The Word of God Holistic Wellness Institute
"Helping The World DISCOVER THE WAY of LOVE!"
In terms of the ride, I find the Free nike roshe run black 5.0 to be semi-firm with not a lot of rebound. It¡¯s a smooth shoe due to the extreme flexibility of the sole, but it is not the most responsive shoe on the market. It¡¯s not a shoe you would choose for your next 5K, and probably not the best choice for a marathon unless you have done extensive training in them. I prefer them for runs from about 3-10 miles. My max in the 5.0 2015 is a bit over eight miles in one run, and short of a few hot spots on the inside of my heels (not sure what caused this) they worked just fine.
Conclusion: In summary, the Nike Free Run+ is a great looking, very comfortable shoe that is an excellent choice for someone who runs in traditional trainers and wants to transition to less shoe. For someone who has already made the switch, it can serve a role as a recovery and distance shoe, and my feeling is that the Free Run+ would hold up well as a marathon shoe for more minimalist runners as it provides some protection from late-race form-breakdown (though I would probably recommend the Saucony Kinvara over the Free Run+ as Nike Air Max Classic BW 91 Mens a marathon shoe since it is a bit lighter and has a bit less heel). The Free Run+ will likely see continued use in my rotation, and although it is far from barefoot-like, it fits nicely in the transitional minimalist
In the size 10¡¯s, this overlay was so tight that it was actually digging painfully into my foot. I started having flashbacks to my experience with the forefoot band on the original New Balance MT10. It¡¯s unfortunate because the forefoot of the new 5.0 is roomy, stretchy, and feels great, and I think the size 10 was a better fit. I wound up taking the 10.5¡¯s home, and was planning on running in them today, but when I tried them on this morning I could still feel distinct pressure from the band even in the larger size.
The sole of the Nike Free 3.0 v5 is unchanged from v4. It has the typical grooves/siping found in all Nike Free shoes, which allow for excellent flexibility. Rubber outsole pods are only placed under the lateral heel and the big toe, though wear of the exposed midsole does not appear excessive ¨C I have about 45 miles of running on mine, and wear them casually frequently (often all day). The soles are a bit discolored, but are holding up well so far:
As for durability, there is not a lot of rubber on the sole of this shoe ¨C just a few small patches around the heel and under the big toe. Wear after about 30 miles of running and considerable casual use has been minimal so far. Interestingly, I saw a fair amount of wear on the heel rubber of the 5.0 after similar mileage. This has not happened in the 3.0, and I think it may be due to the more rounded sole in the heel region of this shoe (see photo above) ¨C it doesn¡¯ t catch the ground as easily as that of the 5.0 (I tend to scuff a bit on the outer heel).
4. Midfoot Fit. In contrast, to the forefoot, the midfoot of the 5.0 is roomier and more comfortable on my foot, and that might in part be due to the fact that it has a more traditional tongue instead of the bootie-style design of the 3.0. I get a bit of pressure on the top of my foot in the 3.0 due to the integrated tongue and thus am less likel nike roshe run mesh and suede y to use it as a casual shoe for long-term wear.
© 2025 Created by Drs Joshua and Sherilyn Smith. Powered by
You need to be a member of The Word of God Holistic Wellness Institute to add comments!
Join The Word of God Holistic Wellness Institute