Hoka-hamstring pulls

Triathlon Forum
22

the fulcrum in a running shoe

Totally in the weeds for a forum statement potentially, but since you brought it up (that always was one of my most enjoyed articles, BTW)…

But exactly, fulcrums in a shoe do bear relevance even to the OP’s statement, because the shoe fulcrum can influence more than what many realize. Overall feel, initial-contact to toe-off transition, contact time, etc. The Hoka shoe fulcrum location varies by the model. If the location allows for a change to the stride angle, this will change the hamstring dynamics, and could stress it. But, with every instance, it is subject-specific interventions and not the shoe itself. Rarely is it a bad shoe- only a bad fit to the individual run mechanics.

Good way to look at it is the shoe fulcrum has the largest effect on late-stance to toe off in a gait cycle (force, rate of force). Problem is, the shoe fulcrum needs to work in conjunction with the body fulcrum (ball of foot) and the later portions of stride length.

From the standpoint of pure force development when running, this is why the toe-off stride angle when sprinting or when elite endurance runners race and get a nice “triple extension,” is often what many will say “looks right” when running to perform. Shoes that have been constructed for the masses and have been engineered around a fulcrum concept (Hoka, Newton) do well because they assist with getting runners to achieve better extension at the ankle during late stance when the knee and hip are “lazy” for the majority of runners, or ( I believe in your inj hx??) adjust the fulcrum enough from a previous or current injury. Totally different topic altogether, but this is why certain commercial approaches do so well when teaching runners a new or different form, is because it will change the fulcrum position by “short-stroking” the stride and getting the ankle stride angle at a biomechanical advantage. Problem is that the runner will eventually reach a glass ceiling with performance, because there is only so high the step rate can go.

second, i’d rather not call it a ramp because in my parlance a ramp means something, so let’s figure out a way to talk about this using another term.

100% agree…while we’re at it, I’d be for getting rid of the current shoe categories and notion of minimal/maximal (no sarcasm here)…

23

You have received a lot of responses to your initial question. But here is my take from my own experience; not saying it’s the same as your current problem. But for whatever it’s worth…

I was having issues when increasing mileage last year (issues just means tired and sore feet from the pounding, some superficial aches and pains). Not any specific injury. I went to an Altra equivalent of the Hoka (the Altra Paradigm I believe). At first the super cushioning was great and I just continue with my mileage push. All was good. However, as I continued running I then ended up with some new issues that crept up. Eventually I had to stop running altogether and went through the whole MRI, bone scan, specialist routine. It blew my race schedule and more importantly took away my enjoyment of running. After a lot of guesswork and dead-ends, it was determined to be a tight hamstring issue. A routine stretching regimen was “prescribed” and the pain-in-ass slow return to running began.

This is just a guess, but the ultra cushioned shoes allowed me to run further that my body was allowing me to. I’m not blaming the shoes. I’m blaming myself for “fixing” symptoms with the shoes. I used the shoes basically like a pseudo medical device for my sore feet. That allowed me to push other parts of my body that weren’t at that time giving me issues. The hamstring thing actually was more about limited range of motion from repetitive exercises. So more cross training stuff would be good to accompany the stretching.

Anyway, I have since went back to my old running shoes. I still have the ultra cushioned shoes and I’ll probably use them again for certain things. But I’m going to be a lot more cautious this year.

24

Thanks - sounds a bit familiar. Also you raise a point that I hadn’t focused on. That being that about 2 months ago I really stepped up my cross training - box jumps, squats, lunges and some kettle ball core work. So maybe the switch in running shoes was a factor in feeling better but my guess is that, as is usually the case with overuse injuries, multiple factors contributed to the problem and multiple changes in behavior helped solve the problem ( at least for now).

25

That stretch is what ballet dancers call a pigeon. It’s more effective when it’s done on the floor btw.

26

Being from a running background my hips are way to tight to do it on the floor initially … although getting better at it now and can almost manage as good a stretch on the floor! I actually find using my bed, which is a lower than the table and more comfortable, the best option for me at the mo! Just got to make sure you keep your hips/pelvis in correct position!

27

Myself and a friend of mine (both ex-college runners) started running in Hokas last fall when we were training for a marathon. Made the switch because of a history of injury. Also both made the switch from 4mm drop shoes (Brooks pure cadence). Coincidentally, we both ended up with hamstring issues. I stopped running in mine before he did and he is still paying the price.

Personally, I have always been a forefoot striker. Our theory is that posterior chain injuries (calf/hamstring) issues in people wearing Hoka’s might possibly be related to the maximal cushioning. I wouldn’t be surprised if the body senses this cushioning through the foot and consequently increases eccentric loading during the landing phase of the stride. As a result there is greater loading of the calf/hamstring compared to a normally cushioned shoe.

