Is hoka legit or a fad?

Triathlon Forum
101

Hoka will not be my first recommendation for athletes.

But i have a big part of my athletes in the 40+ age group. many of them with extensive background of 15-20 years into the sport. Many have a collection of injuries and there limiter is lack of consistency because of injuries.

I have found the hoka to allow those athletes a ‘‘second chance’’ at running injury free. My success rate with those shoes as never been match with any other brand. So when i have a athlete battling running injury…they are my go to shoes to get them back to healthy running.

102

Hoka will not be my first recommendation for athletes.

But i have a big part of my athletes in the 40+ age group. many of them with extensive background of 15-20 years into the sport. Many have a collection of injuries and there limiter is lack of consistency because of injuries.

I have found the hoka to allow those athletes a ‘‘second chance’’ at running injury free. My success rate with those shoes as never been match with any other brand. So when i have a athlete battling running injury…they are my go to shoes to get them back to healthy running.

Good point.

I’ve had success getting athletes running again with motion and movement.

I’ve seen runners and triathletes so broken that they were simply unable to run at all… just simply could absorb more than 1.5 miles of running. In that case, I have them do remedial exercises targeting zones of weaknesses. The bottom line is that when injured, you have to stay active or get active if you expect to fully recover.

Cycling is another great exercise for recovery (did I really need to say that on ST?), and I’m a believer that not everyone can ride the trainer 4 days per week.

103

One thing that can break a runner faster than anything is too much downhill running without proper strengthening.

104

I have found the hoka to allow those athletes a ‘‘second chance’’ at running injury free.

I was broken and done with running after IM Canada 2012 (41 at the time). Read an article about Hoka on the flight home. Immediately bought a pair with the idea of it being my last shot at continuing.

Since then I’ve probably got 10,000+ miles exclusively in Hoka’s across several different models. The saved me and I run in them for everything, speed work, long runs, easy runs, tempo runs, etc. Hell, I even wear a pair for walking the dog.

105

I have found the hoka to allow those athletes a ‘‘second chance’’ at running injury free.

I was broken and done with running after IM Canada 2012 (41 at the time). Read an article about Hoka on the flight home. Immediately bought a pair with the idea of it being my last shot at continuing.

Since then I’ve probably got 10,000+ miles exclusively in Hoka’s across several different models. The saved me and I run in them for everything, speed work, long runs, easy runs, tempo runs, etc. Hell, I even wear a pair for walking the dog.

Almost identical to me. Just it was IMAZ 2012 and 42 at the time.

I’m wearing Hoka hiking shoes right now while at work.

106

A tangent question might be: do they exist because of a fad? Namely, you had the Minimus/5-finger craze where everyone went overboard and you’d see 180lb guys doing long road runs in ultra-minimalist shoes (and lumbering, flat-footed strides), and then within a couple of years of seeing that, out came the Hokas and a lot of people started feeling a lot better.

Hoka itself might go away, but I don’t see the “maximalist” trend they started disappearing anytime soon. Even our ancestors couldn’t have walked (let alone run) barefoot all day on modern road and workplace surfaces.

So the real reason Hokas exist is to bring balance to the Force.

107

I’m wearing Hoka hiking shoes right now while at work.

I’m at work wearing a pair of Challengers. :slight_smile:

109

A tangent question might be: do they exist because of a fad? Namely, you had the Minimus/5-finger craze where everyone went overboard and you’d see 180lb guys doing long road runs in ultra-minimalist shoes (and lumbering, flat-footed strides), and then within a couple of years of seeing that, out came the Hokas and a lot of people started feeling a lot better.

Hoka itself might go away, but I don’t see the “maximalist” trend they started disappearing anytime soon. Even our ancestors couldn’t have walked (let alone run) barefoot all day on modern road and workplace surfaces.

So the real reason Hokas exist is to bring balance to the Force.

I don’t see the maximalist trend disappearing, either. The shoes just feel so much softer, comfier, and def allow you to power through workouts that would have you hobbling in a minimalist shoe.

