far from true. Yes, it is less of a shoe than most out there. Extremely light, incredibly flexible, etc., but the cushion, slightly raised heel, small amount of support under the arch, crammed toebox, make it impossible to use your foot/ankle/calves as you would when running barefoot or even in VFF’s. Then again, they are “3.0’s” on a scale of 0-10. So, I guess I would love for Nike to come out with a 1.0 or 0.0. Something more like the Terra Plana vivo barefoot “Evo’s” but not looking like it belongs in an episode of star trek! (I think the evo’s are the most ridiculous looking shoes I’ve ever seen! and that’s coming from someone who wears Vibram Five Fingers!).
:-/

I’ve used the 3.0’s and I have to agree. Aside from a small amount of arch support, it is not flat and still has a cushioned heel (even if it’s a little less than other shoes). It’s also ridiculously narrow. In no way does it replicate running barefoot. If your foot can fit into them, they’re definitely comfortable but don’t be fooled into thinking that they’re giving you all the benefits of running barefoot. If your looking for footwear that will protect your feet but allow you to remain as close to “barefoot” as possible, this is not the shoe. For me, I’ve learned that the important things to look for are : Zero heel/forefoot differential, no arch support, wide forefoot to allow toes to spread naturally, minimal/no cushioning. Two that I’ve found that come closest to this are Vibram Five Fingers (that I use for running), and Terra Plan VivoBarefoot – Aquas (that I use for everyday use). I’m sure this may not be for everybody but I must say, unless they come out with something close to this, I don’t think I will ever wear a sneaker again!
If you’re into the “minimalist” footwear thing, then I’m guessing your probably at that point because you believe that our feet are meant to be used closer to or in their natural state. Why should we do it half-way then. If we believe that our foot was meant to be used as it is designed (and I do) then we should “protect” our feet, not “correct” our feet.
Sorry for rambling on. I’m just one of those people that have wasted way to much money on sneakers as I learned how and why our feet were designed to function “as they are”.

Unfortunately the Nike 3.0 is unavailable anywhere in the UK now.

What show would you rate, from your experience, as coming closest to it? I’m not ready for Vibram but the 3.0 sounds from your many posts like the ideal gateway shoe to minimalist running.

Todd,

I agree 100%! I made that argument when the Free Run+ came out and was
criticized by several for being critical without ever wearing the
shoe. Sometimes it’s just plain obvious when a marketing machine is at
work :)

Pete

It’s definitely not barefoot, but is an improvement over most shoes on the
market. There are a lot of people who will likely never try barefoot
running, so for that group this might be a reasonable alternative. I did a
run the other day where I started barefoot and then switched into the Free
3.0’s after 2 miles, and you’re correct that they are no proxy, but at least
a step in the right direction.

Pete

Free 3.0 is 4mm drop, so the Saucony Kinvara is going to be similar in that
sense, but not quite as flexible. Mizuno Wave Universe is another good
choice.

Pete