Alan. I take your point.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Lucker
That's why at this time of year, I'm more likley to run in the Pure Grit than the Cascadia; the soft ground is doing a job I don't need the shoe to do.
Printable View
Alan. I take your point.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Lucker
That's why at this time of year, I'm more likley to run in the Pure Grit than the Cascadia; the soft ground is doing a job I don't need the shoe to do.
Nothing to do with physics, the runner themself exerts more force.
Yes he exerts more force (well more energy anyway) to compress the shoe which happens more slowly than it would barefoot so the force exerted onto the body will be less than it would if the same energy were applied over a shorter distance/time with either a thinner sole or no sole at all. The problem with cushioning is that it may alter your running style so that you run with a gait which is not natural for you and so leads to "unnatural" stresses and strains in the legs and so leads to injury.
I have got on very well with Hokas.Quote:
Originally Posted by MorganW
1) allow you to do as many miles as you have time for as recovery is much better (less fatigue)
2) no more Plantar Fasciitis
3) great for quick descending on tracks and rough ground
4) they don' t encourage heel striking - good for forefoot running
5) you can run "over" rough ground - rather than through it
6) good conversation starter!
But - you do need to run in other shoes as well as your feet will get rather used to them and when you do go back to thin soles you do notice.
For me the grip is fine on all but very slippery grass/mud. Just been around 3 peaks in them today and didn't slip once.
I should say that I got the shoes after breaking my Fibula in April. They allowed me to get back running within 6 weeks. 12 weeks later I was running the L100 and they got me to the finish way quicker than I ever expected. The idea that they might cause you more injuries is odd. But it is down to personal choice. Just try them and see!
But that assumes that the same force is applied when barefoot, the study by Lieberman proved that wasn't the case. I'm not necessarily advocating either thing here, just pointing out the findings of the study. Impact forces were greater and peaked higher with thicker soles. The brain adjusts to run light in anticipation of hurting the foot, a bit like touching something hot and recoiling. At least, that is my understanding of it.Quote:
Originally Posted by mykind
Suggestions, please, where to buy Hokas.
Likeys have them. http://www.likeys.com/
Thanks, Steve, great tipoff. I have been looking at their sizing chart, & it says that with feet 260mm long I need a size 8UK. In Inov8 Flyrocs I take a 9.5, but fill up some of the space with Sorbathane & Noene insoles, which obviously I wouldn't need with Hokas. In Inov8 Mudclaw 333s with just Inov8 insoles I take a 9. Everyone seems to feel they need a size larger than their normal shoe. Any comments would be helpful, before I take the plunge!Quote:
Originally Posted by stevefoster
Castleberg in Settle has Hokas. I've seen them there :w00t:
£122.00??
The £22.00 is what I paid for my first ever pair of fell shoes, made to measure by Run Inn Sports of Horwich, some 29 years ago!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Derby Tup
Indeed :closed:Quote:
Originally Posted by wheezing donkey
Online price at Castleberg £117. I just rang them - very helpful, confirmed that one needs a size up on normal. They have a pool of Hokas for free testing! Likeys charge £112.49, but with postage that comes up to £116.44. I am planning a trip to Settle tomorrow!
I've just put in a couple of mediumish road outings in my new Hokas and they feel fine but I haven't had any road to Damascus moment yet. A full size up over Inov8s and Asics fits me well - proper long distance remains to be seen. Am thinking of using them for MCN Brecon 40 in December.
As far as price goes, Hoka enthusiasts seem to be more or less unanimous in claiming they get a good 50% more miles out of a pair compared to other shoes and if that's right then the price compares favourably to my usual road, trail and fell shoes (Gel Cumulus, Roclite, Mudclaw)
P
Castleberg Online have Inov8333 for £60 but only in sizes up to 6.5 & them 10.5 alas. Postage over £50 is free.
