Just be careful when buying some of these lightweight trail shoes that are considered transitional into the minimalist. Innov 8 has several of those, and it takes time to get your leg muscles and Achilles tendon used to the drop. I have a pair of the Roclite 268's and love them and they are considered a transitional shoe. I have been running in a pair of Saucony Kinvara's and noticed that my lower leg muscles are relearning their function.

"My Terroc 330's look like they're done after only about 200 miles. The tread in the forefoot is almost worn down. There are holes in the uppers near my pinkies. The liner behind my heel has worn through and it seems like more of it falls out every time I remove my foot. I do like these shoes once they're on my feet, but I expect shoes to last at least 300 miles. Usually it's the midsole in shoes that wear out, but that's one of the few things in this shoe that feels like it has plenty of life left."


Thats kind of interesting because my Terroc 330s have about 130 miles on them, and they are in great shape. I can see them going hundreds of miles more easily.

I dont think you have to spend big $ on shoes to walk. A pair of low buck ($40) trail runners from a local store works fine too. As long as it FITS your foot, all is well.

Edited by livingontheroad on 06/21/2012 17:39:20 MDT.

When looking for a shoe, I like one that has good lateral support. The lightest shoes tend to be nothing but mesh uppers, and that's nice for cooler feet. But with only mesh to support you, you may find your feet squirming around in your shoe or that you are contorting your feet to not slid one way or the other in your shoe. The picture below is of a Salomon XA Comp 6 (13 oz - Size 9). I don't have this shoe but I do have the XA5,which I really like. It is good in the Sierra and on what ever trail you use it on. Anyway, notice the nice lateral support, plus good cladding around the lower mesh material so it is not as likely to get sliced or torn. Remember, the photo is just for example. I'm not endorsing any shoe here.



As has been said by several in this thread, fit, fit, fit. Next and nearly important is some lateral support and most likely you'd like a good rock plate as well. All worthy considerations. Good luck in your journey and decision making. Just remember that if you don't like your first pair, go find another pair and just have fun.

Edited by WarrenGreer on 06/21/2012 23:35:04 MDT.

Brooks Cascadia 7
Using from past one year and still going great

Look at these hikers, they have goretex and no goretex. They have a good sole giving protection from jagged rocks and are pretty light. inexpensive too.

Ah, heck.

Shoes are shoes. If they fit (are large enough) any shoe should work. I go for the lightest available, and am really only concerned with a more protective shoe when hiking in cactus country.

Me thinks everyone over analyses this.

Jason how is the 1110 for roominess of the toe box? Also any idea on the heel to toe drop? One New Balance rep said 4mm and another said 12mm. Having a heck of a time finding out which is true. Apologies for threadjacking.

Haven't read the whole thread so sorry if I'm repeating anything but I'd check out the Altra Lone Peak and Saucony 3.0 for lower drop shoes with good cushioning and a rock plate, and various New Balance trail shoes for the nice selection of widths (see Roger Caffin's reviews). You might also check out the Brooks Cascadia 7 and various models of Montrail shoes - most have very roomy toe boxes. I find many La Sportiva shoes too narrow in the toe box, and I don't have wide feet.

Follow Roger Caffin's excellent advice and make sure you get a shoe roomy enough in the toe box to allow for foot expansion. A lot of injuries are caused by shoes which don't allow your foot enough room to expand after hours and days of hiking.

So make sure you have enough room in the toe box, and that your heel and midfoot are secure enough that your foot is not sliding side to side, which will cause blisters and unsteady footing.

My advice is to buy a cheaper pair first off just to see if you can get on with shoes instead of boots.

I have to admit i was suckered into this "approach shoe" fad and have tried several pairs over the years, i just cannot get on with them.

I've had "advice" saying that it takes some time to get used to them, so i wore only my Salomon's for hiking for 2 months straight, STILL my feet and ankles ache more than when i wear boots.

A lot depends on the terrain and type of walking you do, over here (Greece) we have very very rocky dry terrain and there is not a doubt in my mind that boots are a better solution for the terrain i walk on.
I have read many many reports on how shoes are better, and that ankle support isn't different etc etc.

Fact remains though after a 10+ mile hike off-road my ankles are ripped the shreds from the rocks and my feet and calf muscles are aching noticeably more when not wearing boots.

Add a 2 day packed rucksack to the mix and it gets even worse in shoes for me.

The only good thing is all the approach shoes i've bought over the years do make good shoes when out and about, so they do not go to waste.

As i say though boots still work best for some people on some terrain so don't put all your eggs into 1 basket.