Brooks Beast or Cascadia?

[mclaught]

I currently wear Brooks Beast and they've been a lifesaver for me. I used to get foot/leg and back pain when walking/jogging in other shoes, but the Beasts cured that almost magically. I wear the Beasts when I go hiking, but I'm walking mostly in sand/grass and there are hardly any rocky surfaces that I have to walk on.

In the late spring, I'll be doing a few sections of Georgia (3 or 4 nights each time) and I was wondering if the Beast would be sufficient or do I need to get some trail runners? My first choice would probably be the Cascadias if I had to go with a different shoe, but I'm worried the back pain would return if I ditch the Beasts. Anybody have any experience wearing both these shoes, or either? I know some people hike in flip flops and all that, but realistically, do you think it's worth it to get the trailrunners?

As always, I appreciate any imput and advice.

[CalebJ]

I'd definitely encourage you to find a pair of trail shoes that work for you, but not at the cost of all the pain you've gotten away from. Looking on the Brooks website, the Cascadia has slightly less drop than the Beast and is designed for a bit more arch (though it's worth mentioning that my feet are -board- flat and the Cascadia has worked quite well for me). Can you find a Brooks trail shoe that has similar drop and arch design to the Beast?

Edit - looks like the Cascadia has as much drop (10mm) as any of their trail runners, and they're all listed as Medium/High arch rather than Flat/Medium on the Beast. Not sure what to suggest other than talking to a very experienced trail runner at your nearest good running store.

[WTX2WY]

I wore Glycerins for years then switched to Calderas when I started running trails.

They fit me perfectly and have had no issues with the shoe or injuries/pain. This is mostly desert/SW trails so rocky, spiny, prickly, dirty, dry terrain. Soles have been great. I don't know how they would hold up on the AT terrain. I wore a pair of Glycerins (road shoes) on a rim to rim Grand Canyon hike and they worked just fine although I would wear trail shoes if doing it again just for the better traction.

My best advice would be to go to the store and try a few different pairs of trail shoes on to see what fits best and do a few laps around the store or parking lot.

Or just go buy a pair of Altras. Apparently they are the perfect shoe for 5000 PCT/CDT/AT thru hikers every year.

[WTX2WY]

I just checked out the Brooks website, it looks like their designers must have dropped some LSD when designing many of the '18 models. I am sure they will probably grow on me but damn if they don't look like some urban street shoes that Kanye would be selling.

/getoffmylawn

[mclaught]

I just checked out the Brooks website, it looks like their designers must have dropped some LSD when designing many of the '18 models. I am sure they will probably grow on me but damn if they don't look like some urban street shoes that Kanye would be selling.

/getoffmylawn

LOL, I noticed that too. I did the online shoe finder on the Brooks website and it pointed me to the Cascadia, so that's as good as a start as any. I will head down to my local running store and hope they (1) have them in stock and (2) have someone who knows what they're talking about working tomorrow. As far as the Altras, I don't know that going from the Brook's heel/toe drop of 12 down to 0 is going to be a smooth transition!

[Astro]

My son wears Beast, but I personally wear Adrenaline with custom orthotics for everyday, and Cascadia with Green Superfeet on the trail.

[Dogwood]

"...but I'm walking mostly in sand/grass and there are hardly any rocky surfaces that I have to walk on." Exactly, but that's not the only difference! For one, Tampa is largely a pancake. The GA AT isn't. Another, that was running with no wt on your back.


The Brooks Cascadia 13 are trail runners with a more aggressive tread leading to better traction, a good thing to have 95% of the time when hiking for multiple days on GA AT tread. One of, if not the leading injuries on trails are due to slips, trips, and falls. Spring GA AT weather can entail slop, wetness, slippery conditions, and ice sometimes hidden by leaves, trail construction, etc The Cascades offer greater protection too than the road running Beast 18 in the upper and sole. Look at differences in the uppers; look at the extent of the rand, toe bumper etc. Consider the odd shape rock and trail construction one is going to experience on the GA AT possibly requiring a different sole than a road runner. FWIW, I've observed more than a few more falling on wet or icy Amicalola Falls SP stairways wearing road runners and walking shoes than grippier trail runners.

