Rogue Monster Single Leg Roller 2.0

March 22, 2025 in Review

My home gym has been going through some major renovation and I’ve been picking up a bunch of new equipment. One thing that I’ve decided to add was a leg roller for some accessory exercises and in anticipation for my REP Ares 2.0 cable attachment for the PR-5000 rack.

After some reasearch and looking at the various options on the market, I’ve decided to go with the Rogue Monster Single Leg Roller 2.0

Now, I do want to note that I haven’t really used this attachment yet because my rack isn’t fully ready for it so this video is more so going to be an initial impressions and thoughts about this product.

Starting off, we have a 4.25” in diameter pad that’s 16” in length. For me this is a nice size because my number one priority for these leg roller are to use them as a way to hold me down during lat pull downs in the center of my rack, when my Ares 2.0 comes. So, I’ll have one on each front upright facing in and I can slide my knees under it. Again, the sizing of this pad makes it functional for this purpose. Then of course if you plan on using them for things like split squats, it’ll also work for that. It’ll also work for most people who plan to attach this and lay your stomach or back across it but that depends on how wide you are.

If you do your research, you’d find that this is one of the more expensive leg rollers on the market. These retail for $125 each. I have two so I spent $250. In comparison, the ones from REP cost $54.99 each. But if you buy it as a pair, it’s discounted to $99.99. 2.5X less in price.

So why did I go with the Rogue rollers? Ultimately, it came down to how these rollers attach to a rack. All the other options that I’ve seen, attaches like a hitch pin. They use a stem that goes through the hole of the upright. The stem is then held in place by another pin that prevents it from being pulled out. This approach works, but it allows for a lot of movement. The leg roller won’t be locked in place like with the Rogue leg roller that again uses a stem that goes into the upright, but this time the stem is threaded so that you can use the knurled knob to securely tighten everything down. There’s even built in washers that prevent scratching of the upright so you can really tighten this without much worry.

I do want to point out that I’ve seen other reviewers say that with their Rogue leg roller, they can secure it in place and there will be no movement at all. I can only speak for the REP rack that I own, but I would say that I can get this secured 95% of the way. If I put a little force, it will move a bit no matter how hard I try to hand tighten.

Overall, for what it is, this is a really nice product. It functions as a leg roller and I have no complaints about that but only time will tell. I’ll really get to use it when all of my cable attachments come. The only thing that I would say that I’m disappointed about with this product is the fit and finish. Mine arrived with some noticeable cosmetic damage. It looks as though it was banged against something a bunch of times. The knurling on my knurled knob also shows some discoloration and damage. These are damage that’s present on both of my leg rollers so I wonder if this is a thing with all of them. I’ve contacted Rogue about these issues but am still waiting for a response. Again, just a little disappointing considering how reviewers always praise Rogue for being so high quality and considering how much more this leg roller costs than others.

Want to support my work?

Consider visiting the shop and buying "Absolutely Nothing"
https://www.HaiHoangTran.com/shop/absolutely-nothing

Become a YouTube member!

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCLUO-2ltlWfydRZ7pRRnXkw/join

Become a Patron!
https://www.patreon.com/HaiHoangTran

Buy some official merch!
https://www.youtube.com/haitran/store

PayPal
https://www.PayPal.me/HaiHoangTran

Just shop on Amazon via this link!
https://amzn.to/2FgsDnG

Xero HFS Original vs Xero HFS II for Weightlifting

March 11, 2025 in Review

Over the past few months, I’ve been using the Xero HFS exclusively for all of my workouts because as with all Xero Shoes, the HFS offers an extremely minimal flat sole that allows the wearer to get maximum ground feel. I’ve actually owned this shoe for about 9 months. I’ve just never used it until recently. If I remember correctly, I bought this shoe because it was on a closeout sale as Xero Shoes introduced the HFS II. I’ve always wondered what the practical differences were for someone who mostly weightlifts like me but didn’t think too much about making a comparison because, again, the HFS Original was discontinued. That was until recently when Xero Shoes brought it back due to popular demand. And now that I got both in hand, let’s take a look at these two options when considering them for typical gym exercises.

