Death knell for Hoka??!!

The study cited by the OP is interesting... and yet wrong.

It found that, contrary to their premise, the Hoka Bondi increased impact forces. They then concluded that the Bondi increases the potential for injury. It's not that simple.

In the real world droves of older runners are switching to Hokas to cure and prevent injuries.

Obviously, there's a lot more in play here than just impact forces.

I'd like to see a study to find out what, exactly, is the reason why the rocker sole shoe is so superior in injury prevention for older runners.

My Air Force Academy classmates (Class of 1970) have put together the oldest team to ever run Hood to Coast this coming August. Every team member will be over 70. My recommendation to everyone who is/has been recovering from injury is to switch to Hokas.

On long steep downhills, the rocker soled Hokas are light years better than traditional 10mm drop shoes. This is probably one reason why they're so popular in hilly ultras.

LYDIARD: thick rubber soles, flexible arch.

The researchers let 15 female runners run a distance of 5 kilometers twice.

If my Bachelor's of Science degree has taught me anything, it's that if a study has less than n = 100, then any conclusion made from this research of a small sample size is unreliable.

I now run almost entirely in the Asics Sortie Magic. A very firm shoe with little heal to toe/forefoot difference. No insole to tak out. Again a very firm shoe. Looks like a racing flat but can be used for training too. Got 7 pairs of them. All bought in Japan.

I've got over 1,200 freaking miles on my Hoka Bondi. I was getting 600-700 on the Clifton but they were getting less cushion and more weight with every new model. I wouldn't run a roadrace in the bondi but they make a fantastic training shoe.

I also haven't missed a day running in 3.5 years.

Industry cobbler wrote:

There is whole boatload of crap written on this thread. Where do you think the designers at Nike go? Or do they stay at one company for a career? Same goes for all the companies. The guy who designed your Skechers gorun probably spent some time at Nike or Adidas or Brooks. The guy who designed your Zooms probably spent time at Saucony or Puma or..... it's a merry go round.

As for quality control... they are produced in factories in Vietnam and China who handle multiple contracts, so they might be making shoes for a number of manufacturers at one time.

I've had badly madd inconsistent shoes from Adidas just like I have from Altra and I've had great shoes from Altra and great shoes from adidas.

It's mass production and it's design by committee. Wake up.

^This x 1000

Sand Dunes wrote:

https://youtu.be/v1_umU-Bizs

Abebe Bikila, he won the marathon barefoot, and then he had to put on shoes, and he died.

In summer 2016 had a bad plantar fasciitis with a lot of pain for many months, that time used adidas adios for race and nike zoom elite. Then i did 7 shockwave therapy but pain was still there , so I decided to try the Hoka Clifton 3. Well after a month pain went away.

I did in that shoes about 1500 km and they are still good except for the upper part that begin to break. That shoes is unreal.

Very light. I did long run in it but no problem to do rep at pace near 3'/km. Never had a problem with them about injuries.

About running form , they have a very low drop about 4cm , so I found it easy to have nice running form landing on the middle part of the foot. I do 90% of my run on dirt surface but if you run on tarmac the extra cushioning gives his best . The feeling

that you have is like to running barefoot on the grass.

Now the Clifton 4 is totally changed from the .I bought it but sell it right away cos they change the sole with a more firm

material that combined with the big volume gives me the sensation to run with a pair of trekking boots.

But then I also discovered that the new model of the great Clifton 3 is the Napali. They just change the name but is 95%of

the Clifton3.

So now I m using the Hoka Napali and I repeat what I said above for the Clifton 3. Is one of the best shoes around.

Would appear the original poster has been upset by so many people wearing Hokas. I enjoy my Altras. Great shoes, had to adjust to the zero drop. Have been injury free since switching. Only had a few small issues that were due to me pushing my body a little too much. I hear lots of good things about Hokas. It’s refreshing to see these companies in the industry. Nike made horrible running shoes for so long. Loved Nike spikes but not so much the trainers. Have run in a lot of brands. Some of the new Nike trainers look to be a step in the right direction. Was most impressed with brooks,new balance and ASICS back in the day. Sound like ASICS is really sucking it up at the moment. I have realized the weight of the shoe really makes a diff. Many of the Altra models are very light for trainers. Keep the hate coming for brands like Hoka and Altra. Shoes have gained popularity because they are helping peolple enjoy running again. Go suck it original poster.

Industry cobbler wrote:

There is whole boatload of crap written on this thread. Where do you think the designers at Nike go? Or do they stay at one company for a career? Same goes for all the companies. The guy who designed your Skechers gorun probably spent some time at Nike or Adidas or Brooks. The guy who designed your Zooms probably spent time at Saucony or Puma or..... it's a merry go round.

As for quality control... they are produced in factories in Vietnam and China who handle multiple contracts, so they might be making shoes for a number of manufacturers at one time.

I've had badly madd inconsistent shoes from Adidas just like I have from Altra and I've had great shoes from Altra and great shoes from adidas.

It's mass production and it's design by committee. Wake up.

If they go from Nike to say Skechers they are now working with inferior materials and cost of research/design/production. It's like every other pair of the non-namebrands is defective or weirdly designed, vs for the namebrands it's like 1 out of 10 pairs. You can simply tell a difference in the quality of the materials used and the weight of the shoes. I would guarantee the major brands are investing far more into the research and design of their products.

Absolute BS. Which major shoe brand do you work for?

What about the Hoka Arahi 2? Isn't that firm light weight shoe? Maybe I'm just psycho. This argument is stupid anyways.

well,, wrote:

Absolute BS. Which major shoe brand do you work for?

No it's not. It's the truth. The non-namebrands don't have the money to make quality shoes. Fact.

go with namebrands. wrote:

well,, wrote:

Absolute BS. Which major shoe brand do you work for?

No it's not. It's the truth. The non-namebrands don't have the money to make quality shoes. Fact.

Go back to the Nike Outlet store where you belong. Don't claim "facts" without bringing the proof... Saying something is "fact" doesn't make it fact.

Lydiard Cerutty wrote:

Don't mess with success. If it's not broke don't fix it. The running shoes were from the 60's to now have went full circle. Out of curiosity, does anyone still run in these asics tiger onitsuka today? Thought about getting a pair to see how it felt to run in the 70's.

https://www.onitsukatiger.com/us/en-us/mexico-66/p/0010228136.0146

If you want to know how it felt you should go to the thrift store and try to find OG nike cortez or onitsuka tigers but no point in buying them new.

The way they are manufacturing the mexico 66 is differnt than back in the day. The quality is a lot worse now because they are intended to be used as lifestyle shoes not runners. Asics even says on the box thst you should NOT run in them. This goes the same for all brands with vintage lines (Converse/NB/Nike etc.) Brooks is the only brand i would consider running in their new "throwback" stuff.

+1 sauconys are my favorite

U_R_Stupid wrote:

Go back to the Nike Outlet store where you belong. Don't claim "facts" without bringing the proof... Saying something is "fact" doesn't make it fact.

Nike net worth: $31 billion.

Adidas net worth: $19 billion.

New Balance: $3.8 billion.

Hoka net worth: $31 million.

Keep buying your s**** Hokas.

Nike's net worth is predominantly built on Basketball boots, big box cheap leisure lines, the fashion market etc... Altra and Hoka and Topo and co. Make only running shoes. You are comparing apples and oranges. When Nike came on the scene they started in a garage and 99% of Olympic medals were won by Adidas and Puma. Everybody starts somewhere.

Some of the worst shoes I have had in recent years have been Nike, inconsistent production, poor quality and fashion over function. They spend far more on endorsements than they do on design and development.