Hoka One One crushes the competition - Hoka is by far the most popular shoe at Western States 100

The feedback from lots of older runners is that Hokas allow them to get in more running without beating up their legs.

The feedback from lots of crossfitters wearing Vibram FF was all about stress fractures, achilles and calf issues, and shoe-shaming from real runners.

Feedback related to older runners is anecdotal, not empirical. Most likely, older runners "feel" like they're getting more cushioning and run more claiming a renewed sense of relief to limbs. This is probably the placebo effect. However, more research needs to test these claims. To repeatedly use anecdotal evidence or correlation (not cause and effect) is misleading at best and possibly injury promoting at worst. For now, it appears with recent quantitative evidence (not anecdotal), Hoka and excellent cushioning do NOT go hand in hand. I hope to see future evidence that HCS truly help older runners. For now, re-read this post.

Hoka ouch ouch wrote:

Feedback related to older runners is anecdotal, not empirical. Most likely, older runners "feel" like they're getting more cushioning and run more claiming a renewed sense of relief to limbs. This is probably the placebo effect. However, more research needs to test these claims. To repeatedly use anecdotal evidence or correlation (not cause and effect) is misleading at best and possibly injury promoting at worst. For now, it appears with recent quantitative evidence (not anecdotal), Hoka and excellent cushioning do NOT go hand in hand. I hope to see future evidence that HCS truly help older runners. For now, re-read this post.

Placebo effect would be good enough for me; I'm more interested in getting out the door than science. That said, do you have a link to the HMS study?

Well said. Placebo effect is indeed a good way to go. However, in this case, cumulative loading of your limbs while "thinking" you have excellent shock absorbing shoes...could lead to tibial stress or other injuries down the road. I think the knee is under much greater stress as well; however, this needs to be studied with accelerometers and other devices.

Here's a link to an author/reporter describing the Harvard results:

http://lermagazine.com/issues/june/running-shoe-reveal-study-links-max-cushioning-higher-load

Note, the results were presented at the Nat'l American College of Sports Medicine conference in San Diego, 2015. Further research is needed, especially in habituated users of Hokas.

Be well.

Hoka ouch ouch wrote:To repeatedly use anecdotal evidence or correlation (not cause and effect) is misleading at best and possibly injury promoting at worst.

There's not really such a thing as a cause and effect study. Pretty much all studies are correlation. You might hypothesize a cause and effect, but you only "prove" it (you're really supposed to see if you can disprove it) by gathering enough correlation evidence that it's very likely that the cause has the effect.

Every single time a study is mentioned on an internet board, someone feels compelled to jump in with "correlation is not causation", which is true but pointless. Scientific study is building evidence before or against a correlation and eliminating other factors.

You can design an experiment with a very direct connection between cause and effect, but you still only have correlation. If you hit some subjects in the head with sledgehammer, compare it to a control group that was not hit in the head with a sledgehammer and observe that all of the hammer heads have fractured skulls while none of the control does, you have pretty strong evidence that hitting someone in the head causes skull fractures and would likely make that conclusion, but you've made your conclusion on strong correlation and the "correlation is not causation" guy could still make that point.

Steve Robbins was measuring this sort of thing almost thirty years ago, putting impact sensors on runner's feet and measuring how cushioning affects impact and found that more cushioning lead to greater impact. The most recent thing I've read on the topic says the best thing is to find a shoe that's comfortable.

http://news.yahoo.com/the-best-running-shoes-for-your-feet-according-to-126008136072.html?soc_src=mediacontentsharebuttons&soc_trk=fb

Hoka ouch ouch wrote:

Feedback related to older runners is anecdotal, not empirical. Most likely, older runners "feel" like they're getting more cushioning and run more claiming a renewed sense of relief to limbs. This is probably the placebo effect. However, more research needs to test these claims. To repeatedly use anecdotal evidence or correlation (not cause and effect) is misleading at best and possibly injury promoting at worst. For now, it appears with recent quantitative evidence (not anecdotal), Hoka and excellent cushioning do NOT go hand in hand. I hope to see future evidence that HCS truly help older runners. For now, re-read this post.

