I've never tried Hoka but I know their shoes have a wider base than usual... does this make them very stable? I'm trying to minimise surpination through form and shoes. Thanks
If you have a foot/feet that supinates you better steer clear of the Arahi and the Gaviota. The J-frame of denser EVA that HOKA puts in those two models forces the foot to supinate. I have run in these J-frame shoes and my outsole wear pattern is skewed to the lateral side of the forefoot. Supination worsens progressively as the lateral portion of the outsole wears down. The shoe starts tilting the foot laterally and it feels very uncomfortable. Because of the uneven wear to the outsole the mileage that the useful Arahi and Gaviota deliver is much less than would otherwise be the case.
Next up, I'm going to give the Mach and Hyperion Tempo a try and avoid stability designated shoes altogether.
Stability shoes minimize pronation, that's what they are designed to do. Arahi is a good shoe. Supination is a different thing. They are far worse Hoka shoes like the Rincon for example.
My concern with the the Arahi is that the shoe has two different EVA compounds that make contact with the ground. The softer EVA will wear down much quicker than the denser J-frame foam. The uneven wear makes the shoe tilt outward. In my opinion this is a glaring design flaw because the shoe does not provide a consistent degree of pronation control and through it's lifespan. As the mileage increases the pronation control increases to potentially injurious extent.
If you are compressing the softer EVA sooner than the denser EVA, you probably don't need stability shoes. That denser foam is there to take more load on the medial side for people that need that. Meaning, those people would cause the shoe to tilt inward with time in a single compound shoe.
I've learned that the tall and soft shoes cause lots of issues for me with outward roll. Problem is, I really like the cushioning. Still trying to find the right mix of the nice cushion but not so outward-rolly, if anyone has recommendations.
To the OP's question, the answer is generally not stable, in my opinion, especially for supinators. You could get some that are less unstable, and I think you'd be looking for the models that are lower to the ground and/or with a wider base. All the Hokas I've had have let me roll outward more than I'd like.
I just took delivery of a pair of Mach Supersonics. Apparently, this model slots sequentially in-between the Mach 4 and Mach 5.
I bought the Mach Supersonic on a lark. I've been running in the max stability Gaviota shoes since my return to running in 2017. Over these past few years I've seen signs that perhaps the Gaviota, as well as other stability shoes I tried periodically, may not be ideal for my biomechanics. Recently, the clunkiness of the Gaviota has become just too conspicuous to ignore.
So when I saw the Supersonic on clearance at RW for $90 I snapped it up. Your description of the Mach 5 seems to apply to the Supersonic. The shoe feels stable and very comfortable. The stacked midsole, soft Profly on top of a firmer rubberized EVA yields a cushioned but also supportive base. I can't wait to run in this shoe. Hopefully, tomorrow I can use it. I want to leave the dreadful confines of max stability shoes behind and run in something that doesn't feel like a moon boot.
They're about as stable as a big ass piece of foam. If they have a plate in them then the plate distributes the foam deformation over a wider area. Also they try to put denser foam in some areas to keep from deforming as much there. But basically it's all a bunch of foam to keep your wimpy feet nice and comfy.
One of the things that concerns me about these high stack max shoes is that they could cause atrophy in the foot or deep leg muscles. Logically, using high stack shoes would make the intrinsic and stabilizer muscles of the foot weaker over time. This the runner would form a dependency on or preference for even more maximalist footwear.
Back when Born to Run was still topical I gave minimalist footwear a try. Ran in a Merrell Road Glove, a very flimsy shoe. It was hardly different from a water shoe. My experiment didn't go very well. Like many people who hopped on the minimalist trend I ended up with edema and a stress fracture to one of the metatarsals. In retrospect, I think that too quickly ramped up my mileage in the Road Gloves.
The running biomechanics doctors at the University of Florida recently did a stream on this subject. They still recommend lower stack footwear for running. They devised a plan that gradually increases exposure to minimalist running. The first stage is to wear your thin new shoes around your home for 4 weeks. There's no running or walks in this stage. Super conservative? Definitely. Stage One serves an acclimation period. Running exposure then begins in Stage Two. The first week is 2-3 workouts that consist of an alternating 1 minute interval of running followed by a 3 minute walk interval for a total of 30 minutes. Then the runner is to progress each week by increasing the run time by 1 minute increments until Week 6 and then by 2 minute increments for the last two weeks of the protocol. Meanwhile, the walk interval is reduced to 2 minutes beginning on Week 3 and remains at that level until Week 8, the final week. At that point the runner's bone strength and musculature should be strong enough to endure three 10 minute running intervals with three 2 minute walk intervals for a total of 36 months.
