A good reply to this article...Originally Posted by Mike T
http://www.runblogger.com/2012/10/ne...unning-is.html
A good reply to this article...
http://www.runblogger.com/2012/10/ne...unning-is.html
Indeed.
Its horses for courses, I love running in Hokas, the cushioning has saved my calves and let me crank out big miles in training without the constant injury issues. They suit my running style (up on me toes). You can go for miles and suffer less of that lower leg fatigue and tightness. They make you taller.
They also destroyed my feet in the first 20 hours of the very race i got them for, leaving me struggling for another 80+ hours with lifting big toenails and puss-filled nonsense. Luckily i had a pair of non-Hokas in my drop bag that i bought on the spur of the moment the day before we flew out. After 2 different pairs of Hokas shredded my feet these shoes saved the day, though the damage was done.
I will still wear them for training locally as they definitely stop my calves going but i would never race further than 50 miles in them (they were great for the Lakeland 50) or anything with seriously steep descents. They are brillant on the descents in the L50/100 though.
Like all shoes, they are a compromise....just dont buy as many pairs as i did trying to get some that fit....they are an odd shape inside.
P.S. before i got mine i was running exclusively in Merrel Trail Gloves, an old pair of Walshes and occasionally totally barefoot. I never buy into fads as you can see.
Cheers
[QUOTE=The Master;507191]Indeed.
Its horses for courses, I love running in Hokas, the cushioning has saved my calves and let me crank out big miles in training without the constant injury issues. They suit my running style (up on me toes). You can go for miles and suffer less of that lower leg fatigue and tightness. They make you taller.
But they are meant for heel striking. It specifically says this on their video, you are supposed to heel strike in them, maybe they've changed that now, but I remember this being a moot point when they first came out.
No one heel strikes anymore do they?
Thanks George; useful.
As I'm contemplating doing what you did, especially useful.
At the moment I'm thinking "No" because of the fit; but that's without trying them on (so IDP will be along in a moment to tell me off!)
The Cascadias have been brilliant in all weathers and on all terrain but I'll clearly need a pair of 10.5s for the time when the lower limbs and feet start to swell.
Morgan
The only one who can tell you "You can't" is you. And you don't have to listen.
[QUOTE=Twister;507232]Never heard that before....as far as i am aware, they are sold as a shoe that promotes forefoot striking, they only have 4mm drop. Descending you definitely dig in with your heels though. I havent watched any videos or read much....but i have run in them.....a lot.
Are you really? Fantastic....looks like quite a few Brits might be lining up next year then. We are pondering a return to improve on this years time by not wearing Hokas!
Its an awful, horrible, ridiculous race Morgan, you will love it.
Be interesting to see what they do with the entry system, it filled in 27 minutes this year.
[QUOTE=Twister;507040] It's been proved that if you increase the cushioning you increase the impact forces as the foot tries to find it's way to the ground.
Whoa the laws of physics don't change once you get below the knee. force applied is equal to the rate of change of momentum so by increasing the "Stopping distance" of your foot as it hits the ground you also increase the "stopping time" so you reduce the rate of change of momentum and therefore reduce the force. I don't know who "proved" otherwise but he got it wrong.
It's not the laws of physics that change. What has been "proved" is that the foot tries to find a stable position so when running on a soft cushioned shoe, the tendency is to apply more force to push through the cushioning and find a solid base. That is the basis of most of the barefoot/minimal running argument and stems from research done by Lieberman. Nothing to do with physics, the runner themself exerts more force.
I should add that this has not been proven to affect injury rates one way or another.
@Hill_Runner on twitter
That seams logical, if you ignore any spring effect returned by the material of the shoe. So barefoot into mud, to me, that would be correct. But with springs on your feet (OTT example I admit) this would not be correct. Running shoes surely fall inbetween. Or at least my very amateurish understanding of the physics leads me to think. Maybe not so much a spring, but more a smoother transfer of momentum.
I finally got a pair of S-lab sense the other week and tried them on a 10 mile road run, to see how they felt. On what, for the shoe, was an extreme surface, I ended up with a sharp ache under my left foot for part of the run. More cushioning is needed for me for road running, but on a surface or mixed surfces that have give, they will be perfect.
In these musings and studies the cushioning effect of the likely terrain to be run on is missing. If it is fairly soft, less cushioning would make more sense to me and 10mm sounds about right.
One of the more recent studies was done barefoot on a cushioned treadmill so that may simulate softer ground. Having tried both I tend to agree. 10mm or so is a reasonable amount (ie a racing shoe or low trail/fell shoe)
@Hill_Runner on twitter
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote