Login required to started new threads

Login required to post replies

Brooks Glycerin vs. Hoka conquest
Quote | Reply
I have posted here before as I continue on my quest for my unicorn running shoe. I love my Hoka conqust shoes but wanted to try a lighter shoe to race in. After 90 minutes of trying on shoes, I settled on the Gycerin which feels like my turnover is faster but road shock sets in after a few miles. Has anyone tried the lighter hoka models, if so, did they feel lighter and more agile than the conquest?

Thanks in advance.
Quote Reply
Re: Brooks Glycerin vs. Hoka conquest [raceboy] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
I train in the Conquests but race in the Hoka Cliftons. I really like the feel and low weight!
Quote Reply
Re: Brooks Glycerin vs. Hoka conquest [rayman54] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
They don't feel too spongy?
In Reply To:
Quote Reply
Re: Brooks Glycerin vs. Hoka conquest [raceboy] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Not to me. When racing I hardly notice them. Nice and light. I've only used the so far for races up to 1/2 Marathon. My feet have no aches and pains with these.

Every is different, however.
Quote Reply
Re: Brooks Glycerin vs. Hoka conquest [raceboy] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
I am interested in this too. I wear the Glycerin right now and have for a few years. I tried the Bondi B and found that the way the shoe last locked in my feet gave me all kinds of trouble with foot pain. Once I switched back to the Glycerins I was fine. I am hopeful that Hoka will release a truly neutral shoe without any guidance support - a shoe just like the Glycerin but with the Hoka cushioning.
Thanks, John
Quote Reply
Re: Brooks Glycerin vs. Hoka conquest [raceboy] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
May want to hang tight for another month or so for the new Asics 33-M. Same weight of the Glycerin, but 2mm more stack height than the Conquest at an ounce lighter. Only have one run in the Clifton and after 4 miles I could feel chafing under my 3rd and 4th left toes. Mid-foot strike and I supinate on that side so not sure if that has anything to do with it. If you do pull the trigger on the Clifton, note that the blue model's tongue bleeds and turns your socks blue. The tops of my gray merino wool socks are now blue after just 4.5 miles.
Quote Reply
Re: Brooks Glycerin vs. Hoka conquest [TimeIsUp] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
The Glycerins were ~ ok for me, but felt kind of hard under my feet. After a long run my feet would feel pretty hammered. Tried the Clintons and really like them, a lot. Not too soft, feel great, can run long, very comfortable. Oh yeah, I have blue socks too.
Quote Reply
Re: Brooks Glycerin vs. Hoka conquest [raceboy] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
When it comes to racing shoes the first thing people need to find is the least about of cushioning they can withstand without being in total pain. Racing shoes aren't supposed to be comfortable but ok enough to get you through the distance. The glycerine is a workhorse trainer and isn't really a 'fast' shoe. But if that's the cusioning youre looking for then go for it. For faster cushioned shoes legit racers I'd personally say check out the pure flow, lunarracer, kinvara, or the aha. But if those aren't enough I'd personally choose the clifton over the glycerine.
Quote Reply
Re: Brooks Glycerin vs. Hoka conquest [raceboy] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
TBH choose whichever shoe you're most comfortable in. Unless you're going to podium or whatnot, then why beat yourself more by choosing a less cushioned shoe?

I went through a million different shoe models (including trainers, "racers", and everything in between) and finally I've just settled on the Adidas Energy Boosts for training and racing. Feels good, lasts longer than other shoes I've used (I love Flyknit Lunars but don't feel like shelling out $140 every 300k), and my legs/feet don't feel like putty after long runs or races. For what it's worth I've run half marathons in both the Boosts and "racers" (NB RC1400) and I don't feel any faster in the lighter shoe.
Quote Reply
Re: Brooks Glycerin vs. Hoka conquest [raceboy] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
I used to run in the glcerines.
The problems they caused. Never again.
Quote Reply
Re: Brooks Glycerin vs. Hoka conquest [johnnybefit] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
johnnybefit wrote:
I am interested in this too. I wear the Glycerin right now and have for a few years. I tried the Bondi B and found that the way the shoe last locked in my feet gave me all kinds of trouble with foot pain. Once I switched back to the Glycerins I was fine. I am hopeful that Hoka will release a truly neutral shoe without any guidance support - a shoe just like the Glycerin but with the Hoka cushioning.
Thanks, John

Hey John. The Hokas you tried are technically neutral, they don't have any "active" guidance or support, I always considered it more of a passive support (wide base, flat midfoot platform, etc). However, those are... kinda what makes a Hoka a Hoka, they're intentionally different shoes. Given how soft they make their cushioning, if they were to make the shoe fir narrower, or get rid of some of the design components that Hokas have in common with each other, you would end up with a dramatically different shoe. If you took the glycerin last and built a Hoka around it, you might still end up with the foot pain. They were just designed to be very different.
Might I suggest you try out something from Adidas' Boost lineup? The cushioning isn't quite as soft as the Hoka, but the difference in cush is noticeable compared to a Glycerin. Plus, they're cut on a little bit more traditional last. Might be a good option for you.
Quote Reply
Re: Brooks Glycerin vs. Hoka conquest [RFXCrunner] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
RFXCrunner wrote:
johnnybefit wrote:
I am interested in this too. I wear the Glycerin right now and have for a few years. I tried the Bondi B and found that the way the shoe last locked in my feet gave me all kinds of trouble with foot pain. Once I switched back to the Glycerins I was fine. I am hopeful that Hoka will release a truly neutral shoe without any guidance support - a shoe just like the Glycerin but with the Hoka cushioning.
Thanks, John


Hey John. The Hokas you tried are technically neutral, they don't have any "active" guidance or support, I always considered it more of a passive support (wide base, flat midfoot platform, etc). However, those are... kinda what makes a Hoka a Hoka, they're intentionally different shoes. Given how soft they make their cushioning, if they were to make the shoe fir narrower, or get rid of some of the design components that Hokas have in common with each other, you would end up with a dramatically different shoe. If you took the glycerin last and built a Hoka around it, you might still end up with the foot pain. They were just designed to be very different.
Might I suggest you try out something from Adidas' Boost lineup? The cushioning isn't quite as soft as the Hoka, but the difference in cush is noticeable compared to a Glycerin. Plus, they're cut on a little bit more traditional last. Might be a good option for you.

Thanks for the recommendation. I understand about the Hoka but the way it "locked" my foot in place just did not work for me. I will see how I like the Adidas Boost!
John
Quote Reply
Re: Brooks Glycerin vs. Hoka conquest [johnnybefit] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Try the Adidas Glide 7 -> boost cushioning, fits somewhat similar to my Glycerins, but noticeable softer/springier.
Quote Reply
Re: Brooks Glycerin vs. Hoka conquest [RFXCrunner] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Excuse me for hijack the thread but can anyone advise on a replacement for Brooks Ghost 4 running shoe please ?

I'm 85kg and looking to do first Half this year, aiming for 40k a week.

Thanks in advance
Quote Reply