Coach P - questions for you since you have Newtons as well. I had a long history of knee issues until I tried Newtons when they first came out. That got my running to be more mid/fore foot striking rather than heels. It's made a huge difference - haven't had an injury since I started using them. However, for anything over 10 miles, my legs and feet start to get sore/fatigued. Do the Hokas help maintain the mid food strike? I think that you said that you didn't wear them all the time - when do you wear them vs. the Newtons? Not an issue going back and forth? Thanks
Coach P- add me to the list. My Hokas were money for my 38 mile run a couple of weeks ago. I stared with my Brooks Cascadia's for the first half but then switched to my Hoka Bondi speed (road version, not trail version) and it was a dream.
@Bob- once you 'unlearn' heal striking you'll likely keep that no matter what shoes you were wearing. The Newtons also helped me become a mid-foot runner. Then I switched to the On Cloudrunners and have worn them for a couple of yrs. Now I have been running in the Hokas for a couple of months. The Hokas take a little while to get used to. But I switch back and forth between the On Cloudrunners and the Hokas (and occasionally to my Cascadia's) with no issues. I do notice the additional pounding now when I'm not in the Hokas. The Hokas are a bit weird and bulky, but I find myself running in them more and more now.
John - thanks. One other question for all is which version do you use the Bondi 2, Speed, or something else. I have historically had a pronation problem, and have worn stability shoes. I also have orthotics that I wear only for running.
Add me to the list. Earlier in the year, as I was experiencing/dealing with knee pains and plantar fasciitis, it dawned on me that I'm spending a fair amount of money related to this sport and yet using cheep shoes. Duhhhh.......long story short, got the Hoka's and those issues are gone. FWIW, I use mine for every run (an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure).
@Bob I use the Stinson Evo Tarmac model and have a slight pronation with the right foot. I have been loving the Hoka's though I only have 77 miles on them so far.
I have used Hoka's for the last year and a half and they seem to be my go to shoe with some exceptions. During this time, training mainly for long trail races but this included lots of road running too. I have used the Bondi B for road and trail, and the Stinson EVO and Mafate for trails. The Mafate by far has the most cushiioning of their trail shoes and I usually look forward to putting them on for trails. For me they encourage a mid-foot strike in general. It did not take long to get use to the size/cushioning, perhaps 20 minutes on a rocky trail. Have heard people wonder about twisting an ankle but never has been issue. I feel they do provide less stress running on pavement and great recovery. Same on trails plus you can fly downhill much faster than in my NB 110s or any more minimal shoe with little cushioning. My unofficial tally at the Leadville 100 this year had Hoka's as the most popular shoe, and I think this is becoming true of most ultra running events. I am planning to use Hoka's in my IM run this year. Not clear the difference between Bondi B and Bondi Speed other than color, but tonight (October 17th) at my local running store a Hoka rep will be there with shoes and answer any questions. Any of you have questions for him? Let me know today if you see this.
I'm going to have to give them a try. Roadrunner sports lets you run in them for two months and bring them back if you don't like them. This is probably a good time since I'm still in good running shape from my last race 2 weeks ago.
Ok...read the ENTIRE Hoka thread. The one thing I did not see addressed was the toe box. This is a big factor for me since I need plenty of room there. Maybe I have "Fred Flintsone" feet, as Jess calls them. Currently running in Brooks Ghosts for my long runs, but I'm definitely intrigued.
What's the take on room up front on the Hoka's before I take the the plunge?
I haven't run in the Ghost's but from my other recent shoes (Scarpa Spark, NB RC 1400, Asics DS Trainer, NB 110) Hokas have as much or more room in the toe box. Don't think that will be an issue for you. These days they seem to run true to size for my size 13 feet. They do not come in different widths. You can get free shipping and returns from Running Warehouse and check them out. Or, call them and a friendly person will answer your questions.
Ok...read the ENTIRE Hoka thread. The one thing I did not see addressed was the toe box. This is a big factor for me since I need plenty of room there. Maybe I have "Fred Flintsone" feet, as Jess calls them. Currently running in Brooks Ghosts for my long runs, but I'm definitely intrigued.
What's the take on room up front on the Hoka's before I take the the plunge?
Brad, I have very wide Fred Flintstone feet. I tend to 1/2 size up in any running shoe because I'm really more of an 11.5 when it comes to length of my foot but always wear a 12 in running shoes because of my wide foot. There's hardly any running shoes that come in E widths so that's why I 1/2 size up. I tried the 11.5 and 12 in Hoka's and the 12 fit like any shoe in that regard.
So when I say true to size I'm referring to the fact Hoka's fit like every other running shoe to me and I did most of my running in Brooks prior to moving to Hoka. If anything, I think they're more roomy than Brooks.
Did IM Canada in my Hokas and they were great. I got them to help with metatarsal pains. I mix them up with other shoes but these are the ones that seem to aid with pain minimization the most. The other shoes are Asics Nimbus Gel, these were the cushiest shoe I could find in my local running shop. They have a higher heel to toe drop which can bother my IT bands. The Hokas are wide IMO I had some issues with fit until I removed the elastic laces and went with the traditional.
