Shoes for My Life

January 12th, 2025

Background

As a lifelong Arizona resident, I have been fortunate to avoid the "hiking boot" tradition. I've always hiked in breathable low-top shoes, and it's been great! These days, I use shoes in this category for nearly everything! That includes: hiking, backpacking, running, scrambling, paddling, and canyoneering, and walking on firm snow. The core need is the same for all of these activities - breathable low-top shoes are best. But as I've added these multisport layers, and increased the distance and ruggedness of my outings, I have gotten considerably more picky about shoes!

In 2024 I ordered 17 pairs of shoes from REI! Don't worry, most of those never made it beyond indoor testing and were returned promptly. I did this because many of the best shoes aren't available in any store, so to try them on you have to order multiple sizes. For many years, but especially this year, I've just been generally curious to learn all I can and try to get to the bottom of this endless puzzle. This is an attempt to document my experience and provide advice. I warn you though - all this nerdery has not increased my happiness very much. Now I'm just hyper-aware of shoe flaws, and as it turns out, there is no perfect shoe! If you are content in a state of blissful ignorance, I respect that. If you have problems you are looking to solve - read on!

I own four shoes that aren't in this category - flip flops, leather "town boots", clippy bike shoes, and ski touring boots.

My feet

I don't have particularly wide feet naturally, although my toes are certainly wider than my heels. I broke my right foot rather severely in 2019, and because of imperfect healing it now it has a stout bunion. As such, I generally prefer shoes with a wide toebox that are otherwise slim and can be tightened snugly. I find that to give me a good balance of comfort and stability. I also have moderately high arches.

This may sound like a unique situation, but I think a lot of people are actually seeking shoes with a wide toebox that are otherwise slim - because that's how most feet are shaped, especially when our toes splay out as they're weighted. Some brands have actually caught onto this and have started marketing this type of shoe as... foot-shaped.

The size that I prefer depends entirely on the model of the shoe and what socks I wear. I've enjoyed wearing anything from size 11 (44.5) to 12.5 (46).

Interestingly my mom's feet are very wide in general, but a lifetime of wearing too-narrow shoes has caused the development or Morton's neuroma, which is a sad and crippling condition. This has had a big influence on me in recent years and is part of why I am so focused on finding shoes with adequately wide toeboxes.

Socks

Sock choice has a big impact on shoe fit and utility. I can wear different sizes of shoes depending on which socks I wear. For a long time now, I have been buying exclusively Darn Tough socks for their warranty, which I have made use of many times!

Historically I was drawn to thicker, more cushioned socks for their perceived comfort, such as the Darn Tough Midweight series. But I have always been willing to get my shoes and socks wet when watery situations arise. Eventually, I came to realize that thick socks hold on to more water for longer, which is undesirable. That water doesn't have to come from the outdoors either, thicker socks get wetter from sweat. More uniquely, I have also observed that thick socks absorb more salt (from sweat), dead skin, and dirt than thin socks. This makes them feel crusty sooner and because they are thick, they are harder to clean.

These days I still find moderately thick socks like the Darn Tough Lightweight series to be comfortable temporarily, but for long-term use, especially in dirty, hot, or wet conditions, I prefer truly thin socks like the Darn Tough Ultra-lightweight Running series. I can wear the same pair of these socks every day for weeklong backpacking trips! If I get my feet wet incidentally, breathable shoes and thin socks dry quickly. Sometimes I wash them in the evening before putting on clean sleeping socks. But even without washing, they don't get too crusty. Putting on socks that are wet from the day prior on a cold morning is a bummer - for about 10 seconds! After that they warm up and it's fine.

"Water shoes"

In too many outdoor communities, common knowledge seems to say that water shoes are sandals, and sandals are water shoes. After a great amount of testing, I have concluded that sandals are fine for casual use in water, but when it really counts they are actually terrible water shoes because they are slippery when wet! More secure-fitting closed-toed sandals that are marketed as "water hiking shoes" are also very bad, because they have an open construction that allows gravel to get inside and get trapped!

