Deadspin article on Hoka's

"Con"

"Clunky"

Both articles already have a built in bias by using these words.

When I started running 35 years ago, the idea was to train in a shoe that would allow you to run as many miles as possible. When it was time to race, you wore a shoe that was a lot lighter but did not offer the protection for everyday running.

Throughout the years it has been universally accepted that the impact of running was a main factor in injuries. Why did Ritz do all his training on dirt? Why do they use underwater treadmills? Why does every expert tell runners to do as much training on softer surfaces?

What amazes me is that it took 40 years for a company to realize even the most cushioned shoes on the market weren't adequate.

I sure hope Hoka stays around because at 50 I am able to not only run more miles but to enjoy them more because my legs don't ache every step.

My advice is dont buy them if you don't think you need them. On the other hand maybe they might allow you to run 100 miles a week instead of 80.

It's like reading glasses. Even at 45 I could see perfectly well and never thought I would need them. Now I can't read anything without them.

The shoes are hideous. They may work for a 50 year old but not for the elite or recreational athlete looking to engage the full spectrum of their muscles.

-Hoka's make your calves and foot muscles weak.

-Boots make ankles weak because of the added protection. Hoka is doing the same injustice to your feet, calves, ankles and running ability

Hokas

I dont wear them but I know a lot of Master's runners swear by them. Many credit the shoes for keeping them in the road.

hoka heck no wrote:

The shoes are hideous. They may work for a 50 year old but not for the elite or recreational athlete looking to engage the full spectrum of their muscles.

-Hoka's make your calves and foot muscles weak.

-Boots make ankles weak because of the added protection. Hoka is doing the same injustice to your feet, calves, ankles and running ability

I know. I play football and started to smash myself in the head with a hammer to make is "stronger." Come next football season my head will be so strong that I won't even need to wear a helmet.

hoka heck no wrote:

The shoes are hideous. They may work for a 50 year old but not for the elite or recreational athlete looking to engage the full spectrum of their muscles.

-Hoka's make your calves and foot muscles weak.

-Boots make ankles weak because of the added protection. Hoka is doing the same injustice to your feet, calves, ankles and running ability

You don´t know what you´re talking about. The Clifton is extremely cushioned, but it is also superlight with very little stability and a lower drop than regular trainers. The first time I switched to them from Pegasus my calves were sore as hell.

@lex Vi@da ran a 4:15 mile in Hokas at 230 lbs with a detached hamstring and a necrotic hip.

They must be good.