high cushion shoes…trail opinions?

Jennifer,

I wonder why you would want these. Unneeded extra weight and possibly more cumbersome to walk in, IMO. Seems to me that if one's feet are in good hiking shape, which means hiking a lot, there is no need for extra cushioning.

Nick, it's just a curiosity at this point. I can't seem to make my feet NOT hurt once I hit the 100 mile mark, and I plan on doing a lot of longer distances at this point. So many people say they help make their feet not hurt…I just wondered if the seemingly-cumbersome nature of them is outweighed by the cushioning.

As I've mentioned before, i'm plagued by super stiff feet with really high arches, and a bit of cushioning always makes them feel a bit better, regardless of how conditioned they are. We'll see….maybe I won't like them and someone can pick up a pair of barely-used olympus shoes super cheap….

I don't run in maximal style shoes, but I have read quite a bit on them. At least while running, some people have reported that the cushion can exacerbate pronation issues (a little movement on a big chunk of foam can translate into even more movement).

But take this with a grain of sand, as I've never actively wore/run in such shoes. I run/walk on some pretty cushy shoes (around mid 20s stack height), but nothing that high.

Sorry I couldn't be more help, but I thought I'd mention some of the issues I've read people have encountered with the height, outside of possible instability.

The hoka are comfortable, but slow and inefficient. A lot of expended energy goes into compressing the foam on push off while walking up hill. When running, the higher impact has the foam compressed and ready for the push off

They are horrible for walking on paths that slop left to right for extended periods of time too.

I was having some pretty serious fascia inflammation in my feet after getting some really thin soled Scarpas. Fit like a dream, but the rocks were just beating me up. I’d step on a pebble, and it would hurt like h*ll.

I picked up some Hoka Stinson ATR’s earlier this year, and they’ve been really good. No inflammation, and I don’t experience pain when I step on a pebble.

HJ
Adventures In Stoving
Hikin’ Jim’s Blog

A different approach is internal arch adjustment, rather than external cushioning. I find that micro-changes in the arch height can make a big difference to distribute the load on the feet. I used to have custom orthotics, but find that these work even better for me:
http://www.footsmart.com/P-FootSmart-IsoArch-High-Arch-3-4-Foot-Supports-Pair-10929.aspx

Whatever insert you choose, you definitely want to use it a lot before hitting the trail.

Over time I found my Cascades to be too flexible. A thin insole layer of cardstock or PETG takes care of it.

"some people have reported that the cushion can exacerbate pronation issues"
"A different approach is internal arch adjustment, rather than external cushioning."

The design purpose of the massively cushioned Hokas is not to control or support anything. It's to reduce impact forces. They do not have (at least in the Rapa Nuis that I sometimes use) any "arch support" or "pronation control" at all – so if you believe in those things, and want them, these are not the shoes for you. The subjective sensation, for me, is almost one of running barefoot on a soft surface. In an odd way, the lack of support feels almost like running in minimal shoes – on a soft surface.

They are great for people whose joints suffer with the pounding of running. I'm getting older, and if I do a long run in Hokas, I find it really noticeable that my legs feel much less stiff in the morning. They come out most often when I'm at home, and I don't have much opportunity to hike, but I'm doing more running to stay in shape – that's when my joints and ligaments can start to suffer with the greater impact of running.

The tradeoff is very little "feel" for the trail. It's a different experience, floating along – sometimes I'm in the mood for it, sometimes not. I throw away the insoles on the Rapa Nuis to reduce the stack height to something reasonable (the drop is only 5mm), but even so, I would not use these on technical terrain. They are at their best on easy trails with hard surfaces – or of course or tarmac, if that's where you have to run.

"A different approach is internal arch adjustment, rather than external cushioning."

well, my problem is that my arch doesn't move – there's no way to adjust it. I need something to help absorb ground reaction forces because my stiff foot isn't moving one iota when i step on it.

I've always run in cushion type shoes – I need no motion control or arch support or anything – if anything I actually over-supinate during stance phase.

And Ralph, your comment about trading off feel for the trail is what I'm a bit concerned about – I like the feel of the trail under my feet. But as I get older and as my stiff joints start protesting a bit on longer trips I'm curious if the cushion will ease my foot/lower leg pain enough to make that tradeoff worth it.

We'll see….i'll let you guys know. I have a nice new pair of Lone Peaks ready for use if I don't like these.

Jennifer – I'm completely with you on that – I like the feel of the trail, too. But I figure the impact effects are cumulative – so if just wear Hokas some of the time, especially when I'm doing higher impact running on non-technical trails, it will help my aging joints last a bit longer. I don't find any problem switching back and forth between shoes, provided the drop is not too different.

A couple of weeks ago it was raining, so I pulled out my winter boots and went hiking. Yuck. I *really* couldn’t feel the ground.

When I hike in my Hokas, I have a lot better feel for the ground than in hard soled boots. YMMV.

HJ
Adventures In Stoving
Hikin’ Jim’s Blog

"A different approach is internal arch adjustment, rather than external cushioning."

The Hoka Stensons are interesting in that there is so much cushion your foot kinda sinks into it… your heel and ball of your foot sinking in more which positions the mid part of the cushion up into the arch. I need/like arch support insoles on other shoes, but don't miss them in the Stensons. That cush feels really good bulging up into the arch of my foot.

