by Jim Hixson.
Most runners have been taught that “softness” and “cushioning” are positive characteristics when looking to buy a new pair of running shoes. Each year, running companies spend millions of dollars, euros, and yen in an attempt to create shoes that have a comfortable “step-in” feel when customers first put them on their feet. When customers describe a certain model of shoe as making them feel like they have “pillows on their feet”, a shoe company knows that it probably has made a very popular shoe.
Was it always this way? Let’s travel back in time several decades.
In a land not so far away, Mizuno used thin and inexpensive insoles in the manufacture of their running shoes, so as to maximize the connection between the runner’s foot and the ground. This policy made good sense for runners who wanted responsiveness and less loss of energy. During the same time, in the same land, other companies had begun to use cushioned insoles and customers were reacting quite positively. They often exclaimed that they felt as if they were “walking on clouds”, and in fact one company even named some of their shoes after some of these well-known airy entities.
One day a Mizuno footwear sales rep visited my running shoe store in St.Louis. He was showing the new models to us and he tearfully revealed a company secret. With a trembling voice he told us that Mizuno was finally giving in to peer pressure and would now also use extra-cushioned insoles in all their more popular models. Their reasoning was simple and based purely on economic reality. Although they truly believed that Mizuno shoes were actually better than those of other brands, they also knew that the first experience a potential customer has with a new pair of shoes is critically important in determining which shoe will eventually be purchased. Mizuno had been losing customers because their insoles made their shoes feel firmer than those of other brands. By providing customers with a more “comfortable” initial feel, Mizuno would be able to recapture lost market share. They made the change and their market share increased.
Although Mizuno’s strategy worked, soft shoes are not especially good for running. It could even be argued that overly cushioned shoes have allowed millions of runners to develop poor form, because the information necessary to notice biomechanical errors that can lead to common injuries are not interpreted correctly by sensory receptors in the feet and throughout the body.
Yet, the main goal of shoe manufacturers should be to develop and sell shoes that encourage health and reduce the chance of injuries, but these aren’t the goals for most companies. For every pair of Vivo Barefoot, Merrell Barefoot, Altra, Skora or VFF shoes that are sold, probably one thousand “comfortable” shoes by the big brands make their way onto the feet of runners.
The Hoka is a "maximalist" running shoe.
But as the evidence supporting, er, non-supportive shoes with less cushioning rapidly accumulates, forcing even most mainstream companies to offer more minimal (or less maximal) models, one company boldly stand defiant and doubles down: Hoka. This French company, named after the Maori words: “Now is the time to fly”, recognizes that they are moving against the grain. On their website they write:
While much of the early focus of this new era of shoe design has been around minimalism and less cushioning, Hoka One One has pursued innovation in an entirely different direction.
and…
Hoka One One’s maximally cushioned midsoles offer superior protection, comfort and propulsion. The distinctive rockered geometry creates a platform for optimally efficient natural running mechanics. The oversized outsoles — which have fifty percent more surface area than the typical running shoes — allow for maximum stability, traction and connection to the ground.
Call me a skeptic but I tend to question Hoka’s claim that their shoes “allow your feet to move freely and naturally.” They also state that:
The foam in the midsoles of Hoka shoes is 30 percent softer than the material used in traditional running shoes, and there is 2.5 times more midsole volume than in most running shoes. The extra cushioning dissipates up to 80 percent of the shock associated with heel-striking when running and allows for as much as 20mm of compression in the heel.
These numbers strike me as a bit off. Their typical shoe has a stack height of 35mm in the heel and 29mm in the forefoot. If you’ve seen or tried on a pair, those figures appear to be equivalent to approximately 18” in the rear and 16” in the front. Hokas are very big shoes, although relatively light.
Hoka's new Stinson Evo Tarmac for the road.
I did try on a pair of Hokas at the Boulder Running Company last year, but only because I needed a couple inches of growth in order to experience the feeling of being 6’ in height. The shoes certainly did not make me want to compare them to a Porsche 911, which Hoka does on their website, but I was able to do the “Moon Walk”, almost as if I was a combination of Neil Armstrong and Michael Jackson.
