Altra Escalante 3.0 Review – What’s changed since 2.0 and 2.5

The Altra Escalante has long been the love of many road runners, gym-goers, and casual sneakerheads. And now Altra has just released an update to bring the version to 3.0! So does this new jump in versions mean it’s an entirely different shoe? Find out in this blog post. 

Affiliate Disclosure: By clicking through the links on this page and purchasing the products, you’ll be helping me out. This is done because I receive a kickback from the sellers at no extra cost to you! Thank you so much for supporting us!

If you’re new to the Escalante, it’s an Altra shoe that balances between two different markets. It’s a great option for a soft, easy run but can also be used as a casual zero-drop alternative to traditional brands. 

Coming in with 24mm of cushion, it’s by no means minimal, but it looks relatively normal underfoot compared to the Altra Paradigm or Torin. 

But how does the Escalante compare with its predecessors? You’ll notice some familiar features and fundamental changes if you’ve been a long-time Escalante wearer. 

Keep on reading to find out what they are.

Altra is known for their zero-drop platform and wide toe boxes –and that’s still present in the Escalante 3.0, but not in its full glory. 

The Escalante 2.0 and 2.5 utilized a very flexible upper in the past. So even though it wasn’t the widest Altra shoe, the upper was very forgiving and almost slipper-like. 

In version 3.0, we’re now seeing an upper with more structure, a stiffer mesh material, and a narrower fit in general. 

For some, that’ll come as a huge disappointment. But there are benefits to be had. 

In older models, any type of lateral movement sent you rolling over the side of the shoe. Not a feeling you want when turning a corner of a goal race or in the gym. 

In the Escalante 3.0, your foot is locked more securely in place thanks to the redesigned upper. 

On the downside, the shoe is a lot less forgiving. 

If you were someone pushing out of the side of the old Escalante’s, you would have a tricky time with the 3.0. 

This less forgiving upper seems to be a general move for the Altra lineup, as they seem to be trying to appeal to a broader audience. The jump between Altra and traditional shoes like Nike, Addidas, and Hoka is less dramatic now, and you’ll likely see more Altras on people’s feet in the future.

For me, the Escalante 3.0 is still OK, not perfect. I’d like to see a more volume in the toe box, but I can solve that by replacing their sole with a thinner one. 

Tongue

A huge notable difference between the new Escalante and the older versions is the change in the tongue. 

On the older models, Altra opted for the thin, single-material tongue that offers no padding but a smooth fit over the bridge of your foot. 

For me, this worked great, although others with lower volume feet did have some tongue slippage from side to side. 

Now in the 3.0, the tongue has reverted to a traditional design. 

Although I liked the old tongue, this conventional version still performs well for me. And the tried and tested design is likely a better bet for a wider audience. 

Heel Cup

The Altra heel has remained similar to the older versions. 

There’s still a heavy amount of cushion and no plastic heel counter to provide added support. 

Some people have had issues with the heel on Altras in the past. They’re pretty wide and open like a skate shoe. So if you’re someone with a narrow heel, try them out first to make you don’t get any heel lift. 

Even though there is a lack of heel counter, I still find the lockdown is great –and I credit that to a lack of heel counter! 

Hear me out. If you have a rigid structure in your shoe, you have to hope that it matches the contours of your foot. If not, there’s no give to allow the shoe to morph to the correct shape.

Conversely, tightening a shoe with minimal structure will wrap the upper material around your heel perfectly. And that’s why some of my best-fitting shoes are barefoot style. 

Do they feel the same? That’s the big question. And it’s kinda a yes and no. 

For sure, they’re still an Altra. And, arguably, still a forgiving Escalante. 

And even though the exterior of the midsole looks very different, underfoot, it still feels pretty similar. 

I’ll admit that the 3.0 feels a touch more responsive, but I believe the ride will end up similar to my 2.5 pair over time. 

The most significant change in feel is still the upper. 

When I’m running, I often move my toes around a lot. I’m not sure if they’re dancing to their own beat or helping me keep balanced. Either way, the ability to move my toes is slightly reduced due to the lack of volume in the 3.0. 

Like I’ve said before, I’ll likely be replacing the insole in the 3.0, just to give the shoe a little more volume and let those toes move. 

On the flip side, if a “performance” style fit is up your street, this change may appeal to you. 

Innerflex

In the past, Altra used to boast about their innerflex technology. These little cutouts ran horizontally across the ball of the foot and toes. 

Innerflex helped the shoe flex a little more near the joints of the toes and allowed your feet to work more naturally. 

In the 3.0, they’re less pronounced.

This leads to a stiffer forefoot, and a rocker feel to the shoe. 

By no means is this akin to a Hoka, but a subtle difference between the Escalante versions. 

Over time the foam will likely soften, helping bring back that natural motion to the shoe. 

If you’re dead set on keeping the flexible forefoot like an Escalante 2, or 2.5, I’d suggest looking at the Topo Athletic ST-4. There are drawbacks to the shoe, but it’s still flexible and soft.