For any decent amount of water hiking, river paddling, or canyoneering, the best water shoes are..... breathable low-top shoes. If you want evidence to support this claim, look no further that the Astral TR-1, described below. Astral is a devout paddlesports brand, and with the TR-1 they set out to make a great water shoe. The result is a great piece of footwear that is indistinguishable from running/approach shoes.

Gaiters

Minimal, breathable gaiters have gained a big following in the communities of trail running and thru-hiking for their ability to keep dirt and gravel out of low-top shoes. I think this is because most participants in those sports wear shorts, so their shoes would otherwise be exposed. I have used this style of gaiter extensively, both with shorts and pants. With pants, the answer is pretty clear to me - the cuff of the pants drapes over my ankles and works adequately as a gaiter. Because pants have become an important part of my clothing system, and as such I only wear shorts for short outings, I haven't found gaiters to be as helpful as I once thought they should be.

Where I have found gaiters to make a lot of sense is for water hiking and canyoneering. Stepping in water causes pant cuffs to lift, and if debris is stirred up it can easily find it's way into my shoes. Gaiters help with this. It's best if they have an underfoot strap so they don't get lifted too, such as the Kahtoola gaiters have. They are also really helpful for postholing in snow! My feet can usually stay warm in breathable shoes if I can prevent snow from entering through the cuffs.

Lacing

I do two unique things with shoe lacing that I have found very helpful and worth sharing.

Loose for the up, tight for the down: While guiding backpacking trips, I began giving this advice to every client, and I have found it extremely helpful in preventing foot problems like hot spots, blisters, and toe jam. Having shoelaces loose for ascents reduces friction on the back of the heel. Now, read closely here - tightening shoes for descents doesn't just increase stability and prevent toe jam, it also reduces the feeling that you need to curl your toes and grip the insole with your feet to prevent toe jam. Subconsciously gripping the sole of a shoe really increases friction underfoot. I think most hikers haven't experienced this phenomenon because, honestly, tightening most shoelaces is physically strenuous and technically challenging. I tighten each segment individually, to my liking, using my free fingers to capture progress. This is especially helpful with thin socks!
Camp mode: As a kid I never untied my shoes, now I do it every time! My favorite tip here is to tie little stopper knots near the end of the laces so that I can quickly rip them untied without worrying about the laces pulling out. I loosen my shoes all the way, every time because it makes them easier to tie next time, and because it is super comfortable! This helps me enjoy bringing no "camp shoes" on backcountry trips. I wear my shoes around like this all the time if the use is casual - I only tie them when I'm going to do something real.

A visual example of "camp mode". Notice the stopper knot upper left. The failure point in the picture is a bit of foreshadowing...

Defining characteristics

I've already defined this type of footwear as breathable low-top shoes. Why does that mean so much to me?

I use the word breathable because it's strongly preferable over its enemy - waterproof. Some marketing campaigns would like us to believe that material can be waterproof and breathable - not very true! Any waterproof shoe is not not only dramatically less breathable, but also holds water like a bucket if overtopped! Very bad. Don't be afraid to get your feet wet! It's not nearly as scary as the waterproof shoe companies want us to believe! I have never seen anyone develop foot problems after dunking their feet in water. I have seen many foot problems occur as a result of feet that are hot and sweaty inside waterproof footwear!

Low-top shoes for hiking aren't just acceptable, they're preferable over boots, even while carrying heavy loads and especially on rough terrain. High-top boots with "ankle support" act as ankle-immobilizers, which is a huge liability! When our ankles can't function as evolution/God intended, it severely hinders our ability to cope with off-camber terrain, crippling our balance and transferring strain to our knees. Low-top shoes allow our ankles to articulate and compensate for terrain of varying angles. Awesome for hiking, and critical for running and scrambling!

Shoes that fall into this category are always sold as either trail running shoes, approach shoes, or hiking shoes. I have thus far avoided using these terms because they would overly distill the category that I'm really after. The reality is that all breathable low-top shoes fall somewhere on a spectrum, and their optimal use is governed only by the characteristics described below.

