New study purports to demonstrate that maximalist shoes, like Hoka, lead to larger impact forces and a deterioration of form. Hence, increased possibility for injuries.
This runs directly counter to the popular claims made by those wearing highly cushioned shoes. I don't think there is anything surprising in the study--body knows/learns how to deal with shock and maximalist shoes interfere with this ability/process. Nevertheless, the study should heighten the debate...
A nice summary here: http://www.ergo-log.com/all-too-comfortable-running-shoe-increases-risk-injuries.html
Get the published article here: http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/2325967118775720
Death knell for Hoka??!!
Running Shoes/Running Gear
Shoes
Report Thread
You are reporting this thread to the moderators for review and possible removal from the forum.
-
-
Well, looks like the study makes conclusions for beginning runners and heel strikers, of which I'm neither.
Many Hokas are not "maximalist". There are plenty that have heel stack heights in line with shoes like the Nike Pegasus. Some Hokas are thinner than even standard trainers.
Thicker soles most obviously provide cushioning to the bottoms of the feet, just like you'd expect boxing gloves to protect the hands. Sure, a boxer could punch harder with boxing gloves on, and maybe more like cause brain damage to the other person, but they still protect the hands. So, if you'd like some protection for the bottoms of your feet (to avoid sore metatarsals from minimalist shoes or really long runs, for example), Hokas work. Claims about benefits farther up the leg might not be supported, but surely they protect the bottoms of feet. -
It's one study, using 15 runners, over a short time span, running under lab conditions, measuring impact forces and not injuries. Like a lot of science experiments, it's really limited and really far from the real world, even if it's not bad science.
Are lots of people trying Hokas and then reporting injuries? Not really. People turn to Hoka when they're so injured that they otherwise can't run anymore. Lots of guys around here in their 30s and 40s are wearing Hokas.
So, no, not a death knell. Not by a long shot. -
The real problem with Hokas and other non-name brands is using more inferior materials (shoes are heavier) and reduced quality control. They're investing so much in marketing, at the expense of s***** research/design/production. I spent a year trying a variety of brands. I kept going back to the namebrand shoes because there was a huge difference in quality, weight of the shoes, and less body aches. Nike/New Balance/Brooks/Asics/Adidas- those are the brands you go with. Hokas, Skechers, and Altras are pure rubbish.
-
go with namebrands. wrote:
The real problem with Hokas and other non-name brands is using more inferior materials (shoes are heavier) and reduced quality control. They're investing so much in marketing, at the expense of s***** research/design/production. I spent a year trying a variety of brands. I kept going back to the namebrand shoes because there was a huge difference in quality, weight of the shoes, and less body aches. Nike/New Balance/Brooks/Asics/Adidas- those are the brands you go with. Hokas, Skechers, and Altras are pure rubbish.
+1 -
hate to agree wrote:
go with namebrands. wrote:
The real problem with Hokas and other non-name brands is using more inferior materials (shoes are heavier) and reduced quality control. They're investing so much in marketing, at the expense of s***** research/design/production. I spent a year trying a variety of brands. I kept going back to the namebrand shoes because there was a huge difference in quality, weight of the shoes, and less body aches. Nike/New Balance/Brooks/Asics/Adidas- those are the brands you go with. Hokas, Skechers, and Altras are pure rubbish.
+1
-1 -
kmaclam wrote:
hate to agree wrote:
go with namebrands. wrote:
The real problem with Hokas and other non-name brands is using more inferior materials (shoes are heavier) and reduced quality control. They're investing so much in marketing, at the expense of s***** research/design/production. I spent a year trying a variety of brands. I kept going back to the namebrand shoes because there was a huge difference in quality, weight of the shoes, and less body aches. Nike/New Balance/Brooks/Asics/Adidas- those are the brands you go with. Hokas, Skechers, and Altras are pure rubbish.