Is that to say I will not ever entertain a road runner for some trail use, with a more deliberate foot placement awareness and very light UL or SUL kit, or IF I'm using trekking poles. no? I've twice done the PCT's first 700 miles NOBO between the mid last wk of April - May, once in a HOKA road runner Biondi 5's. Then, for snowy early Sierra entry dates in which I'm near the first to go through I switch to something more aggressive and protective at KM. This can mean not having to take microspikes. I fell though navigating icy 2 ft deep snow cups going up Badden Powell though. Traction wasn't ideal. I wore road runners but with more traction through NM on a CDT SOBO where I knew I would be on dirt roads often. Taking a different NM CDT route that included more off trail non CDT single track and ridge type abrasive terrain I went with a beefier trail runner.


I have really good balance, lower strength, very good hiking mechanics, go to great extent to match my shoe to the hike and my hiking styles,... Part of the reason I attribute that is I don't typically rely on trekking poles. I have to rely more on myself and having a greater awareness of defending against slips, trips, and falls. I very rarely fall and when I do I've learned how to fall "better." What shoes you wear, the traction required, is related to if you're anticipating using trekking poles to help stabilize yourself.


Lastly, I do wear trail runners off trail at home at times but I like to separate trail and road runners into road runners much more for off trail asphalt, concrete, easily graded packed gravel roads, etc NON BACKPACKING use. For me, that means since I switch out pairs for those different scenarios more appropriately according to activity so I get longer useful life spans and lesser performance fall offs of each category of low cuts. I'm a shoe guy though. I have to be as a day hiker, week long and LD backpacker, peak bagger, runner, tennis player, and as one inclined to choosing "my feet as my only carriage."

[u.w.]

I currently wear Brooks Beast and they've been a lifesaver for me. I used to get foot/leg and back pain when walking/jogging in other shoes, but the Beasts cured that almost magically. I wear the Beasts when I go hiking, but I'm walking mostly in sand/grass and there are hardly any rocky surfaces that I have to walk on.

In the late spring, I'll be doing a few sections of Georgia (3 or 4 nights each time) and I was wondering if the Beast would be sufficient? or do I need to get some trail runners? My first choice would probably be the Cascadias if I had to go with a different shoe, but I'm worried the back pain would return if I ditch the Beasts. Anybody have any experience wearing both these shoes, or either? I know some people hike in flip flops and all that, but realistically, do you think it's worth it to get the trailrunners?

As always, I appreciate any imput and advice.

Yes - the Beast will be sufficient. No - you do not need to get trail runners.

Realistically - no - stick with what you've got, what you know, and works so well for you already.


If you are bound and determined to get some trail runners, give a look to the Brooks Calderas also (in addition to the Cascadias). I've worn both and definitely, in every way, found the Caldera to be a WAY better shoe for me, on my foot. YNMV of course.


u.w.

[Astro]

Yes - the Beast will be sufficient. No - you do not need to get trail runners.

Realistically - no - stick with what you've got, what you know, and works so well for you already.


If you are bound and determined to get some trail runners, give a look to the Brooks Calderas also (in addition to the Cascadias). I've worn both and definitely, in every way, found the Caldera to be a WAY better shoe for me, on my foot. YNMV of course.

u.w.

Just curious, why have you personally found the Caldera better than the Cascadia?

I have been happy with Cascadia, but open to trying something new if the difference makes sense for me.

[mclaught]

I appreciate everyone's input,and like everything else on the internet forums, it looks like there's two definitely right ways to do it. I guess I'll go with the cheaper route first (keeping the Beasts, which at least I know won't give me blisters and work for me in the flatlands) and if they don't work on the trail for whatever reason, I'll look into moving to something with more traction then. Again, thanks for the opinions.

