will the nike wildhorse 3 solve all of life's problems?

[ben .]

nike shoes feel good on my feet. but they don’t make trail runners. oh wait, i guess they do!

do any of you have experience hiking with the wildhorse 3?

it looks similar to other nike shoes i know and love.

the toebox looks decent.

the lugs look somewhat minimal compared to what i’m used to, but this reviewer (https://trailtopeak.com/2015/09/24/gear-review-nike-air-zoom-wildhorse-3/) seems to think they are grippy as hell.

an earlier version was referenced twice on bpl in 2014, but otherwise silence.

anyone with experience out there?

 

[Colin M]

I generally don’t like Nike’s at all (fashion over performance) but the their Kiger trail runners are a really good running option: comfortable, durable, very breathable and have a good toe box. This looks like a more cushioned version of the Kiger 3 so are worth a shot. I should warn that the Kiger’s do not fit like most Nike shoes. If these have similar fit to the Kiger’s, and Nike’s normally work for you, these may not work.

Edit: forgot to mention they have a non-gusseted tongue so you’ll need to get out the glue for your gaiters. Pretty annoying omission IMO.

[ben .]

hey colin

thanks so much for the input. yeah, the wildhorse seems to be slotted in as the slightly bigger/burlier kiger’s.

i realize it’s not the same shoe, but how do you find traction?

[Roger Caffin]

Nike:
arch support
pronation control
gel soles
FIFA funding
…

Cheers

Edited to change ‘Olympics’ to ‘FIFA’

 

[ben .]

roger, i understand all those words but i’m not sure what you’re saying. :)

[Roger Caffin]

The first three are concepts developed by Nike marketing to promote their brand. Unfortunately, not only is there zero scientific justification for any of them, there is actually good published evidence in refereed journals that all three are medically harmful.

Arch supports – these are supposed to ‘suport’ your arch. However, millions of years of evolution have ensured that your feet are quite capable of supporting themselves. What the arch support does is to crush the ligaments and tendons under your arch against the bone, causing bruising and tears in the sheathes. This can be crippling.

Pronation control derives from the idea that there is a single ‘correct’ way to stand and walk, and tries to distort the sole of the shoe to force a change in your natural biomechanics. The end effect is damage to your ankles, knees and hips as your body is forced in what is for it an unnatural motion. The damage may in some cases extend to your lower spine.

Gel soles seek to insulate your feet from any bumps or pebbles on the track, in the name of comfort. In reality, you lose all propioception: feedback from the soles of your feet to your brain telling you how bumpy the track is. The end result is usually a sprained ankle.

ZERO medical evidence for, and a LOT of medical evidence against. Most other shoe mfrs treate these ideas as toxic to their brands.

Cheers

[Nick Truax]

First, I will ask: Roger, have you used said shoe? I would imagine not based on your rhetoric. Marketing and reality are often much removed. As we already know. While Mr Caffin is an oft revered staple here on BPL, I’d take his word lightly. As I’d take mine :) Grains of salt they say. But I’ve put hundreds of miles on the WH3 and can give some real world feedback.

First, the WH3 will NOT solve all of life’s problems. But it is a very good trail runner with some faults. The WH3 has very little pronation control. It’s really a neutral shoe with a slightly higher (than I like) heel-toe drop. For reference, I run a lot in the mountains and also hike a lot (1000+ miles/yr), with the lower-drop PI Trail N2 being one of my most favorite shoes in the last few years for most everything except for off trail and/or sloppy conditions. Now that PI has done away with their running line, I’ve branched out and tried a variety of trail shoes. The WH3 and TK3 from Nike have been some of the more pleasant runners that I’ve used alongside PI and Salomon. I’ve run over 30 miles multiple times in the WH3 and can attest to them being a good compromise of grip, traction, support, drainage, and fit.

Regarding fit, my foot is narrow in the heel, wider in forefoot, and with a high arch. LS usually fits well but tight up front. I prefer a bit more splay in the toe box, which I get from PI, less so from Salomon, and even less from LS.

LS has the best rubber, with Solly, PI, and Nike coming in as a decent compromise below LS.

Regarding arch support – there’s minimal in the WH3. Marketing jargon would be my guess.