The million dollar question though, is that if you truly rely on Hokas or other super cushioned shoes to allow you to run, what is the VERY long-term effect of such load-shifting? Even scientists don’t know that, as it’s very hard to get funding for studies that run 25+ years.

I can’t help though but feel though that there will be a cost for getting this cushiony run feeling that allows you to power through runs now even if you’re totally hobbled on low-cushion or no-cushion shoes. It might not pop up until you’re 55+, but now that I’m acclimating to the minimalist/barefoot shoes, there is so much force being effectively absorbed and redirected by the natural bones and muscles of the naked foot and lower calf that it’s hard for me to believe that there will be a cost-free transfer of such loads to the knees/hips (by Hokas or other cushions) in the long run.

I do agree with the coaches above though - for those with prior run injuries that have limited from running, Hokas and other cushiony shoes very well take them from nonrunning status to successful racing status. Whether that’s a good thing in the long term, however, is more unclear.

FYI my favorite shoe of all time to date has been my Brooks motion control shoe in which I could even run decently well in while injured and massively overtrained. I’ll unfortunately probably never wear that shoe again, as I feel now that the pain/overtraining indicators while barefoot or minimalist running are important enough that I shouldn’t suppress or override them with cushiony shoes. I could be wrong about this, but in the absence of hard evidence, I’m choosing to prefer the more natural mechanisms of the body if possible.

110

just started the tri cult this year, I was fitted and advised to get reveena by brooks so I bought them and it was love at first run. soon afterwards I saw all the HOKA ads and wanted them. Around the 8th month of training I decided to purchase another pair of shoes, gut told me to go with brooks (if it aint broke don’t fix it) but I decided to purchase HOKA. i found some clifton 3 at the local running store and they were great out the gate, but towards the end my feet started heating up. I ran in them again for a little longer (with socks on this time) and same thing, they felt good for first 3 miles but then feet started getting hot. finally the last try, ran 9 miles and again felt great but at last mile my feet were killing me. so I went out and bought the brooks and now use the HOKA as a great “going to the store” shoe. I just felt these weren’t for me, but the guy whos in my running club running marathon after marathon loves HOKA, he uses the same Clifton 3s I had.

111

So you really think that your injuries are weight of shoe related? That the 30 grm difference is giving you the injuries after running long in them? To be honest, i think you making a mistake in assuming that foot strength is the root of your issues. Unless this was established by a physical therapist or someonevlike that. It might be more to do with the bondi’s are much more stable and have much more torsional stifness then the freedom iso. With the injuries you ate describing it is much more likely that the root cause of you injuries are located in the hip / pelvic / lower back area.

But the weight…hardly doubt it.

Jeroen

Weight? Obviously it’s not weight; I was using that as shorthand to distinguish between big honkin’ Hokas and shoes like the FreedomISO or Altra Escalantes. Sue me for trying to cut down on typing.

You talk about assumptions, but you’re assuming I’ve just shared the entire process that got me here. Which, clearly, I haven’t. I’m not going to detail my injury history and shoe progression that allowed me to progress from limping after 5ks to doing 50-mile weeks and feeling good in the process, because it’s long, boring, and personal. Suffice to say, it has involved doctors. GP and PT. And I still have work to do. So maybe get off the soapbox and stop assuming you know my situation better than I do?

I don’t know why STers assume no one ever goes to a doctor and can’t know what’s going on without seeing a doctor, but does assume they can diagnose from a post on a forum.

112

After reading this post, I just bought a pair to try. I prefer to run in a more minimal shoe (1500, Fastwitch)…and always thought I would never like Herman Munster looking running shoes. I told the lady at the store that I will likely be using the 60 day return policy (I have only done this once before). I ran in them (Clifton 3) today. I really like them!!! I was really surprised. There was extreme cushioning, but there was also some responsiveness…not much, but I figured there would be none. I usually buy a shoe with a little posting and these are Neutral…but they actually feel like there is a little stability…I would think this would drive a true neutral runner nuts. They suck on slick surfaces.

