Frequently Asked Questions
Trail Runners vs Hiking Shoes: Age and Experience Choice Factors
Trail runners and hiking shoes each have strengths, but age and hiking experience can make one option feel safer, more comfortable, and more sustainable for your body. Here’s a clear comparison that factors in how fitness, joint health, and skill level influence the best choice.
What Are Trial Runners?
Trail runners are low-cut, lightweight shoes built for speed and agility. They’re cushioned like running shoes, with grippy soles and sometimes rock plates (plastic inserts under the ball of the foot) for underfoot protection. They favor quick movement and comfort over structure.
Pros
- Light and fast: Reduced foot and leg fatigue over long distances, especially if you move at a brisk pace.
- Comfort and flexibility: Softer midsoles and natural foot movement; minimal break-in.
- Breathability and quick-dry: Excellent in heat and for sweat-prone feet; drain well when wet.
- Versatility: Work for run-hike mixes and travel.
Cons
- Less support: Minimal torsional stiffness and no ankle coverage; can feel unstable on rough terrain.
- Reduced protection: Thinner uppers and toe rands; more exposure to rocks and roots.
- Durability: Softer midsoles compress sooner; uppers can tear.
- Load limits: Less ideal with heavy packs.
Best for (by age and experience)
- Younger or very fit hikers (any age) with good proprioception and trail confidence: Great choice for speed, long days on moderate trails, or ultralight backpacking.
- Experienced hikers with strong foot/ankle conditioning: Suitable even on technical routes if you pick protective models with rock plates and sticky rubber.
- Newer hikers: Fine on smooth, well-maintained trails; watch footing and avoid heavy loads until skill improves.
- Older hikers: Still viable if balance is solid and you prefer lighter footwear, but choose models with firmer midsoles, good heel lock, and ample traction to reduce instability. Using trekking poles can also improve balance and reduce the severity of ankle rolls.
What Are Hiking Shoes?
Hiking shoes (low or mid-cut) prioritize stability, durability, and protection. They have stiffer midsoles, robust uppers, and more substantial toe/heel reinforcement. Many feature waterproof membranes and lugged outsoles tuned for mixed terrain.
Pros
- Stability and support: Stiffer platforms control foot roll and improve security on uneven ground, which is helpful with weaker ankles or under heavier loads.
- Protection: Beefier toe caps and sidewalls shield against rock strikes and abrasion.
- Durability: Materials and construction withstand frequent use on rough terrain.
- Weather resistance: Waterproof options add warmth and keep feet drier in wet conditions.
Cons
- Heavier: More energy demand and potential calf/hip fatigue on long days.
- Less flexible: Longer break-in; can feel clunky on smooth trails.
- Warmer/slower to dry: Membranes trap heat; once wet, they dry slowly.
- Not great for running: Better as dedicated hiking footwear.
Best for (by age and experience)
- Newer hikers: Excellent default footwear with predictable grip, protection, and a stable base while you develop footwork.
- Older hikers or those with joint pain, balance issues, or past ankle sprains: The stability and protection can reduce trip risk and foot fatigue, especially on rocky or rooty trails.
- Backpackers with moderate/heavy loads: Superior under weight regardless of age or experience.
- Experienced hikers on rugged terrain: Provides confidence for scrambling, talus, and wet slab.
How age and experience change the calculus
1. Balance and proprioception
- Younger/very fit or highly experienced: Trail runners feel natural and efficient; you can “dance” over terrain.
- Older or less experienced: Hiking shoes reduce ankle roll and missteps, particularly when fatigue sets in or on uneven surfaces.
2. Joint health and recovery
- Sensitive knees, hips, or plantar fascia: The stiffer platform and support of hiking shoes can distribute forces better and limit overflexion. Firmer trail runners with rock plates can be a middle ground.
- Strong, resilient joints: Trail runners’ cushioning and flexibility are comfortable and efficient.
3. Foot strength and conditioning
- If you’ve built foot strength (toes, arches, calves) through consistent hiking or running, Trail runners shine.
