Soft and squishy shoes for backpacking?

I have a number of friends who backpack in Hokas, so you're certainly not out of line. The added height will be a liability if you're going off trail in more difficult terrain, but on trail you should be fine.

I know of no shoes that match that description for hiking. I used to get cushy socks, but the repeated pounding from hiking reduces them to thin and not cushy – same with insoles that start out cushy and spongy, they will be reduced to thin not-spongy slats.

If you have specific needs related to leg issues, going to specialists for orthotics or shoes tailored to address or at least to not exacerbate your condition are the real solution. Having support for your foot that corrects your stride is more important than padding. Custom boots or custom orthotics can be made to your individualized needs. Knees may require braces, not spongy shoes. Sounds like a trip to the doctor for referrals is what you really need, not advice from internet users.

There are also packs that will remove weight from your back. The Dixon roller pack, for example. And, of course, shifting to lighten the load as much as practically possible helps any back issues.

I'm kind of in the same boat as you – I have a condition that makes me super stiff all over, and my foot is like a rock: high arch, no movement at all. So unless i have a bit of cushion in my running and hiking shoes, my feet and legs and back ache quite a bit.

What you are looking for, most likely, is a neutral shoe with cushion – there are a lot of nice models out there. I run in Mizuno Wave Creations – of course they have to be the most expensive shoe in their line, but they work really well for me for pavement running.

As for backpacking, I'm still on the hunt. So far I am in love with Altra Lone Peak 2.0 – perfect support for me (meaning not much) but nice cushion underneath with a good rock plate to keep the pokey things at bay. I also really like New Balance Leadville 1210s – not as much cushion as in the Lone Peak 2.0s, but good.

Neither one of these has a large sole to increase your risk of rolling an ankle.

But – you should look at my blog post re "strengthening" your ankles – meaning don't worry about STRENGTH, worry about balance and proprioception. It's a bit tough to explain, so just read this and it should help you prevent any ankle rolling: http://backpackerpt.com

Good luck!

Sounds like Hokas to me.

I have been using Hokas for trail running and backpacking on trails for a couple of years. No problems carrying a 20 pound pack. If you are planning on going off trail or rock scrambling they don't work so well. The sole height on the Olympus is similar so my guess is the same problem with sole height of the Hokas would be present.

I've been having problems with the balls of my feet. I think it's some form of fasciitis. It looks like it was caused by carrying a pack AND my daughter (my daughter weighs 35 lbs) with thin soled UL footwear. I've gone back to hiking boots (aka "leather leg killers") with some success but hate the weight. I just bought some Hoka Stinson ATR's. I'll post more if I remember to once I get them. Interesting thoughts about on trail vs. off trail hiking.

HJ

I run and hike in cushioned shoes, and I have spent a lot of time trying on trail runners in search of that perfect level of plushness.

My current go-to shoe is the NB Leadville 1210. I think they're marketed as a stability shoe, but I found them more cushioned than almost any other shoe I tried on (which was upwards of 20 different models) before my last thru-hike.

There's also the NB 910, which is listed as a "cushioning" shoe and is fairly plush as well. I found the 910 to have very poor durability. The 1210s, on the other hand, are super durable and lasted me well over 600 miles per pair.

As others have mentioned, the hokas are the standard for plushness. They felt great in the store, but I wouldn't want to use them on technical or uneven trails.

Perhaps i'm missing something here, but why can't you just add extra insoles to get more cushion for the stomping?

Extra insole thickness would take up more interior space and could cause problems unless you go to a thinner sock.

Well that is somewhat bad news for me that Hokas aren't good on uneven trails since the lack of maintenance seems to be the standard here.

How are the 1210's in terms of width? I've got skinny feet, and I just suffer in shoes that are too wide. As painful as carrying extra weight is, I'd rather have boots that fit than trail runners that don't.