**I think my legs may have been taking an unnecessary beating over the years…I am switching to these for longer training runs. **

Regarding whether or not they are a fad: I think the fad part is the stack height. I would think that technology would allow the shoe to advance with the same feel, and not be so tall. Also, I have never ran in other cushioned shoes, so perhaps these don’t feel different than other cushioned models.

While I have no hard scientific evidence, I’d actually just recommend the thought experiment that maybe there is a good reason that we humans have such well developed and complex foot/ankle and achilles anatomy and function, and that it may actually be a good thing for us to utilize such abilities given that scientists have concluded that humans are uniquely evolved (compared to other creatures) to run VERY long distances.

I’ve been making the transition to not only zero-drop shoes, but lesser and lesser cushioning, to the point I’m barefoot for several miles of each run. It’s taking a LONG time to acclimate, and yes, it’s been challenging. I’ve had to deal with achilles soreness, skin pain from barefoot running, sore feet, sore lower legs/ankles, etc. but I’ve been very patient and have been taking it slow (despite me having run 70mpw in regular sneakers for months not too long ago.)

I will say that having run in cushioned ‘regular’ shoes for 30 years now, I’m pretty shocked with how much more I have to load-bear in my feet and lower calf with minimalist/barefoot. With regular shoes, most of the forces get transferred to hip/quad/knee, whereas with the minimalist, those same forces are often absorbed by the lower calf and foot. I can’t help but feel that the cushiony shoes I’ve been wearing my whole life may greatly increase risk of injuries and overtraining as compared to the minimalist method, where you’ll usually get a niggle somewhere in your foot/calf that will slow you down well before you blow yourself up.

For sure, the minimalist (and esp barefoot) approach FORCES you to build up slow. WIth barefoot, you’re often running 1-2 miles at a time, which is GOOD, even for experienced runners like myself making the x-over. I know it wouldn’t be popular, but seriously, I strongly suspect if you took a noob runner, and just forced them to run all miles barefoot, you wouldn’t need any 10% rule or anything like that - the limitations with sore skin and sore spots in the buildup will force them to acclimate at the right (slower) pace.

I’ve been running in minimalist footware for years. Exclusively zero drop - basically only Altras and Skoras and some barefoot running. I went through the very long process of adapting my body and stride to barefoot/zero drop running. It was great! I loved it. Even my work dress shoes (Lems) are zero drop.

However…my body in the last year seems to like zero drop less and less. I can take any varying about of neutral cushioning (I run in everything from barefoot to 36mm Paradigms). However, my calvs, heel chord, and feet just don’t seem to like it anymore.

It’s kind of a conundrum because the common response seems to be “well you didn’t transition slow enough.” But I’ve been running in zero drop for near a decade including multiple IM races.

Long story short…I ordered some Cliftons for no other reason than they offer a wide size shoe with a little bit of heel lift.

113

I don’t see the maximalist trend disappearing, either. The shoes just feel so much softer, comfier, and def allow you to power through workouts that would have you hobbling in a minimalist shoe.

The million dollar question though, is that if you truly rely on Hokas or other super cushioned shoes to allow you to run, what is the VERY long-term effect of such load-shifting? Even scientists don’t know that, as it’s very hard to get funding for studies that run 25+ years.

I can’t help though but feel though that there will be a cost for getting this cushiony run feeling that allows you to power through runs now even if you’re totally hobbled on low-cushion or no-cushion shoes. It might not pop up until you’re 55+, but now that I’m acclimating to the minimalist/barefoot shoes, there is so much force being effectively absorbed and redirected by the natural bones and muscles of the naked foot and lower calf that it’s hard for me to believe that there will be a cost-free transfer of such loads to the knees/hips (by Hokas or other cushions) in the long run.

I do agree with the coaches above though - for those with prior run injuries that have limited from running, Hokas and other cushiony shoes very well take them from nonrunning status to successful racing status. Whether that’s a good thing in the long term, however, is more unclear.