- If you’re building a base of fitness or recovering from an injury, Hiking shoes provide a forgiving platform while your strength catches up.
4. Load and distance
- Light daypack, well-maintained trails: Trail runners reduce fatigue and hot spots.
- Multi-day trips or heavy water carries: Hiking shoes stay supportive and protective as miles accumulate.
5. Weather and temperature
- Heat: Trail runners win on ventilation.
- Cold and wet: Hiking shoes offer warmth and initial water resistance; consider non-membrane options for faster drying if feet get soaked often.
A few key comparisons
- Stability vs. agility: Hiking shoes stabilize; trail runners move fast.
- Experience matters: Skilled footwork favors trail runners; novices benefit from hiking shoe protection.
- Age considerations: Older hikers often prefer the support and grip of hiking shoes; fit, balance, and conditioning can still make trail runners viable.
- Load and terrain: Heavy packs and rocky trails favor hiking shoes; light loads and smooth paths favor trail runners.
Practical recommendations by user profile
- New to hiking, any age: Start with hiking shoes. Add trail runners later for easy trails once you’re confident with footing.
- Experienced day hiker, light pack: Trail runners for most outings; keep hiking shoes for rough routes and bad weather.
- Ultralight backpacker: Trail runners with rock plates and sticky rubber; pair with gaiters and trekking poles. Switch to hiking shoes for scree-heavy routes or snow.
- Older hiker with prior ankle/knee issues: Hiking shoes (possibly mid-cut) with firm midsoles, strong heel lock, and grippy rubber; use poles. Consider lighter non-membrane models for better breathability.
- Runner transitioning to hiking: Trail runners feel familiar; choose models with better protection and traction than your road shoes.
Highly Rated Trail Runners and Hiking Shoes
| Men's Model | Type | Women's Model | Price |
|---|---|---|---|
| Altra Lone Peak 9+ | Trail Runner | Altra Lone Peak 9+ | $160 |
| Hoka Speedgoat 7 | Trail Runner | Hoka Speedgoat 7 | $165 |
| Salomon Speedcross 6 | Trail Runner | Salomon Speedcross 6 | $150 |
| Topo Ultraventure 4 | Trail Runner | Topo Ultraventure 4 | $155 |
| La Sportiva Wildcat | Trail Runner | La Sportiva Wildcat | $160 |
| Brooks Cascadia 19 | Trail Runner | Brooks Cascadia 19 | $150 |
| Merrill Moab 3 | Hiking Shoe | Merrill Moab 3 | $140 |
| Danner Trail 2650 GTX | Hiking Shoe | Danner Trail 2650 GTX | $210 |
| KEEN Targhee WP IV | Hiking Shoe | KEEN Targhee WP IV | $170 |
| Oboz Firebrand II Low WP | Hiking Shoe | Oboz Firebrand II Low WP | $175 |
The Bottom Line
Match footwear to your body and terrain. If you value speed, breathability, and have solid balance and foot strength, trail runners are efficient and comfortable. If you prioritize stability, protection, and consistency, especially when hiking on rugged terrain or with heavier loads or with joint concerns, hiking shoes are the safer bet. Many hikers end up with both: trail runners for easy-to-moderate days and hiking shoes for rough, wet, or heavy-load trips.
SectionHiker never accepts payment for gear reviews or editorial coverage. When you buy through affiliate links on our site, we may earn a small commission at no extra cost to you. Help us continue to test and write unsponsored and independent gear reviews, hiking and backpacking FAQs, and free hiking guides.
As I am now in my mid 70’s, balance has become an issue, and, although I use trekking poles, I have also found that my balance is better with hiking shoes than it is with trail runners. It may be the brand; Hokas have a pretty thick sole. But, balance, and also stability on side slopes and uneven terrain, is better with the hiking shoes.
I suspect that’s because the back of the heel is stiffer. Hokas also do have a high stack – while the max cushion shoes are an atrractive option for many, they scare me a bit, especially on more technical trails where the likelihood of an ankle roll is greater.