The university specialists made a point to stress that it is the bones of the foot, not the muscles, that need the most time to adapt to thin running shoes.
But basically it's all a bunch of foam to keep your wimpy feet nice and comfy.
One of the things that concerns me about these high stack max shoes is that they could cause atrophy in the foot or deep leg muscles. Logically, using high stack shoes would make the intrinsic and stabilizer muscles of the foot weaker over time. This the runner would form a dependency on or preference for even more maximalist footwear.
Back when Born to Run was still topical I gave minimalist footwear a try. Ran in a Merrell Road Glove, a very flimsy shoe. It was hardly different from a water shoe. My experiment didn't go very well. Like many people who hopped on the minimalist trend I ended up with edema and a stress fracture to one of the metatarsals. In retrospect, I think that too quickly ramped up my mileage in the Road Gloves.
The running biomechanics doctors at the University of Florida recently did a stream on this subject. They still recommend lower stack footwear for running. They devised a plan that gradually increases exposure to minimalist running. The first stage is to wear your thin new shoes around your home for 4 weeks. There's no running or walks in this stage. Super conservative? Definitely. Stage One serves an acclimation period. Running exposure then begins in Stage Two. The first week is 2-3 workouts that consist of an alternating 1 minute interval of running followed by a 3 minute walk interval for a total of 30 minutes. Then the runner is to progress each week by increasing the run time by 1 minute increments until Week 6 and then by 2 minute increments for the last two weeks of the protocol. Meanwhile, the walk interval is reduced to 2 minutes beginning on Week 3 and remains at that level until Week 8, the final week. At that point the runner's bone strength and musculature should be strong enough to endure three 10 minute running intervals with three 2 minute walk intervals for a total of 36 months.
The university specialists made a point to stress that it is the bones of the foot, not the muscles, that need the most time to adapt to thin running shoes.
My guest today is Dr. Heather Vincent.Dr. Vincent is the Director of Research and Director of the UF Health Sports Performance Center (SPC) in the Department...
But basically it's all a bunch of foam to keep your wimpy feet nice and comfy.
One of the things that concerns me about these high stack max shoes is that they could cause atrophy in the foot or deep leg muscles. Logically, using high stack shoes would make the intrinsic and stabilizer muscles of the foot weaker over time. This the runner would form a dependency on or preference for even more maximalist footwear.
Back when Born to Run was still topical I gave minimalist footwear a try. Ran in a Merrell Road Glove, a very flimsy shoe. It was hardly different from a water shoe. My experiment didn't go very well. Like many people who hopped on the minimalist trend I ended up with edema and a stress fracture to one of the metatarsals. In retrospect, I think that too quickly ramped up my mileage in the Road Gloves.
The running biomechanics doctors at the University of Florida recently did a stream on this subject. They still recommend lower stack footwear for running. They devised a plan that gradually increases exposure to minimalist running. The first stage is to wear your thin new shoes around your home for 4 weeks. There's no running or walks in this stage. Super conservative? Definitely. Stage One serves an acclimation period. Running exposure then begins in Stage Two. The first week is 2-3 workouts that consist of an alternating 1 minute interval of running followed by a 3 minute walk interval for a total of 30 minutes. Then the runner is to progress each week by increasing the run time by 1 minute increments until Week 6 and then by 2 minute increments for the last two weeks of the protocol. Meanwhile, the walk interval is reduced to 2 minutes beginning on Week 3 and remains at that level until Week 8, the final week. At that point the runner's bone strength and musculature should be strong enough to endure three 10 minute running intervals with three 2 minute walk intervals for a total of 36 months.
The university specialists made a point to stress that it is the bones of the foot, not the muscles, that need the most time to adapt to thin running shoes.
I going to start off with this image¹: There is plenty of the usual propaganda and rhetoric about foot orthotics weakening muscles in the crankosphere blogosphere, therefore they are evil: Truth or lie? I already addressed th...