high cushion shoes…trail opinions?

I can comment first-hand that Altra's women's versions are significantly narrower. I had a chat with an Altra person over their live chat a month or two ago about that very issue. They said (I think…) that men's Altras can accommodate up to EE in the forefront, I believe?

I have abnormally slender feet for a man (about A-AAish), and I can echo Jennifer's comments. I'm pretty sure it's somewhere in the B-range for the women's shoes.

If you don't like the width, and you can fit into women's shoes, I'd try it out. I didn't even need a direct translation of men's other brands to women's Altras because of the overly wide toe box. You really don't need the extra length to accomodate the toes, or at least I didn't.

I normally wear 11 mens, and 11 womens fits me dandy.

Edit: I should also note that I didn't really notice the different between the gender specific shoe anatomy that they tout on their website. Maybe my feet are closer to women's feet than men's feet? Not sure, but I wouldn't shy away anyone away from trying the women's sizes based on that.

Jonathon wrote:
"I normally wear 12 mens, and 11 womens fits me dandy."

do you have that revered? Women's size numbers are larger numbers for the equivalent men's size. For instance, I wear a men's 8, but a women's 9 or 9 1/2. I'm talking US shoe size system.

billy

Billy:

Whoops! I think you're right!

Well I think people get the jist. Lemme edit that. Haha.

Thanks!

I've got about 60 miles or so on my Olympus 1.5s.
Here are my thoughts:
The men's were too wide so I ordered the women's in two sizes: + 1 1/2 and + 2 over my men's size. The + 1 1/2 is about right with a thinner insole and thin running sock, but feel rocks more in the toes if I bump them straight on; the +2 is good length wise with a Darn Tough boot sock and I don't feel the rocks when bumping them straight on.
But even the women's are pretty wide.
Normally in a running shoe the fit is good with a thin sock.
But even with the women's narrower Olympus I need to wear a boot sock for proper fit where it does not feel like the shoe wants to come off my foot.
This is strange since most trail runners and hiking boots I have tried on over the years fit good in the heal and mid foot, but are too narrow for me in the toe box.
But with the Olympus it is the opposite: toe box is great, but too wide mid foot and heel… heel slip.

I also had to put a piece of leather belt under the laces to protect the boney top of my foot when lacing snug. The tong they provide is too thin to protect the top of the foot if you like or need (because they are wide) to lace tight.

The cush is less than the Hokas but the lateral stability is better.

I do like the grip of the tread better than the Hodas… but, with 60 or so miles on them I'd say about 1/3 of the tread is gone! So don't figure on more than 200 miles of tread… maybe 150 if you want good tread.

Just like the Hokas (or any other trail runner) I would not want to wear these on a hike with a lot of talus or scree.

Would love to see a shoe like this with with a Vibrum sole.

Well, those be my thoughts on the Olympus 1.5 trail runners

Edits above regarding the +1.5 size women's being too short… it's about right with thin insole and thin liner sock.

Billy

Been using the Hoka one one Mafate speeds for a couple of months now, so far i'm impressed.
http://www.hokaoneone.eu/on/demandware.store/Sites-HOKA-EU-Site/en/Product-Show?pid=30109030&dwvar_30109030_color=CLIB#cgid=men-trail&start=8

Can't say as i've had any stability problems, i'd wager that with my weight squashing the sole that there isn't much difference in foot height compared to say my Salomon SC3's

I have noticed my feet and knees are noticeably better on my 12km runs.

A couple of stumbles while wearing them, but to be honest that's about the norm for me no matter what shoes i wear.
In fact, thinking about it the most stumbles i've had was wearing my 5fingers, so i'm not convinced sole thickness and stumbling are linked, i think our bodies compensate pretty quickly.