[steady123]

I have hiked with Cascadias. Assuming you have decent ankles and are reasonably coordinated they will work fine. Hiking on super rocky football-basketball boulders (in virginia), they will work fine for awhile. I then put on Solomon boots which took the rocks better. It took me awhile to get used to slogging through streams and puddles. This year I will bring Sealskinz waterproof socks for a tryout. I will have toe socks + sealzkinz. I will also bring the old standby smartwool socks. Shoes are good for several hundred miles before the fabric fails.

[u.w.]

Just curious, why have you personally found the Caldera better than the Cascadia?

I have been happy with Cascadia, but open to trying something new if the difference makes sense for me.

I hiked with the Cascadia for some hundreds of miles (400-600 miles) and started getting some serious tendon/bone issues in the outer metatarsal area of my right foot, from middle of foot moving toward pinkie toe. I found that when I wasn't on trail, or wearing the Cascadias, the tendon shifting across bones and associated pain more or less stopped. So, I guessed it was the shoes causing my issue. Though I did finish the season in the Cascadias.
That winter/January I stated looking at shoes again, and at Cascadias to read on-line reviews, etc... I then saw the Caldera, and read a lot of things that seemed to be an improvement over the Cascadia. i.e. better cushion, slightly less heel to toe drop (~4mm - which I find to be very nice for me), and wider across the metatarsal/ball of foot/"toe box" area. I went up to my local rei and saw a pair in person - though rei does not and will not carry size 15 (the size I wear) so I could not actually try them on. Based on what I'd read, and what I'd seen, I opted to try them, and ordered a pair.

What I found was the reviews were correct. The cushioning was FAR superior to the Cascadia, and the foot box was indeed a little wider. They still had the kevlar rock shield I love so much for hauling azz over rocks too. I wore them around for a bit and loved them. Then I did some day hikes in them ( low 20 mile days), and REALLY loved them, and had zero foot pain. Since then I've put in many thousands of miles in them and have learned also that they cause me zero issues when soaked through and through. Other shoes had at times eaten into my heel(s) a bit.

So to summarize and answer your question - I found them to better because the are slightly wider, and have way better cushion, while retaining the rock shield.


An issue I did learn was parts of the sole/traction pieces can start to come off. I also found a solution to that. Here's a photo of what can happen after some hundreds of miles (an older pair of mine)




it all started from one little piece, and when that one little piece is remedied, it seems to not happen. At least in my experience thus far. This next photo is another, newer pair with over three hundred miles on them. Huge difference. At the ends of my pinkie finger and thumb you'll see what I did.




I simply cutt off the high parts of the "tread" in that one area with a pocket knife/razor. That one little area stuck out just enough that it seemed to catch on "everything" and start the peeling off thing. I cut it smooth and did not have any issues there after. These shoes have gone from the Kennebec River/Caratunk, ME to the sing on top of Katahdin, from Wentworth NH. 25A to Bennington VT, VT9, the Laurel Highlands Hiking Trail, and well past a hundred miles of trail down here in VA. They've got a hundred or more easily remaining Id say.


wow... that's one wordy response... I hope it answers your question, and is helpful.


u.w.

[Dogwood]

I hiked with the Cascadia for some hundreds of miles (400-600 miles) and started getting some serious tendon/bone issues in the outer metatarsal area of my right foot, from middle of foot moving toward pinkie toe. I found that when I wasn't on trail, or wearing the Cascadias, the tendon shifting across bones and associated pain more or less stopped. So, I guessed it was the shoes causing my issue. Though I did finish the season in the Cascadias.


That might have been a sign it was time for new shoes...not necessarily because the old ones weren't appropriate for your situation maybe just because they were older with perhaps 600 miles.


Once again, how light one is on their feet, their mechanics, type of shoe, body wt, if backpacking the added wt of kits and usage of trekking poles or not, running surface, running/hiking style, what specific shoe version(the Cascades are now in their 13th version, the Beasts in their 18 version!), trail conditions, if after market orthotics are added etc play a role in running and hiking shoe lifespans and comfort. Is all that to be continued to be ignored?