Other characteristics

Shoes are an endlessly interesting piece of gear because there are so many characteristics and fits! Here are some I've learned about.

Outsole rubber: Softer rubber compounds are better at sticking to rock, harder compounds have longer lug life. It really is that simple.
Outsole lug pattern: Deep, widely-spaced lugs are better for soft terrain. Shallow, closely-spaced lugs are better on rock
Midsole density: Denser foam yields more stability and foot protection, and lasts longer. Softer foam provides better cushion, but "packs out" more quickly. Softer foam can provide better "ground feel", but it is often associated with high stack, which has the opposite effect.
Stack height: Is the elevation of the heel relative to the ground, measure in millimeters. Lower stack helps the wearer feel more balanced but can be harsh. Higher stack feels more unstable, but provides more cushion and protection.
Drop: Is the difference in elevation between the heel and toe. Some people argue passionately in favor of the ergonomics or shoes with zero drop or with some amount of drop. I've found that I can wear any of them, but I prefer shoes with a moderate drop of 3-8mm.
Rock plate: Is supposed to be a thin layer of hard plastic that prevents pokey rocks from being felt. Rock plates are less necessary in shoes with denser midsole foam. Strangely, I have felt many pokey rocks through many shoes with rock plates. Rock plates are never as stiff as they seem like they should be, in an effort to maintain ground feel.
Insole/footbed shape: this is where we get "arch support" from. Most running shoes come with a fairly flat footbed and rely on the softness of the foam to conform to the user's feet. For shoes with dense midsoles that don't conform much (approach shoes), I've found aftermarket arch support insoles to be helpful.
Width: Is different in for the heel, midfoot, and toebox. Many "wide" shoes are wide throughout but have a pointed toebox, giving the opposite effect that myself and many other are looking for. I want a secure, slim-fitting shoe that has a broad toebox to allow for natural toe splay.
Volume: Is different from width only in that it includes a height component.
Upper material: Thicker fabrics made from stronger yarn are more abrasion-resistant. Tightly woven fabrics keep out sand and dust while still being breathable. Loosely woven fabrics are slightly more breathable but let dirt in, and unfortunately are more common. Here is a deep-dive review about sand resistance and how to assess it, by Andrew Skurka. I prefer shoes with dirt-resistant fabrics, but don't find them as essential for deserts as Skurka proposes, because most of my desert hiking is actually not sandy.
Toecaps: Are a stiff piece of plastic that protect the toes from stubbing.
Rubber rands: Are a wrap-around strip of rubber most often found on approach shoes to protect the lower portion of the fabric. I have found full 360 degree rands undesirable because they hold water like a bathtub.
Drainage: Any breathable shoe without a full bathtub rand will drain fine. Some have permeable holes in the sole to allow water to squeeze through - I haven't found this helpful.
Stability features: Are hard plastic overlays on the exterior of the shoe, usually around the base of the heel, to prevent the foot from sliding laterally
Lace loops: Some shoes have high-friction lace loops to aid in getting a tight tie. These can cause excess abrasion to the laces, so the laces need to be extra durable!
Laces: I find standard laces to be the most versatile, although I don't mind using Quicklaces or Boas because they are so fast!
Weight: Obviously, lighter shoes are desirable. A common saying is that "one pound on your feet uses as much energy as five pounds on your back" because of the constant lifting and swinging. While there is some controversy about this, the concept makes logical sense. I have found it difficult to compare claimed weights from the internet, so I just weigh shoes myself. I always weigh them when they are new so the number isn't skewed by dirt or moisture.
Support; Is a word that gets thrown around quite often without a good understanding what it means. I have stopped using it because it's too general. Its definition can include any combination of midsole density, stack, footbed shape, stability, and lacing security.

Shoes I like: Organized from most to least rugged.

