the bondi is considered a neutral shoe. but i think this classification is a bit of a mistake, or a misnomer, or, saying it's neutral is telling half the story. the lack of specific medial posting features makes this shoe neutral. those who run in neutral shoes, and need only neutral shoes, seem to like this shoe. oddly - ironically - a lot of ultra trail runners came out of their vibram 5 fingers for hokas because they were neutral and low ramp, just cushy.

but the makers of this shoe were themselves ultra trail runners. they didn't even know what a tricathalon was when they got into shoe making. isn't that what bob beamon did? or seagren? one of those bobs? or was it the scotts?

what they did do was make a shoe that would bomb the downhills. hence the cush. but, would be very, very stable and robust and hold up on long trail runs. so, unwittingly, they made a shoe that works very well for us that don't want any transverse (sideways) movement. and holds up an orthotic. and supports those whose medial ankles crush the medial sides of shoes.

the short answer, after this longish explanation, is that they made a neutral shoe. they set out to make a neutral shoe and they achieved their goal. they just put features in that shoe that allow it to be a stability shoe, for those (like me) who need that.

---

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman

Do any of these newer breed shoes have low arches?
Every model I've checked (those mentioned in this thread) reportedly has a medium arch, and my foot doesn't typically tolerate that.

I'll add another voice.

The Hoka's rock.

Been running in them about a year and... Heaven.

I wouldn't call them a "stabilizing" shoe but as a pronator (right foot more than left) they are perfectly fine. I switched from Kayano's due to a foot injury which kept me sidelined for 8mos. Once I switched... foot injury healed.

That said, I do not think the Hoka's are only for the injured or the old (I'm 43). The ramp angle is very low and similar to Newtons. I ran in Newtons for about 6mos and spent the next 8mos rehabing my sore ankle (the right one attached to my severely pronating right appendage). Since running in the Hokas I have had ZERO ankle pain even with the low ramp angle.

I have not done any speed work in the Hoka's due to my injury so I can not comment on that. But considering I'm pretty lucky to run a 7:45-8:00min/mile marathon (IM or open), I don' think the Hoka's are going to hold me back.

If I was a 130lbs, 2:30 marathon guy I might be suspicious but for the average IM guy. I think they are definitely worth the money and worth a trial.

I do think they are "revolutionary" in that they incorporate the "naked running" philosophy (i.e. lower ramp angle) yet provide cushioning for the "average Joe".

Not everyone is an ST stud who has perfect midfoot/forefoot strike and can run in Vibrams until the sun comes up.

I like Dan's cocaine analogy.

I think the "minimalist" fad will fade but the concepts of the minimalist movement will have lasting results in terms of lower ramp angles.

My experience with Hoka's (Evos-the only ones that come in 14-M) is that it is a great combination of the "mininmalist" (i.e. low ramp angle) movement and a shoe that can be worn by "everyone".

My only beef with Hoka's is the size is very off. It is at least 1/2 size off, if not a whole size off. I had to switch out the insole for a super slim one so that my big toe did not rub.

Anywho, that's my $.05 worth. Ultimately, a thumbs up. And from an economic standpoint, given the thickness of the sole, I'll likely only have to buy two pairs a year. Bonus!

I have been plauged with calf/achilles issues that usually translat into plantar issues for the past 10 years. I have been in the them for almost 1.5 years and have not had an issue since.

I run in the bondi b 100% of the time and love them.

Just ordered 2 pairs as sticl levels seem to be a challenge....

I thought I had a decent understanding of running shoes until I read your article and this thread. Now I am fairly confused.

I am a big (185lbs) old (41) dude with a high arch and a tendency to pronate. My PF has given me problems in the not too distant past, as has my IT band. Running healthy is one of my main priorities in life. I've always run in nuetral-moderate shoes like the ASICs GT 2000 or the Brooks GTS 12. Pull the inserts out, put my custom orthotics in and away I go. Recently, the front of my feet have been sore late in my long runs. Hit by a hammer kind of sore. This lead me to think I need more cushioning in the front of the shoe. But I need my orthotics. So I put the inserts in, the orthotics on top and crammed my feet in. Problem solved, sort of.

I read your editorial and thought I found my solution. Structure with forefoot cushioning seems to be what I am after! Do I have that right? Do you think the Bondi would be good for me? Will they take an orthotic? Or do you have another suggestion?

Scott

One thing about VFF's....it seems that lightweight guys with good biomechanics with high watts per kilo have a better chance than bigger guys, even if they have high watts per kilo. The magnitude of the ground force is just that much higher for the bigger guys. Both you and I have a background in low ramp shoes in youth, and we're both light (well, you are around 8 lbs lighter than I currently am, but my race weight is a pound or more than you), but I don't think you can use the tolerance that small guys have running in VFF and project it on the bigger guys....and as I said earlier in this thread, pretty well for all standard shoes, the padding in any shoe for a light guy is more relative to his body weight than a big guy. I wear size 9.5 or size 10 shoes. I'm in the exact same shoe as a guy 6 inches taller than me in the same shoe size and we both get the same amount of padding except the bigger guy is 40 lbs heavier. Even if I am in a Luna Racer or a Newton, relatively speaking, I may as well be in Hokas relative to the bigger guy.

