6 years ago
12/30/2013 9:54pm CST
I bought a pair to see if they would help my knee injury. They seemed to help when my knee was at its worse, but I stopped using them when got a similar shoe from another company to wear test. I will go back to wearing them at some point to get my money's worth. (I paid full price, but you can get older models for almost half off.) I have about 200 miles in mine, and they seem durable. Some of my observations:
Obviously, they are well cushioned. The foam is low density and something like twice as soft as standard midsoles, and there is more of it underfoot.
They are not as high off the ground as they look because the soles wrap up high on the sides of the shoes. The stack height of the Hoka I own is about 32/38 mm vs something like a Nike Pegasus at 20/32. The heel is not that much higher than many conventional shoes, but the forefoot is quite a bit more.
The height offset from forefoot to heel is relatively low at 4 to 6 mm, so some open-minded minimalists actually use and like the shoes.
They are remarkably stable side to side because of the wide sole width, which is something that might surprise some people, who think they are stilt-like. The width along with the wrap means that though I slightly to severely overpronate in many shoes, I don't at all in my Hokas. They are the most stable shoes that I own of many.
They are not that heavy. They weigh about the same as many conventional running shoes.
They are too clunky for faster pace running, but are fine for most training. Ultra runners (I'm not one) like them because they keep their legs fresher. Some people say they can bomb downhills faster in them, especially on rocky trails. Some runners with injuries find that they can run in Hokas and when they are not able to run in normal shoes. They are not my favorites, but serve a purpose for me.