La Sportiva TX3: If I have a signature shoe, these would be it. I have more pictures of my feet in these shoes than any other, because I have used at least five pairs. The TX3 use a rugged mesh upper that makes them more breathable, but less durable than leather approach shoes. They have very sticky rubber. My favorite feature of these is that they are unique in both the approach shoe category and in La Sportiva's lineup for their wide toebox but otherwise secure fit. These are the shoes that proved to me that my toes don't have to be cramped for a shoe to be confidence-inspiring.

I love the TX3, but have begun to question if the performance on rock is worth the tradeoffs in weight and lack of cushion. I never push my scrambling limit to the point where I really need approach shoes, so I can happily do most of my scrambling in running shoes. The weight, low stack, and dense midsole foam means that these shoes are good off-trail, but bad for hiking big miles and very bad for running. I have to use them with aftermarket arch-support insoles because the foam doesn't conform to the shape of my arch well. The fabric is also not very dirt-resistant.

I wear size 45 in the TX3 and a new one weighs 14oz. They have an unknown stack and drop.

Salomon XA Pro 3D: These shoes are at the very rugged end of the trail-running spectrum. I used a few pairs long ago in college, and one more recently. They are slightly softer that the TX3, making them somewhat runnable. But they are are still very heavy and have a stiff midsole, durable upper, big padded tongue, and hardcore toecap. This makes them good for rugged off-trail hiking and use on snow. They are the best shoes I have found to use with strap-on crampons. They have a generally high-volume fit that accommodates my toes well, but with thin socks I have to cinch the quicklaces very tight.

My least favorite features of the XA Pro are the porous mesh that lets in dirt and sand, and the extremely high drop. The drop is so noticeable that it feels like I am walking downhill all the time, forcing me to keep the laces tight. They also come with the worst Ortholite insole of any shoe, because when it absorbs water it wrinkles underfoot.

I wear size 11.5 and one weighs 14.5oz. The stack is 28 heel/17 toe, although some reviews measured them to have an even larger drop than that!

La Sportiva Bushido III, Wide Edition: I have been compelled by the concept of the Bushido that Andrew Skurka raves about: a shoe that is low, stiff, and secure without being heavy, making it ideal for off-trail walking. What I have disagreed with, in the past, is his idea of a "dreamy fit". The Bushido is the narrowest shoe in La Sportiva's line, a brand that is notoriously narrow. But when the III launched in 2024, it became available in a "wide fit". With a wide-enough toebox that is well-shaped for my foot, but a still-snug midfoot and heel, I have found these very comfortable and stable. As of this writing I am less than halfway through my first pair, but I think I will continue to like them. The lugs and rubber compound both fall in the middle of their respective spectrums.

I am not sure yet what the biggest downfalls of this shoe will be. I can say assertively that they are lacking in cushion, being so firm and low. This is not my favorite shoe for long runs on easy terrain or hiking big miles on trail. The fabric is also not very dirt-resistant.

I wear size 45.5, the smallest Sportiva running shoe I can tolerate, and one weighs 11.5oz. The stack is 17 heel/11 toe.

La Sportiva Akasha II: I used a pair of these throughout 2024, and what I was most impressed by was how long they lasted, and how much of a happy medium they are. I managed to flatten the lugs and midsole foam long before the upper showed signs of failing, which is rare for me. Nearly everything about these shoes feels balanced; the sole is grippy but durable, they are cushioned but stable, they are light but long-lasting. None of these things are extreme, they are all just true.

My least favorite thing about the Akasha is the fit, but with the accommodating fabric I was able to make them work by sizing up dramatically. Even with a size that was way too long, I still experienced some annoying compression of my right pinky toe. The fabric is also not very dirt-resistant.

I wear size 46, and one weighs 13.3oz. The stack is 30 heel/25 toe.

Astral TR-1 Scuffler: I have not used these extensively, but what I love about them is that they have highly dirt-resistant fabric, but still drain water and fit my foot well. They also have sticky rubber and a moderately dense midsole, inspiring confidence in rocky terrain.

