According to this article ( http://www.elitefts.com/documents/20_things.htm ) at elite fitness you should either be lifting in Nike Frees or Converse AllStars. The reasoning is that regular tennis shoes tend to push you up onto your toes while squatting. This makes sense since the heel is elevated.
My question is whether or not the extra $40 for the Nike Frees is actually worth it or if the Converse AllStars are just as good. I’d much rather spend $40 than $80, but I wanted to get some opinions first.
All I noticed from pictures of the Nike free is that it DOES have an elevated heel (albeit slight). The Converse I own have none whatsoever, and I like that. On the other hand, Weightlifting shoes have an elevated heel as well. Depends on what you want.
Nike Frees are designed to bend in a way that compliments the construction of your foot. This is the only thing they do that converse all stars don’t do. Both shoes will lower your heel to make it easier to squat and deadlift and will do all the other stuff described in that article. Nike Frees also might be better in terms of orthopedics since all stars are pretty much sponges on your feet.
The best lifting shoes are Olympic lifting shoes but they’re expensive and the difference isn’t really worth the money unless you compete in Olympic lifting meets.
It turns out the the best biomechanical footwear is none at all. Can’t do that in the gym though and many foolks have tender skin on the soles. Chucks get you pretty close to that but give you side stability to squat wide (if that’s your method). Wrestling shoes are supposed to be good too.
I’m gonna get another pair of chuck taylors just for wearing around. My feet feel tons better since I stopped wearing crosstrainers.
[quote]FightingScott wrote:
Nike Frees are designed to bend in a way that compliments the construction of your foot. This is the only thing they do that converse all stars don’t do. Both shoes will lower your heel to make it easier to squat and deadlift and will do all the other stuff described in that article. Nike Frees also might be better in terms of orthopedics since all stars are pretty much sponges on your feet.
The best lifting shoes are Olympic lifting shoes but they’re expensive and the difference isn’t really worth the money unless you compete in Olympic lifting meets. [/quote]
A guy I know has done Olympic lifting for 20 years and only bought 2 pairs of o.l. shoes. So, they may be expensive but, if you think about how long they last, worth it. His trick, though, is that he only puts them on when he steps on the platform. So very little wear and tear…
I got a pair for $150 last spring and so far I am liking them.
i used to have a pair of nike frees and they were AWESOME, i used to play indoor soccer and other things, and they lasted a long time. i found them incredibly comfortable, light and flexible. the only negetive is that they dont have alot of grip on the sole. I mostly used them for indoor soccer and juggling, things like that, they are awesome for any foot contact things. as for lifting, well there ment to be like not wearing any shoes, so i guess thats what you want.
The answer is both. I love both of them, but I’ll never squat with anything other than chucks. I clean and snatch with Frees, and sometimes olympic squat. Everything else is chucks. I don’t like the Free heel for squats/dls.
I’ve got both, and if you only want to buy 1 pair, I’d go with the Frees. The sole is a LOT more flexible than the Chucks’. Also, I feel like my toes can go wherever they want in the Frees.
I went ahead and got the chucks today (poor college student). Did my deadlift workout and I liked them for that. Definitely didn’t feel pushed up onto my toes as much as with my tennis shoes.
I don’t imagine running and sprinting in them would be very good. The sole is basically just flat on the inside.
[quote]cblasco wrote:
FightingScott wrote:
Nike Frees are designed to bend in a way that compliments the construction of your foot. This is the only thing they do that converse all stars don’t do. Both shoes will lower your heel to make it easier to squat and deadlift and will do all the other stuff described in that article. Nike Frees also might be better in terms of orthopedics since all stars are pretty much sponges on your feet.
The best lifting shoes are Olympic lifting shoes but they’re expensive and the difference isn’t really worth the money unless you compete in Olympic lifting meets.
A guy I know has done Olympic lifting for 20 years and only bought 2 pairs of o.l. shoes. So, they may be expensive but, if you think about how long they last, worth it. His trick, though, is that he only puts them on when he steps on the platform. So very little wear and tear…
I got a pair for $150 last spring and so far I am liking them.[/quote]
And I’m guessing you have competed, even at a county meet, or you’re considering competing in the future.
the sprint model, I should be getting this weak and fully intened to deadlift and squat in them, they had come last week but the sizing was wrong ( due to lack of half sizes) I did test them out and the grip is incredible, I was standing on my slippery bathtub and I was pretty hard pressed to make them slide.
I haven’t used them for lifting and couldn’t really do too much with the larger size because I needed to send them back in good condition, but I will report back once I get them. They are suppose to be better than the nike free’s which is the main reason im writing this and im sure as hell a lot more durable, the bottom is like kevlar
[quote]kroby wrote:
There’s nothing better than squatting and DLing in bare feet. Since my new gym doesn’t allow this, Chuck T’s are good enough for me.[/quote]
I agree. I train in my basement and nekkid feet is something I wish I’d discovered a long time ago. I decided one day just to try it and was surprised at how good it felt. Been doing it ever since. Calves however are a different story. Hurts the balls of my feet both of which are somewhat messed up from being broken in the past.