Durability

Looking over the 3.0, it’s tough to say what will break down first. 

Upper – No

Midsole Foam – No

Outsole Rubber – Possibly

Although the Escalante has never been known for its durability, I think Altra has done a good job this time. 

I’m finding it very hard to believe that the upper will break down prematurely due to the tougher material now being used. 

And as for the Ego foam, I’ve not seen problems in that area for 100’s of miles.

Outsole

This is the first candidate for breakdown. 

In my old Escalante’s, the thin rubber covering the foam midsole has always been the area to go first. 

And I bet, if you ask any Escalante owner to show you the bottom of their shoes, they would have worn through at least one section of the rubber. 

With the 3.0, I “think” the rubber is a little more durable, but only time will tell. After 50km, it’s only showing minor wear, so I’m keeping my fingers crossed! 

Inside Liner

What about inside the shoe?

It’s an area my wife always has trouble with premature breakdown. 

And really, I don’t expect much change here. 

The material is little changed; if anything, it feels slightly less plush. 

So the key here for longevity is a good fit. If your feet aren’t moving in the shoe, you’re less likely to rip through the inside liner. 

If you’ve read my reviews before, you might know that I like to perform a quick gait analysis of myself running in the shoes. I feel it gives another dimension to help you and me make better shoe-buying decisions. 

To perform the analysis, I use University grade measurement pods to estimate ground reaction force, peak impact force, pronation angle/speed, and much more. 

I performed a 1-mile run on a treadmill at an 8:34 per mile pace with the 2.5 and 3.0 Escalante’s. I then tested the Vivobarefoot Primus Lite’s barefoot shoe as a “control” comparison. 

Results

There’s very little difference between the two versions of the Escalante. You’d generally expect it when one is just an update of the other shoe. 

But let’s explore the minor differences anyway. 

Impact

Shoe	Altra Escalante 2.5	Altra Escalante 3.0	Vivobarefoot Primus Lite
Impact Force (G)	5.4	4.4	5.6

Interestingly, the Escalante 2.5 behaved very similarly to the barefoot shoe. These figures tell us the force when I hit the ground was lower in the Escalante 3.0. 

But wait….. 

Shoe	Altra Escalante 2.5	Altra Escalante 3.0	Vivobarefoot Primus Lite
Peak Ground Reaction Force (multiple of body weight)	2.9	2.9	2.7

The peak ground reaction force (GRF) was identical with the two Escalante’s. This means the forces exerted into the body at peak impact were the same, likely due to my biomechanics adjusting to the minor differences, which evened out the impact. 

So which is better?

With such insignificant differences, the 300km on the 2.5 likely affected the results vs. the relatively new 3.0. So I’d suggest neither will make a huge difference in impact forces. 

Pronation

Here’s one area that gets a little interesting. 

Pronation is the angle measurement of the ankle rolling in or out from the foot’s initial contact position. 

Many hear about overpronation and expect that they need a well-structured shoe to “correct” pronation. Still, some amount of pronation is expected and even a benefit. You are utilizing your ankle to absorb some of the impact from the ground. 

Another interesting pronation measurement is the speed at which pronation occurs. That’s how fast you move from the initial foot impact position to the final pronated position. Different shoe designs can have dramatic effects on both pronation angle and speed. 

Shoe	Altra Escalante 2.5	Altra Escalante 3.0	Vivobarefoot Primus Lite
Pronation Angle (degrees)	-16.1	-17.6	-19.8
Pronation Velocity(degrees/sec)	573	698	687

The Escalante 3.0 behaves more like a barefoot shoe than the 2.5. And I believe this is due to the firmer foam in the midsole.

With a firmer midsole, you’re naturally being pushed into the final ankle and foot position at a faster speed.

Conversely, you’ll sink into the squishiness with a softer foam, and normal pronation will not occur as much. 

So which is better?

The standard advice is to go with a softer foam if you tend to supinate (rolling outwards from the midpoint) because the amount of pronation will reduce and lessen the chance of rolling an ankle. 

If you tend to overpronate (around 70% of people), you’ll want a more stable and, in this case, firmer midsole. 

Again these differences could be due to the age of my Escalante 2.5. But with the omission of the innerflex groves and the stiffer upper, I genuinely think there’s been a shift towards a firmer ride.

Therefore, the Escalante 3.0 will likely work for more runners than the 2.5 did. 

It’s a change! But not a huge change. The old charm of the Escalante is still on show for all to see. 

The small changes in the upper may disappoint some, but these changes are minor, and if the volume is an issue, a simple change of inner soles can simply rectify those issues. 

If you’re looking for a 5km all the way up to the half-marathon distance speed work shoe, the Escalante is a perfect choice.

And if you want to transition to barefoot (here’s why you should) but want a “transition shoe” to help carry you along the journey, the Escalante could be a good shout.