Gel support – a touch in the heel of the WH3 that is forgiving once the shoe is broken in. Not “bouncy” or any more cushy than similarly weighted trail runners. The TK3 has this in both the forefoot and rear. Not noticeably a detriment and actually a more smooth (IMO) runner vs WH3 based on a lower drop and lighter weight. But the TK3 works better for me for below marathon distance whereas the the WH3 is nicer over ultra distance. I’d imagine this had to do with my less efficient technique and middle of the pack pace!

As for proprioception, all of the above that I’ve used extensively have had it. Including the Nikes, Roger ;) – just to varying degrees: are you hiking ten miles with a ten lb pack or running 50 miles with a 2 lb pack? And over what terrain?

So, in summary, best of luck in your search for Animal Chin. I haven’t found him yet. Will continue the search…

 

[HiLight]

I draw the line at FIFA funding. But that’s me.  : )

ben – It sounds like there’s enough of a difference between these shoes and the typical fit of other Nike models that you may have to try them on before knowing much about how they’ll work for you.

I haven’t found a Nike that agreed with my feet yet, but they’ve always gotten along well with New Balance products. If the Nike doesn’t work out for you, the NB Leadville v3 is worth a look. I put some hard use on mine hiking primitive trails in Big Bend NP, and they held up well, with no discomfort. Even Roger likes them!

[Roger Caffin]

Hi Nick

No, you are quite right. I have avoided Nike for some time while they went through their gimmick phase. Just no need to take the risk.

The WH3 has very little pronation control. It’s really a neutral shoe 

Perhaps Nike is moving on past the gimmicks, back to good footwear? Certainly, I know that many top athletes and coaches have been ‘telling’ them for some time.

are you hiking ten miles with a ten lb pack or running 50 miles with a 2 lb pack? And over what terrain?
Me or Ben?
8 km running two mornings out of three before breakfast.
Walking – Australia and European Alps, up to 3 months at a time, with packs. Well over 50+ years experience off-trail.

Cheers

PS: the Leadvilles are great!

 

[Justin Baker]

Roger, what makes you think that the shoes linked in the original post have any of those listed features? They looked like a fairly neutral shoe, they remind me of altras.

Keep in mind that Nike makes a very popular minimalist road shoe, the Nike Free.

[Roger Caffin]

Hi Justin

Good question. It may be that at least some parts of Nike have seen the light at last. Perhaps I am just behind the times? I would welcome further enlightenment -(honest).

However, a remaining huge negative for me is that they come in just one width – which I bet is either D or maybe E, although Nike do not even specify this. That’s not good.

Cheers

[Justin Baker]

In my experience, most American brands do not list widths in D or E. They simply have their standard width, which is whatever they want it to be, and then a “wide” version of it. For example, Keen shoes in their “standard” width are very wide and in their “wide” width they are super wide. Some shoe brands, like altra or topo, have huge toe box areas. The width in the heel and midfoot is like a standard D but the toe area is like a 3E or bigger.

The issue with the brannock device is it measures width at the ball of the foot, not at the ends of the toes. So you can get wide shoes with aggressively tapering toe boxes that are terrible for foot health. In my experience most people with “wide” feet need it mostly in the toe area and not as much in the heel or midfoot.

[ben .]

nick –

thanks so much for your in depth take on these shoes. i really appreciate it. i don’t run, so this is strictly for walking. your description makes it sound like something i should at least check out.

i was excited to try pearl izumi, but ended up buying and returning the n2, m2, and n3. all three felt quite stiff and terrible on my feet. i was surprised, since everyone loves them.

at the moment i hike mostly in salomon speedcross, which i like just fine and are wonderfully grippy, but are unnecessarily narrow in the toebox (is there ever a good reason for such a narrow toebox?) and the lacing system is silly. did we really need to ‘disrupt’ shoe laces?!

i also own lone peak 2.5’s which are like profoundly comfortable hiking clouds, but could use better traction and my heel slides around a bit on uneven surfaces. i’m also not sure zero drop is for me, at least not all the time.

anyway, thanks again for sharing your experience.

 

[ben .]

roger, you have an interesting perspective here but i’m fairly sure nike did not invent arch supports or the concept of “overpronation.” perhaps they popularized one or both? they are at heart a marketing company, of course.

i don’t have a dog in the fight for or against ‘correcting’ pronation, though it’s something i’ve read more about (pro and con) in the last few years and find to be an interesting debate.

new balance itself is no stranger to arch support/stability/motion control, etc these days. actually, i did a quick google, and (at least according to wikipedia) the company started out solely manufacturing arch supports! the current leadville’s themselves have a “medial post located on inside edge of shoe to help prevent overpronation.” you’ve clearly studied the mechanics and history of all this much more than i have, so i’m curious what the difference is between the leadville and the kinds of foot ‘control’ mechanisms you don’t like? is it a matter of degree?

in any event, the two or three pairs of nike’s i have are fairly neutral. i wear them walking around town. they feel good on my feet and i like how they look. i’m happy!