The one group of runners that seems to rave about Hoka shoes are ultra marathoners.Specifically they note that they have less muscle fatigue, almost no negative sensation with the ground, and the ability to maintain form after the point where they would already be tired running in other shoes. I believe these claims are partially true, but are dependent upon the nature of ultra marathons themselves. For example, it is unlikely that ultra marathons are actually physically beneficial for any runners, elite or (sometimes) pedestrian, because the combination of the distances run and the time on the feet is actually beyond the natural capacity of humans.
Over the course of many hours it is certainly possible that a shoe with an extremely forgiving midsole will, at a certain point, reduce the negative effects of impact, but the distance covered is already too far. After running for many miles a runner wearing the Hoka might be able to maintain form, but the manufacturers actually assume that humans run naturally by contacting the heel first. Only the softest “pillows” will prevent heel pain from impact in the 50-100 miles range!
The components of the Hoka midsoles touch on another problem associated with modern cushioned shoes: EVA, or ethyl vinyl acetate. This substance truly has many positive qualities, including light weight, softness, flexibility, and resistance to low temperatures, but used in the midsoles of running shoes it does not transmit information well from the surface to the sole of the foot. EVA also deforms dramatically over time, and since the pressure is not uniform, neither is deformation. The softness of the material is actually a liability, not an advantage. Incidentally, other names for EVA are “expanded rubber” and “foam rubber”.
Running should be enjoyable, but it should be experienced as fully as possible. Most companies want to make running seem easy and comfortable, so they provide customers with cushioned and stable shoes to create a sense of comfort and security, but these advantages are illusory. Despite the research and development that has been invested in improving running shoes, the original design of the modern PCECH (pronation control elevated cushioned heel) shoe is inherently flawed. It’s as if you developed a car with square wheels and tried to improve shock absorption by making better shock absorbers.
Although a transition to minimal shoes requires some time, these shoes will actually provide more comfort, because the foot will be able to receive more sensory information while being protected from sharp objects, rough surfaces, and extreme weather conditions. The flexibility of minimal shoes will allow the foot to move without restriction and become stronger and more balanced by developing internal stability. The zero-drop from heel to toe will place the body in its natural and optimal anatomical position. Other essential characteristics of good running shoes include: ample room in the toebox, few overlays, lightweight material, and no added stability. These should be the characteristics of “comfortable shoes”.
The only time you should need pillows is when you are sleeping. Not running.
The answer to your question “Should we be running on pillows like the Hoka One One” is like many in running. It depends on the individual.
I’ve been running 30 years now and have tried every running product imaginable. The Hoka product is something truly different and unique. This makes the product interesting, as most “new” stuff is merely a variation of something already done.
I tried the Hokas beginning in May of 2012. I’ve got over 500 miles on 3 pairs. The original reason I purchased the first pair was the stories I had read about on the internet of good results with achilles tendon and foot pain. My achilles problem had gotten to the point of becoming debilitating, and it was getting to the point of thinking about taking my last step as a runner and find something else to do. For an activity which someone is passionate about, this is a tough thing to do.
The weird thing is that Hokas having a super-soft midsole, you would think this would be a very bad thing for the achilles. My former shoe of choice was the Mizuno precision, which has a relatively elevated and firm heel. Also I had tried custom orthotics (which helped tremendously for a few years) and also Superfeet style over-the-counter orthotics. 99% of the trouble was isolated to my right side, with the left side running in the stock shoe just fine.
I have been through a period (about a couple of years) of running in very minimal racing flats with moderate success. This was long before the current minimal shoe boom we are in right now. The problem was might feet would get horribly beat up to the point where walking was very uncomfortable. Also lots of hot spots, neuromas, odd pains etc. Never did get anything like a stress fracture though.
After the prolonged period of experimenting with minimalism and dealing with excessive foot pain, I went back to more conventional style shoes. There was a series of New Balance shoes I had good success in. These were relatively simple shoes. The last one in the series was the 833, and after that I was mostly in Mizuno.
Finally the left side achilles got bad, and running started happening more in bursts, with long rest periods and then slow build-ups and then backing off when the pain flared. An experiment with Nike Frees ended in disaster when both achilles got painful while training for a marathon. I was wiped out for months.