FYI my favorite shoe of all time to date has been my Brooks motion control shoe in which I could even run decently well in while injured and massively overtrained. I’ll unfortunately probably never wear that shoe again, as I feel now that the pain/overtraining indicators while barefoot or minimalist running are important enough that I shouldn’t suppress or override them with cushiony shoes. I could be wrong about this, but in the absence of hard evidence, I’m choosing to prefer the more natural mechanisms of the body if possible.
So are the Maximalist shoes solving problems or covering them up? That seems to be the crux of this discussion. I have had a few pairs, they are not my favorite everyday running shoe, but they are my go to long run shoe. I feel that I can get a better workout and feel fresher sooner for the next training session.

114

To answer your question, though, I think they are legit. Just not for me.

I love this response. It’s always seemed strange to me that not only on SlowTwitch, but more commonly here, there’s a general attitude of “it doesn’t work for me, therefor it’s crap for everyone and a fad”.

I like my Bondis. Love them, in fact. Someone here posted about the FreedomISO; I love those too. However, while strengthening my feet has benefited my running overall - including in Bondis - it’s a process. I can’t do all my runs in FreedomISOs and be uninjured; my left hip and lower back are rehabbing now from trying to do a 16-miler in them. The first ten miles were great, but then it got bad. That number used to be more like three miles, so things are getting stronger. However, since I can run 16 milers (and even marathons) in Bondis, should I not use them in rotation with the FreedomISOs as my feet get stronger because someone with fully strong feet thinks they’re a fad? Or should I just not use them and not run longer than ten until I can do it in lighter shoes? Why does anyone feel strongly enough that because they don’t like a shoe that they need to make sure I don’t wear them either?

You make a number of assumptions.

However, I understand your point and I respect your position.

I guess that the fact is that we are all riding the thin line between improved performance and injury - it’s just the nature of endurance sport.

I simply do not see how that a shoe that almost completely eliminates your use of the intrinsic muscles in your feet and ankles does not create its on set of injuries -on the opposite end of the spectrum from what you are guarding against. For instance, if I run speed work in a support shoe or a cushion(ed) shoe, then I get inflammation in my ankle and foot.

Edit: I got injured wearing Netwons. Gave away my last pair to Goodwill (unused). Maybe that was inconsiderate of me, I wish now that I’d burned them. Sometimes marketing campaigns trump individual accounts/anecdotes until N = 1+

It’s funny that you begin with saying that someone is making assumptions and then following up with this. I had no idea this was researched (first that Hokas/maximalist shoes eliminates tone in intrinsic musculature, and then that this causes specific injuries).

115

Hoka will not be my first recommendation for athletes.

But i have a big part of my athletes in the 40+ age group. many of them with extensive background of 15-20 years into the sport. Many have a collection of injuries and there limiter is lack of consistency because of injuries.

I have found the hoka to allow those athletes a ‘‘second chance’’ at running injury free. My success rate with those shoes as never been match with any other brand. So when i have a athlete battling running injury…they are my go to shoes to get them back to healthy running.

You could be describing me at the moment. In fact the very reason I do triathlon is because I have to cross train. Injury free I’d still be a runner, pure and simple and I’m sure a lot of others come to triathlon for similar reasons. There is no single shoe or even approach to running that will work for anyone. For me, now, Hokas are great. I only know one other person I’d recommend them to because he has a similar, long term injury. Everyone else should consider their individual needs. If someone recommends a shoe to you and doesn’t know your personal details then just nod politely.

117

So are the Maximalist shoes solving problems or covering them up? That seems to be the crux of this discussion. I have had a few pairs, they are not my favorite everyday running shoe, but they are my go to long run shoe. I feel that I can get a better workout and feel fresher sooner for the next training session.

It may actually be both.

For sure though, the cushioned/maximalist shoes DO solve problems, meaning that if you cannot run or race NOW because of whatever reason (achilles, plantar fasciitis, etc.), these shoes often do alter the run gait and weightbearing enough that you can go from nonfunctional runner to full out racer. Can’t argue with that, and that’s definitely a good, legit result. So I’m not faulting anyone for going all-maximalist.

