Hoka One One Shoes and Stress Fractures

Results and facts wrote:

Absolutely not a shred of scientific evidence to prove or disapprove this.

Hoka is being careful not to make any of the false statements we saw come the minimalist advocates that essentially cured everything including cancer !

You couldn't be more correct. Do more cushioned shoes feel better , yes , no question, will it prevent injuries , no data to support this. Hoka has already started down the path , company pres just stated publicly it is the best innovation to come along in the last 30 years in running footwear ? The running public is quick to jump on the next fad , Vibram 5 fingers showed that and now with all the claims as you mention have to pay out from a lost lawsuit.

A Duck wrote:

You got to try them, they do not have a big pillowy feel.

They are not moon shoes, or mush boots.

Maybe they are not for everybody, but they feel pretty damn shock reducing.

I think in another iteration or two, they're going to have an awesome shoe.

Now why a few weeks ago my post saying the same things was deleted, is beyond me.

I like the shoe, I do think they have a few tweaks and improvements to be made to the collar and the final lacing placement...but that could just be me.

I'm rooting for them.

And Leo of course.

From their appearance it looks like it would be easy to roll your ankle in a pair of these. Did you find them any more or less table to run in?

From their appearance it looks like it would be easy to roll your ankle in a pair of these. Did you find them any more or less table to run in?

I'm about two weeks into wearing them. No, they don't feel like there is any risk of a roll.

If you're on a rocky surface, like the Thames towpath right now where all the soil has washed off and you just have a ton of decades-old bits of brick poking up, they absorb it and I feel far LESS likely to roll over.

The real surprise is doing an easy recovery run the morning after a big session in spikes. They just completely avoided the slight soreness I would normally feel in my calves.

So, great for recovery runs and long slow runs.

My observation is that added cushioning just tends to move stress fractures up the kinetic chain, to the femur, pelvis, etc..

If there was a "free lunch" from cushioning, it would have shown itself decades ago.

For a given runner moving at a given speed, the body adjusts the stiffness of the leg to maintain a constant vertical displacement of your center of mass, regardless of the surface. When running on a hard surface in firm shoes, your leg muscles are pre-tuned to a lower stiffness before impact, so the net stiffness of the whole system (legs + shoes + ground) is the same. Likewise, when running on a softer surface in very cushioned shoes, your leg muscles are pre-tuned to a higher stiffness. This makes it possible to efficiently run over a variety of surfaces, and one side effect is that impact forces are not dependent on the stiffness of the surface you run on. Softer shoes will have a mild effect on peak planar pressure, but none on impact.

For a more detailed summary, I recommend this paper:

Ferris, D. P., M. Louie, et al. (1998). "Running in the real world: Adjusting leg stiffness for different surfaces." Proceedings of the Royal Society B Biological Sciences 265(1400): 989-994.

There are some as-of-yet-unverified biomechanics theories that predict running on hard surfaces will put more stress on the soft tissues of the leg (muscles, tendons) and that running on soft surfaces will put more stress on the bones (because of the leg stiffness phenomenon discussed above and the resultant frequencies of impact shockwaves), but all research to date—and there is a good bit of it—indicates that running surface has no effect on injury risk or injury type.

Good stuff. It's a shame there is so much guff written on this subject in the popular literature when the mechanics are actually well understood.

Northern Star wrote:

all research to date—and there is a good bit of it—indicates that running surface has no effect on injury risk or injury type.

So the many thousands of us who have concluded otherwise, based on our many, many millions of miles of running, are simply wrong?

If your statement is correct, it's merely a reflection of extraordinarily poor research standards in this field.

The correct answer to the original poster's question is yes. Whether a particular model of shoe is going to reduce the likelihood of stress fractures for a particular runner engaged in a particular training program is, of course, quite a different question.

By the way, I love my Hokas, and not merely because they have a lot of cushioning material. In fact, I had avoided heavily cushioned shoes for many years, running primarily in very lightweight racing flats. But the Hokas, with their zero drop and highly flexible sole, get away from the clunky, rigid, "motion control" model with the built-up heel that came to dominate the market for such a long time. I haven't had as positive a response to a training shoe since the early 1980s, when I began running in the original Nike Columbia, one of Nike's earliest "air sole" shoes, which enabled me to greatly increase training volume without breaking down.

