Introduction
In recent years, trail-running shoes have increasingly become the default recommendation for long-distance walking routes such as the Camino de Santiago. Search almost any Camino equipment guide and the familiar arguments appear: trail shoes are lighter than boots, require little breaking in, breathe well, dry quickly and provide generous cushioning.
All of those observations have merit.
But they avoid a more fundamental question.
Is footwear designed primarily for running actually the most appropriate footwear for walking hundreds of kilometres?
The Camino Francés from Saint-Jean-Pied-de-Port to Santiago de Compostela is approximately 780 kilometres. A pilgrim averaging 25 kilometres per day might therefore take somewhere around a million individual steps before reaching Santiago. Over that distance, seemingly minor differences in footwear construction, gait, stability and durability become worthy of considerably more attention.
The debate should therefore extend beyond weight and immediate comfort. Trail-running shoes and approach shoes were developed for fundamentally different purposes. Their uppers, soles, tread patterns, cushioning and geometries reflect those purposes.
The Camino provides an interesting environment in which to compare them.
The Trail-Running Shoe: Designed to Run
The ancestry of the trail-running shoe lies in cross-country, fell and off-road running. Although the category has diversified enormously, its fundamental design priorities remain relatively consistent: low weight, flexibility, grip, cushioning and allowing an athlete to move quickly across uneven terrain.
This produces several characteristic features.
The upper is commonly lightweight synthetic mesh rather than the leather, suede or heavier synthetic construction traditionally associated with walking and approach footwear. Its principal job is to retain the foot while keeping weight and heat down.
The outsole commonly employs projecting lugs or cleats designed to obtain purchase on soil, mud, gravel and loose surfaces.
The midsole is designed to manage the repeated impacts associated with running.
Increasingly, modern running footwear also incorporates considerable stack height, heel-to-toe drop and rocker geometry.
These aren’t accidental styling characteristics. They form part of the mechanical design of the shoe.
A rocker changes the way the foot progresses through stance. Research confirms that rocker footwear can alter ankle movement, plantar pressure and joint moments during walking as well as running. A 2025 systematic review examining 26 studies concluded that rocker-bottom footwear modifies lower-limb biomechanics, including ankle range of motion, plantar-flexor moments and plantar-pressure distribution. (PubMed)
That does not mean rocker footwear is inherently harmful. Indeed, altered loading can sometimes be beneficial.
It does, however, challenge the assumption that choosing a trail-running shoe rather than a conventional walking shoe is simply a question of choosing something lighter.
The footwear can change the mechanics of walking.
Running and Walking Are Not the Same Activity
This distinction becomes important because running and walking are biomechanically different.
Walking involves a relatively prolonged stance phase as the body progresses over the planted foot. Running introduces different loading patterns, shorter ground-contact times and a flight phase.
A shoe optimised around one activity cannot automatically be assumed to represent the optimum design for the other.
Research into rocker footwear demonstrates this clearly. One gait study found that rocker shoes significantly reduced peak ankle plantar-flexion moment during late stance in both walking and running. Ankle power generation was also reduced, while tibialis anterior activity changed during walking. (ScienceDirect)
Other research has identified changes including trunk flexion and ankle and knee mechanics when walking in rocker-bottom footwear. (ScienceDirect)
Again, none of this demonstrates that trail-running footwear causes injury.
It demonstrates something more subtle and arguably more important:
shoe geometry matters.
Consequently, recommending running footwear for a journey involving perhaps a million walking steps deserves more consideration than simply comparing the weight of the shoes.
Stack, Drop and Rocker
These three terms are sometimes incorrectly treated as interchangeable.
They are not.
Stack height describes the amount of material between the foot and the ground.
Heel-to-toe drop describes the difference in height between the heel and forefoot.
Rocker describes the curvature of the sole and therefore influences the transition through the stance phase.
A modern trail-running shoe can combine all three.
High stack provides cushioning but also physically separates the foot from the terrain. Drop alters the relationship between heel and forefoot. Rocker encourages progression through the gait cycle.
An approach shoe is generally much more conservative in this respect. Its platform tends to be relatively stable because stability and accurate foot placement are important when crossing rocks, scree and broken ground.
This raises an interesting question for the Camino.
If someone is going to take approximately one million walking steps, is it necessarily desirable to deliberately alter their natural walking mechanics for every one of them?