I wear whatever shoes feel best for me, and that happens to be Hoka. Don´t tell me you choose shoes based on science reports. Nobody can be that stupid.

It´s the same with training. It´s based on "anecdotal" evidence from 1000s of runners through the years. If we would train like the guys in white coats wants us to do, it would be all intervals, gym training, plyos and close to zero mileage and we have been through that and the results were pathetic.

I agree with Old guy... I wear what feels good for me too, and that's a lot of different shoes, including the Hoka Challenger, which is my overall favorite. I wear other shoes that I don't like quite as much because I wanted to try them, they were good deals, for different trail conditions/running surfaces, or just that I think they will last a long time - I'm money conscious. But, if I were given free Challengers every month, that would be all I needed for everything except road races and maybe muddier trails.

For those studies, where are they trying to measure shock absorption? If they are trying to measure anything above and beyond the foot, I think they are barking up the wrong tree. I like my Hokas because my feet are most relaxed in them, the rocker profile and relatively low drop meshes well with my mid to forefoot stride. I also like them because they are demonstrably faster, more stable for me (specifically for me - that's all who matters in my choice), and leave my feet less beat up running downhills, especially things like rock garden mountain descents. I can easily back to back comparisons and time trials with any other shoes to prove that it true for me. It wouldn't even be close with some minimal shoes vs. the Hokas... I think I'd go 4 times faster in some descents in the Hokas vs. some of my minimal shoes like Feelmaxes. I wouldn't even want a study that is broader than just me to study these issues - why would I want to generalize the result? It's obvious that some shoes suck in that situation. Using shoes that are too thin like road flats will beat me feet up on rock garden descents compared to the Hokas. If that's not a shock absorption issue, I don't know what is. Shoes with heels to high and narrow are tippy for me in descents, reducing confidence and speed, and risk ankle and fall injuries. Other shoe cha

I started running three years ago. 54 year old fat guy, 6'2" 195 lbs. broke my pelvis on my first 10 k, spontaneously, but did finish under an hour.

One year later heard about HOKAS, and bought a sale-priced pair on line .

Bottom line, running 20 miles a week, no injuries , ran 10k yesterday and 13 miler today pace under 10. Yeah legs are sore but much better than when I had good quality Asics. Maybe it's a placebo effect but, HOKAS are good for fat older runners in this newbie runners opinion.

zzzz wrote:

I agree with Old guy... I wear what feels good for me too, and that's a lot of different shoes, including the Hoka Challenger, which is my overall favorite.

I like my Hokas because my feet are most relaxed in them, the rocker profile and relatively low drop meshes well with my mid to forefoot stride.

I agree that the apparent advantage of Hokas is at the level of gait and foot strike. I have a pair of Clifton 2s and run 80% on tarmac. Hokas let your foot land and roll without 'slapping' down, which is what happens when you get two flat surfaces initially making contact at an angle, like when the foot glances down on the outside heel first and then quickly pronates into full stance.

Something might be lost in the toe-off, however, so I might try a slightly firmer model next time.

I also feel the Hokas promote a quicker cadence, but have no data to confirm that.

]TrackCoach wrote:

LetsRun.com wrote:

We came across something interesting today. 94% of the starters at Western States filled out a survery before the race this year.

In terms of race finishers, here are their shoe preferences.

Hoka - 34.5%

Brooks - 19.6%

Altra - 16.5%

Montrail - 9.3%

Salomon - 8.8%

Pearl Izumi - 5.7%

In terms of sub-24 hours finishers, here are the results.

Hoka - 34.7

Altra - 16.7%

Montrail - 12.%

Saolomon - 11.1%

Brooks, New Balance, and Nike - 8.3% each

The survey also asked about sock preference, lighting preference and even coaching.

You can access the results here:

http://www.wser.org/2015/09/03/2015-runner-survey-results/

Not too surprising, I am starting to see a lot of LD runners in Hokas and everyone I speak to say they love them. What's interesting is I know a women who ran in vibrams for a year, developed some foot problems and now run exclusively in Hokas. I've had on-and-off foot problems and I'm considering getting a pair. It would be nice if Hoka could make a better looking shoe and bring down the price.[/quote]

I was running in a pair of Adidas Boston Boosts and got sore calves and then eventually shin splints. I changed to the more cushioned Supernova Glide Boosts and the Shin Splints went away.