[HiLight]

ben – The sole stiffness may be due to a rock plate that’s overly rigid for your needs. If rock protection isn’t a priority for you, try shoes that have a minimal plate, or none at all. Nick may be able to speak to this point, as the WH3 has a rock plate, but may still be somewhat flexy, like the NB Leadville.

In making my transition from more traditional footwear to trail runners, I was concerned about bruising from talus. I found it wasn’t an issue with a sub-30lb pack, even on very loose, sharp stones, but I wouldn’t want to wear trail runners with the huge packs my friends typically carry. They were actually worried about me injuring myself with my “puny shoes”, but I never had a problem keeping comfortably ahead of them on the trail. Being the old guy in the group, I’ll admit to some satisfaction from that.

[ben .]

hey hilight, yeah the rock plate (or something else about the outsole) seemed incredibly rigid on the pearl izumi line. i don’t have a philosophical need to feel every pebble in the trail, so a rock plate is not an issue for me in theory. the speedcross doesn’t have a rock plate, but the lone peak’s do. neither bother me like the pearl izumi shoes. who knows. :)

[Roger Caffin]

i’m fairly sure nike did not invent arch supports or the concept of “overpronation.” perhaps they popularized one or both? 
That would be news to me if they were not the source of the ideas. I would welcome any historical info on other sources. Yes, they are a marketing company – but I think they did make some mistakes. That happens.

New Balance … started out solely manufacturing arch supports!
That must have been a LONG time ago. They have since learnt better.

what the difference is between the leadville and the kinds of foot ‘control’ mechanisms you don’t like? is it a matter of degree?
That is a fair description of the difference, although the intention also matters. If you try to interfere with a person’s natural biomechanics, you will do damage. What NB seem to do these days is to try to improve the way the shoe is located around your foot (so it does not slide around) without actually interfering with your foot. Well, that’s my impression from reviewing many of their shoes.

Why am I so interested in all this? I have suffered through my own mistakes with footwear, and seen enough disasters in others. And I have been bushwalking for over 50 years, so the experience mounts up.

Rockplates – you need a bit of protection under your foot on very sharp rough ground, but most any shoe these days has enough of that – even without an explicit rockplate there. The real problem imho comes when someone who has never walked any further than from their front door to their car suddenly tries to go walking in the mountains. The muscles and tendons in their flabby feet are just not up to the load overall. What they need then is not ‘arch support’ but a bit of exercise and fitness.  </soapbox>

Cheers

[Rex Sanders]

When were arch supports invented? Depends on your definition of arch supports.

I was diagnosed with flat feet roughly 50 years ago (Nike was unknown then), and wore torturous leather-and-metal arch supports for a couple of years (in Keds and Converse All-Stars!) until I couldn’t stand it anymore. I suspect this style of arch support had been around for years before that.

Fast forward 25 years, now I have plantar fasciitis and have worn custom orthotics ever since.

Am I a silently injured pawn of the medical-industrial-arch-support complex? Maybe. But I’m in a lot of pain without orthotics, and a pair lasts 15+ years, so they aren’t making much off of me.

Do some shoes and sandals provide more arch support than others? Absolutely. And I wear them in conditions where I can’t wear orthotics.

When I shop for hiking/backpacking shoes, I look for removable inserts so I can use orthotics. It’s been about 20 years since I’ve worn or tried Nikes, so I have no opinion. The original 1980s Nike Lava Domes were fantastic trail shoes, kind of invented the concept.

Rockplates and foot conditioning are important, too.

— Rex

[HiLight]

I’ve always kept my fairly flat feet on the move, and any corrective aid that’s uncomfortable when I first slip on a shoe tends to become problematic the longer I wear them. I think ben has it right with this:

they feel good on my feet and i like how they look. i’m happy!

[Colin M]

Ben,
Sorry, just now able to respond. I find the grip to be above average in gravel and dry conditions and average when wet. Not great at all on wet wood but few are. I also have to say the uppers are excellent, really like them.
And I’ll repeat: Nike suck overall but their trail runners in this category are a serious effort and really great shoes. I just wish they were gusseted!