Three runs done with my Hokas and the jury is still out.....my toes seem to be 'scraping' as I finish my stride. It was most notable on the first run b/c the asphalt was wet. But it has continued for the next two runs. All I can figure is because of the severely convex shape of the soles.
They do feel like giant marshmallow pillows as I am walking around on them before/after the run.
Well with all the buzz about these shoes I just ordered a pair myself. Have been a long time Newton runner and figure I will still use them for speed workouts and racing but would love a shoe to wear for the long training runs that might be easier on the legs. Got the Bondi B2 and should be here in a week or so.
I'm a Hoka convert. Was using them primarily for the long Thursday runs in the beginning of my IMAZ training, now I run in them all the time. When I was switching between the Hoka's and my Newtons, I noticed a major difference in my recovery. With the Newtons I could get a good 3 runs in a week (anymore and my feet and legs were sore) now with using my Hoka's all the time, I run 5 days with no issue. Speed work, hills, long runs, transition runs, you name it the Hoka's are my go to shoe. It took about a month or so for me to get used to the massive cushioning but once I adapted, I was good to go. They are awesome. Definitely worth the price tag IMO.
I have now run in 3 different models. I think so far, I like the Bondi Speed 2 the best. They seem a tiny less bouncy and much more stable. It's almost like they feel a little flatter and wider in the midfoot sole giving a nice platform to land on.
The Stinson Evo Tarmac's to me are still easy to run in, but feel a tiny bit more springier (is that a word...?). And a little bit unstable. I had to put the thinner Hoka insoles into them, and do not use my orthotics in them.
I tried the Mafate 3 trail shoes and could NOT run in them. I turned my ankles like 5 times on the first run. I did however pace my buddy for 38 miles in the middle of the night in his ultra in my Bondi Speed 2's and they were great on the trails even though they are technically supposed to be a road only shoe. So the Mafate 3's have been relegated to my "cushy walking around shoes".
So for now, for my feet and running style, I like the Bondi Speed 2's the best for any conditions, road or trail. But I'm still going to buy the conquest to see what they're all about. I have at least 300+ miles on mine and they are definitely still going strong. And some of those miles were on very rough terrain.
Obviously I don't have enough work to do;-). I bought two pairs of Hoka Bondi B2s off a special at REI for $118/pair about a month ago. They have become my go-to shoes. Since I have two pairs, I put my orthodics in one and use the other with just the Hoka insole. I am finding that my feet prefer the non-orthodic pair. I used to wear some of the minimalist shoes, then went to a more classic running shoe, and now I'm rocking Hokas. My feet are smiling.
I have now run in 3 different models. I think so far, I like the Bondi Speed 2 the best. They seem a tiny less bouncy and much more stable. It's almost like they feel a little flatter and wider in the midfoot sole giving a nice platform to land on.
The Stinson Evo Tarmac's to me are still easy to run in, but feel a tiny bit more springier (is that a word...?). And a little bit unstable. I had to put the thinner Hoka insoles into them, and do not use my orthotics in them.
I tried the Mafate 3 trail shoes and could NOT run in them. I turned my ankles like 5 times on the first run. I did however pace my buddy for 38 miles in the middle of the night in his ultra in my Bondi Speed 2's and they were great on the trails even though they are technically supposed to be a road only shoe. So the Mafate 3's have been relegated to my "cushy walking around shoes".
So for now, for my feet and running style, I like the Bondi Speed 2's the best for any conditions, road or trail. But I'm still going to buy the conquest to see what they're all about. I have at least 300+ miles on mine and they are definitely still going strong. And some of those miles were on very rough terrain.
Story of my life... I guess I better hope I love the new Conquests or I'm gonna have to go buy up every available pair of ugly orange-ish pink size 13.5 Bondi Speed 2 in the US for my collection in the closet.
Looking at trying the Hoka..... So many models with no real explanations of the differences... They all look and sound the same to me... The new Conquest sounds like they are trying to make it more like the conventional shoe's.... Kinda like the Mini Car that they keep building larger.... Come out with something unique and then try to make it conventional...
I currently use Newton's for most of my training and all of my racing.... Plan to use the Newton's for all speed work and racing.... Would like to try a pair of the Hoka's for all additional mileage ...
Tim, FWIW, I've been happy with the two pairs of Bondi B2s I bought at REI on sale. They are fairly neutral, stable, light and well cushioned. I ordered my regular shoe size and the Hokas were pretty close although I would say they have a little more vertical space than other most other shoes I have worn. For me they were a good way to wet my feet in the Hoka line. I suppose I could get out my drill and make drainage holes if I thought I needed them;-).
Uhm, Tim ... Why are you interested in the Hoka line? I see it as something that might be useful for Big Guys, to help cushion the blow of 170-220 # or more hitting the pavement 180 times a minute. Someone like me, even more so you, just does not need all that protection if it comes at the expense of extra weight lifted off the ground 180 times a minute.
My running career, which began @ age 50, has been a steady progression of finding lighter weight shoes with less "protection", and lower heels. I went thru a Newton phase, but switched to Saucony Kinvaras after I developed some Plantar Fasciitis after returning to the Newtons following three weeks in the kinvaras. Since then (2+ years) - no further problems. Now, if it weighs more than 7 oz, I won't even consider it as a candidate shoe.
