Why the Hoka? Part Two: Reviewed

In the last post, I went over some of the reasons the Hoka exists, as well as how it fits into current trends in running shoes. Here, I'll relate some impressions from my own experience.

Of the two pairs of Hokas that I own, I mostly use the Stinson Tarmac. The other shoes I currently run in are Saucony Kinvaras. The picture below gives an idea of the difference in construction, with the Kinvaras clearly much, much thinner.

Hoka Stinson Tarmac, left, toe to toe with Saucony Kinvara.

When I put my Hokas on for the first time, they felt, as you might expect, pretty odd. Having more EVA foam than I was used to between my foot and the ground meant that my foot could flex more, even when I was standing still. All the little micro-corrections my foot was making had to be amplified, because the foam soaked up a bit of each movement. If you've ever stood on one of those half-Bosu balls at the gym, it reminded me a little bit of that.

The shoe itself, however, wasn't moving at all. The sole is quite flat and wide from side to side, and the foam wraps up and around the bottom of your heel, so it's a stable shoe, despite being tall. Also, the upper has very little stretch, so I felt well locked-in.

The sole of my Stinson Tarmac. Mostly rubber-coated

A few years ago, I spent quite a bit of time changing my running form away from a heel strike. I now strike mid-foot, and having a shoe that allows me to do that is important to me. The Saucony Kinvaras that I mentioned before have 4mm of drop from heel to toe. That's pretty small, and it's very easy to strike mid-foot when I wear them. Running in the Hokas feels, in that way, quite similar to running in my Kinvaras. The drop from heel to toe is 6mm in the Stinson Tarmac (and less in some of Hoka's other shoes). It's close enough that I can keep my running form the same. If I focus. More on that in a moment.

The sole of my Kinvara. A little foam and not much else.

Where the Hokas do differ significantly from any other shoe I've used is in my tactile perception of the ground. I'm used to knowing how hard I'm landing and how hard I'm pushing off while I run, based on how hard it feels like I'm pushing off and landing. Running in Hokas, that feeling is muted by all the cushioning.

So, you ask, is that good or bad?

Well, I didn't enjoy it very much at first. After my first Hoka run, I found some of my old leg problems starting to crop up again - especially a pain in the back of my knee that I associate with overextending my leg while I run. After thinking it over, I suspected that I had been overextending my leg because I was trying to get the same feeling of solid pressure against the ground that I'm used to getting in my other shoes. All that cushioning was getting between me and the ground, so I was launching myself with each step and ruining whatever good running form I've managed to scratch together over the last few years.

With that suspicion in mind, I tried again. This time, I focused more on leg movement, deliberately ignoring my feet, and it went just fine - I felt no strange pains afterward. Since then, I've gotten used to how it feels when I'm running properly in the Stinsons and I don't have to focus on good form so much. And I have kept on running in them.


Finally: Things I like and don't like.


There are some things I particularly like about running in Hokas versus my Kinvaras. Because of all that beautiful cushioning, I can run farther without my feet feeling bruised. If I take a break to walk or stretch, the first few steps afterward aren't a ginger easing back into the running groove.

I like that they're a stable shoe (again, despite how tall they are). I've never felt like I was about to roll an ankle going around a corner or stepping off a curb.

If I were to draw one mark against them, it would be that they aren't nearly as lively as my Kinvaras. This also has to do with how much cushion the Hokas have. The Kinvaras are much more nimble for short, fast runs. I do feel like a little bit of power is absorbed by the Hokas' cushion along with all that impact absorption, so I don't use them for short runs (like the last-minute run before work or bedtime).

I think Hoka makes a fantastic shoe for what I call my "endurance trot" (because for anything over a certain distance, I believe "trot" more accurately describes what I do than "run"). At that speed, I don't need nimble shoes, I need something that lets me keep running.

Why the Hoka? Part One

Hope everyone had a good Thanksgiving weekend!

The question for this week is.....

Why would anyone want a pair of Hoka running shoes?

The Hoka review will come next week. The reason for the review begins right here.