Switching to the Hokas has saved my running! I’ll try to explain how…
The Hokas do have a totally different ride and you will have to slowly work into them (same approach as advocated for minimal shoes). They feel like they have elements of both stability and instability. At first footstrike, they are unstable. Then the foam compresses and becomes very supportive. You need to focus on a footstrike towards the forefoot. You can accomplish this with this shoe design because the cushioning up front is so massive. This is a forefoot striker’s dream shoe, and it’s probably better suited to adapting to forefoot striking than the typical minimal shoe!!! This adaptation will require conscious effort and diligence. I believe my form is better than ever after several hundred miles in these shoes.
And for the achilles problem…even though I have worked up to more mileage than in recent years, my symptoms have been greatly reduced. This is in spite of hill training and speedwork. I attribute this to the massive forefoot cushioning, which has allowed more of a forefoot strike. This is decreasing the stress on the Achilles in some way or another. Totally counter-intuitive to conventional Achilles wisdom!
Another interesting result of the Hokas is the jettisoning of orthotics. I wore them for many years in conventional trainers with reasonably good result. As I mentioned before, the shoes dynamically have elements of both instability and stability. At midfoot stance it’s kind of like your foot is swallowed up by the shoe and it feels very firm and solid. They seem to eliminate the requirement for any sort of orthotic. Also kind of helps with the blow of the outrageous price they ask for these shoes!
I’ve got the same result other report with regards to feeling “beaten up” after long runs or speed work. Wearing Hokas, that “beat up” feeling is minimalized. I assume it has to do with both the cushioning, and the better form mandated by the initial contact softness of these shoes.
Perhaps cushioning has both its good and bad points. You certainly wouldn’t want to drive a car without shock absorbers! “Ground feel” is gone with the Hokas, but in my book that is a good thing. My feet don’t get beaten to shreds, and I can do more running.
That’s the story from an experiment of one. For me, this shoe brand will enable me to run for many more years than would have been possible with either conventional or minimal running shoes.
Thanks Greg,
Agree that if the runner feels good and is applying good form principles then all is good. mix it up to use diffent muscles and stabilizers. This is why training tools like the bosu ball are effective in the menu, as is trail running on uneven and unstable surfaces. if i were in the later stages of an ultra on a trail and trying to get down a mountain they would be a great option. likely not the best for the climb, at least for me. if one were to run Pikes Peak you might consider stashing these at the top so after 7000 ft of climbing you could descend the rocks with protection.
i also see a role for these for older runners who have some foot and lower extremity arthritis. make the goal to land really soft and quick light short strides.
So runners be the n of 1 and try new things. these only have 4 mm heel elvation. i tried them on in Austin at Running Event….a nice ride.
Mark
Mark -
I couldn’t agree more with this last caveat. My experience has been a consistent mid foot strike in these shoes, but I also train across a broad spectrum of stack heights (although try to keep drop in the 0-4mm range). I find the combination of cushioning on long runs and proprioception in more minimal shoes on shorter/daily runs gives my legs/feet the variability I need to maintain and even build good form.
And yes, I was the guy who stashed a paid of Hoka One One Mufates at the top of Pike’s Peak during the marathon last year. I ran up in the (comparatively) minimal New Balance MT110s, and then pushed back down with significantly more protection!
It is interesting to me that most folks who dismiss HOKAs really haven’t spent any time in them. The reality is that while they allow a heel strike, they really don’t promote it. Try thinking about it as a tool in the tool box, but continue discouraging people to use the same tool for every project!
Best -
Nathan
Great reply Nathan. smart move on putting the Hokas at the top of the Peak. I need to return to this race. Mark
no, heck, even pillows aren’t necessary when sleeping
anyway, i’m a FIRM believer in the minimalist cause, you can’t convince me otherwise
going against nature is just stupid
our bodies were not designed to run with these things, i’ve seen people run with these and man do they look bad, in that zombie runner state since they can’t feel anything
not that i’m trying to look down on anyone, cause i’m not
i mean, maybe there’s some ways that these are okay, once you’ve got arthritis in your feet or something, you’ve screwed yourself too far, i normally believe you can fix yourself, some conditions however, can’t be fixed by going barefoot, well, at least it’s not consistent, some people claim barefoot running helps their arthritis, others it doesn’t so since i’m no scientist or doctor, i can’t say for sure
but i do know, humans aren’t MEANT to run with those and i think it’s more obvious than people think
I have to say, I LOVE my Hokas!! Sure you don’t feel the trail as much initially but after working with them awhile, you learn it! I know when I step on small rocks… The advantage is that my feet aren’t fatigued later in the run!
