View Full Version : Cross Trainers vs. Hiking Boots..Your thoughts wanted
webejpn01
02-10-2009, 14:50
Ok, so I am currently section hiking (this will be my second year) Georgia. Last year I wore a pair of North Face boots. They worked very well, however, those bad boys got heavy on the climbs.
So, I was contemplating switching to a cross trainer of some sort.
My question for everyone is, if you had previous experience between the 2, tell me why you switched. Also what considerations do I need to think about (ankle support, pack weight, etc)?
Thanks in advance.
bigmac_in
02-10-2009, 14:58
There are a ton of threads on this subject on here. Try the search option and search for boots, trail runners, etc..
Personal opinion - get some trail runners. But you'll see that if you do the search.
garlic08
02-10-2009, 15:01
I switched for my first thru hike, the PCT. I knew I had to average over 18 miles per day, and I just couldn't do that in boots. I also knew I had to get my base pack weight below 15 pounds as part of the package, so I'd recommend that, too!
Ankle support is not an issue for me, rather the opposite. My ankles have greatly increased in strength and flexibility since switching. When I follow someone wearing boots, the gait looks so stiff and unnatural, it's almost painful to watch. I had rolled and sprained an ankle once in boots, never in many more miles in shoes.
boarstone
02-10-2009, 16:13
The lighter the pack weight you go, the lighter the shoe/boot you can go. If you have any issues w/ankle support, you might want to reconsider. Or--just try a pair w/your usual pack weight around home area first. Stay away from water-proof ones, you shouldn't get so wet they won't dry overnight.There is no hard and fast rules.It's what works for you. The operative words here...works for you. Shoes dry better than boots.As already posted...search in here for footwear etc. But bottom line, it's got to work for you.
To me that is the real thing -- the weight of your pack and your weight. We all are different. Light weight trail runners are too light for me. I'm not carrying a heavy pack now either -- about 25# with 5 days of food and essentials. I like the Merrell line of shoes. The Chameleon is the name of my last 5 pairs. I do 2 in a year. They are like a boot in a way but designed like a trail runner.
Trail runners. I've carried up to 55 pounds with 'em and had no issues. It's personal preference but I only wear waterproof trail runners.
Feral Bill
02-10-2009, 19:33
There is a full range from very light runners to very heavy boots. You might look at some in between styles.
I switched a few years ago, and I'm not going back to boots, except in winter. I prefer a shoe (like a Merrill or Keen) to trail runners - a bit stiffer sole seems to handle the rough ground better, and my feet are less tired at the end of the day.
I will be wearing the Asolo 520 leatherboot for my thru hike. It might be heresy, but my ankles are destroyed from 20 years of soccer. they are quite heavy, and I have agonized over using them, but just last weekend hiking I rolled my ankle and the boot saved me from greater harm. I have considered the Asolo power matic 400, any thoughts???? It's still not too late to make a change.
Only one section with boots was all it took for me to switch to low cut trail shoes
Trail runners for me all the way. Started 35 years ago with big, heavy monster boots and gradually got lighter and lighter over the years. Would NEVER go back to high-top leather boots. Snow & Cold? Just wear SealSkinz waterproof socks!
I will be wearing the Asolo 520 leatherboot for my thru hike. It might be heresy, but my ankles are destroyed from 20 years of soccer. they are quite heavy, and I have agonized over using them, but just last weekend hiking I rolled my ankle and the boot saved me from greater harm. I have considered the Asolo power matic 400, any thoughts???? It's still not too late to make a change.
You might want to check out the Merrill Perimeter. Same type of boot, $50.00 less expensive.
webejpn01
02-11-2009, 09:03
I was contemplating something like this:
http://www.zappos.com/n/p/dp/43652643/c/146017.html
Why does it seem like everyone is for NON waterproof vs. waterproof? Does a waterproof shoe like shown above really take that long to dry? Or is it because they hold mositures (sweat) inside so well your likely to get blisters?
catfishrivers
02-11-2009, 10:21
I use high tec altitude iv boots. They're a bit heavy but not too bad. They give me ankle support ( my right ankle rolls easily ) and are the most comfy footwear I've ever had in my life. They are pretty good at keeping out water and they are the first pair of boots that don't make my feet sweaty and prone to athletes foot. I am wearing these to start my thru in April. I've used these boots all last spring, summer, fall and now into winter hiking about 30 miles a week. They are only starting to wear out now. I also used them as my everyday shoes.
i have had bad ankles for years, but didn't want to wear boots. I use montrail hardrocks for my trail runner shoe and also wear lace up ankle supports. I think its a great combination. Probably better ankle support than any boot could be without that much extra weight.
Your footwear has to be comfortable and not cause blisters. Be willing to switch if things are not working right.
I used trail runners during my thru hike and loved them for the following reasons: light weight, dry fast, cooler, more comfortable. Once you get a pair of boot wet they stay wet.
Boots do not provide the ancle support most people think unless your boots are very stiff on the sides. The bottom line is to wear what works best for you.
That being said I did have a few days wear my feet were cold and wet, but it was only a few. I am sure that I would have had just as many bad days with boot for different reasons.
I was hesitant to switch from boots to light hikers. Now that I have I can't imagine ever switching back. I wear Montrail Namche's. They fit my feet perfectly. It's all about fit. I also use blue superfeet insoles.