For me, the best thing is to avoid pavement, epecially in a heeled shoe. There is nothing like a soft trail's feel in a flat shoe.

Bump.

Your statement is merely an assumption that a shoe can prevent a stress fracture.

All of the data good or bad shows nothing to indicate a difference one way or the other. The Columbia was a nice transition shoe in mid 80's but created a whole host of injury issues hence the Nike transition out of big air.

Running on soft surfaces again no data to support it but a world of runners including world class swear it saves their legs.

Lets get some time and data under our belt with this new fad of fat midsoles and wether they are what they are claiming to be or something that in a couple of years we ask what ever happened to Hoka ?

Hoka has a 4mm heel-toe drop, the same as a Nike Free 3.0 v6.

Bump

Avocado's Number wrote:

So the many thousands of us who have concluded otherwise, based on our many, many millions of miles of running, are simply wrong?

If your statement is correct, it's merely a reflection of extraordinarily poor research standards in this field.

The correct answer to the original poster's question is yes. Whether a particular model of shoe is going to reduce the likelihood of stress fractures for a particular runner engaged in a particular training program is, of course, quite a different question.

What serious study have you or these supposed thousands of people given to the issue? There's no control, there's no catalog of miles vs. surfaces etc., just people subjectively deciding that surfaces must be important because hard = high force (which isn't true).

Because it seems you've been reading Runner's Connect (and didn't cite them- shame on you, unless you're Jeff), here's the article you quoted and also the reference you cited:

Having had stress fractures, my experience 100% agrees with the above- I prefer firmer shoes (but flexible) and hard surfaces (and stay healthier as a consequence). Had both stress fractures and PF in soft shoes. Agree though to rotate a variety of shoes and surfaces (I probably do less than 5-10% on soft surfaces and am perfectly happy that way).

Bump

Run in whatever the hell you want to run in. I'll still run in racing flats, even being a fat post collegiate runner, because I know that "cushioning" is by far not my #1 concern when it comes to injuries.

Frank Rudy wrote:

Your statement is merely an assumption that a shoe can prevent a stress fracture.

All of the data good or bad shows nothing to indicate a difference one way or the other. The Columbia was a nice transition shoe in mid 80's but created a whole host of injury issues hence the Nike transition out of big air.

Running on soft surfaces again no data to support it but a world of runners including world class swear it saves their legs.

Lets get some time and data under our belt with this new fad of fat midsoles and wether they are what they are claiming to be or something that in a couple of years we ask what ever happened to Hoka ?

Nonsense. I've made no assumption that a shoe can "prevent" a stress fracture. I have, however, concluded that some shoes can reduce the likelihood of certain injuries, including stress fractures, for certain runners following certain training programs. No intelligent runner or serious scientist would conclude otherwise.

Have you noticed, by the way, that your comment that the Columbia "created a whole host of injury issues hence the Nike transition out of big air" completely contradicts the claim that shoes and running surfaces have no effect on the risk and type of injuries?

You claim that there are no data to support the benefits of running on soft surfaces, yet you acknowledge that "a world of runners including world class swear it saves their legs." Do you understand that the collective observations and experiences of "a world of runners" do, in fact, constitute a very large collection of data -- vastly more data, in fact, than any exercise physiologist (or Harvard professor of anthropology) has ever accumulated through primitive laboratory and field studies and experiments.

It's terribly naïve, by the way, to characterize the use of "fat midsoles" as a "new fad" unsupported by data. But if you need "some time and data under [your] belt" before you feel competent to voice any opinions about the matter, take all the time you need.

Ho Hum wrote:

What serious study have you or these supposed thousands of people given to the issue? There's no control, there's no catalog of miles vs. surfaces etc., just people subjectively deciding that surfaces must be important because hard = high force (which isn't true).

I've spent thousands of hours seriously studying the issue. Most serious runners have likewise spent many hours studying the issue, because it's exceedingly important to their success in their chosen sport.

You mistakenly assume that all of these people are merely "subjectively deciding that surfaces must be important because hard = high force." You grossly underestimate the complexity, sophistication, and nuance in the process of figuring out how to avoid or minimize injury risks throughout a competitive (or noncompetitive) running career.

Bump