There isn’t sufficient evidence to claim that doing so will inevitably cause injury.
Equally, there is insufficient justification for assuming that a geometry developed partly around running efficiency automatically provides a biomechanical advantage for multi-week walking.
The recent systematic review of rocker footwear actually reinforces the need for nuance: while researchers found potentially beneficial changes in pressure and joint mechanics, they specifically cautioned that the effects depend upon design characteristics including thickness, mass and material properties. (PubMed)
The sensible conclusion isn’t that rocker soles are bad.
It is that changing gait mechanics is not biomechanically neutral.
The Problem of Tarmac
There is another weakness in the trail-running argument that receives surprisingly little attention.
The Camino isn’t exclusively a trail.
Pilgrims encounter an enormous variety of surfaces: earth tracks, gravel, agricultural roads, rocky paths, cobbles, pavements, concrete and substantial amounts of tarmac.
This matters because traditional trail-running outsoles are optimised for off-road traction.
Deep or prominent lugs work by interacting with softer and irregular surfaces. On hard abrasive surfaces such as tarmac they cannot function in the same manner, while repeated road mileage can progressively wear the tread.
There are now hybrid “road-to-trail” running shoes specifically designed to address this compromise. But their existence arguably reinforces the point: an aggressive trail-running outsole isn’t necessarily optimised for prolonged road walking.
An approach shoe presents a different proposition. Its outsole needs to survive abrasive rock while providing traction across mixed mountain terrain. Its tread is generally less dependent upon deep penetrative lugs, and the shoe is expected to encounter prolonged abrasive surfaces.
For a mixed-surface journey such as the Camino, durability should be considered alongside weight.
The Upper Matters Too
The argument for trail runners frequently focuses upon what is beneath the foot while overlooking what surrounds it.
A lightweight mesh upper is entirely logical for running. Reducing weight matters, ventilation matters and excessive structure can inhibit movement.
An approach shoe generally takes the opposite approach.
The upper tends to provide considerably greater containment. There is usually substantial protection around the toe, greater resistance to abrasion and more lateral structure.
That becomes potentially important when a walker is carrying a backpack.
A Camino pilgrim may be carrying perhaps 7–12 kilograms in addition to body weight. The footwear isn’t therefore controlling an unloaded foot. It is part of the interface between a loaded human body and irregular terrain, thousands of times every day.
The question becomes whether the reduction in shoe weight outweighs the potential advantages of a more structured platform and upper.
For some walkers it undoubtedly will.
For everyone?
That is considerably harder to justify.
Waterproofing: Another Compromise
The absence of waterproofing from many trail-running shoes is often presented as an advantage.
The argument is straightforward: waterproof shoes become hot, perspiration accumulates, and once water enters through the ankle they can take considerably longer to dry. A breathable trail runner becomes wet quickly but also dries quickly.
There is considerable practical logic to this.
However, it shouldn’t be confused with saying that waterproofing has no value.
A pilgrim walking through hours of cold rain, saturated grass or muddy tracks may reasonably prefer to prevent water reaching the foot in the first place.
Approach and lightweight hiking shoes are commonly available in both waterproof and non-waterproof versions, allowing the walker to select according to season and route.
The appropriate choice therefore depends upon expected conditions rather than an ideological preference for either waterproof or non-waterproof footwear.
Where Trail Runners Have a Genuine Advantage
None of this makes trail-running shoes unsuitable for the Camino.
For many walkers they may be extremely successful.
They are light. Modern foams provide remarkable cushioning. They require relatively little breaking in. Their breathability can substantially improve comfort in hot weather. Wider models can accommodate swelling during long days, and reducing footwear mass may itself reduce fatigue.
Someone already accustomed to walking long distances in trail-running shoes has an additional advantage: their body is adapted to that footwear.
That may be considerably more important than the category written on the shoebox.
A lightweight road-to-trail or ultra-distance shoe with moderate tread, relatively conservative geometry and a stable platform could therefore be an excellent Camino shoe.
But that is very different from saying:
“Trail runners are the best footwear for the Camino.”
The Case for the Approach Shoe
The approach shoe occupies an interesting middle ground.
It emerged from mountaineering and climbing, where the wearer needs to walk substantial distances to reach technical terrain and then negotiate scree, rock and scrambling.
Consequently, it combines characteristics of a walking shoe with characteristics borrowed from climbing footwear.