I wear mid cut hiking shoes, i’am thinking about lighter mid cuts for my next pair, maybe a Altra mid lone peak but was wondering what are the pros and cons of a zero-drop shoe?
I think the main benefit is better stability because more of the foot is in contact with the ground. It feels great if you like that. The cons are that there is less padding and torsional stability (on an altra mid at lest) so if you’re going to feel the trail surface a lot more and be more prone to ankle strains because the the back of the heel is less firm. Hope that helps.
Topo Athletic makes a light weight mid that is sturdier than Lone Peak, but lighter than a hiking boot. If the Atras don’t offer enough support, you might find those interesting.
Yeah – but it has a 5mm drop (not zero drop)
I’m an older, but active hiker. I used to wear Altra Lone Peak, but switched to Altra Olympus 6 trail runners. I like the zero-drop, excellent Vibram sole ‘grip’, and the wide toe box of both, but the stiffer feel of the Olympus cushioning won me over. Plus I won’t hike without my trusty Black Diamond Alpine Hiking Poles. Use of poles give me stability, especially with steep descents.
I recommend going to a store and trying all different brands and styles on. Don’t feel guilty, ask for your size in all of them! Ha. Now that I’m in my 50’s the La Sportiva, Salomon, North Face have little to no cushion on the foot for me. The Altra’s and Hoka’s were very comfortable. Especially if I plan on doing 10-20 miles a day on them.
If you’re a REI member, you can return used shoes for free. Wear those shoes on the trail for 20 miles. Walking around a store won’t tell you much.
Anyone have experience with Keen Hightrail????
For us older hikers, there are, in my opinion, two choices of footwear. Dedicated trail shoes, I give my vote to Merrill Moab for personal preference and approach shoes. These latter are designed for climbers, alpine or a Himalayan multi-day walk-in. These latter are more robust, have excellent traction, and handle long periods of rough terrain, even simple rock scrambles. I am in my 80s, still active, and enjoy both of these shoes according to season and terrain type. My pack weight, thanks to modern technology, is light, so that boots are no longer in the equation.
I also am a big fan of Merrell Moabs. They just fit right and do everything well. I get the mid tops for some ankle support and protection. In addition, it keeps small rocks and scree out better than low tops.
Great article but the one a few years ago. I’m now 70 but about 10 years ago I went from boots to a pair of Solomon runners (narrow feet). It’s the best change in hiking I made. I was surprised how much better they are than boots. My pack is about 40lbs and hike about 9-11 miles in to our destination. The pros for me were lightweight. Better recovery when hitting a rock on the trail. More agility, not as tiring as boots, travel farther and faster. I thought I might have sprains because no ankle support but it was worse with boots. Foot placement is better with shoes over boots. I’ll never go back to boots for backpacking. Thanks for the info it has made backpacking a little more comfortable.
I recently went thru an extensive study of my stride, shows and leg stress. A) half-marathon runner for >45 years; B) really bad feet bunions and hammer toe; C) as a runner most naturally pronate; D) as a hiker most naturally supinate; E) wearing shoes with structure to prevent pronation are terrible for hikers like me – it forces additional supination and puts undo stress on outer calf. My solution was to go back to either natural trail runners (Topo are my choice) or natural trail runner boots (Altra Lone Peak WP are my choice). … changing those from a structured shoe and those leg stressors are gone – I hike ~1200 m / year and 20+ mile days common.
One other point to add … not just terrain that drive shoe selection but soil types / ash. For example, wearing mesh uppers in Jefferson Wilderness (Central OR Cascades) is inviting disaster as the very hot B&B fire created very very fine sand that seeps thru mesh. Blister paradise! I wear WP boots there to keep the ash out.
Happy feet are essential to a good hike!
Why are all the hiking shoes WP or GTX?
They’re not. The Moab isn’t and you can get some of the other models in non-WP variants. But the manufacturers do tend to make hiking shoes GTX because that’s what a lot of people want.
