Backpacking in “maximalist” shoes? (ie.Hoka One One)

My wife has a pair and she did one 3 days trip with me but mostly she's day hiked in them.

She loves them for all things trail.

The biggest thing I've noticed is she's notably faster descending technical terrain vs any other shoe she's used from heavy duty leather boots to minimalist zero drops…

I haven't used them yet, but I met a section hiker on the CDT this summer who was wearing Hokas. She LOVED them and said that she uses them for all of her hiking and running, up to ultramarathons. She also said that a hefty percentage of ultramarathoners are using these now (I can't verify that myself).

"Outside" online magazine had an article about these

They kind of said minimalist shoes are a fad, and now maximalist shoes will be a fad for a while

With minimalist shoes, there's more technique to learn to use them without injury. A lot of weekend marathoners have problems.

Maximalist shoes are easier to use – no technique to learn

Hokas saved my running after a sprained knee. I thought I would not be able to run again. For the past year all my running on roads and trails is in Hokas. I also backpack in them and have been all over RMNP and chunks of the CT in them. You will see most every podium after an ultra has at least one athlete wearing them. They are especially good on downhills. Traction is good and I have found them great on snowy, icy trails. For me they are no fad, they allow me to cover long distances running and hiking. For the amount of cushioning they are also light. They are relatively stiff for a running shoe, but the rockered sole makes them very comfortable. I know a number of top ultra runners who swear by them as well.

del

Not really the same thing as the MBT shoes. The amount of rocker in the Hokas is just enough to counter its stiffness, no claim of strengthening butts! The big thing is simply the cushioning, the wider forefoot and the great traction. This is a serious shoe, and heavily used among ultra runners. Maybe a fad for those new to the shoe, but not for lots of runners who have tried and switched to the Hokas. They are not for all but they have definately found their place with many endurance athletes.

del

The shoe isn't anything at all like those BS shoes, not sure what you're projecting onto this. don't get me wrong, not a fan, but all Hoka is claiming is "we put a LOT of padding on this shoe" along with standard running shoe BS (read pretty much any running shoe manufacturers site and they'll explain how the shoe maximizes this and energizes that)

Some of my trail running friends swear by the Hokas. And they are sponsored by an outfitter and could be wearing hoka, Salomon, inov 8, etc. Altra is coming out with some maximus shoes this spring.

I put a cushy insole in my inov8s, but the height of these things are an ankle sprain waiting to happen.

Its my understanding that the Hokas are actually pretty stable despite their thickness. They cradle the foot deep inside and have a wide, stable footprint, preventing ankle issues (supposedly).

I ran a 50K in Bishop a year or so ago with a girl that was wearing them. I had NB MT110s on. At mile 25+ I was definitely feeling it in my feet. She reported nothing but "running on rainbow marshmallows" (no LSD was involved, I assure you.)
Makes me wonder…

This is the sort of thing that nobody can answer for the OP. They obviously work for some people…nothing to do but try them if you're interested. As for backpacking, Catra Corbet wore them (I believe) on all of her JMT hikes.

"Its my understanding that the Hokas are actually pretty stable despite their thickness. They cradle the foot deep inside and have a wide, stable footprint, preventing ankle issues (supposedly)."

Yup. I have them. I like them. A lot.

I wore a pair on a 2-day hike in PA. Very rocky trail. Lots of roots. Mileage was something like 22 and 16, if I remember correctly (it's a 42-mile trail, we hiked in a short bit the night before, then finished in two days. Allegheny Front Trail, for those of you who know it). Never felt a rock or root. Certainly never twisted an ankle or such. Felt just as stable with them as I do with any trail runner I backpack with. And my feet feel much better at the end of the day.

Yes, the Hokas are extremely stable. But, any shoe can roll, and when your ankle does go over in this shoe you are very likely to get a serious injury. It's simple physics. Of course you're not likely to see stats on injury rates. That said, my wife does like them for backpacking – ankle rolls are not so common while hiking as while running. Personally, I think they're fine for roads running, dangerous on trails.

That's good to hear about the stability. I think I personally would be better served by continuing to strengthen my feet and balance at this point, and a thinner sole has helped with that.

I've not used Hokas myself. Ideology and the weight and cost of the shoes has put me off.

They are quite popular with ultrarunners, which is not just a fad. Anyone who has destroyed their quads to the point that going downhill is slower than going up can understand the appeal. I would posit that they have more appeal to the less trained runners; its always amazing how unfit folks can be who are regular ultra runners.

A friend, who is quite the accomplished ultra runner but not the most biomechanically gifted (read: coordinated), wore a pair of Hokas on a week long backpack this summer. The rigidity of the sole caused mild problems with heel blisters. Ironically heel fit with Hokas ends up being extremely important, not unlike mountain boots. On our one 100% off trail day my Hoka-clad friend struggled mightly because of the shoes. Even the most aggressive Hoka tread is still pretty tame, and this and the huge height make them ill suited to loose dirt and steep grass sidehilling. The way the sole extends so far beyond your foot makes edging on anything not totally secure quite a joke. Frictional traction smearing on rock on on developed trails is good, but anywhere else and Hokas are out of their element.

The word "fad" doesn't have to be a negative

Just that lot's of people are doing it and lot's more people heard about this and are also doing it…

what's really funny here is that when Hokas first came out they were touted as a minimalist shoe because the minimalist craze was at its peak. I wonder how many people fell for that line.

But yes, they have become increasingly popular among ultra runners, especially for the longer runs, 100 milers, where they truly shine.
They are popular among both back of the packers, and those who win races (Meltzer, Mackey, and others).