On the other hand, I'm investing now for the future, saving my body of pounding because although my small size is a disadvantage pushing a TT bike compared to a six footer, in time, my small size will become an advantage when I am racing 55-59 and less guys are running fast or running at all. If you look at what guys in 55-64 are saying, we can choose to ignore it in our relative "youth" or we can heed their warnings and invest in saving body parts and extend our lifespan as runners. I started with this mentality when I was 35, and 12 years later, I see some fruit although there are plenty of guys in my age group still running quite fast. I hope to see more positive results listening to what guys like Slowman are sending us from their experience a decade ahead. If he is saying that the Hokas are helping his cripple peers , who were life long runners, run again, then it can't hurt being a non cripple runner and actively using padded shoes as a preventative thing....look at it as a much harder version of water running, but an easier version compared to VFF minimalist running.

Doesn't look like you run anything longer than a 10k. You are not the demographic they are seeking. If you are doing high mileage these things are incredible! They are catching on like wildfire out here in California. I personally have never seen anyone, that would benefit from a shoe like this, that has tried them and not LOVED them. In fact, most I know immediately buy 2-3 more pairs for back up- they are that good! It took me about 100 miles in mine before they clicked for me. Since them my running has improved tremendously! You just have get over the looks but I could give a flying F what people think!!

---

Team Every Man Jack

http://www.teamemj.com

This is the same crowd that wears Newton's and compression socks on airplane flights or walks around town in Vibrams.....looks are definitely a non issue, or if they are, we, as a community have a twisted sense of what is good looking in terms of fashion. I think Kenny Souza set the bar pretty high in terms of what ridiculous outfits we would consider using and still feel cool about.

Slowman wrote:

the luna racer is great. but it's not really a new shoe. it's the air mariah for a new generation.

But what a difference! at sub6 so much cushioning. There's nothing like it.

Quote:

i wish asics see the light on that.

You mean Ascis America/Europe. Asics Japan is a whole another story. Different culture. Beautiful.

---

_________________________________________________
CAMPAGNOLO GRAN FONDO NEW YORK

Too heavy.

EDIT: I stand corrected. Sub7 sounds like a good shoe for training.

---

_________________________________________________
CAMPAGNOLO GRAN FONDO NEW YORK

Try them both. Or use them both even. Throw in a Hattori, a Puma Faas and something Saucony. Good to go.

---

_________________________________________________
CAMPAGNOLO GRAN FONDO NEW YORK

I saw that and think I know what he's getting at, but the Lunar Racer isn't exactly a marshmallow midsole. There is something substantial in the sole as far forward as the midfoot. Maybe orthotics are not flat on the bottom? Or longer than I think? I guess it's not important.

That is why I usually run in Hattoris rather than the VFFs...

I'm sure that I rambled right past any point I'd been trying to make, but I can probably be more concise:
1. Some cushion is (usually) good. I take the point about relative padding. It's probably why Hokas, to me, are like sensory deprivation. If I was compressing the soles more I may get more "feel".
2. Running with less cushion has its place (though VFFs aren't necessarily for everyone). Really. If there's good grass or sand (guaranteed hazard free) then who needs shoes? At least, for some workouts. Running has a very strong element of technique and developing that is massively enhanced by good sensory feedback.

The relatively heavy cushion for preventative purposes is a concept that I could take further... but at the same time I run more when I feel good running. It's rare for me to find heavily cushioned shoes that I enjoy. The Hattoris are fun and feel cushy without losing feel. If I was 40lbs heavier I may not feel the same. Mind you, if I was 40lbs heavier then 6 minute miles might pose more of a problem too! My investment in the future is to do more of my running on trails. It's (usually) softer underfoot while maintaining the same level of feel that I get from whatever shoes I choose to wear. It requires a wider range of movements and adapting cadence to the ever-changing terrain. When I lived by the beach much of my running was on sand: hard sand for speedier runs, soft sand for strength. I'm totally on board with this, but like you (I suspect) there is a definite place in my shoe arsenal for very lightweight shoes. I still take umbrage with Slowman's condemnation of VFFs.

I'm not saying the Hokas are a completely terrible idea... after all, I quite like some of the Altra zero-drop shoes and, relatively speaking, they might be "my Hokas". I personally dislike the lengths to which Hoka have gone; they really don't work for me. If it works for other folks, great. The passion has run pretty high in this thread though, and for it to bleed into a "less cushioning is stupid" type argument (not directed at you!) leaves me a little disappointed. I think we can all learn from running in a variety of shoes and on a variety of surfaces. I know you do, and I know I do.

