Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]

Notice
This is a top secret board, authorized personnel only!
Error
This is a top secret board, authorized personnel only!
Add Reply
nike free 3.0 flyknit; nike free 3.0 flyknit
Topic Started: Dec 25 2015, 10:41 AM (3 Views)
weida

For me, cheap nike free run 3.0 the Nike Free 3.0 v5 is a fantastic shoe for easy runs and distances up to about 10 miles. They¡¯re also great as a casual, low-drop shoe (which is what the vast majority of people buying them will be using them for). In my opinion, they¡¯re too soft and lack responsiveness for speed work. Be aware that despite the stretchy upper, it is a fairly narrow shoe (I went up a half size), so those with wide feet should look elsewhere. All in all, I¡¯m quite impressed with the Free 3.0 v5. It¡¯s one of the best shoes I¡¯ve worn so far this year, and a pleasant surprise given my experience with the previous iteration. Big thumbs up!

4. Silence. One of the coolest things about running in the Free 3.0¡¯s (and this may be true of the other shoes in the Free line) is that you can barely hear your footfalls when you run in them ¨C you feel like a cat or a ninja who moves effortlessly and quietly along the ground ¨C sounds silly, but it¡¯s true. This is due with the properties of the material making up the outsole, which despite it¡¯s seeming softness has held up pretty well air max 90 uk sale for me in the original Free 3.0 over 220+ miles of running and walking.

The real standout here in terms of biomechanical differences was barefoot running. Here are some of the key differences that were found for barefoot relative to the shoes:1. shorter stride length than all shod conditions 2. higher cadence than all shod conditions (avg. 187.7 steps/min) 3. less dorsiflexion of the ankle at initial contact (i.e., flatter foot placement at contact) 4. greater ankle plantarflexion at toe-off 5. reduced knee extension and abduction moments 6. less knee flexion during midstance (straighter leg) 7. smaller joint moments and less work done at the knee (24% less negative work when barefoot compared to the standard shoe) 8. greater joint moments and more work done at the ankle

3. Heel-Toe Offset. I don¡¯t know the actual #¡¯s on the differential in thickness between the heel and toe, but the Free 3.0 has a much lower heel than most traditional running shoes. While there¡¯s still enough cushioning there to allow me to continue heel striking, it was enough of a reduction that I felt it in my leg muscles when I first started running in them. I wasn¡¯t sore in the calves like I was after my first runs in the Vibrams (which have no built-up heel), but the Free 3.0¡¯s did seem to work my muscles in a different way than previous shoes I¡¯d used, and perhaps helped me to have a smoother transition into the Vibrams than others who make the jump straight in.

The only real difference between the shoes was that runners tended to have shorter, quicker strides in the Frees and Lunaracers vs. their standard shoe (mean cadence 183.9 steps/min for both lightweight shoes vs. 181.3 steps/min in standard shoe). The Nike Free did reduce peak ankle adduction during stance and increased peak ankle internal rotatio nike free powerlines 2015 n moment equivalent to barefoot, but in all other respects was more similar to the other shoes.

After a phenomenal debut, the Nike Free 3.0 line entered a steady downward spiral, culminating in one of the worst shoes I have worn since I started reviewing running shoes back in 2009. The Free 3.0 v4 had a nice, updated sole, but the NanoPly upper felt like it had been made from remnants of a ziploc freezer bag. It didn¡¯t have any give, leading to a very tight fit, and it didn¡¯t breathe. A Nike Free Run uk sale t all. It was a shoe built for fashion, not function.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
« Previous Topic · Rebound 2 · Next Topic »
Add Reply