The Invincible was fine. I ran 200 or 300 miles in it, so it did the job. I would never buy it again.
It felt cheap
Flimsy is the word. The upper, the way it held my foot, the foam that was supposed to be the whole point and just felt kind of crappy. There was nothing special about it. When I switched to ASICS the difference in how well made the shoes were was immediate, and honestly even the Brooks felt better built than this, and I hated the Brooks.
What I actually want from a soft shoe
A really soft foam, because most of the time I don’t care how fast I’m going. I’m stacking miles and trying to cut recovery time, and a soft, well-made shoe with a rocker does that. The Invincible had the soft part and none of the rest.
Would I buy it again
No. I don’t think this exact version even exists anymore. The Vomero is on my list to try, because I still want a Nike that does the soft thing properly. This wasn’t it.
What I wore
| Brand | Piece | Size | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Nike | Invincible | 8 | 200 to 300 miles, never again |
All my measurements and every size I wear are on the sizing page.
Questions I get
Is the Nike Invincible good for easy runs?
It's fine. I put 200 to 300 miles on mine. It just felt flimsy the whole time and the foam felt cheap, and the ASICS I switched to were much, much better made.
Nike Invincible or ASICS Gel-Nimbus?
Gel-Nimbus. It's a better built shoe with a real rocker. The Invincible is a lot of bouncy foam with nothing holding it together.