For a 200 miler I ran in May, I brought a couple different brands and models of shoe so I could work/rest different muscle groups along the way. I never switched shoes! The Hokas were comfortable (well as comfortable as 200 miles can be!) the entire time!! This year, I won’t even bother bringing a different brand!
I’ll also be wearing Hokas for the super technical HURT 100 next week!! I won’t have any trouble feeling the trail (I run mostly by feel…) and I’m sure my legs will thank me with ~25,000′ of descent!!! Really, good form is key! I can pretty much guarantee that if I wore more minimal shoes (heck even something like Montrail’s Mountain Masochist), I would fatigue a lot sooner and my form would suffer WAY earlier in the run! Running with compromised form would cause way more trouble than any extra cushioning!! I intend to be running strong after the 20 hour mark and I promise that I won’t be passed by anyone wearing flats/minimal!!!
If I can easily run with better form for a longer time in Hokas, then can minimal shoes really be better for me, even on shorter runs? Sure, they help strengthen my feet. Lifting weights helps me strengthen muscles too… But you won’t see me carrying dumbells on race day!
All Day!
~Ken
“Ultra distances aren’t good for anyone.” Really? I love that people are challenging their bodies in ways that is not typical in modern times. Think about our ancestors — how did we get around? A lot of footwork. In this day of convenience, it’s good that a few people aren’t taking the “easy” life with their butts firmly planted on a couch. Get outside and explore it! Whether it’s by hiking, biking, kayaking, running, there are plenty of miles to cover.
I have 2 pair of Hoka’s and love them. They are worth every penny and then some. I don’t like to feel every rock or the asphalt with minimalist. My body needs cushioning to remain injury free.
So Cody thinks I am stupid and Jim says I am able to exceed natural human capacity? Excellent! This is what I know…
For years I ran in traditional shoes and for years I suffered from nagging Achilles pain. Two years ago I worked on my form and mechanics, shortening my stride, quickening my cadence and changing to a midfoot strike. About 18 months ago I began a very methodical and considerate transition to more minimalist shoes (Brooks Pure Project and Saucony Kinvara models). They felt fine. To be honest I rather liked them. I ended up with a stress fracture in my foot. That was a first. And that’s a check mark in the bad column.
This past Summer I picked up a pair of Hokas while I worked on building my base back up. After laying down some big mileage the last four months in training for Rocky Raccoon my feet have never felt better during and after hard runs. That’s a check in the good column.
I was skeptic at first. I saw what Hokas allowed a couple of buddies to do in terms of their running and decided to give them a shot. I now know firsthand the benefits that Hokas provide me. I am now a believer. For me, the proof is in the pudding.
‘scuse me?
where did i say you were stupid?
My first comment was not directly at anyone, how can i explain this…
i’m just not necessarily for things like this to be used majority of the time, if you don’t use these all TOO much then i guess it’s alright, not natural, but alright
not to mention fractures happen, just saying
and how much is “human capacity”
i’ve ready many stories about our ancestors that ran for long distances quite often barefoot
Xero Shoes are bio mechanically identical to running in your bare feet. In my humble opinion there is only one true way to run. Barefoot.How can you improve on the design that has worked for millions of years? The foot is an amazing thing. Let it do what it already knows how to do. That knowledge already exists in every single person. All you have to do is listen.
Lots of Hoka fans coming out, I am the opposite, cushioned shoes, even minimal ones, were giving me terrible knee (after they broke down) and plantar fasciitis issues. I kept going more and more cushioned and it only got worse.
I read about “barefoot” running and did like most first timers and got five fingers, which worked well for shorter runs but eventually gave them up for running barefoot which was more comfortable to my toes being stuck in pockets. Eventually a slew of minimal shoes have come out and after trying a few I found Zemgear’s give me the best barefoot feel whole letting me do 50 mile weeks without issue. All that aches and pains have gone away. I can go out and run a marathon and not even have recovery because the muscles and tendons of my feet and muscles are already adapted.
I have never done an ultra and only do mountainous trail running occasionally so maybe for rugged conditions and steep downhills I can see the benefit of these. But I would suspect a runner doing their daily training in a minimal shoe and using these for race day might be better off than one using these 100% of the time.