Is it because of the cushion in the shoes ? Or is because :-

- I upped my mileage too quickly, including double days (I backed off the mileage and built up again)

- I was running downhill too often (I mostly run on flat surfaces now)

- I ran mostly on tarmac (run on mixed surfaces now)

- my form was poor (now upped my cadence)

You can't really call cushioning a magic bullet until you've looked at all of the other factors.

Post Hole Digger wrote:

You might hypothesize a cause and effect, but you only "prove" it (you're really supposed to see if you can disprove it) by gathering enough correlation evidence that it's very likely that the cause has the effect.

So a lot of correlation is the only way to prove causation?

[Laughing out Loud]

Now I understand why you think that "correlation is not causation" is pointless.

As far as I know, the skull experiment has not been performed yet (at least it has not been made public). But we have more interest data. For example, did you know that:

- Number of people who drowned by falling into a pool correlates with Films Nicolas Cage appeared in (Correlation: 66.6%)

- Per capita cheese consumption correlates with Number of people who died by becoing tangled in their beds (Correlation: 94.7%)

- US spending on science, space, and technology correlates with Suicides by hanging, strangulation and suffocation (Correlation: 99.8%. Now, that's a lot of correlation. So it has to be the cause, right? lol)

Source: Vigen, T. (2015) Spurious Correlations

" Don´t tell me you choose shoes based on science reports. Nobody can be that stupid."

Ummmm….then I guess you're calling me stupid. I most certainly am receptive to & swayed by science, esp. when it comes to my health & well being. Science guides most all I do. I breath, eat, drink, based on science, not on what smells good or what tastes good.

Not necessarily. Studies are wrong all the time. And even if this replicates, it may working on an over-simplified model. Perhaps the peak load is unimportant. Perhaps the rate of load increase is more important. Or the acceleration of load. Or the jolt of load. Or perhaps it's something completely different - vibration through the foot and lower leg or something even stranger.

So don't discount the wisdom of many runners based on one study. Could they be wrong? Sure. People were wrong about minimalism. (Of course, Hokas are also minimalist in the sense that they have about a 4mm heel-toe drop ...).

My outsider's sense is that "real runners" largely eschewed minimalist running, with the exception of some who had knee problems. By contrast, maximalist running has been driven by "real runners" and ignored by the masses of Crossfitters and mudrunners.

Every runner must use what works for him/her. It doesn't matter if it's maximalist, minimalist, barefoot or placebo. If it works it works.

And please don't call Hoka minimalist. 40mm stack height with narrow toe box is anything but minimal.

Hoka ouch ouch wrote:

highly cushioned shoes (HCS) are not better at shock absorbing. In fact, they [greatly] increase peak loading forces on the limb vs. traditionally cushioned shoes.

This has been known for quite a long time, and has nothing to do with medical quackery.

All I know is that I was able to run 3,000 miles last year after switching to Hokas which is about 1,000 more than I was ever able to run before. Now this year I am running faster at 50 than I have in the last 5 years. I actually quit racing on the roads because I couldn't keep from getting an injury and went to the trails.

Now I am running so well, I'm staying off the trails so I don't trip and mess up a knee or separate a shoulder like I did a couple years ago. I credit my success to the cushioning in the Hokas and a lot of 2 and 3 mile recovery jogs. (and losing a few lbs to get down to my high school weight)

You topped the most mileage you've ever run in a year by 50%!! Wow, what happened to the 10% guideline? That's quite a leap. You should contact Hoka in regards to doing a testimonial. I have a pair & like them ok, but have some Zoots & New Balance that I like better...

kmaclam wrote:

You topped the most mileage you've ever run in a year by 50%!! Wow, what happened to the 10% guideline? ...

It wasn't a leap in weekly mileage but staying injury free for the whole year. I've run 60 mile weeks for years but never for a whole year straight.