Design & Aethestics
When it comes to design, the Xero Shoes HFS Original and HFS II are nearly identical in terms of the upper. When I looked at the product photos on the Xero website, I thought that the two did look slightly different. But in person, they are almost the exact same. Both feature a knitted mesh upper that’s reinforced along the edges with smooth plastic. Sure, the small side stripes do feature a slightly different texture and the HFS II removed the rear heel stripe but for all intents and purposes, we can basically say that the design is the same.

Something that you may not be able to tell from the product pages is that the uppers on both of these shoes are actually two separate layers that are then combined to make the actual upper. This is comprised of the kitted mesh outer layer that you visually see when you look at the shoe and the internal sock liner layer that you step into. The difference that I want to point out is that with the HFS Original, I’ve noticed that the two liners move independently much more easily than the HFS II. With my HFS Original, as I move, you can actually see the lighter grey sock liner inside the shoe. Again, this is because the two layers are not securely attached to each other. With the HFS II, they are more securely attached to each other and you get a more uniform seamless-looking shoe. So in terms of this aspect of the upper design, I do prefer the HFS II because you don’t see two separate colors on a shoe that I intentionally got because it was all black.

The biggest design change between the two shoes is going to be the sole. With the HFS Original, you get this more uniform flat sole design that’s been used in many of their other shoes. The HFS II goes with a tread pattern with more distinguished and separated lugs. This makes sense because the HFS by name is designed to be a road runner shoe. So having a more aggressive tread pattern just helps to increase traction in a variety of different environments and conditions.

Comfort & Fit
In terms of comfort and fit, I personally think that the uppers feel the exact same. No difference to me so one’s not better than the other. However, when it comes to the sole I would say that there is a difference. Because the lugs are so pronounced and separated when I stand, I do feel that there are little points under my feet. It is nothing serious at all but is something you can feel when compared to the HFS Original that is essentially just a flat sole with some small grooves cut into it. The HFS Original’s sole just feels uniform as if it were one solid layer under your feet.

For my personal training, I absolutely prefer the HFS Original. That more seamless flat sole design allows me to just get better ground feel and ultimately allows me to better transfer all the forces that I’m exerting when I’m lifting directly to the ground. In my personal opinion, the HFS Original’s sole is a much better option if you’re looking into buying one of these shoes for lifting.

However, if I were to choose between one of these shoes to go for a run outside, I’d definitely go with the HFS II. The tread is just way more aggressive and provides so much more grip. The HFS Original’s sole will perform fine for road running as that’s what it was designed for, but I’d imagine that it may get a little sketchy if you run a lot on wet ground. Personally, I’m perfectly happy with using the Original on my treadmill but that’s as optimal as you can get in terms of a running surface. Moving forward though, the HFS II is going to be my first choice for outdoor running. The difference in traction makes it a no-brainer for me.

Price & Value
Lastly, let’s talk about price & value. Again, I purchased my HFS Original on closeout and it was only $60. However, now that it’s back into regular production, it’s also back to the regular price of $120, the same as the HFS II. So realistically, price is not a factor between the two shoes because they are the same price.

Again, in terms of upper design, they are also basically identical. To me, the determiner is going to come down to the sole. If you are buying these shoes to primarily run with, particularly outside, then the HFS II is going to be the clear winner. The tread pattern is going to provide you with much more grip and traction, making it the safer shoe to run with in my opinion. But I also live in Washington State where it rains a lot and the ground is slightly wet for a good amount of the year so that does affect my opinion.

However, if you are purchasing one of these shoes to primarily lift weights indoors, inside a gym that has largely smooth flat surfaces, I think the HFS Original is the way to go. The more minimal sole will provide better ground feel and is the better lifting shoe because it will allow you to better transfer exerted forces into the ground, which can ultimately help you lift heavier.