Why trail running shoes over waterproof boots?

[TheWhiteWalker]

I am planning a thru hike and undecided on what type of footwear I want to bring and break in now. It seems like more people are switching from boots to trail running shoes. I have always used low cut waterproof boots but I am open to change.

I have very curious of the pros/cons of trail running shoes. Most boots are waterproof and I believe most trail runners are not. I picture the AT to have large sections of mud that I would think would be miserable for trail running shoes but would not phase waterproof boots.

I understand footwear is a personal preference but can anyone sell me on why I should consider trail running shoes over my low cut water proof boots? Thanks!

[Uncle Joe]

Trail running shoes are lighter, first off. Over the course of the entire route that makes a difference. It's also a difference you notice off the bat. Second, even your waterproof boots are going to get wet. And waterproof boots take a lot longer to dry than trail running shoes. FWIW, I have both and the shoes are my first reach. If it's really cold or a shorter hike I might reach for the boots. There are different takes on this and everyone has to make that choice for themselves. If ankle support isn't a concern and you're going on strictly water resistance, go with shoes. As I said, you're likely to get them wet either way. Andrew Skurka covers this in his Google talk and basically covers the differences and why. Skip to about the 28:12 mark.

https://youtu.be/FGQTcQhL08A

[Mountain Bluebird]

and check out Mike Clelland in his Ultralight Backpackin' Tips: 153 Amazing & Inexpensive tips for extremely lightweight camping, 2011. As Hammock Hanger says, all footwear gets wet. Mike Clelland has some neat tips for keeping socks dry when the shoes/boots are saturated.

You search out my path and my lying down,
and are acquainted with all my ways. Psalm 139

[Slo-go'en]

I'm a firm believer in the GTX (gortex) shoe/boot. Best thing to happen to hiking since the zip lock baggie. Yes, they can fill with water if it runs down your leg or you step into puddle deeper then the top of the shoe, but otherwise your feet stay dry. And since very little water is absorbed by the liner in the boot, I find they don't take long to dry out even when water gets inside.

[peakbagger]

Feet sweat so if you are wearing truly waterproof boots you will have wet feet. The concept with trail runners it they dry out quickly and breathe. There are so called breathable waterproof boots that usually have goretex in the design. When new out of the box they do breathe as long as you are darn close to stationary but when hiking, the vapor transmission of the goretex is far less than the sweat generation of the feet.

[Traveler]

Its strictly a personal decision. I have used both types of footgear, if I have to choose one over the other it would depend on terrain, the more difficult the terrain, the sturdier the footwear, but thats just me.

[garlic08]

I hiked the AT with trail runners and did not encounter large areas of mud. The exception was parts of Vermont (often called "Vermud") fairly early, in June, in a wet year, and still the trail runners excelled.

Since you're curious, pick up a pair of inexpensive shoes and try them out in various conditions in the year(s) before your thru-hike. I get my New Balance trail shoes at Big 5 for less than $50.

You might encounter other issues changing from boots to shoes. With less support, you might need to strengthen the ankles (which will pay dividends). It takes a while to get used to hiking in rocky terrain. But you'll probably eventually find your stride improves and walking becomes much less fatiguing. When I hike now with old friends who haven't changed to shoes, I notice their gait looks unnatural and painful. At the end of the day I'm ready to do it again.

Of course, no single tool is perfect for every task for every user. If that were the case, there'd only be one of everything.

[Odd Man Out]

Two yeas ago I did an AT section hike in VA. On one day it rained very hard and my non waterproof ventilated hiking shoes (Keens) got soaked to the point they would go squish when I took a step. The next day at noon I stopped for lunch at a road crossing. There was a guy there taking advantage of the open sunny area to dry his gear out in the sun. He had traditional "waterproof" hiking boots. They were still soaked and he was doing everything he could to dry them out. I looked down at my shoes and they were completely dry. So I belive in the theory as stayed above. It doesn't matter how waterproof your boots are they will get wet, and all the waterproofing does at this point is to help keep them wet.

[Cheyou]

I hike in running shoes . Have used goretex sox with some success .

Thom

[MuddyWaters]

Theres no such thing as waterproof anything hiking 8 hrs in the rain. You arent walking across an REI parking lot

Biggest problem, water that comes in the top, the huge hole your foot goes in, has no way to get out.

