We saw this process play out with the minimalist running trend – it took off like a rocket, but the reality is that though science has shown that people do typically run differently in minimal shoes, they are not the same as running barefoot, and injury rates among those transitioning into minimal shoes aren’t any different than those who continue to use a traditionally cushioned running shoe (though the types/location of injuries likely differ).

Over the past few years the hot trend in running has been maximal cushioning. Shoes like those made by the brand Hoka One One have been very popular, and sales are booming. However, to date there has been very little scrutiny of these shoes by the scientific community. That doesn’t mean that scientists are ignoring them, it just means that any data that has been collected has yet to be published (again, science is slower than trends).

Yesterday a friend (thanks Marc!) sent me the abstract of one of the first studies I have seen to look at how maximalist shoes affect running form. The abstract is of a presentation from the annual meeting of the American College of Sports Medicine. The lead author is Matthew Ruder from the Spaulding National Running Center at Harvard Medical School, and the title of the study is “Effect of Highly Cushioned Shoes on Ground Reaction Forces during Running.”

The study included five runners who ran in both highly cushioned and traditional running shoes. The abstract does not report what the highly cushioned shoe was, but Craig Payne indicates that it was the Hoka Stinson (see image below) in a thread on Podiatry Arena. They found that vertical impact peak, instantaneous vertical impact loading rate, peak medial force, and peak vertical force did not differ between the two shoes. Average vertical loading rate (VALR) was greater in the highly cushioned shoes, and peak lateral force was lower in the highly cushioned shoes. Regarding the latter, the authors suggest it could reduce the pronatory moment on the foot (i.e., less force forcing the foot into pronation, maybe due to the soft cushioning). They also note that higher VALR has been linked to injury (e.g., tibial stress fracture).

Now, these results need to be interpreted with caution – this was a conference presentation and not a published paper, and the sample size of five runners is tiny (they indicate that they plan to increase the sample). The results are also highly dependent on which shoes were chosen for the experiment – I don’t know what the traditional shoe was, and some of them have quite a bit of soft cushion under the heel. However, it is interesting, and somewhat surprising, to find that a big, cushy shoe like the Hoka Stinson (assuming that it is correct that the Stinson was the shoe they used) yielded a higher impact loading rate than a traditional running shoe, and that most other variables did not differ.

One thing I disagree strongly with is the opening sentence of an article on Medscape that discusses the study (you need to create a free membership to read it). It reads: “Highly padded maximalist shoes could increase the risk of running injury, researchers say.” This is a great example of bad journalism – the study did not look at injuries at all, it looked at forces. Furthermore, there remains considerable debate about whether impact forces are a major factor in causing running injuries. For example, running with a forefoot strike in minimal shoe can reduce vertical impact loading rates, but research has not found that running in minimal shoes reduces injury rates relative to traditional shoes. And peak vertical force, which I presume is the force at roughly midstance (the active peak), did not differ between the shoes. Some would say that the latter is far more likely to contribute to injury risk since forces are typically much higher during the active peak.

So does this mean it’s time to ditch your maximalist shoes? No, just as there is as yet no compelling data that running in minimal shoes is more dangerous than running in a traditional shoe, we don’t yet have any evidence that maximal shoes actually increase your risk of injury. And my guess is that there may be things going on above the foot in maximal shoes – for example, I suspect less knee flexion in a shoe like a Hoka due to the soft, thick, cushy sole. This could have benefits for the knee. So for now, I continue to say that different shoes will alter how forces are applied to the body, and it remains a matter of finding the best match for you as an individual.

As a more minimally oriented runner, I’ve held off for a long time on trying out a Hoka running shoe. However, I feel it is important to keep an open mind, and I have readers who span the spectrum of footwear preferences. As such, when offered the chance to try out the Hoka Clifton, I decided to give them a go (Disclosure: the shoes reviewed here were media samples provided free of charge by Hoka). The experience of running in them has actually been quite interesting, and has caused me to do a lot of thinking.

Last week I wrote a post sharing 5 observations about running in the Cliftons that spurred quite a bit of discussion in the comments. The experience among commenters seemed to be quite mixed. Many love the shoes, others seemed to feel that they had to work harder when running in them. I want to emphasize this because although I fall into the latter group, there’s a lot to like about this shoe, and if you prefer a soft, cushy ride, they would be a great option to try. It’s important to remember that my reviews only reflect my personal experience with a shoe, and not how they might work for you. I’ll do my best to describe the shoes so that you can make a decision for yourself.