I have since gone back to the Brooks Pure Cadence and about 2 weeks after I did everything resolved itself. Best of luck to you.

28

“…I intend to have my hokas in the rotation…”

This is the solution to the whole problem. Maybe it’s just something you figure out or fall into after 25-30 years of running, but I have come to the conclusion that rotating shoes is extremely beneficial. Different workouts warrant different shoes, different running surfaces warrant different shoes, and regularly rotating shoes is really effective in determining whether/when to replace a pair of shoes and whether a particular pair of shoes might be causing you issues. Even if you feel you can only run in a single brand/model of shoe, getting multiple pairs a couple months apart gives some variation.

There’s a physiological transition timeframe when switching whole hog from working out entirely in one pair/style of shoes to a completely different pair/style of shoes, since you will inevitably use different muscles in slightly different ways, usually accompanied by some new soreness and often enough leading to some weird nagging “injuries.”

…oh, and rotating makes your shoes last longer…at least with respect to time, if not mileage…

29

I have to commend Hoka’s marketing; they have convinced everyone that their shoe is injury proof or somehow therapeutic. They may be both of those things but I have a certain level of doubt. I asked a fitter at Boulder Running company (just bought a pair of Brooks PureFlow to replace my Kinvaras) what their take on the Hokas were. He said they were extremely popular, but when they do gait analysis they rarely end up recommending them. In other words people come in already convinced of the Hoka magic. I suspect people are dealing with injuries with Hokas who are being quiet about them because they are still essentially under the Hoka marketing spell. It is the same thing with Newtons, a knew/know a bunch of people who switched to Newtons who then developed Achilles issues and stress fractures, but they couldn’t possibly attribute them to the Newtons…

30

Hoka markets? Outside of ST I’ve never seen an ad. Sales data is hard to come by (ok, I spent 10 minutes Googling it) so it’s hard to confirm if they are actually “extremely popular”. I always thought they were more popular with the tri crowd. No runners I know, or see, wear them.

In any event, it appears to work both ways; too much credit and too much blame. The OP even came around and said his hamstring issue was likely the result of a multitude of issues and not just the Hokas.

For the record, I’m a fan. After years of chronic lower legs issues, I’ve had almost three years of injury free running. First the Bondi and now the Clifton. I suspect it has as much, or more, to do with the fact that I run more frequently at lower intensity than with the Hokas. But, I’ve had success and it has nothing to do with a “marketing spell” or “Hoka magic” .

31

Right, few people outside of technical or triathlon running have any idea what a “Hoka” is; I am sure they think it is a cannabis inhalation system. Keep in mind I live in Denver, big box retailers sell Hokas, Altras, and Newtons so when I say “extremely popular” my sample is admittedly pretty low. When I say “extremely popular” I am saying popular among people who frequent specialty running shops like Endurance House or Boulder Running Company. I am also saying that out of my triathlon group more than half either currently run in Hokas or they tried them. When I say ‘marketing’, I mean that Hoka sets up events at places like Lifetime, E-House, etc to push their product. I think I have seen one TV commercial for them and it was on LTF’s internal network where they advertise all sorts of stuff. Compared to Nike or Adidas Hoka barely registers as a marketer; however they do engage in a fair amount of direct marketing.

In substance, we are saying the same thing; we may be attributing to much to the shoe, whether it is a Hoka or a Newton.

32

A ha! makes more sense then.

I’m not even sure people here (NY/NJ) inside technical running know from Hoka. The local Road Runner store employee looked at me funny when I asked for them. Perhaps he too was thinking Hooka - thanks for the laugh.

Cheers!

33

Just stumbled upon this thread. I’ve noticed something similar over the course of two different pairs of Hokas - once last fall, over the course of about a month and 100 miles and then again this spring with similar mileage. Both times I was doing all of my running exclusively in the Hokas. After the month, both resulted in incredibly tight hamstrings. This last time with a bit of a strain. In both occasions, I switched to a much more minimal shoe and the symptoms went away. What really made me question the shoes was when I put them one for the first time since, simply to take the dog for a walk - almost like magic, my hamstrings felt noticeably tighter and all I was doing was walking. Needless to say, I haven’t put them back on.

34

I started running in Hoka’s and a short time after I started having issues with my calf. I figured it was just another one of the many injuries that I would have to deal with.

I decided to go back to a traditional shoe (no Hoka, no Newton, etc.). Within a few runs the injury was gone.

I have talked to a lot of people, hard core runners, triathletes, etc. and I am shocked at the number of stories of injuries that have occurred while wearing Hoka’s that magically clear up once people stop wearing them.