My general feeling is that we are born barefoot so we are bio-mechanically designed to be barefoot, we are just conditioned in modern society to avoid it.
^exactly my feelings, not here to talk trash, just in that last sentence, that’s what i believe, that’s all
I bought a pair of Nike Free after running in VFF’s for three years. They feel like pillows. Can’t imagine running in the Hokas though.
I wouldn’t normally have considered using Hokas. However, these shoes may facilitate a quicker return to running after recovering from a pilon fracture and ORIF surgery on my right ankle. With time I hope to return to my Merrell Road Gloves, but I’ll be sure to have a quiver of shoes for mixing up the stresses on the body while running.
Hello,
I picked up a pair of Mafate 2s and out of the box I was not a fan…but after a couple of runs my legs were loving them! It has gotten to the point where I can double with out pain and increase my miles on my easier days with out beating up my legs as much. I use them the day after mile repeats or tempo run days or even double days and I have increased my mileage from 50 to 70 without feeling like I’m killing myself…I honestly feel like I’m cheating! My recovery process is sped up with this shoe and I can’t wait to experience the rest of the line!
Bring on the revolution!
Jerome,
you must love these as i see your email address now has the work Hoka in it
thanks for sharing your experience. whether it is barefoot running, minimalist, or hokas….just try it, but again the form and springy turnover with softer landings is the magic.
Mark
Mark,
Thanks for the response! I am a new tech rep with Hoka and I will admit I was quite the skeptic. After my 20 miler yesterday I am as sold as it gets. They aren’t pretty but my 20 miler yesterday was 27 minutes faster than my last!
I have learned a wealth of information on your site and read it every day!
Thanks again!
Jerome
It is a revolution, perhaps a bit more like pioneering. Going where most dismiss or don’t understand.
I finished my first half marathon in Hoka Tarmacs yesterday. 1:27:44 not bad for a a 50 year old and 2nd place age group in a national class race. That’s a minute 45 seconds faster than last year when the conditions were ideal. Last year it was conventional training shoes and orthotics, and significant down time after the race to let the achilles settle down and recover.
I’m walking around the house today and I can honestly say I have never recovered better after a hard effort. My feet feel fine, 100%!
I’m totally sold on these shoes and I’m going to start recommending them to my friends who have foot problems. Not that it will help all of them, but certainly some of them. Amazing product!
At the running store, it is hard to get people to try Hokas because they are so ugly. However, the majority of those who try them also buy them then. And they are coming back, people love them! Not only that, they come back and bring their spouses, family and friends to buy them.
Personally, I am partial to them! For me, it is too much cushioning but I like the low drop and apparently people seem to run better in them. I like to give them to people who may benefit from better running form but are not willing to work on it.
Although I normally run in my NB MT101s (which are great), I own a pair of Hokas and love them. My legs feel better and seem to recover faster after longer distance runs (15-20 miles) in the Hokas than in any other shoe I have tried. However, there is a power-transfer loss that no one seems to be discussing. Maybe it is insignificant, but I don’t think so. Think of running in sand; it feel great but is not good for speed. Or maybe a better example is riding a mountain bike with the shock absorbers turned on. Anyone who rides mountain bikes understands this is great for descents, but terrible for ascents. If you turn the absorbers off during an ascent, you can feel the difference instantly as the power generated by your legs is transferred to the wheels rather than to the absorbers. I would think the same principle would apply to shoes with built-in shock absorbers (that can’t be turned on and off): where shock is being absorbed, power is being absorbed.
My question: how can we determine HOW MUCH power is being lost when running in shoes like the Hokas? If we have that information, we might be able to more accurately determine whether the obvious comfort benefit is worth the cost in power.
I think it’s a significantly different situation with running versus biking. Running is a very inefficient means of forward locomotion compared to cycling. There’s a big energy loss every time your foot hits the ground. As your foot hits the ground the kinetic energy in your foot and leg has to be dissipated somewhere. The energy gets converted to heat in your muscles (and tendons), and some more heat gets generated when the shoe midsole compresses, and maybe even a little bit gets transferred to the ground.
Think of it this way. How fast would a runner have to go to run a marathon in 2 hours? 26.2 miles/ 2 hours or 13.1 mph. That’s a trivial pace on a bike. So an out of shape person on a $50 Walmart bike could easily defeat a marathon runner who is faster than the fastest in the world. Those runners are generating lots of heat!