Specs

The Hoka Clifton is currently the lightest shoe in the Hoka lineup at 7.8oz in men’s size 9 (per Running Warehouse). It has a stack height of 29mm heel, 23mm forefoot, and the CMEVA midsole is quite soft, particularly under the midfoot and heel. Along with the Skechers GoRun Ultra, the Clifton is probably one of the softest shoes I have run in.

Sole and Ride

I’m going to start by talking about the ride, since this is where most of my personal problems with the Clifton arose. My first run in the Clifton was a seven miler, and my immediate reaction was that I felt I was working much harder than I should have been. Over the next several runs this feeling persisted, particularly when running on a uniform surface (road/sidewalk). For some reason they actually felt better to me on trails, not sure why, maybe the greater variability of the surface underfoot. But on almost every run on the road I finished feeling like I was expending more energy than necessary. I’m puzzled by this as I don’t think the total stack height is my issue – I enjoyed running in the Nike Pegasus 31 which has a fairly similar stack (29mm heel, 19mm forefoot), and last night I went for a first run in the Brooks Ghost 7 (28mm heel, 17mm forefoot) and they felt really good. My suspicion is that the softness of the Clifton sole combined with the stack height is my issue. The combo doesn’t seem to be a good match for my stride, and I’d bet that this has to do with concepts like muscle tuning and leg stiffness adaptations (this probably goes beyond the scope of this review, but if interested you can read more about muscle tuning and leg stiffness here).

I want to again emphasize that this is my experience, and that I know a lot of other people who love running in this shoe and don’t feel the same way. It really seems to be a highly individual response as might be expected for any shoe given to a range of people who vary in anatomy, running form, physiology, etc. So don’t let this turn you off from trying the Clifton if you are intrigued by it – it might just be a great ride on your feet.

One of the interesting things about the Clifton ride is that because of the rockered sole, I felt like it encouraged me to get more up on my midfoot than other shoes do. In fact, if you look at the wear pattern  (see photo below) you will see almost no abrasion on the heel, and quite a bit on the exposed EVA near the midfoot. And when I pick up the pace this effect seems even more pronounced – the ride felt more responsive as I pushed faster than my easy pace.

In terms of outsole coverage, there is rubber under the high-wear areas of the heel and forefoot, but none under the midfoot. As mentioned above, I’m seeing most of my wear on the exposed EVA midsole foam along the outer margin of the sole near the midfoot.

Fit

I’ve tried on a number of Hoka shoes in the past, and the fit for most never felt quite right on me. The Clifton, on the other hand, fits my foot almost perfectly. I did go a half size up, but this may not have been necessary as I have just a bit more than a thumb’s width between the tip of my big toe and the front of the shoe. I find the forefoot to be spacious enough to allow my toes freedom of movement (up and down and side to side), and the midfoot fits snugly.

I have heard some complaints about the heel lock-down in the Clifton, but this has not been an issue for me. I have a fairly high-volume foot so that may have something to do with it, and snugging the laces up top seems to keep my heel locked just fine. The insole is quite thin, and I’m wondering if those with heel lock issues might benefit from swapping in a thicker insole. Overall, I’ve found the Clifton to be a very comfortable shoe, nothing negative to say in this area.

Upper Construction

The Clifton has a minimally constructed upper composed of a breathable mesh with welded overlays from midfoot forward. The area around the heel is padded and more structured. The tongue is extremely thin, and on some occasions it tends to fold under while sliding the shoe on, requiring me to use my finger to flatten it back out. Not a big deal though.

One concern I have about the upper is that some of the welded overlays on the inner side of the forefoot seem to be separating from the underlying mesh slightly. Anyone else noticed this? Probably won’t effect function much, I suspect it’s mostly a cosmetic defect.

Conclusions

Despite my comments about the Cliftons making me feel like I have to work harder, I’ve actually enjoyed running in the shoes. I enjoy the challenge of trying to figure out why a shoe is not a good match for me, particularly when so many others have had a positive experience with it. The Clifton fits me great, is very comfortable, and is super light for a shoe with this much cushion. But for my stride it’s just a bit too soft (as a side note, I have gotten in one run in the Hoka Huaka and the RMAT midsole is more responsive and I think they’ll be a better match). That being said, if you are interested in trying a Hoka shoe, I’d encourage you to give the Clifton a shot. It’s on the lower end of the Hoka price range ($130 MSRP), and it has the Hoka cush that a lot of people love in an extremely lightweight package. I’m glad I gave them a try!

