Hoka Carbon X or Nike Vaporfly?

Triathlon Forum
1

I’m doing my first Ironman in 2020 and am testing out shoes for race day. Traditionally I’ve run in Asics, but the allure of the new carbon-plated shoes is strong. I’m trying to decide whether it is worth investing in the Hoka Carbon X or Nike Vaporfly. Ideally I would try both out in training but I’d rather not spend that kind of money, so I’m looking for your thoughts to help me decide if I should invest in one or the other.

I know running shoes are highly individualized and it can be hard to offer advice. If it helps, I aim to run the marathon portion in the 3:40s. I’m relatively light (~140 lbs/ 64 kg) and typically run in the Asics Gel Kayano or GT 2000. While I want a fast shoe, I’ll sacrifice speed for comfort and stability that keeps me injury free. If the race were tomorrow, I’d run in the GT 2000s.

According to the Triathlete Magazine review (linked below), the Hoka’s are more appropriate for Ironman races when your legs are tired right from the start. Based on that review, Hoka is the way to go. Other reviews are mixed. Some reviews warn that the Hoka is not good for heel strikers, which I am. However, the Triathlete magazine review makes that same claim for the Nikes.

I appreciate any thoughts you have.

https://www.triathlete.com/...running-shoes_385130

https://www.runnersworld.com/...ka-one-one-carbon-x/

https://www.runningshoesguru.com/...one-carbon-x-review/

https://www.roadtrailrun.com/...multi-tester_19.html

2

Vaporfly, no competition. I’m sure the Hokas are nice, but they have nothing like the zoomx foam

3

i would first see if your feet have an aversion to one or the other. i run great in the pegasus turbo (same foam but no carbon plate) but the next% are too narrow for my low arches and i can’t run in them for more than a few miles

4

I’m doing my first Ironman in 2020 and am testing out shoes for race day. Traditionally I’ve run in Asics, but the allure of the new carbon-plated shoes is strong. I’m trying to decide whether it is worth investing in the Hoka Carbon X or Nike Vaporfly. Ideally I would try both out in training but I’d rather not spend that kind of money, so I’m looking for your thoughts to help me decide if I should invest in one or the other.

I know running shoes are highly individualized and it can be hard to offer advice. If it helps, I aim to run the marathon portion in the 3:40s. I’m relatively light (~140 lbs/ 64 kg) and typically run in the Asics Gel Kayano or GT 2000. While I want a fast shoe, I’ll sacrifice speed for comfort and stability that keeps me injury free. If the race were tomorrow, I’d run in the GT 2000s.

According to the Triathlete Magazine review (linked below), the Hoka’s are more appropriate for Ironman races when your legs are tired right from the start. Based on that review, Hoka is the way to go. Other reviews are mixed. Some reviews warn that the Hoka is not good for heel strikers, which I am. However, the Triathlete magazine review makes that same claim for the Nikes.

I appreciate any thoughts you have.

https://www.triathlete.com/...running-shoes_385130

https://www.runnersworld.com/...ka-one-one-carbon-x/

https://www.runningshoesguru.com/...one-carbon-x-review/

https://www.roadtrailrun.com/...multi-tester_19.html

You need to find a shoe that works for you. If that’s Asics, it’s nuts to abandon them because “carbon.” If you are thinking of switching shoes, either go to a real running shoe store where you can actually run in shoes and get at least a little feel for them or gamble on purchasing new shoes. Reviews, including those offered here, are only going to take you so far. My two cents, anyway.

5

I just tried a new training shoe yesterday (Nike Zoom Fly Flyknit).

https://www.amazon.com/Nike-Flyknit-Running-Black-Gunsmoke-White/dp/B07HWLD71D/ref=sr_1_1?crid=32WUBGJ2SEASO&dchild=1&keywords=nike+zoom+fly+flyknit&qid=1573759235&sprefix=nike+zoom+fl%2Caps%2C153&sr=8-1

Somehow, I feel faster in these than the Vaporfly 4%'s. The 4%'s seem slightly more unstable. Also, picking up the Zoom Fly FK, they seemed much heavier, but I didn’t notice while running. My turnover was good.

I think I found the perfect training shoe either way for $80. I’m hoping they come out with the AlphaFly next year so am holding out for those for a September race. It sounds like it will be a super shoe.

6

I’m doing my first Ironman in 2020 and am testing out shoes for race day. Traditionally I’ve run in Asics, but the allure of the new carbon-plated shoes is strong. I’m trying to decide whether it is worth investing in the Hoka Carbon X or Nike Vaporfly. Ideally I would try both out in training but I’d rather not spend that kind of money, so I’m looking for your thoughts to help me decide if I should invest in one or the other.