It seems we have slipped down the slope of the minimalist shoe converts. Great for them, maybe not for you (or the vast majority of people). I run in minimalist shoes, have for about 8 years now but find they work well on more PCT style trails for hiking and not so great on very steep routes with repeated sustained climbs over many days as they over stretch my achellies. It’s a problem I’ve never had when I have a small drop so it’s not something I think should be ignored even by people like me that use minimalist shoes regularly. Different tools for different jobs.

[HiLight]

I’m not a minimalist shoe convert, but I like shoes that work with my feet, not against them in an effort to “correct” them. I believe that’s at the heart of what Roger said: “If you try to interfere with a person’s natural biomechanics, you will do damage. What NB seem to do these days is to try to improve the way the shoe is located around your foot (so it does not slide around) without actually interfering with your foot.”

IMO, no amount of research will outweigh simply trying on a shoe. I think most of us know when a shoe just feels right, and often, a few specific brands do a better job of that for each of us than other options.  For people without medical complications, I believe it’s important to pay more attention to what your feet are telling you than to reviewers and ad copy.

[ben .]

some (random internet) history on arch supports: http://www.fastechlabs.net/brief-history

the wiki new balance history, which says the company mainly produced arch supports until 1960: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Balance#History

i couldn’t find anything about the history of the over pronation diagnosis/shoe marketing, but i didn’t try for very long, either.

since we all seem to be giving our clinical histories, i have a bone spur on the top of my left foot — a “metatarso-cuneiform exostosis” — and went to a podiatrist about it a couple years ago when it was hurting (the last time it had hurt was ten years prior!). he diagnosed me with ‘over pronation’ and relatively low arches. he sold me on expensive custom orthotics. whoops! i never liked them. they hurt and just felt wrong. he said they’d “feel weird” to begin with, which just doesn’t pass my sniff test. over a couple appointments i grew to not really trust the guy in general. i keep meaning to go to a different podiatrist to get another opinion, and because i love walking and am interested in how my foot works in general, but haven’t yet.

:)

[HiLight]

I have the best luck with shoes that just try to support my feet, not change them. For example, shoes with a lot of arch support have far too much of a contour to be comfortable for me.

I know people that’ve gotten in a jam when they sustained an injury associated with questionable footwear, then tried to correct it with more questionable footwear. I’ve been lucky enough to avoid that trap, but I feel for anyone going through that cycle. I think I’d give someone with a sports medicine emphasis a try. Anyone on BPL probably needs answers from an athletic perspective.

[Roger Caffin]

Hi Rex

But I’m in a lot of pain without orthotics, and a pair lasts 15+ years, so they aren’t making much off of me.

I would love to hear from you just what your orthotics do. I am sure others would love to hear as well.
For the record: I do dismiss the mass-market ‘orthotics’ as pointless or worse: they are just a marketing gimmick. After all, what shoe company wants to sell you their shoes with lousy footbeds? Most unlikely!
But genuine orthotics which are designed for ONE person’s feet by someone experienced and competent are a completely different matter. Sadly, it seems that there are not that many really competent people around, while there are lots of ‘less-than’ competent’ people out there, hawking their services.

I do remember a BPL member saying he had been to 4 or 6 podiatrists for help, one after another, and each one dismissed the ‘orthotics’ designed by the previous podiatrist as rubbish.

The suggestion that you should be guided by how any particular pair of shoes FEELS on your feet, rather than what some stupid reviewer wrote, is probably the best advice of all. I will only add: don’t compromise.

Cheers

[Zak S]

These look like interesting shoes, I’m glad they got brought up here.  Not sure if the wildhorse or the kigen would be better for me- I do a lot more miles running than hiking these days.  I’m pretty excited to hear that durability is good on these- reading reports of 700 miles and more on the review sites, tough uppers with a good amount of mesh, durable, non convoluted soles.  Sounds good.  I’m just unwilling to fork out the money that most trail runners cost for a shoe that might only last a couple hundred miles.

And for the record, my feet are just not that picky about shoes, I can’t remember getting a blister since I was 17, building fence through oregon swamps (“meadows”) for weeks at a time wearing logging boots.

And I don’t particularly like wide toeboxes, because I have super narrow feet, and a wide toebox means a wide sole, which puts more leverage on my ankles when I’m sidehilling.

[Author]

Posts