That may not seem like much of a difference, say 10.8 vs 7.7 oz, but I did a test in 2010 with about 5 different weight shoes, and found that both weight and heel rise could make as much as a 30-40 sec/mile difference in running speed when doing MP paced bricks after an hour FTP bike session.
IMO, less is usually more when it comes to running shoes - less weight, less $, less heel rise, less "stability". The Saucony Kinvaras and Virratas (the same shoe, but with 0 heel rise) offer enough cushion underfoot for my 67 kg.
Comments
@Bob- once you 'unlearn' heal striking you'll likely keep that no matter what shoes you were wearing. The Newtons also helped me become a mid-foot runner. Then I switched to the On Cloudrunners and have worn them for a couple of yrs. Now I have been running in the Hokas for a couple of months. The Hokas take a little while to get used to. But I switch back and forth between the On Cloudrunners and the Hokas (and occasionally to my Cascadia's) with no issues. I do notice the additional pounding now when I'm not in the Hokas. The Hokas are a bit weird and bulky, but I find myself running in them more and more now.
Are people using this shoe as a racing and training shoe or mostly as a recovery shoe as it is advertised?
Races two IMs in Hokas this year including both builds. Short little runs I wear Kinvaras just to mix it up.
@Bob I use the Stinson Evo Tarmac model and have a slight pronation with the right foot. I have been loving the Hoka's though I only have 77 miles on them so far.
--Larry
What's the take on room up front on the Hoka's before I take the the plunge?
Brad, I have very wide Fred Flintstone feet. I tend to 1/2 size up in any running shoe because I'm really more of an 11.5 when it comes to length of my foot but always wear a 12 in running shoes because of my wide foot. There's hardly any running shoes that come in E widths so that's why I 1/2 size up. I tried the 11.5 and 12 in Hoka's and the 12 fit like any shoe in that regard.
So when I say true to size I'm referring to the fact Hoka's fit like every other running shoe to me and I did most of my running in Brooks prior to moving to Hoka. If anything, I think they're more roomy than Brooks.
Three runs done with my Hokas and the jury is still out.....my toes seem to be 'scraping' as I finish my stride. It was most notable on the first run b/c the asphalt was wet. But it has continued for the next two runs. All I can figure is because of the severely convex shape of the soles.
They do feel like giant marshmallow pillows as I am walking around on them before/after the run.
Harry
I have now run in 3 different models. I think so far, I like the Bondi Speed 2 the best. They seem a tiny less bouncy and much more stable. It's almost like they feel a little flatter and wider in the midfoot sole giving a nice platform to land on.
The Stinson Evo Tarmac's to me are still easy to run in, but feel a tiny bit more springier (is that a word...?). And a little bit unstable. I had to put the thinner Hoka insoles into them, and do not use my orthotics in them.
I tried the Mafate 3 trail shoes and could NOT run in them. I turned my ankles like 5 times on the first run. I did however pace my buddy for 38 miles in the middle of the night in his ultra in my Bondi Speed 2's and they were great on the trails even though they are technically supposed to be a road only shoe. So the Mafate 3's have been relegated to my "cushy walking around shoes".
So for now, for my feet and running style, I like the Bondi Speed 2's the best for any conditions, road or trail. But I'm still going to buy the conquest to see what they're all about. I have at least 300+ miles on mine and they are definitely still going strong. And some of those miles were on very rough terrain.
Not sure that has anything to do with the Hokas.
FYI - The Bondi S(peed) has been discontinued.
My one and only issue with the B2 (or S2 for that matter) was the total lack of drainage. That's obviously been rectified with the Conquest.
I currently use Newton's for most of my training and all of my racing.... Plan to use the Newton's for all speed work and racing.... Would like to try a pair of the Hoka's for all additional mileage ...
Which ONE ???
Uhm, Tim ... Why are you interested in the Hoka line? I see it as something that might be useful for Big Guys, to help cushion the blow of 170-220 # or more hitting the pavement 180 times a minute. Someone like me, even more so you, just does not need all that protection if it comes at the expense of extra weight lifted off the ground 180 times a minute.
My running career, which began @ age 50, has been a steady progression of finding lighter weight shoes with less "protection", and lower heels. I went thru a Newton phase, but switched to Saucony Kinvaras after I developed some Plantar Fasciitis after returning to the Newtons following three weeks in the kinvaras. Since then (2+ years) - no further problems. Now, if it weighs more than 7 oz, I won't even consider it as a candidate shoe.
That may not seem like much of a difference, say 10.8 vs 7.7 oz, but I did a test in 2010 with about 5 different weight shoes, and found that both weight and heel rise could make as much as a 30-40 sec/mile difference in running speed when doing MP paced bricks after an hour FTP bike session.
IMO, less is usually more when it comes to running shoes - less weight, less $, less heel rise, less "stability". The Saucony Kinvaras and Virratas (the same shoe, but with 0 heel rise) offer enough cushion underfoot for my 67 kg.