Post # 1
I’m looking for a walking shoe vs. a running shoe and have heard awesome things about Nike Free Run 2. I noticed they recently came out with 3 and I was going to get some and someone told me they heard 2 was better. I know nothing else about the shoe difference and was hoping someone in the hive did….
Post # 3
I don’t know anything about the Nike Free Run series. I have the Nike Free 3.0 (version 2, I think). I think new Free 3 shoes came out, but I don’t think it’s part of the Free Run line (I hope not!). The Free line is for those looking for a more minimalist shoe that forces you to use more natural biomechanics. Modern running shoes have so many bells and whistles that they cause us to run unnaturally, which leads to injury (e.g. heel striking– we’re not built to heel strike when running; run barefoot in the grass, and you will not heel strike). Back in the day, before the crazy running shoes came to market that allowed us to run as we do now, there was actually less injury. The Free 3.0 are the most minimal in the line. The Free Runs got a lot of flack because they weren’t as minimal. Perhaps the newest Free Runs are more minimal? I like my Free 3.0s. I have done lots of running in them (including a marathon and all the training leading up to it), and wouldn’t hesistate to go power walking in them either. My calves were sore in them at first as I adjusted to them. If I were to get a new pair of shoes now, I’d probably get the New Balance Minimus Trails. But I’ve been out of the running loop for a while, so maybe there are even better ones out there. But those who I’ve asked who have had them, have sworn by them.