I know running shoes are highly individualized and it can be hard to offer advice. If it helps, I aim to run the marathon portion in the 3:40s. I’m relatively light (~140 lbs/ 64 kg) and typically run in the Asics Gel Kayano or GT 2000. While I want a fast shoe, I’ll sacrifice speed for comfort and stability that keeps me injury free. If the race were tomorrow, I’d run in the GT 2000s.

According to the Triathlete Magazine review (linked below), the Hoka’s are more appropriate for Ironman races when your legs are tired right from the start. Based on that review, Hoka is the way to go. Other reviews are mixed. Some reviews warn that the Hoka is not good for heel strikers, which I am. However, the Triathlete magazine review makes that same claim for the Nikes.

I appreciate any thoughts you have.

https://www.triathlete.com/...running-shoes_385130

https://www.runnersworld.com/...ka-one-one-carbon-x/

https://www.runningshoesguru.com/...one-carbon-x-review/

https://www.roadtrailrun.com/...multi-tester_19.html

You need to find a shoe that works for you. If that’s Asics, it’s nuts to abandon them because “carbon.” If you are thinking of switching shoes, either go to a real running shoe store where you can actually run in shoes and get at least a little feel for them or gamble on purchasing new shoes. Reviews, including those offered here, are only going to take you so far. My two cents, anyway.

Pretty good advice. Worth noting that asics are currently working on a prototype carbon running shoe as well, so if you’re willing to wait a small amount of time then you can still stay with your shoe brand of choice. And yes, shoes need to fit your foot comfortably, and it’s always nice if you can test the water with how a shoe fits. Personally, I started with the ZoomFly Flyknit which was available in a shop near me, got the right sizing, and bought more shoes off the nike website from there. Sizing was pretty standardized so I didn’t have an issue.

However, there is nothing - and I seriously mean, nothing - that comes close to either the 4 or next % available on the market yet from a ‘shoe doping’ perspective. When the alphafly from nike comes out, that’ll be even better, but that’s post Tokyo anyway.

7

I’m doing my first Ironman in 2020 and am testing out shoes for race day. Traditionally I’ve run in Asics, but the allure of the new carbon-plated shoes is strong. I’m trying to decide whether it is worth investing in the Hoka Carbon X or Nike Vaporfly. Ideally I would try both out in training but I’d rather not spend that kind of money, so I’m looking for your thoughts to help me decide if I should invest in one or the other.

I know running shoes are highly individualized and it can be hard to offer advice. If it helps, I aim to run the marathon portion in the 3:40s. I’m relatively light (~140 lbs/ 64 kg) and typically run in the Asics Gel Kayano or GT 2000. While I want a fast shoe, I’ll sacrifice speed for comfort and stability that keeps me injury free. If the race were tomorrow, I’d run in the GT 2000s.

According to the Triathlete Magazine review (linked below), the Hoka’s are more appropriate for Ironman races when your legs are tired right from the start. Based on that review, Hoka is the way to go. Other reviews are mixed. Some reviews warn that the Hoka is not good for heel strikers, which I am. However, the Triathlete magazine review makes that same claim for the Nikes.

I appreciate any thoughts you have.

i ran in the first nike model ever and in the first hoka model ever. and a lot of shoes in between and since. there is a magazine attached to this site, and occasionally we write about things just like this!

8

You can’t compare the two but if you try the Vaporfly win hands down.

Two things about reviews in a mag: Who is advertising/sponsoring the mag and reviews are opinions not fact. There is so much “drama” over the Nike now there is real research on them and its clear that…currently…the Nike is the best.

However if your foot doesn’t fit in them this entire thing is moot and Nike and Hoka fit completely different. My experience/opinion with the Nike is that my legs and feet were markedly less beat up at the end of the race than with any other shoe. I have a narrow foot so the Nike worked fit wise. The toe box on the Hoka is large and my feet raddled around in them.

9

My experience/opinion with the Nike is that my legs and feet were markedly less beat up at the end of the race than with any other shoe.

Yeah definitely -
.

