I've posted about them before.
I think minimalism is crazy for anyone running on pavement.
http://www.hokaoneone.com/on/demandware.store/Sites-HOKA-US-Site/default/Default-Start
Hoka allows you to take the soft turf, the trail, with you on your feet.
Low impact shoes, think of them that way. If they fit you and work for you, they're brilliant. (Not all shoe brands toe box etc. work for everyone's feet, etc.)
Shoe nerds help me out - what the hell is Hoka and is it worth $170?
Running Shoes/Running Gear
Shoes
Report Thread
You are reporting this thread to the moderators for review and possible removal from the forum.
-
-
Slim Tim wrote:
I am an older guy with lots of miles and can not agree with the poster above that said they were for my type.
I have worn them as I have a training buddy that is a rep for that line and comped me a pair. In an attempt to solve an injury issue I walked in a pair for several days. They seemed okay for that, and yes they did feel soft... and they made me feel taller! I ran in them maybe three sessions of 3 miles each- all on the road. I felt a bothersome rocking motion due to a pivot point under the ball of my foot (I've never had on Sketckers mall walking shoes, it could be a similar motion). They were the most firm pair of running shoes I have ever worn. Yes, they were soft AND firm. I had the feeling of running in a Green Bay Packers foam cheesehead hat, or maybe-sorta like running on a memory foam mattress. The shoe is HEAVY and it took a lot of energy to lift my feet. And there was zero movement of the foot inside the shoe.
The foot is encapsulated deep into the midsole so they will attempt to sell you on zero-drop.
Maybe the first Air Max of the mid 80's was the first highly cushioned shoe? Debatable.
For me they are not worth the big price tag, or closeout pricing. Even as freebies I found no value in them as car washing and grass cutting shoes so I passed them on to an ultra-type. I'm seeing them more out on the road but only on the feet of newbies and back-of-the-packers.
The developers did sell the company recently so I guess it was good for them.
Disclaimer- 53 yo male, 130 lbs that has been training in race flats since college. I feel the foot has 26 bones that articulate in many planes and should be allowed to do so- IF the person is not overweight or has other biomechanical issues.
I'd say the Nike Tailwind which had close to a fool air sole inside could have been it -- the Air Max just made the air bladders visible / gimmick / sales rocket. -
A Duck wrote:
I've posted about them before.
I think minimalism is crazy for anyone running on pavement.
http://www.hokaoneone.com/on/demandware.store/Sites-HOKA-US-Site/default/Default-Start
Hoka allows you to take the soft turf, the trail, with you on your feet.
Low impact shoes, think of them that way. If they fit you and work for you, they're brilliant. (Not all shoe brands toe box etc. work for everyone's feet, etc.)
Exactly
Not everybody can train on a cushy trail for miles at a time. Who cares how fast you run in training. It is probably even a little advantage if the softness of a shoe makes it harder to run a faster pace while training. When you put the racing flats on, they are that much lighter and faster. -
I´n my country a pair of DS trainers cost the equivalent of 250 dollars.
-
Just an update, I have actually run an 11 miler in the Stinson's, and that was on a fine gravel trail. No problems, but as the shoes have compressed, I can sometimes feel the edge of my ankles rub against the shoe. However, HOKA does provide a second insert that can lift your foot just enough to avoid that, though that feels a bit weird at first. Stinson's are a road/trail shoe, seems to be a good possibility for a trail marathon or longer. Worth the money? If a shoe lets me run comfortably and recover a bit better, hell yes. The cost of a pair or two of running shoes every year is NOT what is going to put me in poverty, but how I spend or waste my money elsewhere, though I won't just throw my money at any shoe without knowing I can certainly run in them.
-
Most here have stated whats going on with the product.
The thick profile midsole is now a trend that Hoka started. Yes it does feel good and well cushioned. Stability is not a issue , road feel yes , lots of midsole between your foot and the ground it can translate to a mushy feel.
Quality has been an issue with upper materials , outsole premature wear , cheap sockliner etc. Over priced for what the shoe is. That said they have a good crew working on the product and seem to be listening.
Biggest issue facing them is as other brands start to build thick midsole profiles that have retail and consumer following can Hoka keep innovating to stay ahead of the competition. -
they'd probably get more people buying them if they didn't look so ridiculous to run in. Tone down the colors so it doesn't attract so much attention and do something to make them look like shape-ups. But they probably want other people to notice and ask "what the hell are those things???"
-
Kind of fashion statement for ultra/tri folks but they swear by it. Tons of cushioning but also low heal to toe drop as well.
-
Not a fashion statement if the shoe works, and muscle soreness is certainly an issue for longer runs/races, as well as recovery from long runs. My co-worker can run back to back 25 milers on Sat/Sun without soreness, and race in them. Has me considering the same for a 50 km I'm looking at, so started with 11.5 miles today (my longest in a month, so building gradually). Goes back to being an "experiment of one".