These are a zero-drop shoe which I can tolerate, but is not my preference. They have also had some durability issues reported, but I think those might be for the Mesh version. Time will tell if these become a favorite or a niche tool. I am suspicious that the are discontinued, so my current plan is to reserve them for use when I really want dirt-resistance, like for trips in the sandstone environments of Utah or maybe on the Grand Canyon's corridor trails.

I wear size 11.5 and they weigh 12.75oz. The stack is 20 heel/20 toe.

Saucony Peregrine 13: I like these because they are great general-purpose trail running shoes that fit my foot pretty well. They have a wide enough toebox and a secure enough heel, and a nice low drop. In the 13 version particularly, the "Arroyo" colorway was made of a different fabric than all the others and was completely dirt-resistant. I also think they are pretty.

The midsole is pretty soft, and the rubber is not super sticky, but these are fine traits for an on-trail shoe.

I wear size 12 and they weigh 11.8oz. The stack is 28 heel/24 toe.

Topo Ultraventure II: The Ultraventure II is discontinued, and I will use it to introduce my bittersweet relationship with the Topo brand. Theoretically, the existence of Topo is a dream come true for me to find light-to-medium duty running shoes because the essence of their fit is a roomy toebox, secure midfoot and heel, and low drop. This feels abundantly true of the Ultraventure II, which is the most cushioned model in their trail line. These are the most comfortable shoes I have ever worn for hiking and running long distances on moderate trails. They are very useful to me because they fill that niche.

These shoes are great for a finite type of terrain, but I spend about half my time on terrain that they don't work well for. The midsole foam is just too soft and the stack too high for confidence and foot protection of rugged trails and off-trail. The fabric is also not dirt-resistant.

I wear size 11.5, and one weighs 12.1oz. The stack is 35 heel/30 toe.

Shoes I want to like but didn't: from most to least rugged.

La Sportiva Mutant: I love so many things about this shoe. The rubber is very sticky and scrambles excellently, even with the huge lugs which are great for aggressive running. The midsole is firm enough to be very stable, but slightly more cushioned than the Bushido. The upper fabric is very dirt-resistant, but drains and dries well. And, in my biased-towards-orange opinion, they look absolutely sick!

What I am most disappointed by is the fit. In 2023, I tried the old version in size 45.5 and they were so tight they made my feet numb. Upon hearing that the new version was better, I ordered a few sizes but found only the largest, the 46, to be tolerable, and they are way too long. I used them for a few backyard scrambles, one 22-mile trail day, and one 15-mile canyon. They irritated my pinky toes on all of these endeavors, but were tolerable. Unfortunately, at the end of the latter, they failed prematurely, as pictured. What disappoints me is that La Sportiva's website characterizes these as "wide" because they are decently high-volume, but the toebox is crushing. It's the opposite of what I want. Because of this, I'm not optimistic that they will give us a "wide" version like the Bushido III.

A size 46 weighs 13.8oz and the stack is 24 heel/14 toe. A bit more drop than I'd prefer.

Scarpa Ribelle Run: These shoes are very similar to the Mutants and the downfall is similar too. They are completely dirt-resistant, really to the point of sacrificed breathability. They are stiff, secure, and grippy.

Unfortunately, although the toebox is actually sort of voluminous, they have an extreme curve that compresses my pinky toes and was constantly irritating. I also found the lugs to flatten quickly, because they are are shallow and the rubber is soft. I may eventually give these another try by sizing up to 12.5.

I wore size 12 and it weighed 12.2oz. The stack is 24 heel/20 toe.

Topo Traverse: This is marketed as the most rugged shoe Topo has made, and I agree. The outsole has my favorite rubber and lugs of any running shoe. The foam is decently stiff, and the upper has some nice TPU overlays to increase durability. The fit, upon first impression, is excellent. The midfoot and heel are very secure, and the toebox is wide.

I enjoyed wearing a pair of the Traverse but was very disappointed when they failed prematurely. The mechanism of failure is unique: although the toebox is wide, it is slanted in a direction that I don't prefer. There is a lot of free space to the inside of my big toes, but the knuckles of my pinky toes are pressed firmly against the somewhat fragile fabric. This created a hole as seen in the first photo. I have found this true of all modern Topo shoes including the Terraventure, Mtn Racer, and Ultraventure. Their shoes were not this way in the past - my early Terraventures were fine as are the Ultraventure II I still use. I downsized my Traverse and found them comfortable, but interestingly, I have tried bigger sizes (right photo) and the problem is still apparent.