A runner’s ability to dissipate heat is critical and the fastest distance runners in the world are the ones who can get rid of heat the best.
The point is the “power transfer loss” is quite large and is a necessary and inherent in two-legged locomotion. The weight of the shoes definitely affect efficiency, however, it’s not clear that shoe’s shock absorbing capacity would have any impact.
If the shoes are properly designed and well-matched to the runner, it could be that the shoes can augment the shock-absorbing capacity of the runner’s muscles. If the shoes take some of the burden of shock absorbing away from the muscles, then the overall power loss would be the same as without shock absorption in the shoes.
It would be an interesting experiment to conduct, as it might yield surprising results…
Wow, this is quite a discussion! From my perspective, being an ultrarunner in my mid-fifties, Hokas are amazing. I’m a mid-foot striker, and I’ve been experiencing pain and swelling in my metatarsal heads, especially when running on pavement. The Hokas got rid of that. I’m acquainted with a well-known “elite” ultrarunner, my age, who has developed arthritis in his toes, and Hokas have helped him continue his running with less pain. (I loved the comment above, that arthritis sufferers have “screwed [themselves] too far” and that he believed they can fix themselves…probably a guy 20-30 years younger than me who has been blessed with excellent biomechanics and nary a bit of arthritis.)
The condescending opinions (yes, they ARE condescending) of a few of the minimalists on this topic fails to recognize that even though humans evolved sans shoes, not all of us humans are equally biomechanically blessed. Some of us need help. And our barefooted caveman ancestors rarely survived to my age. Being able to run ultra distances at my age is a blessing, and I could never do it with minimalist shoes.
If one is plagued by injury despite his or her best efforts to improve running form, and cushioned shoes help keep one running (rather than sitting on the couch recovering from injuries), then what’s the harm? Strap on the Hokas and just run!
thanks Gene for insightful comments from your experience. Mark
http://www.slowtwitch.com/Products/Running_Footwear_by_brand/Hoka_One_One/What_Hoka_Means_3376.html
Here’s an article with some interesting comments. I really like the comment on what the author thinks the shoe companies should be doing with their shoe designs:
“I don’t mind having cushion in the heel. What I mind is not having it in the forefoot. My request to Asics and Brooks is, go ahead and leave the heels as they are. Just build up the forefoot. Then, if you’re so certain we all need those big heels, fine, anybody who needs that heel has it. But, those who want forefoot cushion are also rewarded.”
That’s a great way to state the problem. This is a category of shoe which would be helpful to many. Low drop, but very well cushioned.
His comments about the Hoka being a simple shoe design are well stated. They are very simple– no unusual gadgetry built into them.
The author may be overstating the importance of this shoe, however, it will be quite interesting to see where it goes.
Great debate, here. I am a minimalist runner, i love my vivobarefoot breathos. Never had any injuries since I adopted Dr Phil Maffetone’s methods last year, minimalist works for me. However, Dr Phil was a pioneer in his time (still is), the same can be said for the Hoka brand. I always have room for new ideas and I would not be arrogant to say Hokas are wrong for everyone . Whatever works for you is fine by me, I will watch with interest to see how the Hoka and minimalist brands develop, I have a hunch in ten years they will meet in the middle somnewhere. I notice the Merrel Glove Ascend in a key step towards this possible scenario.
The author, Jim Hixson, has clearly never run an ultramarathon. It’s amusing when people start making assumptions about how the body will react to an ultra, and how cushioned shoes won’t make a difference — when they’ve never done it themselves. Run an ultra WITHOUT Hokas, then run one WITH Hokas, and all hypothesis, guesses and smug know-it-all statements go out the window. Running on “pillows” for 50-100 miles is VASTLY easier on the body. Proper form helps immensely, but after 10 – 20 hours on your feet, it’s the cumulative IMPACT that kills you. Run on something soft, and your joints, muscles and tendons are absorbing less impact. End of story. It’s really not that complicated.
I would like to hear the opinions of podiatrists on this important subject. My guess is over the last few years they have been seeing a greater number of injuries due to minimalist shoes. My belief is, and has always been,based on personal experience, that cushioning is best. I will qualify this by saying the right kind of cushioning is best. Hopefully there will be some good studies on this subject and manufacturers will make the best kinds of shoes for enjoyable and safe running.