The Hoka Clifton is available for purchase at Running Warehouse, Zappos, and at the Hoka website. In Europe they can be purchased from www.hokaoneone.eu. Purchases made via these links provide a small comissions to Runblogger and help to support the production of reviews like this one – thanks!

1. They don’t seem to alter my form much. My cadence seems to have stayed right around it’s typical range. If anything, I actually feel like I may be a bit more up on my forefoot when running in the Cliftons, and this is supported by the fact that most of my sole wear so far extends from the midfoot forward. Not sure if this is because of the rockered sole (the sole is slightly curved so that the forefoot and heel angle up a bit from the midfoot – you can see this in the image above), or that the heel feels so soft that my body wants to avoid landing directly on it. The Clifton is a bit lower profile than some of the other Hoka models (stack height is 29mm heel, 23mm forefoot), but I recall feeling similarly about my one run in an old pair of Mafates (a big, cushy Hoka). My money is on the sole rocker being the major factor here. Anyone else feel this way about Hokas with regard to foot strike?

2. I like them better on trails than on roads. This is counterintuitive to me as I would expect a soft shoe to feel better on a harder surface, but I’ve generally enjoyed running on a trail surface in them more than running on asphalt or concrete

3. Stability has been fine except when I step on an edge. Again, the Cliftons don’t have as much sole thickness as some other Hokas, but they don’t feel like an unstable shoe to me. That being said, there have been a few times when I’ve stepped on the edge of a sidewalk and rolled my ankle a bit – the wide sole base and resulting long lever arm relative to the ankle probably plays a role here. On a trail they pretty much seem to conform to irregular ground debris by squishing over whatever I step on. You don’t feel much underfoot due to the soft, deformable sole.

4. The ankle collar feels a bit high. I’ve heard others say this about some Hoka models, and I think what my be happening is as the foot sinks into the soft midsole it causes a sensation of the ankle collar being higher than in other shoes.

5. Here’s my biggest observation – when I run roads in the Cliftons I feel like I’m working a lot harder than I should be at my easy pace. I think this is where the fact that I tend to be adapted to more minimal footwear comes into play, as I felt the same way about running in the Skechers GoRun Ultra (probably the most comparable shoe to the Clifton that I have used for more than a few runs). The Cliftons feel really soft in the midfoot and heel, and this seems to take some of the pop out of my stride. Conversely, on one run when I picked up the pace a bit they felt better, perhaps because I was more up on the front of the shoe. I’m wondering if this would change if I gave them more time, but my body seems to like firmer, more responsive footwear. The question for me is whether that’s because those are the shoes I’m used to, or if there is something inherent to my stride that makes me prefer a lower profile shoe. I’d love to see a study look at oxygen consumption in runners with various footwear backgrounds in their typical shoes versus in a super soft shoe like the Clifton.

How about you? Would love to hear about your experience running in Hokas – leave a comment!

Lately I’ve been getting some great feedback when I post on shoes that I have not typically covered in the past (e.g., a traditional neutral shoe like the Nike Pegasus 31). It’s made me realize that part of my audience is not being attended to when I focus only on the minimal end of the spectrum. As a result, I’ve diversified my mix of review shoes, and have started running in things that are considerably more cushioned than I might choose if I weren’t a shoe reviewer (though you won’t likely see me in a Brooks Beast anytime soon!). 

Despite the increasing diversity of shoes in my queue, I have only run once in a HOKA running shoe. HOKAs are the archetypal “maximal” running shoe brand, and they have grown considerably in popularity both in the running community and on the feet of my spouse. My one run was in a pair of the original Mafate (I think) and though I did not dislike them, they were way more shoe than I need or prefer. I’ve tried on a few other pairs and never found the fit to be quite right.

Last week I received a pair of the HOKA Clifton, and though I haven’t run in them yet, I’m impressed by the fit and the incredibly light weight (under 8oz) for a shoe with as much cushion as the Clifton stuffs into its sole (stack: 29mm heel, 24mm forefoot). They’re basically like a Kinvara with just a bit of extra cushion (and they are similar in weight). I’m looking forward to putting some miles on them in the coming weeks – stay tuned! (a giveaway for a pair of Cliftons is coming as well)

Hoka Clifton

HOKA has been releasing a bunch of new models lately, and the trend has been toward lighter, lower profile models that still retain a lot of cushion (like the aforementioned Clifton and the Huaka). Yesterday I received a press release from my PR contact at HOKA, and thought I’d share the info provided on five new models set to be released for Spring 2015 – the trend toward lighter shoes seems to be continuing. The only details I have are what was provided in the press release, so not much info on drop, stack heights, etc. yet).