I wore size 11 in the Traverse, and it weighed 11.4oz. The stack is 30 heel/25 toe.

Altra Timp: I like the fit of these. Although they are a little sloppy, they are not nearly as bad as the Lone Peak. The fabric of the upper seems durable.

I haven't used these extensively because I don't prefer zero-drop shoes. And sadly, Altra has become notorious for quality control issues in recent years following a corporate buyout. The picture is of my friend Matt's shoe that flattened and began delaminating quickly.

I wore a size 11.5 and forgot to weigh it. The stack is 29 heel/29 toe.

Shoes I don't like: With no particular order or great detail.

La Sportiva Kaptiva: A comfortable sock-like fit with an excellent outsole. These failed in the same way as the Traverse, but much sooner, because the toebox is just so narrow.

La Sportiva Ultra Raptor: A generally bomber shoe except for the tiny lugs. It's very heavy, has high drop, and is simply too narrow for my toes. The Salomon XA Pro is similar to this but fits my foot

Altra Lone Peak: The only nice things are the toebox, and that the fabric on versions 4-8 is dirt-resistant. I find the rest of the fit very sloppy, the foam is soft, and the construction in general is flimsy.

Hoka Speedgoat: The only thing I like about these is the Vibram Megagrip outsole with a cool lug pattern. The midsole foam is super soft and the stack is high, making them unstable. I also find the fit of Hoka shoes horrendous.

La Sportiva Wildcat: These shoes fit my feet relatively well for Sportiva. Otherwise they are not remarkable, the outsole has small lugs and moderate rubber. I hoped that they would be durable. But they weren't, for me. They failed early and catastrophically, in a similar way to my Mutants. The drop is also excessive.

La Sportiva Jackal: Too narrow for my toes, doesn't seem particularly hardy

Salomon Sense Ride: Too tight on my toes

Salomon Genesis: Really tight toebox, obviously not dirt-resistant

Salomon X Ultra: Very narrow toebox

Kaptiva above, Wildcat below

Shoes I might like but haven't used

La Sportiva TX4 Evo: Using a shoe with a leather upper would be novel for me, because they don't obviously meet the breathable criteria. But, they are not necessarily waterproof either, so the upgrade in durability and sand resistance might be worth it. But even with lesser shoes like the TX3 and Akasha, I usually find that by the time the upper fails, the lugs and foam are pretty flattened. These shoes are very firm and resoleable, which might help with that. They would probably be good off-trail, but are very heavy and have abysmal runnability.

Scarpa Ribelle Run XT: These are actually a more heavy duty version of the Ribelle Run, similar in caliber to the XA Pro or Ultra Raptor. Upon initial impression, they seem to fit my foot very well, and have a fully dirt-resistant upper. They are heavy and stiff, which would make them a good candidate for rugged hiking and not very runnable.

Scarpa Ribelle Run Kalibra HT: Seems to just be a BOA version of the above, which could be fun

Scarpa Ribelle Run 2: Probably will have the same fit issues as the original, but I'd try them on. Hopefully the new mesh is still dirt-resistant

La Sportiva Jackal II Boa: Sticky rubber, but lower drop and wider toebox than Mutant

Innov8 Shoes: Sort of hard to get in the US, and their model nomenclature is very confusing. Maybe the Trailfly

Altra Mont Blanc: Supposed to be a more snug fit than other Altra shoes, that are durable and dirt-resistant

Salomon Thundercross: A general-purpose running shoe that I found very comfortable and well-fitting. The fabric seems very dirt-resistant but fragile.

Brooks Cascadia and Catamount: Nice general-purpose running shoes that fit my foot fairly well. Not particularly rugged.

Page updated

Google Sites

Report abuse