I've been wearing the Hoka Stinson ATRs for the last year for hiking and running including lots of off camber, sharp talus around Bozeman (Bridger Range). They have performed extremely well on anything other than steep hard pack covered with those small ball bearing sized rocks you can run into here. Nothing I've used really works for me on that sort of terrain. Only complaint I have is that I wish they had slightly deeper lugs for the few muddy days. I have ordered the new Hoka Speed Goats that come out latter this month (REII has them on their site for preorders) and they have Vibram soles that have deeper lugs. I will post a review after I get some miles on them. My wife alternates between Hoka Challengers and a pair of Altra Olympus 1.5s. She much prefers the Hokas on rough or steep trails and neither of us has had problems with ankle roll.

Mark,

I think you are the first and only one here on BPL who has reviewed the Hokas and said they perform well on sides slopes… everyone else has said they do not… and that has been my experience. I note this not to argue with you, but just for any who may be reading this. I very much find the Olympus 1.5 to be better on side hills.

I liked my last year model Hoka Stinsens a LOT and would have bought another pair, but alas, this year's model is quite a bit more narrow and is too tight for my foot.

Yes, please let us know how the Hoka Speed Goats work out… I'd love to find a soft trail runner with vibrum soles. The lugs on the Hokas are just too wimpy.

Billy

Hi Billy,

Not really sure what you mean by side slopes mate.
Do you mean something like a rock that is angled that you have to traverse?

If the ground you are walking on is angled sideways then it's tricky no mattter what shoes you are wearing.
There is a beach we visit where there is a 50m section that's traversing a rock, i've done that section in sandles, trainers and many times barefoot, it's tricky no matter what you are wearing.
Thinking about it the second worst (after flip flops) is doing the section barefoot, as my skin tends to slide about over my foot bones, very unstable.

Am i right in thinking that people believe because the sole is thicker it will give them the feeling of being less stable?

If so i did a test the other day.
I got a chair and placed one of the legs inside my HOO, i then measured how high the other leg was from the floor.

Un-weighted i saw 35mm which is pretty much what HOO give as their heel height.
With 20kg on the above the chairs leg (the one that went inside the shoe) i saw 30mm.

I'm around 90kg, add another 2kg for water and my running bumbag and i wouldn't be surprised if i saw 25mm or even 20mm heel height, this just when standing.
Now think how much force is applied when we're running.

Doesn't end there though, out of curiosity i used the same system to measure the heel height of some Salomon hiking boots i have

Un-weighted 35mm
Weighted 34mm

Salomon XA3D Ultra 2's
31mm un-weighted
28mm weighted

Here is the surprising one though, i measure my Salomon SC3's
35mm un-weighted
32mm weighted

There is no right or wrong answer or opinion here, if someone finds a footwear solution that works for them and the type or running/hiking they do then that's the right choice for them.
I do think that often our brains can trick us though, we'll see a shoe with what we perceive is a thicker sole, but in reality with our weight on the shoe most of us have hiked with our feet higher off the trail for years without worrying about stability.

Lastly,
The sole at the heel and of the foot of my Mafate speeds is exactly 1cm wider than the heel of my SC3's.

So we have a shoe that's wider, softer (so forms to the terrain) and with weight actually lower than my SC3's

Obviously my chair method of measuring isn't exact, but hopefully you'll still find it surprising that this supposedly unstable shoe is in fact lower than most my other trail runners and hiking boots when i'm weighting it up.

Cheers
Mark

I have had a couple of hikes and some high milage (for me) days in my Altra Olympus shoes. I am 6' tall, 210, size 11 (but wear a 12 for hiking), with a decent size arch and history of knee and ankle injuries. Overall they have done OK. They look seriously beaten up, with the foam soles in front along the outside of the shoes sustaining a lot of damage. These will not last long. I have had a lot less foot soreness, even after 20 mile days, then with my old Cascadia's. Recovery time is also better. The day after high milage days my feet and legs felt better. I have a nagging heal issue with both shoes, but it is worse on the right foot. I have had to slap duct tape on the inside of my right heel during high milage (17.5-20 + miles) days by the afternoon as it felt like a hot spot was forming. After applying duct tape the feeling subsided mostly. I have read other reports of heel issues with Altra's. While I will stick with the Altra's for the remainder of the season, it is unlikely I will stick with them for replacement.

