Lighter footwear WHY?

[jjozgrunt]

Well I was having a discussion with some members of my walking club about why I wear trail runners V their mid to full boots. So I took some weights and did some figures and was very surprised at the results. I actually may have convinced them to swap over. I'm a metric person so for all you poor people still using the Avoirdupois system (miles, yards, pounds etc) will have to do your own conversions.

Test shoes weight per shoe, would have been better if they were all the same size but we did add the same weight of sock!

1 New Balance 910v3 size 14us - 459 grams

2 Merrell Moab Mid boot size 12us - 637 grams

3 Keen leather full boot size 11us - 873 grams

Distance we worked on was 30 kms (about 19 miles). Average steps per kilometre were 1330 over varying terrain. So we took about 40,000 steps.

Amount of weight each person's legs picked up over the distance.

1 - 18360 kg

2 - 25480 kg - +7120 kg

3 - 33480 kg - +15120 kg

Well there you have it. I didn't realise just how much weight my poor legs had to pick up and put down in a day, until I did the calculations, so I'm going to stick with my 910's and make them happy.

[Venchka]

Or, as Colin Fletcher said, "A pound on your feet is worth 5 pounds in your pack."
I took 2 pounds off of my feet. My pack feels 10 pounds lighter.
Wayne


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[DuneElliot]

Or, as Colin Fletcher said, "A pound on your feet is worth 5 pounds in your pack."
I took 2 pounds off of my feet. My pack feels 10 pounds lighter.
Wayne


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

^^^This. The Army did a study on it. Not saying that I will swear by everything the Army does, but they have a point

[Odd Man Out]

I've read that army study. As I recall they measured respiration rates of people walking on treadmills. Adding weights to the pack and to the feet both Increased respiration. The increase per gram on feet was 5 times the increase per gram added to back. I'll look up the original at work (where I have access to academic publications).

[ADVStrom14]

Or, as Colin Fletcher said, "A pound on your feet is worth 5 pounds in your pack."
I took 2 pounds off of my feet. My pack feels 10 pounds lighter.
Wayne


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I heard this on a podcast and I didn't believe it either at first. But it makes sense. It helps your knees too.

Jes

[Venchka]

^^^This. The Army did a study on it. Not saying that I will swear by everything the Army does, but they have a point

I can't find my copy of The New Complete Walker. That really bums me out.
Anyway, I have heard the reference to the Army study. I guess Mr. Fletcher gave credit to the Army.
On the other hand he hiked in Pivetta boots somewhere around 5-6 pounds per pair. Ouch. But the places he hiked required sturdy boots.
Wayne


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Venchka]

I didn't make my point very well.
We should all be aware of stupid light decisions.
Pack load, terrain, trail conditions should be taken into consideration. I really like my light but sturdy mountain running shoes. I am also keeping my Italian boots for the appropriate time and place.
Wayne


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[CarlZ993]

There have been multiple studies that show energy savings of lighter shoes/boots. The US Army study showed "that the ... energy cost of wearing a weight on your feet was 4.7 - 6.3 (depending on speed) times as big as carrying the same weight on your torso." Another study in the Netherlands showed "the mass of footwear resulted in an increase in the energy expenditure which was a factor 1.9 - 4.7 times greater than that of a kilogram of body mass, depending on sex & walking speed." In a London study, "it was 6.4 times more expensive to carry weight on the feet as compared to the back."

All quotes taken out of the book "The Backpacker's Handbook, 4th Ed" by Chris Townsend.

I've become a light shoe convert with the lead-up to my 2013 AT thru-hike. I won't be going back to my old, heavy boot ways.

[Venchka]

"2013 AT thru-hike"????
Typo?
I still have to wonder about some pretty gnarly places where something more substantial than trail runners would be appropriate. The folks over at Backcountrypost might have some good input.
Wayne


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Leo L.]

After I've left my very early hiking with red-checkered shirts and heavy leather boots behind, for many decades all my hikes were done in sport shoes or trailrunners.
Just recently I switched to boots for several reasons:
- The hikes go more and more off the beaten path and include more and more bushwhacking (except that in the desert there is no bush, so you might call it scree-slope whacking)
- The lifetime of trailrunners seems to be terrible short, the profile wears off within a few weeks and the carcasse starts to break after months, usually.
- Sport shoes usually develope a terrible stink at some point

Leather boots work better for me:
- No debris in the shoes and no thorns in the socks
- Can be resoled and repaired, hopefully will have very long lifetime
- After many years of use they still smell like leather

The weight of my shoes/boots (per single piece):
- Salomon XA Pro 3D: 400g
- lightweight leather boots: 600g
- midweight leather/canvas boots: 700g
The lightweight leather boots didn't survive long, after 2 weeks of desert hiking some seams failed.
So now I'm with the midweight leather/canvas boots and don't care about the additional weight, but just feel comfortable.