HOKA Challenger ATR

Description via HOKA: “…HOKA’s new trail shoe, the Challenger ATR, features the lightweight, smooth-riding characteristics of the award-winning Clifton shoe and supplements them with increased support in the upper and a more aggressive outsole. Independent rubber pods with 4mm lugs provide for adaptive, all-terrain traction on a variety of surfaces. This versatile, all-terrain shoe weighs in at 8.6 ounces (men’s 9) and will be available for a suggested retail price of $130.”

HOKA Constant

Description via HOKA: “The new Constant road shoe offers the most stable ride and generous fit in the HOKA lineup. The combination of cushioning EVA and RMAT® high-rebound material delivers guided stability and increased durability, while an over-sized active foot frame provides support. A mono-wrap tongue coupled with asymmetrical lacing supports the foot through the arch while reducing pressure across the top of the foot. The Constant will be available at specialty running stores for a suggested retail price of $160.”

HOKA Odyssey

Description via HOKA: “The Odyssey, MSRP $130, is a lightweight, smooth-riding road shoe.”

HOKA Valor

Description via HOKA: “The Valor, MSRP $150, features an ultra-sized, over 30mm, midsole to deliver a highly cushioned, smooth ride.”

HOKA Vanquish

Description via HOKA: “The Vanquish, MSRP $170, is a responsive performance road running shoe.”

Some Thoughts

There’s no doubt that HOKA is a hot brand right now, and when a brand gets hot the tendency is to flood the market with new models (we saw this with Vibram a few years ago). One of my worries after seeing these new HOKA models is that they are pumping out a lot of shoes without much differentiation between them. I’m not clear how they differentiate these new shoes from existing models like the Bondi, Conquest, Rapa Nui, Kailua, Clifton, and Huaka. With the Challenger ATR I can see it as being basically a Clifton Trail, which makes sense. The Constant touts stability and a “generous fit.” Narrowish, odd fit has been my issue with most HOKAs that I have tried on so far, so that makes sense as well. But where do the Odyssey, Valor, and Vanquish fit in? They need to produce a detailed comparison chart for the models in their lineup.

The other big issue I have with HOKA is price. HOKAs are expensive, and they lack options at the lower end of the shoe pricing spectrum. I’d love to see a model around $100 for example. I’m a little wary when it comes to pricing since my wife tore through the forefoot upper of two pairs of Bondi 2’s in less than 50 miles each (I have heard this was a very common problem with the Bondi 2) which is unacceptable for a shoe that costs well over $100. I also worry that the more cushioning you add, the more prone a shoe may be to uneven breakdown as the miles add up. Has anyone experienced this?

Anyway, I’m sure there will be some excitement about these shoes as there typically is with any new release announcement. The Vanquish is most enticing to me given it’s description as a “performance running shoe,” but $170 is tough to justify. It’s also the least visually appealing of the bunch to my eye. The Odyssey would be of interest as well, and at $130 it is on the low end of the HOKA pricing spectrum, but I’m not clear on how it differs from the Clifton.

Hopefully as info gets leaked from the Outdoor Retailer Show going on in Utah right now we’ll get a clearer picture of where these shoes slot in. My friend Sam Winebaum is there, and I’ll be sure to post a link if he shares any further info on these shoes.

I’ve posted a number of guest reviews of Hoka shoes, and when I do I sometimes get complaints from readers that I’m getting away from my minimalist roots. My response to this is that my goal in writing this blog is to help people enjoy running, and to help them find shoes that allow them to do so. I’m not so concerned with what those shoes look like as long as they help a runner to run pain free. My blog has a minimalist bias to it because I have a minimalist bias to my own shoe preferences, but my wife runs in Hokas and I’m not going to kick her out of the house as a result. Hokas and the amply cushioned Altra Torin have allowed her to run pain free for the past 9 months. They succeeded for her where minimal did not. And she’s happy, which makes me happy.

I’m not exactly sure who coined the term maximalism. I’m definitely guilty of using it, and though brands are not necessarily using the term themselves, they do seem to be marketing shoes in a way to latch onto this trend (using words like “plush” or “soft” instead). My problem with maximalism isn’t that I hate the shoes, it’s that I think I hate the term. Just as with minimalist, maximalist has no coherent meaning as a defined category of footwear. I think most people associate minimalist with a lack of cushion, and maximalist with a lot of cushion. The problem with this is that if we use the original Hoka models as something of a benchmark, then a lot of the shoes that are associated with the maximal moniker don’t really belong there.