HJ

Jim my feet are really skinny as well and I really like the fit of the 1210s (the leadvilles). I'm really happy with them for my skinny, high-arched, stiff feet. Nice cushion in there

After the Lone Peak 1.5s, I had high hopes for the 2.0s. But the reality was so disappointing. They added a lot of what was bad about the Olympus, too much padding especially in the heel, not enough feel of the trail, an increased stack height. I gave up on the Olympus because the rocker feel aggravated a knee injury, but what annoyed me the most was how my feet would slide around. I have E width feet, but the Olympus were too big. Sidehilling, they'd slide to the downhill side and I'd get no support. Going downhill they'd slide forward and I'd get major toe bang.

I'm once again in the inov-8 camp. The redesign on the Trailroc line has narrowed the forefoot slightly, but eased up on the heel. Previously the 255s were too tight in the heel for me, whereas I loved the 245s. The new 255s fit me nicely and give that extra cushion for hardpack trail use. And for mud and consolidated snow, I'm loving the X-Talon 212 in the wider Standard fit. But I digress – the latter is very far from a soft and squishy shoe.

"bad news for me that Hokas aren't good on uneven trails "

I use my Hokas on all trails… and love them…
They're only a problem off trail… like steep side hilling
But I've even done some extensive talus in them..
To some degree you get used to them and kinda learn how to walk in them…

love the cush for my old knees…

billy

I think the olympus is worth a shot. I used the lone peak (original and 1.5) for a few years for trail running and backpacking and liked them a lot. Decided to try out the olympus on a whim and have really enjoyed them. The stack height and rocker take just a bit of getting used to (not as much as I expected) but they seem to really help decrease fatigue and soreness in my feet primarily and a little bit elsewhere as well. You will likely need to go up 1/2 to 1 full size…I did, at least. I really like the wide toebox in the altras–a requirement for me.

Jennifer (and others), thanks for all the input. If the Hokas don't work out, I will definitely check out the NB Leadville 1210's.

HJ

Jim, I'd also take a good look at the Altra Lone Peak 2.0. I'm going back and forth between that one and the Leadvilles as my go-to shoes, but I have to say I think the Altra edges out the NB in squishy comfort. But you have to be OK with a zero drop shoe (and I am, as I spend most of my indoor time barefoot anyway).

I have flat feet and CONSTANTLY buy and try new shoes The Hokas seem really tall to me. However, the Altra Lone Peak 2.0s work well for me. I'm still trying to work out the right size, 13 or 14 (usually I'm a 13). I like the toe spread and traction, at least on dry, rough trails so far. I did a 10K trail race in the 13s with thin socks and they worked great. I am trying the 14s this week for a two day, 34 mile backpack on the PCT. I'll be wearing thicker socks due to low temps. I tried the Leadvilles and thought they were light but "underbuilt" for my purposes: Not enough toe protection on the front or side front. I kept getting "dinged" by rocks and roots. Another good option are the Mountain Masochist II. They're a little heavy but have plenty of padding for a big guy (6-2, 230) like me.

So, revealing my near total ignorance here, what’s the deal with “zero drop” shoes? Presumably the heel and ball are equidistant above the ground and, what this makes it easier to have a mid-foot strike (the mid-foot strike being the supposed ideal). Is that the idea?

HJ
Adventures in Stoving
Hikin Jim’s Blog

The idea is that having an elevated heel is unhealthy and unnatural. For some people an elevated heel can cause serious knee or back pain. I'm not sure why elevated heels were put in shoes in the first place.

However, watch out if you go straight to zero drop from normal shoes, as you can give yourself Achilles problems. Ok if you make the change gradually.

Thanks to all for the great input!

I found a good orthopaedic podiatry cobbler who is putting custom lifts on my short leg into a couple pair of Asics GT2000 (one goretex for winter, one trail for summer).

I'm going to then experiment a bit with the NB 1210 and Lone Peak 2.0s.

Hoka is getting into the hiking/backpacking segment of the market in 2015. Another shoe to add to your growing list of options for "maximal" cushioned shoe offerings. The pendulum has swung back so far, so quickly.

http://running.competitor.com/2015/01/shoes-and-gear/hoka-one-one-looks-go-beyond-niche_120661

Ooooooooooooo — I want those Hoka mids!!! I hope they are out by spring/summer…

The article says Fall 2015. Boooo. :(