What is said is that they are a recovery shoe. They protect the feet and lower legs to the point where you almost feel refreshed after a long outing.
And yes, their strongest point is on the downhill, they soak up the trail and let you speed downhill.

Some people would consider these shoes as minamalist because of the heel to toe drop of 6mm.

Apparently these shoes soak up a ton of water, but does dry out fast while running.

Apperantly Kevin Sawchuk really likes them.

Last year I wore only Hokas (Stinson Road and Trail models) for all racing, training runs and day hikes (except for a few fast 5k races when I wore minimal sockless triathlon shoes)

Race distances included multiple road and trail marathons and half marathons – so lots of miles on them. Plus I wear them about 75% of the time during the day with a fair amount of standing up in the shop. I have found they save me a lot of recovery time and that helped me train harder and run races faster. On trail runs I feel a lot more stable up and down hill and small ankle rolls are minimized and any ankle roll seems slower/softer allowing me time to compensate before the full roll does any harm.

More than any other one single piece of equipment I can ever remember using this has changed the nature of my outdoor experience. – Ok maybe # 2 behind the RURP and # 3 would be the Wing Paddle

Lifespan of the footbed cushion seem a bit longer than all other running shoes I have used- so the higher initial price may work out OK in longevity.

Note that the weights are fairly light when compared with many other stability/cushion rated running shoes.

Of course if they do not fit you then it's a no go – but if they do you may be amazed.

If they do not fit you- there are a few other brands with the thicker/wider soles that may work for you.

I have been using these since August. I don't run but use these for day hikes and some backpacks where water isn't an issue. The cushy sole really helps with my knees on the down hill and overall my feet and legs feel better at the end of the hike.

I recently tried the Hoka Stinson ATRs. Some folks have been pessimistic about the tread, but that turned out to be a non-issue, at least for me in the High Sierra both on and off trail. The Hokas have a larger footprint, so that equates to more surface area for the tread to grip the ground, rocks, or whatever we’re on. And to me it makes them feel quite grippy. I hiked up to McGee Pass in the High Sierra a couple days ago. On the steep uphill, I noticed both heels rubbing, and I ended up taping visibly red hot spots. I’ve never had any shoes or boots rub my heels. When I reached the pass, I headed off-trail across a somewhat steep scree slope to an incredible overlook into the Convict Creek drainage. The scree slope provided my first chance to see how the shoes performed when “side-hilling.” I noticed immediately a feeling that my foot was sliding around too much inside of the shoe when my foot was sideways on the steep incline. I stopped to lace up the shoes tighter, but that only slightly helped the situation. It felt like my foot was trying to slide off the thick pile of foam that the sole is comprised of. I never really noticed this while on the trail, so if you like to spend at least part of your time off-trail, it might be a deal-breaker as it was for me. Another thing I immediately noticed while side-hilling was that the shoe was poking me below my ankle bones, which a reviewer at Sage to Summit in Bishop, CA points out in his video of another Hoka shoe. As the day went on, this became really uncomfortable. Once back down to McGee Pass, I headed down the west side and eventually to more cross-country stuff and up to Red & White Lake at 11,600 just below Pace Col. At that point I decided to bail on what was supposed to be a 4 night/5 day trip. The condition of my feet was deteriorating, and I had a considerable amount of cross-country travel on my planned itinerary. So I started the long trip back out. I had to tape both heels and big toes, which I’ve never had to do with other shoes. The second toe on my left foot had a huge blister despite taping. The insole in the right shoe was starting to create a hotspot where it was rubbing the medial aspect of my arch. The tape job that I applied to both heels in combination with a Second Skin Square worked perfectly, so nothing further resulted there. The bottom side of my ankle bones were tender the entire trip out. I really wanted these shoes to work, but they turned out to be quite a nightmare. I don’t find many reviews about people using them for hiking, let alone off-trail applications on scree, talus, etc. So that’s why I wanted to share my experience. Maybe someday the Hoka concept will evolve into something that works well for me. I’ll keep my eye out, because I’d sure love a more cushioned hike. Good luck to everyone in finding a shoe that works well with your feet! ;)

I find them fantastic for trail walking… no blisters, no sore feet event at the end of a 16 mile hike the other day.

I do not notice any heal slip whatsoever. I have noticed a slight discomfort below the ankles at times… but not all the time and not much… certainly did not leave my ankles sore. No blisters. No sore spots at all. In fact, with my other hiking footwear after that same 16 mile hike the last 4 miles or so usually have my joints, legs and feet complaining and when I get to the car can't wait to get my Tevas on… not with the Hokas… feet not tired, not sore… legs still spry…

However, I would never take them on a hike that involved a lot of talus or scree…
the traction is no where near as good as a Vibrum so sticky rubber sole.. and they are just too soft to get any kind of good lateral control. But then, I wouldn't take any trail runner through a lot of scree… nasty stuff… prefer at least light weight boots for that.

YMMV

Billy

Billy, I didn't have any traction problems at all going through boulder piles, scree, and talus. Zippo. Heel blisters came up either previously in this thread or another one, but blistering in general will be different with different feet…and hopefully a non-issue. I just want to highly recommend that IF someone plans on doing cross-country travel, take the Hokas out to a steep hill close to home (with a full pack) and experiment with side-hilling before embarking on a longer trip. Get them from a source with a great return policy just in case. I wouldn't have had to cut my trip short if I had heeded this advice. But live and learn, right? Haha.