[Deacon]

After I've left my very early hiking with red-checkered shirts and heavy leather boots behind, for many decades all my hikes were done in sport shoes or trailrunners.
Just recently I switched to boots for several reasons:
- The hikes go more and more off the beaten path and include more and more bushwhacking (except that in the desert there is no bush, so you might call it scree-slope whacking)
- The lifetime of trailrunners seems to be terrible short, the profile wears off within a few weeks and the carcasse starts to break after months, usually.
- Sport shoes usually develope a terrible stink at some point

Leather boots work better for me:
- No debris in the shoes and no thorns in the socks
- Can be resoled and repaired, hopefully will have very long lifetime
- After many years of use they still smell like leather

The weight of my shoes/boots (per single piece):
- Salomon XA Pro 3D: 400g
- lightweight leather boots: 600g
- midweight leather/canvas boots: 700g
The lightweight leather boots didn't survive long, after 2 weeks of desert hiking some seams failed.
So now I'm with the midweight leather/canvas boots and don't care about the additional weight, but just feel comfortable.

And using Obenauf's LP leather preservative keeps them very soft, supple, and waterproof.

[Uriah]

Light = good.
Heavy = bad.
Unprepared = worst.

[Hikingjim]

Based on leo's footwear weights:
300 g extra per shoe for the midweight boots. 600 g x 6 = 3,600 g or almost 8 lbs (if the "6x weight on the torso" figure is actually accurate)
So it comes at a significant cost. Even if the 6x is overstated, I definitely notice a huge difference when wearing boots all day.

I like merrell moab low cut (about 1 lb per shoe in an average size.... heavier for me at size 14), but I agree that quality of these type of shoe can be an issue. But I get tons of use out of them, and I buy them somewhere that I can take them back easily if they have an unusual quality issue. They start as my backpacking shoe, after hundreds of miles they become a day hike shoe (deteriorating), then they become a biking shoe!

[Leo L.]

As always, its a matter of preference.
Plus, a matter of what exactly you are doing.
Honestly, I've never set my foot on any of your American LD trails (excep that I once touched the John Muir trail for a few miles), what gave me the impression that your trails usually have quite a nice thread and really boots wouldn't make much sense.
So you could focus on saving weight, and might end up with trailrunners.

For me and my typical use I'm no longer happy with light sport shoes and ended up with the midweight boots. They served me perfectly well for several local trips this summer, now looking forward to giving them a real desert challenge next spring.

[Hikingjim]

As always, its a matter of preference.
Plus, a matter of what exactly you are doing.
Honestly, I've never set my foot on any of your American LD trails (excep that I once touched the John Muir trail for a few miles), what gave me the impression that your trails usually have quite a nice thread and really boots wouldn't make much sense.
So you could focus on saving weight, and might end up with trailrunners.

For me and my typical use I'm no longer happy with light sport shoes and ended up with the midweight boots. They served me perfectly well for several local trips this summer, now looking forward to giving them a real desert challenge next spring.

Very true. I have some 10 year old zamberlan leather boots that don't come out of the closet much (other than winter), but are extremely valuable when they do

they're still like new, including the tread

[bigcranky]

I still have to wonder about some pretty gnarly places where something more substantial than trail runners would be appropriate.

Not sure where those places are? We had advice to wear substantial leather boots on a Long Trail end to end because of the condition of the treadway. We wore our usual very light trail runners, and it was fine.

[nsherry61]

When carrying a reasonably light weight backpack, and especially in really rocky rough terrain (like some of the worst White Mountain Trails), I find a good pair of light trail runners with a good rock guard built into the sole to be exceptional compared to slightly heaver shoes or boots. My feet are much nimbler and dance across the tops of rocks with lighter footwear, whereas with heaver shoes or boots it is much more of a trudge stepping over or along side rocks looking for a more stable landing place.

With a heavier pack (>25 lbs?), where dancing on the balls of your feet from the top of one rock to the next is not sustainable, I could see heavier footwear being helpful because you are being forced to place you foot on more stable, flatter and often uneven surfaces. Also, light running shoes suck at jamming into cracks or holding an edge when you are more climbing rocks than dancing across the tops of them.

In balance, I'll take my trail runners any day on pretty much any trail, smooth or rough, and switch to a heavier trail shoe or light boot only for rugged off-trail where you can't control you foot placement nearly as well. . . and where brush shreds the mesh uppers on running shoes.

[Spirit Walker]

It also can depend on your feet and ankles. While I am happy with trail shoes in most situations (i.e. not when I'm in snow), my husband gets a lot of foot pain if he doesn't have a somewhat stiffer and more supportive boot. He wears Lowas, which break in very quickly. And as others have said, if you have a heavy pack, having more support on your feet may save you from sprains or stress fractures.

[nsherry61]

. . . my husband gets a lot of foot pain if he doesn't have a somewhat stiffer and more supportive boot. . .

It might be worth your husband's time to experiment with some of the trail shoes with explicitly highlighted "Rock Guards" build into the sole. I feel sharp pointy rocks less through my Altra Trail runners than I do through almost any other hiking shoe or boot that I have worn in the past. Yeah, mountaineering boots have less rock feel, but that's about it.

[Leo L.]

... switch to a heavier trail shoe or light boot only for rugged off-trail where you can't control you foot placement nearly as well. . . and where brush shreds the mesh uppers on running shoes.

Exactly this.
Picture is from a 2 weeks hike in the Sinai desert 2008, most of it off-trail.
Where you think you find an even place to set your foot, a stingy/scratchy/gluey/poisonous plant had the very same idea long before you.

Wadi-1.JPG