If they get me through the second 100 miles, they'd be worth every penny. :-)Quote:
Originally Posted by wheezing donkey
Quick update from how i'm getting on with the stinson b evos. Still impressed with how they feel but the upper has torn away from the sole on the inside just after the toe protection finishes on the right shoe- left is also on it's way out. Done between 200-250 miles so not happy. Going to send them back and see what happens.
Derby Tup, thanks so much for the link to Castleberg in Settle. I went over today on the train from Leeds & came back with a pair of Mafate 2 Hokas in vivid lime green (orange are also available). The staff at C are SO nice, helpful but not at all intrusive. I was able to go for a walk in a test pair & could have taken them away for a week, but soon made up my mind. In theory you could borrow a test pair, run an ultra in them, then return, I suppose! They only charged me the considerably cheaper website price of £117 (only!). SO much better to try them on rather than getting via the Internet. And an interesting shop - an excellent range of Raidlight rucsacs caught my eye.
BTW I wear 9.5 Flyrocs but 10 Hokas. There is a huge amount of room for my toes, but I think they are quite snug across the foot at the base of the toes, so that could be a problem for anyone with a wide foot. At first I was disappointed - they didn't feel so very comfortable. Then I realised I am used to the feel of Sorbathane insoles next to my feet. When I took out the usual thin hard insole & put in the Sorbathane they felt great. A pity, as I was telling myself that, though so dear, the Hokas were going to save me money on insoles!
[QUOTE=Rob Furness;507310] The brain adjusts to run light in anticipation of hurting the foot, a bit like touching something hot and recoiling.
So the solution is just to get your brain to believe you are weightless (or massless) and you will have zero impact force and hence never be injured. No matter what my brain thinks I will still be hitting the ground with a force of roughly 740 Newtons as long as I'm on planet Earth.
Limited sizes, but a bit of a deal on at PBS for £90...
http://www.peteblandsports.co.uk/pro...afate-sale.htm
[QUOTE=mykind;507621]Do you not mean infinite weight?Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob Furness
If you think your weight is infinite then you will try to land extremely lightly to stop your own weight crushing your legs.
Did not do an engineering doctorate for nothing ;)
Handy if you're attending this weekend's Showaddywaddy fan-club convention :closed:Quote:
Originally Posted by simgreen78
That's not what I said at all. Why not go outside and try this for me. Jump up and down on the spot with no shoes on in whatever way feels comfortable and note your natural shock absorbing legs in use. Now, do the same but land straight legged and flat footed. Notice the difference between impact? That is what your brain is doing, simply adjusting the amount you use your muscles/tendons to absorb the shock of impact. The study mentioned earlier simply proved that these impacts were more controlled (the force was distributed evenly with no impact spike) when less cushioning was used. Hence "running lighter". That is all.Quote:
Originally Posted by mykind
Would the total energy be the same, just exerted over a slightly longer time frame? Like a crumple zone on a car?
Saw some fella running in these Hoka beasties today, he didn't seem too emphatic about them. Although he looked like he was struggling a wee bit so might have just been grumpy.
Running shoes allow for first cushioning (to some degree) then an aid to transfer the energy into a push. All runners are different, but in theory the better your bio mechanical efficiency is (including body weight) the less cushioning you would need. My opinion is, it is better to be able to feel what impacts your feet are dealing, so that you can adjust your running style to aid efficiency. Less cushioning seems to make more sense. Although in ultras where foot comfort is important, they may be useful. But they are not for me.
Sums up my opinion really. That and they look a bit daft. For those reasons, I'm out.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Lucker
Thank God! Common sense. I have been trying to hold myself back - and still will.
Just seen the price of these!
They make Inov8 look cheap!
See that they've brought out a new "reduced volume" one now, the Rapa Nui.
The originals had a midsole 2.2 times that of a normal shoe, the new one ( which they describe as a race shoe ) is 1.5 times
http://www.castlebergoutdoors.co.uk/...mp-unisex.html
Still expensive though..............