The Stage

 As even most people on the periphery of the running community know, running shoe manufacturers went through a sharp redesign phase a couple years ago, adding minimalist options, low-drop options and low- or zero-drop-but-cushioned options to their standard shoe lines. It was around this time that Born to Run, by Christopher McDougall, was published, and barefoot running was getting a lot of publicity. Some smaller companies like Newton and, later, Altra, were putting peculiar-looking designs on the market. Running sandals appeared here and there. The collective perception of the ideal running shoe shifted just enough. The market for low-drop, minimalist and barefoot shoes jumped from niche to mainstream.
If you've read Born to Run (and I recommend it, even if you never intend to run barefoot), it's a great reflection and explanation of why runners wanted different shoes. The book didn't crash into running culture and spark a revolution all by itself. The ideas were out there. The book just put a lot of latent or upwelling ideas into a coherent form and presented them to a running public increasingly ready to embrace them. We'd been hearing about how (some) Kenyans ran barefoot from childhood. Some of us had heard of the Tarahumara before Born to Run brought them to popular attention. A lot of us had been or were currently injured in some way that affected our running. The time was right, anecdotal evidence and scientific evidence seemed (still mostly seems) to validate these retro, back-to-basics ideas. Running shoe companies moved to adapt to the new market, and their shoes started changing.

*************************

The Midfoot Strike

A small digression for clarity: I group modern running trends into three categories.

1)  Barefoot Running: Running without shoes. The human foot is evolved to run and it doesn't need help, thank you very much.

2) Minimalist Running: Running in shoes with very thin soles. The shoes are there to keep glass and stuff away.

3) Natural Running: Shoes are allowed, but they shouldn't interfere with your body's naturally evolved running stride. If you're drawing a Venn diagram, Barefoot and Minimalist fit inside Natural Running.

The common factor in all three of these, and in all the running clinics and companies descended from them, is the midfoot/forefoot strike. Your heel should not be the first thing to hit the ground with each stride. It will touch the ground at some point in each stride, but it's not taking the initial impact.

*************************

 How Shoes Changed

Shoes clearly still come in different shapes. That hasn't changed. But now the trend is toward offering shoes with a more even sole under the heel and forefoot. Shoes with thick heels and thin forefeet force you to strike heel-first. If you cut the thick heel off and make it as thin as the forefoot, it's suddenly easier to land midfoot.

A lot of shoe companies went that direction first - taking their cue from the barefoot and minimalist trend, they made thin-soled shoes with little drop heel-to-toe. That meant the new shoes didn't have much padding between the ground and your feet. Now lots of companies have low-drop options with various levels of cushion.

You can cruise through manufacturer websites and see the modern trends reflected in new lines of shoes like the Nike Free, Brooks PureProject, the Saucony Kinvara, Cortana and Virrata, and some of the New Balance shoes (which kind of need real names, as I look at them).


You see a lot of 8mm, 4mm and 0mm drop shoes, now. 12mm used to be a common number. 15mm was apparently common, too.  Now, not quite so much.

*************************

So where do the Hokas fit in?

An important thing to note, I think, is that a smaller heel drop number doesn't mean a thinner shoe sole. You can have a shoe sole that's 10mm thick front and back, and that's a zero-drop shoe. You can also have a shoe sole that's 35mm thick front and back, and that, too, is a zero-drop shoe. If it's designed right, a shoe might have quite a thick sole and - here's the important bit - you could still run with a midfoot strike. That's how Hokas don't violate all the current running trends. Their sole is thick, but their heel-to-toe drop is around 4mm, very much on the low end of the spectrum.

The thicker cushion on the Hokas absorbs more shock when your foot contacts the ground. That doesn't necessarily mean it's for people who land hard (which does go against modern running trends. These days, we're all about high stride cadence and soft landing). One of the first populations to adopt Hoka shoes was the ultra-running community. Their feet don't hit the ground hard all the time, but they do hit the ground a lot, so a bit of cushioning is a nice feature.

We've had folks come through the shop who were using Hokas because of neuromas, foot surgery, knee problems or bunions. We've also had people who just liked the way they didn't have to feel the road every time their foot came down. That's why I like them.

Just like any other shoe, they don't work for everyone. I pull out my Hokas for longer runs and do shorter runs in my Sauconys. I can run with similar form in both.

Next week we'll continue on the Hoka theme and I'll post a more detailed review.