-
This guy wears them and has to fight the chicks off:
http://i54.photobucket.com/albums/g107/backlotcharlie/8819a604-0aff-4ddb-9539-66682a86fa03_zps028b2ee8.jpg -
I have a pair of Bondi B's and I have been very happy with them. There are virtually no trails where I live, so most running is done on asphalt/concrete and the Hokas provide fantastic cushioning. I use them about 3 x per week, mainly on easy/recovery runs of 6-8 miles. I would highly recommend these as recovery shoes for any runner.
Not sure yet about durability, the outsole is wearing out at a decent rate after about 200 miles, but this might just be because the Bondi, which is primarily a road shoes eems to have a lot more blown rubber than carbon rubber underneath. -
Hahahaha I've seen these at runningwarehouse.com a couple of years ago. I was laughing so hard when I first saw them.
http://www.runningwarehouse.com/HOKA_Mafate_2/descpageMRS-HOOM2.html
If I saw a competitive younger runner in these I would die laughing! -
The sole depth is not as thick as you might think. Check out this cutaway view of the inside of a Hoka Stinson. It looks thicker from the outside because your foot fits inside it like a bathtub. http://freakrunner.wordpress.com/2013/11/18/the-secret-i-learned-by-cutting-my-hoka-evo-stinson-running-shoes-in-half/
-
Ive been through 2 pairs. Great for non-speedwork, non-tempo days. Remarkably cushioned. That said, they are not "stability" shoes. I recommend for anyone who, like me, are prone to shin splints in even high cushioned shoes (kayano, et al). They are pricey, however.
rojo wrote:
The Animal Within wrote:
Rojo,
A kid on the team I coach works at the running store and had me try them on. As everyone said they are cushioned and strangely feel good.
That said these are not for the competitive runner. I ran in college and post collegiately five years. You are looking for a fast minimalist shoe. Working out in flats or spikes. This shoe is not for that runner.
But to echo what has been said here I could see it working for older runners. Imagine sketchers shape ups with super cushion. Odd.
I'm so old now I'm be afraid I'd twist and ankle and fall. Anyone had that problem? You seem so high off the ground based on the pics. -
Ive been through 2 pairs. Great for non-speedwork, non-tempo days. Remarkably cushioned. That said, they are not "stability" shoes. I recommend for anyone who, like me, are prone to shin splints in even high cushioned shoes (kayano, et al). They are pricey, however.
rojo wrote:
The Animal Within wrote:
Rojo,
A kid on the team I coach works at the running store and had me try them on. As everyone said they are cushioned and strangely feel good.
That said these are not for the competitive runner. I ran in college and post collegiately five years. You are looking for a fast minimalist shoe. Working out in flats or spikes. This shoe is not for that runner.
But to echo what has been said here I could see it working for older runners. Imagine sketchers shape ups with super cushion. Odd.
I'm so old now I'm be afraid I'd twist and ankle and fall. Anyone had that problem? You seem so high off the ground based on the pics. -
I tried them during a demo. The Bondi B is now my everyday trainer. I still use the adios for racing. I love the Hoka's and last week bought 30k of shares with the holding company Decker Outdoors, shares doubled last year.
-
TDF wrote:
The sole depth is not as thick as you might think.
So much the same as any other cushioned shoe then, just more expensive.
Clownish, good luck with the shares, as others have said the big players will take up the same style gimmick and pump them out a lot cheaper. Hopefully Decker Outdoors aren't too heavily reliant on Hokas for their profits. -
With all respect, you are heavy. Have you considered losing weight? When I was 200-205 pounds I found running required accepting pain as well. Even 15-20 pounds less and I no longer have those issues even running in low stack height shoes with little cushioning.
People rely on the shoes and adapt to them, instead of the other way around. It's your body...
lovestorun wrote:
No problem with ankle sprains and I have sprained mine many times in 42 years of running. I was afraid of that too. something about the volume/softness/density of the cushioning bridges over any rock/root to remain stable.
Like others have said they provide great cushioning without feeling bulky. I was thinking about them for awhile, then when I saw my friend flying down the bike path running faster, and recovering run to run better than in years, so I tried them.
After 1200 miles in one pair, the stinson evo's, I'm convinced they are the best shoe for me now, I'm 220 lb/over 90,000 miles in my legs and I run about 50 miles a week. My feet do not hurt anymore after rooty/rocky trail runs and they are low to the ground (4-6mm) so its easy to run naturally.
Now I have another pair but still use the old pair for hiking. -
THis is exactly what you don't want. The bigger the shoe, the more chance for injury. I run in the Vibram Five Fingers. I've worn them for 4 years, and not 1 single issue. Perfect running form. Right on the ball of my foot. You can't roll your ankle.
-
Rojo, get on the bandwagon!
I've been testing a new prototype HOKA called the Huaka. It's coming out later in the year. Looks to finish up being in the 7 to 8 ounce range. Very innovative (and yes I'm sponsored by them). In HOKAs you get a lot of rebound and cushion, on a low heel-toe drop (rocker shaped). On the trails bombing up and down mountains a lot of time you're running at 7min to 10min mile pace (or slower) so these can really save your legs in the long run.
I've already done some rather long track workouts at sub 5min pace and a 3 by 3miles workout up here in Boulder at 5:10 pace in these shoes...seem to work fine!
Then again though, I'm a slow ultra guy now...
