GEAR REVIEW: Altra Lone Peak 4 Mid RSM and Low Trail Shoes

By Will Rietveld

The new Altra Lone Peak 4 takes another step in the evolution of this popular trail shoe. It’s popular because its shape/fit, materials, support, cushioning, traction, and light weight are on target with what hikers and trail runners want.

What’s new with this new edition, and how is it better? And further, are there advantages (or not) of switching to the mid-height waterproof/breathable version versus a traditional low-cut shoe?

I started out testing the new Altra 4 RSM Mid (left), but after discovering a few quirks I decided to compare it with the Altra 4 Low (right). This review is the outcome of one hiker’s experience with both versions.

Specifications and Features

Manufacturer	Altra Running (www.altrarunning.com/)
Models	Lone Peak 4 Mid RSM and Low
Materials	All synthetic. The Mid RSM has an eVent waterproof-breathable membrane; both shoes have a nylon fabric upper with TPU overlays, EVA midsole, and rubber outsole.
Platform	Stack height 25mm, zero drop
Features	Notable changes are: eVent membrane in the waterproof-breathable version, new nylon fabric upper; an added webbing loop on the instep that enables better cinching ability; a new full-length rock plate that resembles the skeletal structure of the foot; and an improved traction outsole.
Weight	Size 12 tested. Average weight of the Mid RSM is 15.2 oz; average weight of the Low is 12.3 oz.
MSRP	Mid RSM is $160; Low is $120

Description

RSM stands for Rain, Snow, and Mud. The big change in the Mid is a switch from NeoShell to eVent for the waterproof-breathable membrane. I have always preferred eVent because of its better breathability. Both the Mid and the Low are available with a mesh upper that is not waterproof, and the RSM waterproof-breathable version.

This is my first time testing the mid-height version of the Lone Peak, so I have no experience with the previous NeoShell version to compare it to. However, I have tested the Lone Peak 3.0 and 3.5 Low.

The most noticeable change from the Lone Peak 3.5 is the new upper fabric, which looks like ripstop nylon compared to the woven fabric look of its predecessor. Both have a soft feel. The 3.5 had a dense overstitching pattern on the toebox to reinforce it, while the 4.0 has TPU overlays.

The other main upgrades – a static loop on the instep to enable better clinching, enlarged and articulated rock plate, and improved traction outsole – are less noticeable but significant and functional.

Overall, the improvements justify kicking up the Lone Peak up a notch from 3.5 to 4.0.

Field Testing and Performance

I tested the Lone Peak 4.0 on a total of 33 outings, which included trail hiking, off-trail hiking, trail running, snow and slush hiking, backpacking, scrambling, and mountain biking.

 

Unfortunately, on only my second time out in the Lone Peak 4 Mid RSM I caught the toebox of one shoe on a tree stub and tore a hole in the upper mesh. I tried repairing it with a Type A patch and McNett Tenaceous Tape, but neither product worked. So that shoe leaked through most of my testing.

In my testing of the Mid RSM in slush and water, I ended up with damp socks on both feet; the left one more so because of the patched tear. Upon further inspection I noticed that the right shoe also had some small abrasion holes in the fabric on the sides of the toebox. This would indicate that the new fabric is not all that durable, at least for off-trail backpacking.

 Weight-wise, in my shoe size, the Lone Peak 4 Low is only a smidgeon heavier than the version 3.5 (12.3 oz/shoe versus 12.2 oz/shoe). The MSRP has remained the same ($120).

My rationale for testing the Lone Peak Mid 4 RSM was my perception that it would provide better ankle support and be more stable and protective for off-trail backpacking. Also, the waterproof-breathable version would be a good choice for hiking in early- and late-season snow, as well as summer rains.

However, overall, the Mid 4 RSM did not meet my expectations.

Before I get into the details, allow me to mention that your experience may be different; choosing a shoe brand and model is a very personal thing, like choosing what type and brand of underwear you wear. You eventually determine what works for you.

In my case, I have wide feet (EE width), high arches, and a high instep. I’m attracted to the wide toebox and snug heelcup of the Altra’s, but even with that I need to wear thin socks in them to avoid them being too tight. For hiking, I want an all-synthetic, supportive, cushioned, high traction shoe.

Back to my experience with the Lone Peak Mid 4 RSM. First, the tear in the upper was totally a mishap, and I don’t feel that the new fabric is any less durable than previous versions. But it is still vulnerable to abrasion on the sides of the toebox.

My main issue is its funky fit (for me), which resulted in a constant flip-flop sound while hiking in them. I tried tightening them down as much as I could, switching to thicker insoles, and wearing thicker socks, but nothing worked. It was mostly an annoyance and did not result in blisters or anything like that. Finally, I did not notice any improved support or protection from the Mid version.

When I got the Low Mesh version midway in my testing, I immediately noticed that they were a better fit, provided more agility while hiking, and were simply more comfortable. I could also notice the Low version’s lighter weight; 3 ounces less per shoe.

After noticing a significant difference in the comfort and performance of the two versions of the Lone Peak 4, I dived into comparing details of the two shoes to try to account for the perceived differences. Notable differences in the Mid are taller shoe height (obviously), the lacing system at the top of the shoe, thicker laces, thicker padding around the ankle, a looser fit around the ankle, and an added exterior thick TPU band around the heel. 

So, the devil is in the details, so to speak – the Mid is a different animal compared to the Low. It’s not just the Low shoe with a little height added; it’s a different shoe.

I also dived into trying to figure out what was causing the flip-flopping effect. I thought it might be heel rise due to a looser heel cup, but when I measured the heel cup width of the two shoes the difference was negligible.

I conclude that the flip-flopping of the Mid version is due to the multiple design differences between the two shoes, which overall do not provide an enveloping fit like the Low.

The other upgrades in the new Lone Peak 4 are all good improvements. The static lacing loop over the instep does provide better cinching, which makes this trail running shoe much more stable while hiking across steep sidehills. Also the improved rock plate and traction outsole are distinct improvements.

Here’s the Lone Peak 4 Mid RSM and Low side by side, both in size men’s 12.

Here’s how the Lone Peak Low 4 (green) compares to the Lone Peak 3.5 (red). Both are the fabric (non-waterproof) version. The new version has a more aggressive outsole, although the old version is pretty worn down.

Assessment

The outcome of my testing was a bit different from what I expected. For me, the funky fit, flip-flopping, and lack of improved support made the Lone Peak 4 Mid RSM a disappointment. When the traditional Low Mesh shoe arrived, my feet told me “I like these much better!”. Granted, they get wet easily, so they are not suited for hiking in snow and slush, but they are just fine for summer hiking where getting them wet is less of an issue because they dry out quickly.

I will continue to be a fan of the Altra Lone Peak because of their wide toebox, support, and comfort. However, my experience with the Mid version reinforced my preference for a low-cut shoe; I simply prefer the lighter weight, improved agility, good traction, and adequate support they provide. In this case a taller shoe didn’t offer any more.