In an article on the maximal trend, Brian Metzler of Competitor.com includes a slideshow with 5 “maximal” shoes. These are the Altra Olympus, Brooks Transcend, Hoka Conquest, New Balance Fresh Foam 980, and Vasque Shape Shifter UIltra.

Let’s look at the specs for these shoes (stack measurements via Running Warehouse for all but the Vasque shoe):

Altra Olympus: 36mm heel, 36mm forefoot; 10 oz

Brooks Transcend: 30mm heel, 22mm forefoot; 11.8 oz

Hoka Conquest: 34mm heel, 28mm forefoot; 11.9 oz

New Balance Fresh Foam 980: 25mm heel, 21mm forefoot; 9.1 oz

Vasque Shape Shifter UItra: 28mm heel, 22mm forefoot; 10.5 oz

There are a few points to make here. First, all of these shoes have quite a bit of cushion, but the drop varies from 0 in the Altra Olympus to 8mm in the Brooks Transcend. All are thus lower drop than most traditional running shoes, so in a sense these shoes are taking attributes from minimal and traditional shoes and combining them in new ways. I’d go so far as to say that maximal grew out of minimal – a lot of runners liked certain aspects of minimal shoes but wanted more cushion (or a lot more cushion in some cases!). Thinking along similar lines, Running Warehouse had this to say on the topic of maximal shoes:

“So is this new trend just a revamp of plush traditional trainers like the Nimbus or the Vomero? Not quite, though some premium trainers are going in that direction. Instead, shoe manufacturers are looking for ways to incorporate learnings from minimalism into shoes with a lot more protection underfoot.”

Second, the amount of cushion in these shoes is all over the place.

Take the New Balance Fresh Foam 980 for example. At 25mm stack in the heel, 21mm in the forefoot, and 9.1oz in weight it has almost identical specs to the Saucony Mirage, which is part of Saucony’s “natural running” collection. And it has less cushion under the heel than the Asics Super J33, which is Asics’ “natural running shoe for overpronators.”

The Brooks Transcend, for another example, has almost the same cushioning specs as the Asics Kayano (30mm heel, 20mm forefoot) and Brooks Adrenaline (31mm heel, 19mm forefoot). Brooks marketing for the Transcend urges you to “Explore plush new worlds and leave behind the traditional laws of comfort…” and ads feature the shoe floating on clouds. Maybe it’s a softer, plusher ride, but in terms of amount of cushioning it’s really not a lot different than most other traditional shoe on the market right now. In fact, only a few of these so-called “maximal” shoes are really maximal above and beyond what some of the best selling shoes out there have had for years.

You might say that a shoe can be maximally cushioned with lower stacks if the sole is very soft. I could agree with this – the Skechers GoRun Ultra at 27mm heel, 23mm forefoot is a good example of a shoe like this. But early reports on the New Balance 980 are that it is anything but pillowy soft. And there are some much lower profile shoes that have squishy soles – the Mizuno Cursoris and Skechers GoRun come to mind. Are they maximal or minimal?

Among the new crop of maximal shoes, Hokas remain unique, and few shoes really compare. They combine a ton of soft cushion, a bucket sole where the foot sits down within the midsole, and a rocker bottom that feels very different than most other shoes. But, some of the newer Hoka models on the way are lower profile with stack heights not much different than other lightweight shoes.  I haven’t run in the Altra Olympus, but it might be the closest thing out there right now to some of the more heavily cushioned Hokas. A shoe like the NB Fresh Foam has about as much in common with a Hoka as it does with a Saucony Kinvara or Brooks PureProject shoe (probably less). To me, a shoe like the Hoka Mafate, Bondi, or Stinson is what I think of when I think of a maximal shoe. Big stack (30mm+ in the forefoot), soft cushion. The rest are just pretenders that have gained an association due to marketing.

I think we’re at a point now where shoe categories have blurred so much that they have pretty much lost any real meaning. I’ve always liked to think of maximal and minimal as relative terms, not categories. They represent opposite ends of a spectrum. And within this spectrum there is a huge amount of variation and an awful lot of gray areas and blurry lines.

Unfortunately, we seem to need to place categories on things, and those categories are muddy at best. Maybe a maximal shoe has >30mm cushion under the forefoot, and a minimal shoe has zero cushioning. I don’t know. My personal preference at this point is to just ditch the categories altogether and simply recognize each shoe as slightly different in it’s own way. Understand the specs and what they mean to how a shoe will run, and embrace the variety we now have. There are options out there for just about everyone these days, and that’s a good thing.