Forums >Gears and Wears>Hoka OneOne
Here's my run report after getting the Hoka Clifton 6 shoes:
I just got a pair of Hoka Clifton 6's. This was the model that I also considered in the beginning. They're lighter but don't offer quite the same cushioning and injury protection. I did my first run in them today. They definitely feel quite different. I notice the ground more but I also feel more spry and nimble. I think they could shave a bit of time off race performances. I've had off and on issues with my left calf but it's been fine lately. I did notice a twinge in it during today's run. I did some fartlek intervals. Perhaps not the best idea for the first run in a pair of new shoes. We'll see how my body reacts. It may be that I need the protection of the Bondi's but this will be a good test. I might use the Clifton's only every third run until my body hopefully adjusts. I'm definitely a big fan of Hoka's though. I think they're a big reason that I've been able to run relatively injury-free for six months.
Personal Records:
5K - 20:07 ran in September 2021 (The second half split during the 10K run listed below.)
10K - 41:10 ran in September 2021
8 miles - 56:15 ran in November 2021
Half Marathon - 1:39:06 ran in September 2020
king of the non-sequitur
thanks! i like the 6 as well. i did notice some softening after about 20 miles on my first pair but they are still the best iteration of the clifton since the original (which i still run in) imo. for my upcoming 32 hr event i loosely plan to start in rincons, then switch to clifton 1 and then later to the 6... i'll have all 3 in my bag anyway
Bridle Trails 50k 1-13-24 5:39
Cottontail 6 Hour 4-13-24
Cougar Long Series (May,June,July,Aug 2024)
Carkeek 6 Hour 10-19-24
It's looking like I'm a convert. After a long time of using Ghosts, I bought Clifton 6 two weeks ago and like them a lot. Today I returned some unused ghost 11s and bought Bondi 6. I really liked the feel of the Rincon and might buy some later when I'm ready to move a bit faster.
I'm curious to know which you like better between the Bondi 6 and Clifton 6. My body definitely felt more beat up after using the Clifton's. It was only my first run so I can't draw too many conclusions but the lightness may not be worth it in my case.
After a couple more runs in the Clifton's, I'm leaning against using them regularly. I really do notice the difference in lack of cushioning compared to the Bondi 6. I'd rather have slightly heavier shoes than worry about an increased injury risk. Given how Hoka keeps changing their models, I went ahead and bought another pair of Bondi 6's. Even online, the model I need is no longer available in about half of the color selections. I'll probably alternate the two pairs of Bondi 6's and maybe very occasionally try the Clifton 6's. They'll most likely become just a pair of sneakers to wear during non-running activities.
The idea that more cushioned shoes reduce the risk of injury is a myth. The evidence more tends to suggest that they actually stop your foot from functioning how it should and may consequently load up the tissues more, compared to a less-cushioned shoe. Here's one example - there are plenty around.
This is not to suggest that minimal shoes are necessarily the answer, you want something that supports good biomechanical function and feels comfortable.
3,000m: 9:07.7 (Nov-21) | 5,000m: 15:39 (Dec-19) | 10,000m: 32:34 (Mar-20)
10km: 33:15 (Sep-19) | HM: 1:09:41 (May-21)* | FM: 2:41:41 (Oct-20)
* Net downhill course
Last race: Waterfront HM, 7 Apr, 1:15:48
Up next: Runway5, 4 May
"CONSISTENCY IS KING"
The idea that more cushioned shoes reduce the risk of injury is a myth. The evidence more tends to suggest that they actually stop your foot from functioning how it should and may consequently load up the tissues more, compared to a less-cushioned shoe. Here's one example - there are plenty around. This is not to suggest that minimal shoes are necessarily the answer, you want something that supports good biomechanical function and feels comfortable.
You're very opinionated. There is plenty of evidence to contradict your assertion.
I don’t know if I have an answer. I probably prefer the Clifton. I don’t dislike the Bondi, but I do sort of lack a feeling of, you know, hitting the ground in them. As long as I generally continue to feel good wearing both, that’s not going to bother me. I’m still looking forward to trying the Rincon but can’t justify the $ right now.
an amazing likeness
The Clifton's are definitely harder, especially in the forefoot. And with more 'rocker' you get less heel strike cushioning. Like you plan, I limit my use of them to treadmill workouts, 10K and under races and occasional road training to keep my calves stretched.
Acceptable at a dance, invaluable in a shipwreck.
That's a strange thing to say, considering I linked through to some evidence, and you have provided none. It's not an assertion if there is evidence provided to support, such as:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6269547/
https://www.trainingpeaks.com/blog/is-more-cushioning-better-for-long-distance-running-shoes/ (I know, it's not a journal article, but it references two journal articles)
http://www.exeter.ac.uk/news/research/title_553474_en.html
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5992812/
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/06/180625192637.htm
If cushioned shoes are working for you, that's fine. However that doesn't support a general assertion that more cushioning reduces injury risk (the evidence above disproves that).