---

----------------------------------
http://ironvision.blogspot.com ; @drSteve1663

"Structure with forefoot cushioning seems to be what I am after! Do I have that right? Do you think the Bondi would be good for me? Will they take an orthotic? Or do you have another suggestion?"

i ONLY run in orthotics. one of the benefits of the bondi - for me - is the ability to support my orthotics. what you describe about yourself says you're textbook bondi material.

---

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman

Actually, there isn't. I know how that shoe is made. I did an article on Lunar foam for LAVA and spoke with one of Nike's technical reps about the various Lunar shoes. The Lunarracer has only a single density midsole. It's the only one of the Lunar shoes that is built this way. Every other shoe has different density foam wedges for support. But not the racer. Its midsole is just a single slab of blown Lunarfoam EVA...

---

"Non est ad astra mollis e terris via." - Seneca | rappstar.com | FB - Rappstar Racing | IG - @jordanrapp

Why would you say that?

I've run 5 marathons in the past two years, have Boston lined up for April and am currently running about 70mpw. I know that's not high mileage by a true runner's standard, but I'd wager it's higher than the majority of the recreational population.

---

---

Portside Athletics Blog

I run in both the Brooks Glycerin and in Bondi Bs (mainly). However I wear orthotics for both, don't know
if that matters.

disclaimer: I don't have a PHD in running shoes.

---

Find out what it is in life that you don't do well, then don't
do that thing.

Thanks for bringing this to the board, and for responding to individual questions like mine. The shoe seems worthy of a trial run to me. Ordered a pair last night.

Do you pull out the stock inserts, or put your orthotics on top of them? How often do you rotate or replace the Bondi?

Is this the same piece you referenced earlier in the thread where you also report on Hoka? When was this published? Looking through my back issues and can't find it.

So, what do you recommend for a big runner who is just getting started? I've been running in Pegasus and Ghost and was going to move to PureFlows for the lower drop. Seems like the forefoot padding on the Pure is the same as the others but the drop is much less.

Thanks,

Drn92

i never use both shoe liners (inserts) and orthotics. it's one or the other. and for me, always the orthotics. i get quite a bit of mileage out of the bondi. i shouldn't, that is, on paper i should not get the mileage i do, but the foam doesn't seem to depress or break down, i run almost exclusively offroad so the outsole doesn't disappear, and the shoe doesn't cave toward the medial side. i'd say 250 to 400 miles, depending on how you drive.

---

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman

it just depends on how well you're built as a runner. pure project shoes seem to me to be overwhelmingly neutral throughout the line. my take on it is that he footwear industry thinks it's a binary choice: you build shoes the old way - high ramp, all kinds of stability features - or you build shoes the new way - low ramp, forefoot padding, neutral, no stability features.

the hoka was built the new way, however...

these guys were building shoes for themselves. they were ultra trail runners. they stuck in there all sorts of stability features not intended for runners who have structural problems (like me) but for trail runners who want shoes that hold up when they're bombing the descents over rocks and roots. they unwittingly made a shoe the new way - low ramp, forefoot cushion - but with stability for those of us with structural problems, debunking the design constraint of either low ramp / forefoot cushion or features for imperfect footfalls.

what i'm waiting for is for the rest of the footwear industry to note this. so far, not yet. you might say, well, wait, once they see what the bondi does, they'll certainly copy it. but i have seen good shoes come and go and nobody takes notice, as long as the footwear companies still sell their in line models at the requisite number. that said, the barn door is open. mcdougall cracked the code. now footwear companies are a bit on their heels, pardon the pun, and they're questioning themselves. i hope this causes them to stop looking only at each other - asics, brooks, etc., all just seeing what those in their competitive sets are doing - rather to look again at shoes from the ground up.

for you, if your foot caves in on the inside, you're an overpronator. you need support. the bondi offers that. if you don't need support, the world is your oyster.

---

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman

Thanks. I am no expert on foot biomechanics so I appreciate the insight.

I was checked at the local running store and do have a slight bit of pronation. However, the LunarGlides seemed to cause knee pain on the outside of my knees and didn't last as long as I hoped. Moving to a neutral shoe solved the knee pain, so now I am looking for a bit lower drop.

I've golfed my entire life and noticed a huge difference this past year when I moved to a "natural motion" golf shoe, so wanted to try the same for running.

The altra shoes on an earlier link look very interesting also. May have to try those.

Drn92

Different piece. The one on Hokas was Sep/Oct '11, in a piece on EVA. The Nike one was Jan/Feb '11, in a piece on running shoe technology (also on Newton & Zoot)

---

"Non est ad astra mollis e terris via." - Seneca | rappstar.com | FB - Rappstar Racing | IG - @jordanrapp

Thanks Paul. Is the sizing on your Bondi the same as your Glycerin? Did you have to size up or size down?