Enter the Hoka Stinson Trails. I found a pair in my size and in good shape at a local thrift store for $7.99. I have been jogging in them for the better part of a week and like them. I mostly stay on trail so I am not freaked out by the stack height of the shoe . It might be too late in the season for me to change shoes, but I expect to be hiking in Hokas next year for sure.

I started having excruciating pain in the left foot more than a year ago. The podiatrist said neuroma and gave me cortisone shots for a while, then anesthetic cream that mitigates the pain – for a while it meant just a little soreness at the end of a long day. I also have bunions that hurt after hiking, at completely random intervals; sometimes two miles kill me. Sometimes 20.

I started using Birkenstock orthotics that have a metatarsal arch support and the bunion pain mostly went away. I have to use them in my work shoes as well as hiking shoes. Happily they are non prescription and easily found on Amazon.

Then I got Hoka One One Stinson ATRs. I've cut way back on the foot cream. COMPLETELY mitigated pain. I get a little rub on the right bunion once in a while, so I use tape. Amazon reviews of the Hoka shoes indicate others with similar foot problems have had the same results. I got last year's Stinsons on discount at Sierra Trading Post for eighty bucks to try them.

The only thing I have trouble with is cross country on steep rocky hillsides. They feel completely stable the rest of the time. Every once in a while my foot comes down on the wrong rock or on an edge, and I tip – have not sprained an ankle, but the ankles were quite strong in the first place.

On an upcoming trip with extensive slope climbing cross country, I'll probably take the Lowas and use them for talus and steep slopes, and use the Hokas on trail. Yep – carrying two pairs of shoes. Not UL, but entirely sane when you consider I started out on a five day backpack with the neuroma pain, crying mile after mile as the left foot came down on the ground sending crazy amounts of pain up my foot. Until the pain happens in day to day life, it's not operable, so special shoes and foot cream it is.

Jen, I have not seen your report on how you liked your Olympus 1.5's thanks billy

I relegated my Olympus 1.0s to road running only. Not a fan of the stack height, lack of proprioception, and lack of grip. Only thing I like about the fit is the toe box. Still narrow in the mid foot for me and no matter how I tie the laces I still get my toes jammed on the downhill. I rolled my ankles a lot too but always caught myself, never happened with my minimal shoes. I went back to NB Minimus Trails/Luna Sandals but I still want to give Lone Peak or Superiors a try.

well…meh. They feel GREAT on pavement. They felt OK on the trail, but did not fix my foot pain the way I wanted. I ended up losing both big toenails and getting horrible blisters on the sides of my heels – likely from sinking into the cushion (there was no slipping or anything – they were compression kinds of blisters). And I lose my toenails when I grip the bed of the shoe with my toes…so more cushion seemed to involve more gripping to stabilize myself…at least that's what it seemed like (and my own self-diagnosis!) I ended up going back to my Lone Peaks (2.0) about 150 miles into the trip and realized that these are the shoes for me. Loved loved loved them, and they lasted the whole rest of the trip without any issues. My blisters even healed! So I've finally found a shoe I can wear more than 100 miles (the lone peak 2.0 – which they've apparently gone and changed…and I can't find my size anywhere on the internet anymore. Thanks Altra….or would it be Obama's fault?)

Sorry to hear the Olympus 1.5's didn't work out for you Jen… in fact, sounds like they were a bit of a disaster for you. I have put about 200 miles on mine and I really like them… no sore spots, no blisters, so comfy that I didn't even bother to change into my camp slippers. I love the cush for my old joints. They're not perfect… lots of little things I can gripe about, but they are now my go-to hiking foot wear. I have the women's version as the men's is just WAY too wide. Billy