I was at a sporting good store the other day, and I was surprised to find that the selction of shoes there was mostly of the thick-heel variety. Minimal shoes have slowly crept into the mainstream, but many companies seem to be holding out.
A prime example is Nike. I saw their new Nike Free 3.0 at the store. Even though a 3.0 is supposed to be closer to barefoot (with barefoot being a zero, I guess), the shoe still had a thick heel to it.
Why is Nike afraid to make a thin, zero-drop shoe? Are they afraid it wil somehow lessen the credibility of their regular thick shoes?
I love my Nike Frees despite the thick heel. It is one of the best running shoes I have owned. It should be noted I don’t run much and haven’t worn out too many running shoes but I have had enough that have caused me problems to appreciate the Nike Frees. I can still run with the proper form despite the heel. I do appreciate the heal though. I have worn them on day hikes up a local 10K peak (Mt. Baldy) and they have worked better than my day hiking shoes. One of these days I may actually wear my VFFs up Baldy.
When I bought my Nike Frees a couple of years ago in the marketing material it was noted that these were “training” shoes and not mean’t to replace a regular running shoe.
Greg,
Once I switched to a low-heeled shoe (the Puma H Street), I never went back. A thick-heeled shoe just doesn’t feel right anymore.