Not quite as 'Babyspice' as the other ones:DQuote:
Originally Posted by Yaks
I've had a couple of pairs of Hokas. They successfully smash up my little toes and they are ok on dry ground. Add some mud and they are not great. If you are after less height, might be worth having a look at the Adidas Boost as an alternative. Bouncy but with less height! They do not have an aggressive sole tread, so again dry trails for the most part
I just got some Hoka Rapa Nui Comps after suffering from swollen metatarsal during long runs. They have about 5mm less volume in the sole than other Hokas. Still super comfy and look like they're going to be a great shoe for ultras and long training runs. Wouldn't wear them every run though.
Any other opinions please on the Hoka 'lites'? I'm not sure I can go for the full monty early doors
I got a pair of the Rapa Nui Hokas for exactly the same reason (metatarsalgia for over 6 months) . I wore them for the first 70 miles of the Hardmoors 110 and they were fine, but I fancied a change of socks & shoes so changed into my usual Speedcross. I next wore the Hokas again on the L100 this year but despite the extra cushioning (and painkillers) I had metatarsal problems again and was forced to retire at Dalemain (which was a real bummer because I felt pretty good otherwise). I do tend to go over on my ankle a bit more than usual in them, and noticed today that a hole has developed in one of the uppers which I wouldn't normally expect after less than 200 miles.Quote:
Originally Posted by conwild
Conwild - have you still got problems with your feet? Any advice would be appreciated
I don't know what to say about my new Hoka One One Stinson Evo's - on the face of it they fitted my feet perfectly and were fantastically comfy right from the off. Possibly the most comfortable running shoes ever in fact. I take a size 9 in Walshes, a size 8.5 in Inov8s and these Hoka's are 9's - I tried 8.5's on but they were noticeably too snug.
I was suckered in by their supreme comfort and made the mistake of wearing them straight out of the box for the Lakeland 100..... and they ended up shredding my feet. The fitting may be slightly on the wide side I'm thinking, which seems to have led to my feet moving slightly forward on the downhills and, after 15 miles of the LL100, my toes were suffering, having been pressed against the inside front toebox, which come 75 miles (when I gave up) meant that my feet and toes were in absolute agony - I couldn't walk let alone run.
I'm hoping to be able to resolve this by wearing a couple of pairs of socks for their next outing and maybe replacing the lacing tightener thingies with normal laces.
All the same for specialist and bleeding expensive long distance trail shoes you have to say they haven't got off to the best of starts!
snow and rock have then half price in their sale. I might be prepared to experiment at that price.
Size 7 downwards in lady's sizes. Just went there to try and nab a pair for Mrs P, unfortunately she takes a 7.5. Good value at 62.50 though.Quote:
Originally Posted by karen nash
Murt, I still have sporadic issues, but only over long distance and the swelling has gone down. I haven't had a professional diagnosis but believe may be a 'dropped metatarsal'. I am a serial self-diagnoser! I think the Hokas have helped as far protecting the affected area. I wore my NB MT110's the other week for a trail mara and sure as sh*t wish I hadn't!
I wore Hoka one stinson Evo's for the Lakeland 50 but I managed to break mine in doing the Ingleborough race and a 10k the next day doing a PB in both.
as far as the 50 was concerned they were perfect though may look at the rapa nui as well which are not quite as wedgy looking.
in the other extreme just bought a new pair of mudclaws ready for sedbergh hills
That explains a lot. I had a WTF moment when I saw you (presume it was you) wearing them at the beagle bash.
No more ridiculous than my inov8 banana shoes though
ha ha thought it might have drawn some ridicule at Bentham but I had to break them in so for two weeks did every run in them. on the plus side though I ran my fastest time round that course (which is local to me) and that was after running my fastest time up and down Ingleborough. they do stop the battering on the legs and though not suited for serious fells they are great for stony hard tracks etc and great for training as recovery is quicker.Quote:
Originally Posted by johnnyb1