[Malto]

As others have said trail runners are lighter and dry quicker. I have had abysmal results with Goretex and unless hiking in extreme winter conditions I go with a waterproof sock over waterproof shoes. While my feet will be damp it will be warm damp as water doesn't get exchanged through the sock. I believe this is as effective as fully functioning Goretex socks since Goretex won't transfer moisture if there is water on the outer surface which will be the case often when you chose to wear them. In warmer temperatures the thought of wet feet is far worse then the reality of wet feet.

[JohnG10]

Trail runners are noticeably cooler to hike in during the summer.

Trail runners are significantly lighter, resulting in much less fatigue and stumbling/catching your toes on rocks after 6-8 hours of hiking.

Hiking shoes are stiffer on the bottom so you don't feel the rocks and get a sore (invisibly bruised) sole.

Hiking shoes are more stable, so you are less like to twist and ankle.

Hiking shoes are stiffer soled, so your arch muscles don't get as sore going uphill with a pack.

All of the hiking shoe advantages go away after your feet and ankles get stronger because you've been walking all day for weeks :)

For a "never done much hiking" person, I'd recommend ankle high boots for 500-750 miles, low cut hiking shoes for 300-500 miles, and trail runners afterwards.

If you're not a new hiker, then just jump into the progression where ever your arch and ankle strength (with a pack) fit best.

[Cheyou]

Some trail running shoes have a rock plate . Great for Rockslyvania .

To soon old to late smart . Thom :0)

[Rain Man]

I agree with those who use trail shoes. I started with boots, tried waterproof, eventually tried non-waterproof trail shoes/trail runners and haven't looked back.

As for as water-proof boots/shoes, I have found those linings to be water-proof, if at all, through too few miles of constant bending and twisting. Whatever was waterproof in there breaks and tears similar to folding paper over and over along the same crease.

Also, dirt and grime kills waterproofing and so-called "breathability" for stuff such as Gortex, etc.

[shelb]

I always had blister problems with boots or hiking shoes - no matter what socks I wore, how much I broke them in, how much I used Body Glide, etc.

This past year, I did a 100 miles section in trail runners. No blisters! Lighter feet! Dryer feet - I found my feet dried fairly quickly even though I splashed my way through puddles, etc. My friend wore her waterproof boots, focused on walking/jumping around puddles, and when her boots ended up wet, she took much longer to dry than I did.

[CarlZ993]

I started out w/ full leather, waterproof boots many years ago. That didn't last long. Too stick & too hot. Then, I went to lightweight, non-waterproof boots (fabric & leather). That lasted a long time. Decided to go w/ non-waterproof trail runners (1 size larger) for the AT. Loved them. Went through 4 pairs on the trail. One blister. Haven't gone back to boots of any kind since.

Note: The bottoms of my feet were sore along the hike. I'm going to see if I can find a trail runner with a better 'rock plate' (as another poster mentions) with my next pair. Right now, I'm testing out some SuperFeet inserts. The jury is still out on them. Gonna give them a good test in the Grand Canyon in a couple of weeks.

[High Mileage]

Waterproof boots are heavy and don't breath well.
You will have damp feet often, plus if they get wet inside good luck drying them out.

[Badger Ski]

Do you use a technical insert like superfeet or sole with trail runners?

[lonehiker]

I use Sole Softec Response as I need a little support for my right foot and the flimsy inserts that come with shoes aren't enough.

[jimandlisas]

I have used both and prefer trail runner type unless there is snow or ice on the trail. Just use an insert like Superfeet to stiffen them up a little. Depending on the shoes, you can save about a pound per footstep and that is a lot of wear and tear on your muscles and joints that you can avoid. You just have to step more carefully to avoid potential bruising to your feet or stubbing your toe in rocky terrain.

[DuneElliot]

I'm with Carl's previous "love" on this one. I use ultra-light leather and fabric non-waterproof/breathable boots. They are LE duty boots and are comparable in weight to trail runners. They can resist a brief dunking in a puddle but not much more. They also have great sole support and cushion, design for LE walking on concrete all day. My feet have never hurt. I am breaking a new pair in now and still love them (this is my third pair) as much as ever. I find they don't gather as much dust and debris as trail runners. I also don't lace up the high ankle support and wear them laced more like trail runners. I feel like I have the best of both worlds.

[mortonjl]

Your feet are gonna get wet, goretex takes forever to dry and boots will be heavy.