Men's Cascadia 12 Trail-Running Shoes

These shoes are the best running shoes I have worn since the early 1990s. And I have bought a lot of shoes. These are old school in the way that the sole is made. They are rather stiff (and that is a good thing), and the sole has a smooth rounded bend (not sharp at some point like most shoes). I love these shoes. I bought a pair about 4 years ago which I also liked. This new 2017 version has, I believe, a some improvement in the shoe I bought 4 years ago. HOWEVER, BROOKS I HOPE YOU ARE READING THIS, the upper is not as nice as the ones 4 years ago. the upper mesh on the cascadias from 4 years ago was much more comfortable (and also more attractive). The upper on this latest version is too tight in the toes. I actually have to lace my shoes beginning half way up the shoe, because the string puts pressure on a sore big toe (arthritis in the toe). But the shoes from 4 years ago feel much better in the upper. STILL YET, these shoes are the best I have found. I tried HOKA and Altra both. But these Cascadias win. They are the best shoes I have worn since the early 1990s. The soles on these shoes is the very best I have worn. AND IMPORTANTLY, You do NOT have to use these as trail shoes. I run on the roads in them.

Yes, I would recommend this!

I fully tore the ATFL in my ankle on the trails just over a year ago with a very light shoe, then re-injured it a year later so I move to this shoe to get more support and hopefully keep me on the trail. The stability is fantastic and I feel really confident on the trail even as the ankle continues to gain strength. I'm a supinator so these shoes have actually reduced some of that. So for that reason I recommend these shoes, especially for stability or injury recovery. That said, man they are heavy. I'm not going to win any short races in these things and my times have dipped, but most importantly they are keeping me on the trails, which right now is the most important thing. I'll look for something more nimble in my next pair and I gain strength in my ankle.

Yes, I would recommend this!

great shoe

Yes, I would recommend this!

I have put a few thousand miles on Cascadias between the current model and Last years model. The current model is a step up and in the right direction. I am a fan of these shoes and are my go to pair for longer days on the trails. Traction is good for the compromise of being able to comfortably run on pavement sections and hard packed trails. Very rarely have my foot slip on steep terrain. The shoe protects your foot from rocks quite well. I very rarely care about foot placement as I do not feel the rocks through these shoes. Where other shoes I need to be more delicate. These shoes are durable and stand up to a lot of miles. Cons- They are heavy. They are also very expensive. Almost like you are getting charged by the ounce. Their price has made me branch out of my Cascadia Comfort zone and try other shoes. In Fact I may have purchased my last pair of them. All in all great trainer and long run shoe. If Brooks ever decides to become competitive on price I'll come back to the shoe.

Yes, I would recommend this!

I am a professional fitter and avid trail runner so I know shoes! It is so nice to see Brooks stick to their guns by keeping this edition of the Cascadia sturdy and biomechanically sound even in the wake of a full blown fad of ultra-light, super cushioned shoes. Foam density is inversely correlated with lightness and softness. While the ultra-cushioned movement (in response to the barefoot movement 5-6 years ago) has given us lighter and softer shoes, there is always a trade off with durability and reactivity (no matter what the company claims). The Cascadia is heavier than say a Hoka challenger or Altra trail shoe, but the durability and control of the shoe is unbeatable. The Cascadia is rugged and the upper is very well integrated with the sole. A challenge of any trail shoe design is to make it stand up to the twisting motions of the runners foot on challenging surfaces like slick mud, sand on hard surfaces or loose rocks. I feel confident bombing down any hill even with tricky surfaces in these shoes. There is a reason this shoe has survived 12 editions. Look for this shoe to stay faithful to the needs of trail runners for years to come!

Yes, I would recommend this!

Use for hiking and trail running on a variety of trails. They provide excellent traction up and down hill, adequate cushioning, and good protection underfoot. Good trail feel on rocky terrain.

Yes, I would recommend this!

Very similar to my all time favorite trail shoe, the Cascadia 9. This is an improvement over the previous 2 models. Great traction, stable, cushions well. Snug fit for my narrow feet, but with room in the toe box to avoid rubbing. Good arch support for my high arches. I haven't had them long enough to speak to the durability, but I'm happy with everything so far!

Yes, I would recommend this!

I've worn at least 6 or 7 iterations of the Cascadia. I did think the upper fit on this shoe was better than the 11, and the traction was great. That's all the positve words I have for these shoes. I found the shoe forced my foot to pronate, and initially the outside of the shoe (the side opposite of my arch) felt as though it had stiff lumps in it. After trying to break the shoes in, and doing a few trail runs in them I started to feel a significant pain in my foot, what I would associate with a shoe that it attempting to stop my foot from supinating. I called Brooks to ask if the last or the sole of the shoe had changed and was told the only thing that changed was the upper, but after looking at the 11 and the 12 with a running shoe store associate we could see that the shoe had changed in a few ways, as the last appears to be more curved and the density zones are much different. I did try on another pair to make sure it wasn't simply the shoes I had purchased and experience the same discomfort in the other pair as well. I did notice that in a prominent trail running magazine reported that some testers of the Mazama felt that it forced them to pronate as well. Sadly, I just bought a pair of Launch 4's after having had 2 pair's of the Launch 3's and I am experiencing a bit of the same sensations. It's not quite as pronounced but it's there. I think it would be great if running shoe companies would quit radically changing their shoes in the name of "progress", and just focus on making a high quality product, and if works well then don't change a thing.

I've been hiking in theses since early January and love these shoes. I've hiked in a myriad of environments from mud, to root filled trails, to solid rock balds to packed dirt and they performed well on all of them. I even threw a pair of micro spikes over them and took them up an icy climb to the top of Mt. LeConte. I got a little over 200 miles out of my first pair and the grip is really gone at this point. Seems like a decent amount of sole left, but they've just lost that really grippy feeling they used to have. On my second pair now and they feel just like my worn in, comfy pair right out of the box. I'm sure it won't be my last pair. Just wish they were a little more durable. Oh, while at the end of the day, the color choices don't mess with the performance, they really need to go back to the design table and come up with some better color options. I feel like all of these were misses and I was choosing the lesser of evils. At the end of the day though, they make my feet happy. :)

Yes, I would recommend this!

Took them out of the box and ran 22 miles in them the very next day, no blisters and no discomfort. The wider, roomier toe box made for and awesome, already-broken-in feel. I had no problems with grip and was very satisfied with their response.

Yes, I would recommend this!