Again though, as I said before, there is def a LOT of forces being redirected. Anyone making the jump to minimalist/barefoot knows this well, as it’s a long, hard process taking months/years of buildup of the foot and achilles. If that’s the way nature intended for us to run, I’d bet (admittedly without hard evidence) that we’re causing some other longer-term problem by significantly altering that process.

That said, plenty of long-time masters runners go lifetimes of fast running in maxi shoes without incident, and if you’re one of those, great! It also may be the reality that the only ‘cost’ of the maxi shoes is an greater propensity to overtrain and overdo it in some areas since you have less roadblocks that limit training compared to minimalist shoes.

I will add that still do date, despite the fact I agree with the coaches above about recommending Hokas, they have NOT been shown scientifically to statistically reduce injury (nor have minimalist/barefoot shoes.)

118

You continue to use the term “nature” rather than evolution. A big difference from when our feet evolved to now is life expectancy. Yes the foot allowed early humans to run further, capture more food and survive to spread their genes, but that foot only needed to last 30 years to complete its purpose. And, early humans were much smaller than current humans, especially us Americans. Congratulations on running like a caveman. How is the paleo diet treating you?

119

You continue to use the term “nature” rather than evolution. A big difference from when our feet evolved to now is life expectancy. Yes the foot allowed early humans to run further, capture more food and survive to spread their genes, but that foot only needed to last 30 years to complete its purpose. And, early humans were much smaller than current humans, especially us Americans. Congratulations on running like a caveman. How is the paleo diet treating you?

I still think it would be farrrr better for humans in general to emulate to body habitus, stride, and DEFINITELY diet of the protohumans as compared to what the typical American is shaped like today!

Despite this, I’m not all ‘protocaveman’; I’m just mentioning some very real concerns one should naturally have when using things like highly cushioned shoes to alleviate short-term running problems. The reality is that the human gait is highly evolved for us to naturally do excellently, and the entire design of our foot and achilles is strongly suspected to be closely tied to this ability. So not too far a stretch to wonder if these supercushioned shoes have a real cost in the long run.

I’d actually be a lot less concerned with something like adding fins and paddles to one’s everyday swim stroke, as we’re not evolved specifically to naturally swim in the water, so odds of you making the motion worse or more harmful aren’t as high as compared to running.

120

I didn’t read every single response, but I will say I’m hooked on Hoka. I had been a very serious runner about 20 years ago. Marathon PR of 2:49 at the age of 44 as I started running a bit late in life when I was 37. In my ‘serious’ days, I’d wear the lightest shoe I could get and just pound my feet and legs just for those few extra seconds. Went for the next decade just running in ‘normal’ shoes as I knew I could never improve on my times. As I closed in on 60 yrs, I just couldn’t take the pounding anymore. No injuries, but my legs were always sore no matter how much rest I took for recovery.

I got into triathlons about 6 years ago and saw so many people wearing Hoka’s that I finally gave in and it was JUST what I needed to keep some semblance of running. Immediately felt less leg soreness and can keep up just enough running to even complete a few Ironman’s. Doesn’t matter that I’m so much slower since at least I can run.

121

since when did cavemen run on concrete or asphalt barefoot?

122

You continue to use the term “nature” rather than evolution. A big difference from when our feet evolved to now is life expectancy. Yes the foot allowed early humans to run further, capture more food and survive to spread their genes, but that foot only needed to last 30 years to complete its purpose. And, early humans were much smaller than current humans, especially us Americans. Congratulations on running like a caveman. How is the paleo diet treating you?

Plus it’s not like we evolved to run on brutally hard surfaces like concrete and asphalt. Or to sustain continuous hard efforts–our ancestors’ running was presumably far more varied, with some sprints to chase down the wounded creature being hunted, but mixed with lots of far less intense activity. The notion that sociobiology (or whatever the term is for importing evolution into arguments about kinesiology) can tell you what sort of running shoe to pick seems like a stretch to me.