I just went through this exact situation, switching from trail runners (La Sportiva Bushido) to hiking shoes (Topo Traverse). Using this site and doing some other research, my big takeaways for hiking footwear:
Stack – Higher stack makes shoes feel less stable, so the super high cushion models like Hoka or adjacent may make the shoes/trail feel less stable. On the other end of the spectrum, low stack typically means limited cushion, and you might feel the trail too much, depending on how rocky/rooty it is
Drop – High drop (greater than 9mm) puts a majority of stress on your knees/hips, while low/zero drop shifts that to feet/ankles. So if you have injuries or pain in one of those areas, look at shoes on the opposite end of the spectrum. For me, I have chronic arthritis in my feet, also was having IT band issues, so ended up with medium drop (5mm) which has been great.
For the record, really been loving the Topos. They also have a low drop models (not zero but 3mm).
65 year old hiker who’s hiked the AT, PCT, CT, LT and all the Whites. While I like the stability of a mid/hiking shoe or boot, trail runners allow me to go longer and faster. I go for high cushioning and add insoles for my flat feet. I weigh foot pain vs. stability and foot pain is the #1 issue I face. My foot pain is lessened with a highly cushioned trail runner. I do occasionally fall but hiking poles lessen those events! I didn’t use them until my mid 40’s thinking they were a sign of frailty. Maybe they are !! but it’s allowed me to hike more and they hold up my tent too.
I’ve owned many pairs of Bushidos, IIs and IIIs. I pair them with Sole insoles. The padding does break down more quickly under the heal and ball of the foot sooner than I’d like, well before the tread is gone. Moreso on the IIIs than the old IIs. After 300 miles or so, they’re still fine for day hikes and daily dog walks, but if I’m going on a long multi-day hike carrying heavy pack, I use a newer pair. I’m 72, so I notice the difference. I do wear a new pair for a few weeks before taking them on a long hike. They’re a bit snug on first use, and it takes a day or two for the padding to settle. They have great traction, and with the Sole insoles, good protection from sharp rocks. Never had the upper fail before the tread is gone. Personally, I would never count on boots for ankle stability. The Bushidos are low enough drop so your foot, feels well grounded.
I think it’s less a question of stability and more proprioception because the cuff of a mid provides feedback that a low shoes doesn’t. I’m in the midst of transitioning from a low trail runner to the Altra mid and there really is a huge difference in the amount of feedback.
I am 72 years old. I Thru-hiked the AT in 2021 at the age of 68. I used Altra Olympus 4 shoes during that hike and have continue to use them for subsequent hikes such as finishing the LT after my AT hike and did the Pemi-Loop this year. Although Altra does not make the Olympus 4’s any more I use the Olympus 5’s for the Pemi-Loop and another 25 mile section of the LT. My son-in-law gave me his Olympus 5’s as he said they were too tight. I use these as casual everyday shoes. One difference between the 4’s and 5’s is the 5’s I noticed was a bit narrow and required more time to break in. The 4’s I could put on new and the fit was very comfortable. I used four (4) pair during my AT hike the last pair lasted 850 miles. Only because I was near the end of my hike (200-Miles) and did not want to buy another pair for 200-miles. Altra forever!
There is one subject relating to shoes (and boots) that is not easy to determine before you buy.
I have had the experience of a great trail shoe that, out of the box, was so comfortable they might have been well-worn slippers. However, after just 6 months, they fell apart with both the soles coming completely off. Not to be recommended, with two long days to a trail head. They were replaced, and after 4 months, the very same thing happened. Again, I returned the shoes and replaced them with a different brand.
Making enquiries, I discovered that for Health and safety reasons, the manufacturers had had to use acrylic adhesives extensively in the construction. Where I live, we have high rainfall so shoes are often unable to dry out completely. This meant that the outsole attachment to the throughsole was permanently damp. Acrylic adhesive is not waterproof! Ergo, the sole fell off.
If you live and hike in a desert, no problem. If, like me, your average rainfall is 100 cm or over, ensure that your shoes are put together with a petrochemical adhesive, all of which are totally waterproof.