This article, simply put, is asinine. It is chock full of opinions presented as fact, that are not supported by research, history, or even anecdotal evidence. Utterly ridiculous statements like “For example, it is unlikely that ultra marathons are actually physically beneficial for any runners, elite or (sometimes) pedestrian, because the combination of the distances run and the time on the feet is actually beyond the natural capacity of humans.” How are you defining “the natural capacity of humans”? Since thousands of people complete ultra marathons each year it is clearly well within the natural capacity of humans. Of course if you believe ultras are ridiculous I can’t see how you would support a piece of gear designed for that purpose. Additionally one might actually race that distance for the challenge and rush, being “physically beneficial” may not need to be a criteria. People do things everyday for joy that are not “physically beneficial.” Running is running…there are plenty of variants and different ways to do it. I like to race and I like to race long. I don’t believe that people who don’t race, run only for health benefits or run races of 1 mile or less are wrong or destroying my experience. There are 100s, probably 1000s of shoes on the market because people aren’t all the same. Run barefoot, run minimal, run traditional or in a Hoka, who cares if it works for you? I run in dozens of shoes from zero drop flats, to 8mm trainers, to 4mm Hokas. I’ve never had a significant injury. Finally if you want to call the massive running community idiots just go ahead and do it. But in your example about Mizuno only one thing is true…they made a product that runners didn’t buy, so they started making one people wanted to buy. Blame it on all the other shoe companies and their marketing but the facts still remain, runners didn’t buy the shoes. My guess is because they didn’t care for the feel and the ride. That’s what nearly every runner I know bases their shoe choice on.
Thanks Robert for replying…this piece and the comments has added great insight for our readers. Why we run is different for everyone I agree. mix the footwear up w barefoot too on various terrains and speeds….I think is the best plan. Mark
Hokas! I am a true believer in these shoes! Love them! I did the minimalist and with naturally flat feet my legs took a beating.
I got my Hoka one one’s in the mail yesterday and after spending months researching and reading blogs and comments I was pumped about these. I read this article before going to bed last night and snickered at the suggestion that these shoes were anything but miraculous as I’d read time and time again on the net. See over the years I’ve had many difficulties running and the culprits have always been my knees. As I learnt more about running and heard about barefoot running and the trend of following ones natural mechanics, I tried various shoes and techniques settling on a simple pair of Merrell’s. To my surprize, running with correct form in these shoes seemed to alleviate all past problems. But for some reason I kept searching for something more–perhaps because I felt like my feet were striking the pavement a little hard with Merrell’s extremely thin soles. So I went ahead and forked out over $200 (with shipping) for my Hoka’s. But I’m sad to report that after 500m or so on this morning’s run, my knees haven’t felt as bad since the days when I was a pure heel striker. And the pain wasn’t just limited to one knee as it usually is, it was both of them, and it was immediate. I’m forced to concede you may indeed have a point in your article. These shoes aren’t for me. Anyone want to buy a pair of Hoka’s 8,5 mens? Let me know.
Matthew – I wear an 8.5 and would be interested in taking these Hokas off of your hands. Shoot me an email if you still have them… michaeldill@yahoo.com
Should We be Running on Pillows Like the Hoka One One?
Runners need to explore the answer to that question based on their own goals and real world experience. The theories and ideologies contained in this article are not substitutes for actual experience and results.
For me, as an ultra runner, the answer to the question is an unqualified yes when attempting distances over 50k.
It frustrates me that so many people and authors claim that barefoot running can be good for anyone, as long as there is proper transition time. The fact of the matter is my foot doctor (one of the best in the country who treats professional and college athletes) said that in addition to having functional hallux limitus (my big toe will not flex when it is weight-bearing), my foot bones are also so loose that every time my foot hits the ground, it is like a “bag of bones”. He said there is no amount of foot strengthening that can fix this as it is just the way my foot is designed. There are way too many barefoot/minimalist advocates out there who think one way should fit all and if one doesn’t go the minimalist route it is because they are lazy, don’t want to improve their form, or uneducated. when your bones and ligaments don’t work the way they should, all you can do is try to protect them and get shoes (plus custom orthotics as needed) that help your foot do what it should to protect the rest of your body – legs, hips, back, etc.