[Dogwood]

What I see UW is someone looking to extend the reasonable usage of trail running shoes.

[Astro]

Thanks u.w.

[mclaught]

Thanks for the pictures and the review of the Calderas and the tip about trimming the traction. I really appreciate all the other responses as well. Gives me lots to consider.

[u.w.]

@ Dogwood - lol - gotta say it didn't surprise me to see your response. Nothing but love though.
So I can totally see why you said what you did, but you didn't have all the info, and therefor jumped to some incorrect conclusions. I agree with what you wrote as in, time for new shoes, mechanics, light on feet, added weight, body weight, etc... etc... And I considered all that too.
What you didn't know is that I got another pair of Cascadias when my first pair of Calderas started wearing out. The first day I wore them, I had the issues in my metatarsal again. Put the Cascadias aside and got another pair of Calderas (why not right? they had worked so amazingly for me already once) no foot issues. Put the Cascadias back on... you don't need me to finish it. You've already guessed it.

I get that you see someone trying to extend the trail running shoe life beyond their reasonable usage. I see why you'd take the time to respond and say that. First I'd say, what "reasonable usage" is may vary a bit from person to person - though it seems generally said around 400 miles, from what I've seen folks "saying" on-line. Again though - many variables, many things to consider....
That aside, what you also don't know is how long I wear my trail runners (the Calderas) for - for hiking/running. Just because I don't hike in them any longer does not necessarily mean I just chuck them. In fact, I generally keep them for mowing the lawn in, walking in the creek behind my house, and various other things "junk" shoes are wonderful for. Maybe some would say I wear my trail runners to long, and expect to much out of them. I would respectfully disagree.


@ Astro and mclaught - You are both very welcome! and mclaught - I hope you have good weather for your sections in GA this late spring, and a super great hike!


u.w.

[CalebJ]

I get that you see someone trying to extend the trail running shoe life beyond their reasonable usage. I see why you'd take the time to respond and say that. First I'd say, what "reasonable usage" is may vary a bit from person to person - though it seems generally said around 400 miles, from what I've seen folks "saying" on-line. Again though - many variables, many things to consider....
u.w.

I may have misunderstood, but I think Dogwood was implying that the goal was increasing the scope of the reasonable range, not increasing outside of the reasonable range.

[Dogwood]

I may have misunderstood, but I think Dogwood was implying that the goal was increasing the scope of the reasonable range, not increasing outside of the reasonable range.

This^^

Absolutely right UW I didn't know all your specifics. They are important. I didn't know all the OP's specifics nor did you yet we're offering absolute answers like "Yes - the Beast will be sufficient. No - you do not need to get trail runners." I tried to offer the best possible answer to the OP's question - Beast or Cascadia? - while providing some context to support why I gave the answer that I did and aspects for the OP to consider. I think they are valid considerations. They aren't offered with any presupposition to that's the way it has to be done or have to be considered vital to all always. Later, you added more details. That's a good thing IMO. Explaining to offer understanding and clarity is welcome!

What I wholeheartedly agree with UW is one absolutely should opt for a shoe that provides fit and support but, I'd add, perhaps in a beefier more aggressive tread and upper and sole protection model since we're no longer asphalt road running on dun in a day situations but backpacking single track, sometimes rocky ST and trail construction in spring in the southern Appalachian Mts which is common to be wet in late spring. That's different terrain, conditions, and situation than on flat sand and grass on a short run. I have a bit of an issue with your statement "Realistically - no - stick with what you've got, what you know, and works so well for you already." The shoe that worked worked in a different situation. Again, IMO whether one uses trekking poles, has a keen eye for walking safely with less impact with a pack on, how much one is carrying in body wt and on the back, etc all play a role in footwear choices.

I hear you about using old shoes or gear around the house, yard, fishing, etc. to get extended lighter useful lifespans.