10

I’ve been running 30-40 mpw for the last two years without a single running related injury. Did a few test runs in Vaporfly 4% and felt like I was floating – best feeling shoe ever, nothing else is like it. Like sex without a condom for the first time. Raced a 70.3 in them and by mile 10 the soles of my feet were completely numb. After the race had horrible peroneal and Achilles tendinitis. It hurt to even walk. Took a month of running and am finally getting back into it. It was like gonorrhea, such a let down. I’ve rationalized it away by telling myself I got injured because I sprained my ankle a few days before the 70.3 so perhaps my form was a bit off. And then ordered the Next% and will race IM in them next season. Hopefully I have better luck this time around as the shoe locks down much better in the heel and across my midfoot.

11

I have both. I really like the CarbonX for long training runs and plan to use them at my first full Ironman next year. I’m not a fast runner and fully expect to walk during the marathon. They’re just ‘smooth’ and run lighter than what the scale says.

Having said that, the Vaporfly Next% is the springiest show I’ve ever run in, by far. But you have to pick up the pace a bit to get that feeling. At your pace, I’d say hands down the Next%, subject to testing them out of course.

12

I just tried a new training shoe yesterday (Nike Zoom Fly Flyknit).

https://www.amazon.com/...aps%2C153&sr=8-1

Somehow, I feel faster in these than the Vaporfly 4%'s. The 4%'s seem slightly more unstable. Also, picking up the Zoom Fly FK, they seemed much heavier, but I didn’t notice while running. My turnover was good.

I think I found the perfect training shoe either way for $80. I’m hoping they come out with the AlphaFly next year so am holding out for those for a September race. It sounds like it will be a super shoe.

The zoom fly FK (aka zoom fly 2) is an amazing shoe despite being a bit on the heavy side. I tried running with it so many times, but I keep developing pains on the outside of my foot. It would be the perfect training shoe if it wasn’t so narrow. Meanwhile, I have no issues with the 4% flyknit (that’s supposed to be same shape)
Unfortunately, the Zoom Fly 3 (shaped like the next%) solves the narrow issue, but the sole is not even close. And it is very heavy.

13

You can’t compare the two but if you try the Vaporfly win hands down.

Two things about reviews in a mag: Who is advertising/sponsoring the mag and reviews are opinions not fact. There is so much “drama” over the Nike now there is real research on them and its clear that…currently…the Nike is the best.

However if your foot doesn’t fit in them this entire thing is moot and Nike and Hoka fit completely different. My experience/opinion with the Nike is that my legs and feet were markedly less beat up at the end of the race than with any other shoe. I have a narrow foot so the Nike worked fit wise. The toe box on the Hoka is large and my feet raddled around in them.

Yup these are very different shoes, I have both. I could quite happily race a 5km in the 4% but not the Carbon X. They are 30% heavier than the 4%. They still feel light and quick, but I wouldn’t run anything other than a marathon in them. For IM I will race in my 4%s, but the Carbon X would be a good alternative. I guess I’m used to racing in racing flats, so am aversive to racing in heavier shoes, the Carbon X will be good for a lot of people though.

14

I trained and raced with both Vaporfly (2 years) and Carbon X (6 months).

Vaporfly is very efficient if you are heel striker and do not need any stability. Personally, it destroyed my posterior tibialis during the first half using them. I still train in them regularly (once a month), short distances, just to justify the huge price. Don’t like the massive lack of medial support. And not alone in this case.

Carbon X is very efficient if you are a midfoot striker (it is a Hoka) and appreciate some stability. I ran 2x 70.3 and a half with them, very comfortable and efficient at all paces, no injuries.

15

Vaporfly, no competition. I’m sure the Hokas are nice, but they have nothing like the zoomx foam
This. It’s really not all about that carbon plate. The zoom x foam is the magic in this shoe.

16

So I wear a size 14…they don’t even make the Nike next in size 14. Is my best bet the Hokas?

17

They make a UK 14 /US 15 so you should be fine. Maybe they are just out of stock where you are looking?

18

So I wear a size 14…they don’t even make the Nike next in size 14. Is my best bet the Hokas?

They make size 14.

For $322, its yours in Pink.

https://stockx.com/nike-zoomx-vaporfly-next-pink

19

I trained and raced with both Vaporfly (2 years) and Carbon X (6 months).

Vaporfly is very efficient if you are heel strikers.

I don’t understand this. I’m a mid/fore-foot striker, when running with the 4%s they were fine, until I got tired and started landing on my heel, but the heel collapses like it’s broken and completely inefficient, like if you’re a heel striker you can not run in these, period. It actually forced me to land mid-foot as it wasn’t possible to run well with the heel hitting the floor first. Maybe they are broken?

20

You mentione comfort and stability. Carbon X is a very comfortable and stable shoe. Love it.
Next % is comfortable (not so stable) but has magic in it. Love it.