35

I also am an experienced runner that has been struggling with hamstring strains when introducing speed work. I have not been able to race much in the last 5 years due to this and also calf strains. I get the calf from increasing volume too much and hamstring from speed work. I went away from hoka and back to asics for two years now. But alas I am still having the strains in asics, so in my case i am not blaming the shoe, just old age, I am 45, but I don’t get away with any training mistakes now like I used to. I am trying some weight training this year but suspect I may be better with yoga to stretch more. I think 25 years on working a desk job is catching up with me, but always good to know how others have been able to combat this. But to your original question, I am no expert in shoes but know most people switch to hoka because of injury, if injuries persist it is probably not the shoe.

36

Myself and a friend of mine (both ex-college runners) started running in Hokas last fall when we were training for a marathon. Made the switch because of a history of injury. Also both made the switch from 4mm drop shoes (Brooks pure cadence). Coincidentally, we both ended up with hamstring issues. I stopped running in mine before he did and he is still paying the price.

Personally, I have always been a forefoot striker. Our theory is that posterior chain injuries (calf/hamstring) issues in people wearing Hoka’s might possibly be related to the maximal cushioning. I wouldn’t be surprised if the body senses this cushioning through the foot and consequently increases eccentric loading during the landing phase of the stride. As a result there is greater loading of the calf/hamstring compared to a normally cushioned shoe.

I have since gone back to the Brooks Pure Cadence and about 2 weeks after I did everything resolved itself. Best of luck to you.

Wow, this thread is really interesting. Your comments above seem to make sense to me. I’m a forefoot runner, with all that’s good and bad about that “style.” I’ve been running more of my Hokas in my rotation and while my feet feel a bit happier, I too have noticed my calfs and hamstrings seem to be a bit tighter+sore, I chalked it up to an increase in track work, but maybe the “cush” factor has drawbacks I hadn’t factored in…

37

I developed massive piriformis issues when I was running 70+ miles a week in Hoka Cliftons. It took a while for me to figure out that it was related to the shoes. I stopped using them, and the issue went away. Never had it before, haven’t had it since.

38

Very intresting thread. My left hammy issues cropped up after a torn soleus on the right side, but went to the HOKA to keep from getting beat up from concrete during an Ironman race and give more cushion to that calf injury (related to a racing accident not shoes). HOKA purchase/hammy issues were coincidentally around the same time. Not sure if it had anything to do with the shoes, but my feet sure loved the HOKA! That said, any cushioning less just seemed to beat me up too much. I am unable to point to any one thing the root cause for the issue–as my clinician couldn’t either. I will experiment with some other footware to see how that works. There is certainly the timing of all this, which lends validity as a theory to explore further when I can run again.

39

I run in shoes like pureflow, brooks launch, mizuno syonara to saucony type a6 in races etc. neutral shoes. Tried the Bondi 5, jeepers, running on stilts and couldn’t turn a corner to save my life. Also oddly firm. Tried cliftons 3 and softer than the Bondi but your feet just disappear into them and sap your energy.
Interesting thread I couldn’t do the hoka thing as a mid/forfoot runner, i can see how they cause injuries or even perhaps weaken your running Infrustructure? Swapped those shoes out for pure cadence 6, and I’m a happy camper for easy runs again

40

I tried the Pure Cadence & really liked the shoe. It was just a bit heavy for what I was looking for in a racer. It would be a good training shoe though I think. Not sure there are any factual studies that HOKA is the issue with the people on this thread, just their observation. My observation is that while I really like the shoes, all of the ones I’ve had (Clifton 2, Bondi 5, Clayton 2), there is an odd similarity in timing with my current injuries. I thought they would help me recover and keep me from injury. If it actually turned out to be opposite, I guess I’d bail on the purchase of future shoes. I cannot verify that at this moment as I’m just in a walking mode (no running for a few more weeks). I will start using my Air Pegasus to run in when I come back. They sure seem like the feet enjoy running in those. Although, I can’t see my next Ironman race as in anything but a HOKA at this point, the miles just seem to not make much of a dent on the bottoms of my feet with those.

41

I’m not a PT but after analyzing my running shows recently after a calf strain … check the drop on the Hokas and on your older shoes. A lower drop shoe (8mm and less) will put more strain on your calves and hamstring as it will move the strike area forward (mid to forefoot). What I call a “classic” shoe i.e. with 10mm or more drop will move the strike area further back (mid to heel strike).
A lot more shoes now are zero drop (barefoot and minimalistic) or low drop and they’re not necessarily the shoe for everyone and need a period of adaptation.
I’m back in 10mm drop and my calves (and a high hamstring issue) feel a lot less stressed.

A good podcast to listen to is Science of Ultra ep 40 or 41 I can;t remember which but they address shoe drop and calf/hamstring strain in shoe design.