A typical approach shoe provides a robust upper, substantial toe protection, good lateral containment, a relatively stable sole and an outsole capable of dealing with highly abrasive surfaces.
For the Camino, some of these characteristics are extremely attractive.
The disadvantage is that the most technical approach shoes can be unnecessarily stiff, narrow and precise. A shoe designed for edging on rock isn’t necessarily something one would want to wear for 30 kilometres across the Meseta.
The ideal solution may therefore lie towards the walking end of the approach-shoe spectrum rather than the climbing end.
Such footwear potentially provides a useful compromise: more structure and durability than a trail runner without the weight and ankle restriction of a traditional walking boot.
The Boot Is Not Necessarily the Answer Either
Questioning trail runners shouldn’t become an argument for returning automatically to heavy leather walking boots.
For most Camino routes, traditional mountain boots are arguably excessive.
Their additional weight, insulation and stiffness solve problems that the pilgrim rarely encounters. The Camino is not an Alpine mountaineering route.
The real choice is therefore increasingly between three closely related categories:
| Requirement | Trail Runner | Approach Shoe | Lightweight Hiking Shoe |
| Low weight | Excellent | Good | Good |
| Cushioning | Excellent | Moderate | Good |
| Breathability | Excellent | Good | Good |
| Structured upper | Limited–moderate | Excellent | Very good |
| Lateral stability | Variable | Very good | Very good |
| Rock protection | Good | Excellent | Very good |
| Mixed-surface durability | Variable | Excellent | Very good |
| Aggressive soft-ground grip | Excellent | Moderate | Good |
| Hard-surface suitability | Model dependent | Good | Very good |
| Waterproof options | Available | Widely available | Widely available |
| Neutral/stable platform | Model dependent | Generally strong | Generally strong |
| Technical scrambling | Moderate | Excellent | Good |
Perhaps the most revealing feature of this comparison is that there is no universal winner.
The correct footwear depends upon the route, season, pack, individual biomechanics and previous adaptation.
The Million-Step Test
This may ultimately be the most useful way to think about Camino footwear.
Don’t ask:
“Which shoe feels lightest in the shop?”
Don’t even ask:
“Which shoe feels most comfortable during a five-mile walk?”
Ask instead:
“Which footwear would I choose to take my next million walking steps?”
That changes the criteria considerably.
Durability matters.
Fit matters.
Foot swelling matters.
Stability matters.
Outsole wear matters.
The weight of the backpack matters.
And biomechanics matter.
A small alteration repeated a handful of times is irrelevant. A small alteration repeated hundreds of thousands of times becomes worthy of consideration.
Research already demonstrates that rocker footwear can redistribute plantar pressure and alter ankle mechanics during walking. Some of those effects may be advantageous — indeed rocker designs are deliberately used therapeutically in some circumstances — but they demonstrate why footwear geometry cannot simply be dismissed as personal preference. (PubMed)
Conclusion: Appropriate Is More Important Than Light
The popularity of trail-running shoes has contributed something valuable to walking culture. It challenged the assumption that every serious journey requires a heavy boot and demonstrated that lighter footwear can be comfortable, capable and liberating.
But the pendulum may have swung too far.
A trail-running shoe was fundamentally developed around running over off-road terrain. Its lightweight upper, cushioning, outsole and increasingly sophisticated stack, drop and rocker geometry reflect that purpose.
The Camino presents a different problem.
It involves prolonged walking, substantial hard-surface mileage, a backpack, changing weather and hundreds of kilometres of repetitive loading.
That doesn’t make trail runners inappropriate. It makes their appropriateness conditional rather than universal.
For an experienced wearer using a stable, moderately rockered road-to-trail shoe in warm conditions with a light pack, a trail runner may be an excellent choice.
For another walker, particularly one seeking greater structure, weather protection, outsole durability and a more conventional walking platform, a lightweight hiking or approach shoe may be the considerably more rational choice.
Most importantly, footwear shouldn’t be selected simply because contemporary wisdom says that lighter is better.
The Camino is an endurance journey measured not in minutes of running but in weeks of walking.
Perhaps the most important principle is therefore remarkably simple:
Choose footwear for the activity you are actually going to perform, not merely the activity for which the fashionable shoe was originally designed.
When the objective is to walk nearly 800 kilometres, the question shouldn’t be “How light are my shoes?”
It should be:
“How do I want my feet and body to feel after the millionth step?”
