Everybody who gets fitted at a local running store gets Brooks or Hokas.

'Brooks and Hokas nearly always feel good'

Yes, this is the right answer. Thanks.

themack wrote:

My wife was fitted for New Balance by a wonderful gentleman in Winchester VA.

I bet he "fitted" her

Why is nobody mentioning ASICS?

Hokas are good for slow jogging and walking.

amchugh89 wrote:

Why is nobody mentioning ASICS?

I observed the same thing about this thread. I've noticed in general on this forum that Asics seem to be on the backburner in terms of popularity. I don't know what the actual sales data suggests, but for whatever reason brands like Hoka, Nike, Brooks, etc. seem to be discussed far more frequently here.

stan the corgi wrote:

Hokas are good for slow jogging and walking.

If they work for you, they make a world of difference for doing high mileage. And Cliftons are great for doing longer harder efforts on the roads.

Nike runs their own stores and has a ubiquitous cultural presence, so they have no real need to affiliate with local running stores. To some degree, this is true for Adidas and New Balance as well (though New Balance's efforts across the board are fairly weak).

While Brooks fits a wide range of people well and Hokas being the most padded shoes in the world helps their brand, most of their leading presence in local shops is that they more aggressively market at the local rep level than the other brands. They pay salespeople to get in a shoe shop's face and make friends so they'll emphasize and promote their brand.

I work at a running store, and I actually think the Mach and the Rincon are pretty good options for (some) faster, longer work. I feel like most people, even runners, hear "Hoka" and automatically think about the Clifton or the Bondi.

I wouldn't run in a Bondi, but you can absolutely do things that go beyond "slow jogging" in many of their shoes.

dribblet1422 wrote:

I work at a running store, and I actually think the Mach and the Rincon are pretty good options for (some) faster, longer work. I feel like most people, even runners, hear "Hoka" and automatically think about the Clifton or the Bondi.

I wouldn't run in a Bondi, but you can absolutely do things that go beyond "slow jogging" in many of their shoes.

What is your opinion of the Clifton?

Fax wrote:

Why is it that Brooks and Hoka are the preferred brands of casuals?

Running store personnel judge you and make wrong decisions. Because they judge.

I'm specifically calling out The Running Center in Carlsbad, CA. This is important because they were the major sponsor for the Showdown at Sundown 5k at Mission Hills for 3 years...

Because I was overweight, they fit me for stability shoes.

I ran in them and thought that was what I could do...in 2007, I ran 5k in 23:53 in those.

In 2008, I was between jobs and poor, so I bought a pair of $10 shoes to break in for Carlsbad...cheap nothing shoes but it felt good.

2008 5k? 21:04

Between 10 dollar Wal-Mart shoes or under $20 Avias, I set every PR of mine, including a sub 20 5k...(19:35) that was 21 seconds faster than my HS PR on the same course and 34 pounds heavier (181 then vs 147 in hs)

Don't listen to running stores

I tell people this all the time. PT guys, podiatrists, etc. aren't even good at giving shoe recs. You think a teenager or a person who works in a running store for a living can figure out the right shoe for somebody? forget about it.

Thank you for telling them this...

I had to learn the hard way at age 34..

I hope kids never get mislead or even blooming 20somethings

similar but different to your story, I had shin splints for my first several years running. Went to Dr. Was told to get in the stability type stuff. Shin splints got worse. I had a pair of Nike Free runs that I wore as my casual walk around shoes, and ended up having to run in them in a couple times. I noticed I felt great for both of runs. Made them my daily runner and didn't look back for 5 years. Shin splints completely GONE! I had them for 5 straight years before this.