+1
-1
-1=+1. A firmer shoe does wonders for keeping the form. NB 890, Brooks Launch, and for a workhorse Solar Glide. Many think the Boost or tpu soles are too unstable but they always seem to hold their shape. I believe the ultimate may be the new Reebok floatride fast, an 8oz tempo marathon shoe with 10mm drop and tpu midsole. -
go with namebrands. wrote:
The real problem with Hokas and other non-name brands is using more inferior materials (shoes are heavier) and reduced quality control. They're investing so much in marketing, at the expense of s***** research/design/production. I spent a year trying a variety of brands. I kept going back to the namebrand shoes because there was a huge difference in quality, weight of the shoes, and less body aches. Nike/New Balance/Brooks/Asics/Adidas- those are the brands you go with. Hokas, Skechers, and Altras are pure rubbish.
Braindead nonsense. -
Don't mess with success. If it's not broke don't fix it. The running shoes were from the 60's to now have went full circle. Out of curiosity, does anyone still run in these asics tiger onitsuka today? Thought about getting a pair to see how it felt to run in the 70's.
https://www.onitsukatiger.com/us/en-us/mexico-66/p/0010228136.0146 -
Asics make the best trainers. Nike makes the best racing flats. Nike makes the best track spikes.
-
It depends on the runner.
Different shoes for different folks.
There's a reason why even each shoe company makes different types of shoes. -
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-pxnmh45krh4/VCdnYWnqM1I/AAAAAAAAEdA/Y_FN2mpNq7o/s1600/AWJEEZ.JPG
Really? Are we going to debate this for the thousandth time? -
well,, wrote:
go with namebrands. wrote:
The real problem with Hokas and other non-name brands is using more inferior materials (shoes are heavier) and reduced quality control. They're investing so much in marketing, at the expense of s***** research/design/production. I spent a year trying a variety of brands. I kept going back to the namebrand shoes because there was a huge difference in quality, weight of the shoes, and less body aches. Nike/New Balance/Brooks/Asics/Adidas- those are the brands you go with. Hokas, Skechers, and Altras are pure rubbish.
Braindead nonsense.
No I don't think so. I wear Hoka shoes for most of my training and I feel that the consistency of quality is just not the same from shoe to shoe of the same model. -
Lydiard Cerutty wrote:
Don't mess with success. If it's not broke don't fix it. The running shoes were from the 60's to now have went full circle. Out of curiosity, does anyone still run in these asics tiger onitsuka today? Thought about getting a pair to see how it felt to run in the 70's.
https://www.onitsukatiger.com/us/en-us/mexico-66/p/0010228136.0146
Those are fashion shoes now. They are not meant for running except to catch the bus. -
I wear the Hoka Speed Instinct 2 for both trail and road. It is not a maximalist shoe by any stretch. It sits low (3mm drop) and has a very firm ride. It encourages a midfoot strike as well. Far better and more efficient that any Nike I've used over the past few years.
-
Jah boi wrote:
Asics make the best trainers. Nike makes the best racing flats. Nike makes the best track spikes.
More like:
Asics make the best trainers
Nike makes the best racing flats
ADIDAS makes the best track spikes -
Yeah, you must be a hobby jogger who buys into the Hoka marketing crap. Real runners putting in the miles know the difference. Namebrands make better quality products and lighter shoes that keep you healthy, period.
-
Recently ran through a pair of skechers Go Run 5s. Loved the way they felt. Very responsive and light. Unfortunately, they wore out in about 200 miles. No idea how they keep their elites in trainers at 80-100 mpw.
-
I got injured in my first pair of Hoka's
-
Lydiard Cerutty wrote:
Don't mess with success. If it's not broke don't fix it. The running shoes were from the 60's to now have went full circle. Out of curiosity, does anyone still run in these asics tiger onitsuka today? Thought about getting a pair to see how it felt to run in the 70's.
https://www.onitsukatiger.com/us/en-us/mexico-66/p/0010228136.0146
I have a pair. Super cool shoes. I use them for casual wear, but running in them pretty much feels like you are barefoot or wearing a moccasin or something. Feels good and natural and perfect, until it doesn't.