That's a strange thing to say, considering I linked through to some evidence, and you have provided none. It's not an assertion if there is evidence provided to support, such as: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6269547/ https://www.trainingpeaks.com/blog/is-more-cushioning-better-for-long-distance-running-shoes/ (I know, it's not a journal article, but it references two journal articles) http://www.exeter.ac.uk/news/research/title_553474_en.html https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5992812/ https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/06/180625192637.htm If cushioned shoes are working for you, that's fine. However that doesn't support a general assertion that more cushioning reduces injury risk (the evidence above disproves that).
The guy wears Hoka Bondi, he likes them and has good results from them. What's the purpose of every time he posts seeking information and other runner's experience with Bondi and Clifton, you jump to say how wrong everyone is?
I wear the Bondi. Without them, I would no longer be running. Period. Your links make no difference to that fact.
You don't agree...ok. You're not going to change what I'm wearing. It's annoying as heck.
The guy wears Hoka Bondi, he likes them and has good results from them. What's the purpose of every time he posts seeking information and other runner's experience with Bondi and Clifton, you jump to say how wrong everyone is? I wear the Bondi. Without them, I would no longer be running. Period. Your links make no difference to that fact. You don't agree...ok. You're not going to change what I'm wearing. It's annoying as heck.
No need to be so defensive. I'm not trying to change what anyone is wearing. If shoes are working for you, whether minimal or maximal, that's fine. All I was trying to do was correct a general misconception that more cushioning reduces injury risk (research suggests it doesn't). Then the OP said I was coming in 'opinionated' (despite clear supporting evidence) which frankly suggests a strong confirmation bias and that he's just going to discard anything that doesn't support his view - in which case, why ask a forum what they think?
Running to eat
I agree with Marky Mark. He's just pointing out that evidence that says that perhaps highly cushioned shoes (of any brand) are not the solution for every runner, that it might have some unintended, undesirable results. He's not saying that those who find Hokas to work well for them are wrong, or that Hokas can't be beneficial. There might be people who hear rumors/testimonies of how great Hokas are and think that its cushioning solve their injury/running problems. And they might; I hope they do. But I think it's okay for people like Marky Mark to say that it won't necessarily be the case. I think there are also stories of people for whom Hokas (or other highly cushioned shoes) didn't work as advertised/testified or led to unforeseen problems. I don't think we need to be defensive about companies whose ultimate purpose is to make money off of us.
Marathon PR: 2:52 (2006 Chicago)
Ultra #1: DNF at The North Face Thailand 100K (Feb 4, 2017)
Ultra #2: Finished in 6:53:03 at the Des Plaines River Trail Races 50M (Oct 14, 2017)
Ultra #3: Finished in 12:55:04 at The North Face Thailand 100k (Feb 1, 2020)
Ultra #4: Finished self-organized 100-miler in 19:28:53 (Oct 3, 2020)
By calling it a "myth", he did indeed say it was "wrong".
Nowhere did I ask for an opinion about whether cushioned shoes protect against injury. I wanted feedback from others regarding the various Hoka models and which worked best for them. The assertion that it was just a “myth” that cushioned shoes can help prevent injury is entirely an opinion. Charts and studies can be cited to back just about anything.
I read the ‘Born to Run’ book with its claims that barefoot or at least minimal foot-ware would solve running injuries. It’s nowhere near as popular now as it was a few years ago. I listened to a talk by Jeff Galloway where he was asked his thoughts about it (the talk can be found on YouTube) and he expressed his feeling that it was just a phase and that things would swing back. I think he was prescient and we do see that.
I think it was the ‘Run Experience’ channel on YouTube that did an analysis and found that cushioned versus non-cushioned shoes can work differently depending on the anatomy of the runner. My own experience counts the most though of course I do value outside input. For the first time in a very long time I’ve been able to run relatively injury-free. I don’t feel it’s a coincidence that this occurred with my use of the Bondi model. A cyclist friend of my mine who also got into running first tried the Nike Free model and it didn’t work well for him. He’s done better since transitioning to a more cushioned shoe.
Everyone has an opinion. When you state yours as a fact, that doesn’t go over as well.
But ... it's definitely not a fact that more cushioned shoes reduce injury risk. There's plenty of evidence that refutes that hypothesis and really none that supports it.
Regarding a pair of shoes that you had just bought you said, "They're lighter but don't offer quit the same cushioning and injury protection." There's no way you could know that. It jumped out at me at the time but I let it fly, like I'm sure a lot of other experienced runners did.
Marky_Mark (no relation) simply pointed this out and provided some evidence. I thought he did it in a non-snarky, not attacking way.
I agree with the gist of what he said: there's no evidence that more cushioned shoes reduce injury risk but by all means wear whatever shoe you're most comfortable with.
Runners run