And btw… I feel the trail a lot more in my Stensons than a light boot… but not so much that it hurts my foot.

billy

Just in case anyone were interested in seeing how thick the soles on a pair of Hoka Stinson ATR’s are:

HJ
Adventures In Stoving
Hikin’ Jim’s Blog

I used the Olympus 1.5s for the Bob Open.

They absolutely reduce foot and leg fatigue, no question about it. For trail hiking I thought they were impressively light and agile, as well. I did not feel like I was wearing platform shoes at all. Traction is actually pretty good except for sticky mud, where they are horrid.

Off trail the Olympus are bad, borderline dangerous. During the little bit of off-trail traversing I did, and the more than a bit of snow slogging, my ankles absolutely got worked in way they wouldn't have in lower stack shoes. Never using them for that again.

I'd pick them for the JMT, Grand Canyon corridor trails, and other, similar hard packed and well manicured trails. Overall a very good shoe.

OK – got these from Backcountry.com yesterday – and I'm wearing them at work today (oh the joys of being a PT!)

First of all – wow these are COMFY shoes!!!! I walked the dog in them last night and didn't notice the extra stack height at all. Whoever compared them to walking barefoot on a thick yoga mat was spot on.

HOWEVER…..

I've been standing around since 6am (it's now about 3p) and let me say, my legs are TIRED! Walking feels great, but i think the cushion is causing my very stiff, high-arched feet to move around a lot while standing still and my gastrocs are REALLY tired. I also feel them pushing me into a bit of supination on my left food, too – not sure why that is.

When I can walk about the shoes are just heaven…but for standing still….perhaps not so good!

I'll be taking them on a 10-mile hike this weekend (if the weather here in soggy texas cooperates) so I'll get a better idea.

They might feel odd because they are simply drastically different in their support to other shoes you've tried. I tend to shift shoes a lot, and I notice this almost daily depending on which pair I'm wearing.

As for the tiredness, I understand! I'm still trying to transition running in my pair of Altras, and it wrecks your achilles tendon and calves. Most people just aren't used to using their legs in the way zero drop shoes pretty much demand. Altra pushes a transition period, and I think it apt to listen to their advice, but I have to agree with the comfort. My Altras are probably the most comfortable shoes I own.

If nothing else, consider breaking your legs into them over a month or so. I know I've had to.

Jonathon – i've been using the Lone Peaks for a bit more than a year, and pretty much my non-work shoes are merrell gloves. It didn't seem like the it was the zero drop (although for the life of me, running in zero drops DEFINITELY are a killer for my calves!) it seemed more like it was the cushion!

Each of us has what's called "postural sway" when we stand still – and one way we help people learn balance and proprioception is to have them stand barefoot on progressively squishier mats. We even have special thick mats that you don't even realize you're sinking into! VERY good training for your ankle proprioception, by the way. But I digress….

What I was feeling while standing around was an increase in that postural sway against that foam of the shoe, and my working REALLY hard to keep correcting it over and over and over…in all directions.

Walking was phenomenal! I do think I'm going to give them a try on the CT – but have my Lone Peaks standing by for someone to ship to me if they truly are too squirrelly, or if we end up having to schlep through a ton of snow (thanks for that tip David!).

My question for those of you who say that they are terrible off trail but just fine on places like the JMT or (i'm guessing) the CT….there are some gnarly stretches on trails sometimes – say, the White Mountains – or some of those particularly rocky sections of trail that we all know and love. What is so different about off trail hiking (i don't do much of that at all) to those more gnarly sections of very developed trail??

Sidehilling off trail is where the Olympus' really felt out of their depth; not stiff enough to hold an edge on little lumps of grass and dirt, and the extra height makes your ankles work harder. The super rocky trails in New England more often than not are close to the fall line, which is a different thing altogether.

Hi Jen… your refer to the Olympus 2.0… but I can't find a 2.0; latest modes seems to be 1.5… or am I missing something?

thanks,
billy

ooops…billy you're right…it's 1.5

Awww, Jen — I thought you had some super-secret role as a professional PT tester of the next version of shoes for Altra… ;^)

Hi Gen… by my count you've had your Olympus 1.5 shoes for about two weeks.
Would love a report on how they are working out for you.
And did you get a size or half-size larger and how does that work out for you?

thanks,
Billy

well Billy, I have to say I really like them! I haven't been able to put any real miles on them yet, but on some 3-4 mile day hikes as well as trying them all day at work a few times I'm really digging the extra cush!!!

I've purposefully tried to walk on seriously uneven (read: cambered) terrain to see how my ankles fared, and honestly they didn't feel any different than any other shoe I walk in. they do not at all feel like they are stacked – it really just feels like my feet are sinking into this really thick yoga mat all the time.

Thanks for the report Jen!

I have a new pair of Olympus 1.5 and Hoka Stensons in my living room.
It seems the Stensons are narrower than last year which I'm not liking, but also a little more support in the outside of the heal to lessen the 'roll' effect. They feel more stable than last year's model and the cush may be a little more firm.

The Olympus 1.5 in my normal size seemed too short so I ordered 1/2 size larger. The main problem I have with the 1.5 is the fit is soooo wide. I went to a thicker sock (Darn Tough boot socks) and they still seem a little wide :( The thicker sock makes the heel slip less, but wish they were more snug overall.

billy

So interesting that you say they are too wide – my feet are As; B width generally feels roomy to me.

I find the olympus to fit me quite nicely…..I'll need to look, as I can't remember what size i ended up ordering.

Did you get a women's version? Sometimes women's versions of shoes are narrower.

Other reviewers on the web in general have commented on them being wide.

b