I come to this discussion from two perspectives- as a physical therapist who made orthotics and prescribed footwear for over 30 years and as a 63 y.o. hiker who has had a traumatic brain injury, a stroke and other injuries which all combine to give me some high level balance problems. (No longer working due to my TBI) I also recently made the switch from my Salomon Quest 4 hiking boots which I have worn for many years to trailrunners- first the Hoka Stinson 7 and then the Speedgoat 6.
To Tom Perkins- As a PT, I believe the best way to improve one’s balance and proprioception is to do static, dynamic, oculomotor, sport-specific and situation-specific exercises. I think the benefit to a higher cut boot like my Salomons isn’t really “support” as much as it is prorioceptive feedback- when my ankle turns and the receptors in my skin touch the boot, my brain tells me to roll my foot/ankle the other way. If you really roll your ankle, the force with which that happens will easily overcome any “support” from the boot in my opinion.
Also as a PT, because categories like trail runners, running sneakers, cross trainers, hiking shoes and boots, stability, motion control, neutral, cushion, etc get used differently by different people (and different sales people!) I tend to look more at the structure of the footwear. What characteristics one needs is based on the mechanics of your foot as you walk across the floor and what your history of injury is- particularly foot and ankle injuries/problems. I consider:
1. The last type- straight, curved, semi-curved, board, Strobel
2. The midsole material and what bells and whistles are located there to help attenuate shock and how do they contribute to support if at all
3. Is there any medial post to control pronation or midfoot shank?
4. How extensive and firm is the heel counter?
5. How much if any rocker profile does the footwear have?
6. Drop- someone with an achilles tendon problem probably should stay away from 0 degree drop and likewise someone with posterior ankle impingment should stay away from a high drop
There’s a lot to consider as any given shoe/sneaker may have features that lean more towards cushion/less control AND features that contribute to stability/motion control. It’s kind of a spectum. In my terminology, I don’t really know what “supportive” footwear is. I do know what stabilizing or controlling footwear is.
Having said all of that, ultimately it comes down to fit, personal experience and what you believe works for you! Nothing beats personal experience and belief in what you’re wearing.
As a recent convert, I can’t agree with Robert Childs more. My first hike with the Stinsons was amazing- MUCH bettter grip and MUCH lighter than my Salomon boots which resulted in more confident foot placement and a faster pace. I got to the top of Mt. Osceola 40 minutes faster than the last time I hiked there! The grip on wet surfaces wasn’t quite as good as I hoped so I went back to REI and got the Speedgoat to compare. I climbed Mt. Hale a couple days ago with melting slushy snow above 3500′, wet leaves, rocks and roots- everything that is stick season. Didn’t slip once! Instead of avoiding rocks and boulders like I usually might in my boots, I was seeking them out because the grip of the Speedgoats was so amazing. I’m getting a pair of my boots resoled with the Vibram Megagrip for winter. Don’t see myself hiking in “trail runners” all winter!
All of the above is just one person’s opinion. Take what you need (if anything) and leave the rest!
Great input there!
With a high arch/instep, a reconstructed L ankle, and custom rigid orthotics, I’ve been looking for a trail shoe for backpacking for decades and have tried just about everything. Until now, the Hoka Kaha 3 has been my choice, but they are only good for ~200 miles. Topos have very poor lateral stability–good for the trail, but try side hilling around an obstacle off trail, forget it. Ditto for Altras. To the rescue: Norda 001, which Werner recently reviewed, or Norda 003. The latter are my current favorites. Expensive, but they fit like a glove (order 1 full size up for the 003s, 1/2 size for the 001s), have excellent lateral stability, lots of cushion, and are good (so they say) for up to 1000 miles. I’ve over 100 miles on the 001s, less on the 003–both are essentially brand new. Nordas are made out of Dyneema, which is what makes them so durable and so expensive, but they address the three major weekness of the others mentioned here: durability, loss of midsole cushion, and stability. Supershoes–take a look. After 40 years of trying on just about everything I think I’ve finally found the nearly perfect shoe…