As mentioned above, boots that provide ankle support must be stiff in the shaft (my words, paraphrased from above) therefore, they might rub your ankles raw (and they are also very heavy). I used to hike with Limmers (6lb. for the pair, custom made). Took forever to break in, got tons of blisters until that happened, and they also took forever to dry. Once broken in, they had practically zero ankle support (the leather in the cuff had softened). All other boots I've hiked in have been the same. Boots, however, will protect your ankles from scrapes on rocks and pokes from sticks, and might keep your feet a little drier (say you step into a shallow puddle or on a submerged rock while crossing a creek).
For a long hike, weight is more important than it is for a weekend hike. Light shoes don't tire you out as much (that's a big duhhhhh), but they have the added advantage of allowing you to change direction quickly, replant them more quickly in the event of a stumble, and, of course, most folks tend to get far fewer blisters (especially in the heel) because your forward flexing ankle doesn't pull the shoe up your heel like a boot does.
Sometime when I have nothing better to do, I'd love to argue at length with those who advocate lightweight boots. I work long hours with a 20 year old, heavy German machine built to last forever that will outperform any piece of lightweight junk that needs to be fooled with all the time and before long replaced.
Most people today shop based upon price, not value and many companies which provided value went out of business because of it. That's why we have little in our pockets and our landfills are full.
I was contemplating something like this:
http://www.zappos.com/n/p/dp/43652643/c/146017.html
Why does it seem like everyone is for NON waterproof vs. waterproof? Does a waterproof shoe like shown above really take that long to dry? Or is it because they hold mositures (sweat) inside so well your likely to get blisters?On a rain soaked mountain trail you are not going to keep water out of your shoe / boot no matter what you try. Waterproof shoes, hold in water and sweat and do take longer to dry than non-waterproof mesh shoes. The mesh allows the water to be squeezed out as you walk so your feet aren't swimming in water as with a boot or waterproof trail runner. I have found a good mesh trail runner and SealSkinz waterproof socks to be the best combination for dry feet.
Sometime when I have nothing better to do, I'd love to argue at length with those who advocate lightweight boots.
That shouldn't be too hard to arrange. I'm sure there are scads of liteweight weenies around here just itching to get into it with you. Just start a thread and watch the fur fly.
Sign me "Gunshy". ;-)
What's to argue over? Wear whichever style you want and either reap the benefits or suffer the consequences. Most 'arguments' never accomplish changing minds anyway! :eek:
I just traded in constant worry over blisters and sore tired feet and legs for none of that when I went to light weight trail runners. I turn my ankles less and fall less because I'm more 'in touch' with the contact of my feet to the ground/rocks/logs. Of course . . . YMMV! So what's to argue? Someone going to tell me that my experience is imagined (like someone did about trekking poles :eek: )?
I need to use heavy Asolo 520 leather boots, terrible ankles. One of my big fears is getting hurt on the trail so I just went with the heavier boot. My first pair lasted three years and saved my ankles almost daily. If you have good structural stability in your legs, whichever would seem ok.
my personal thoughts on this:
i don't believe boots provide support for ankles (in the event of a sprain). i too, destroyed my ankles playing soccer for 12 years or so, football for 10. i've sprained my ankle many a times. each time, i was instructed by our trainer, to wrap my ankle with an ace bandage only until the swelling went down. then slowly start getting back into whatever sport is was doing w/o the wrap. i kept the wrap on for the 1st few times out practicing, but as soon as i was able to, i was told to take the wrap off.
so my thinking is this:
it isn't the boot or shoe or brace that provides the support for my ankle. it is the little stablizers and tendons that get stronger every step i take w/o a brace or boot. wearing a brace or high boot actually will keep those stabilizers and tendons from strengthening through normal walking/running. so when that ankle does finally roll through some activity, the tendons and stabilizers are too weak to be able to absorb it and you get hurt bad. me, i stand back up, wiggle my ankle to make sure my foot still works, look around to see how bad i embarrassed myself, and walk on...
i experienced the same effect from guys wearing back braces while working at UPS. their bodies got so used to having it, that the few times they'd lift something heavy without it, they got hurt. never wore one, haven't hurt my back yet :D
i won't comment on knee injuries as i have no experience w/ them
trippclark
02-12-2009, 16:34
Ok, so I am currently section hiking (this will be my second year) Georgia. Last year I wore a pair of North Face boots. They worked very well, however, those bad boys got heavy on the climbs.
So, I was contemplating switching to a cross trainer of some sort.
My question for everyone is, if you had previous experience between the 2, tell me why you switched. Also what considerations do I need to think about (ankle support, pack weight, etc)?
Thanks in advance.
Another vote for Trail Runners.
At 35, a few years older than you, I started section hiking about 100 miles per year on average. For the first couple of years, I used lightweight boots -- first Vasque and later a well reviewed pair by LL Bean. My pack weight started about 45 lbs, and gradually shrank over this time to 35 lbs or so (now about 29 lbs w/ food and water). I mention pack weight because I believe that it is at least partly relevant. After 2 years I chunked the boots and moved to Trail Runners -- first New Balance, then Montrail, now GoLite. The difference, combined with the reduced pack weight, was dramatic -- less tired, hike faster and longer. I can't say for sure how much is owing to the shoes and how much to pack weight, but I never wanted to go back to boots to find out.
By the way, no, I have not worn out three pairs of trail runners in just 600 miles. I did wear the New Balance shoes until they were starting to come apart, but the Montrails still have a good bit of life in them. I just switched to the GoLite because they have some features that I like and price was good. When these wear out, I may go back to the Montrails for a while . . . unless there is something else out there to try. HOWEVER, I do believe that generally speaking you may get less miles from a pair of trail runners than from boots.
Frick Frack
02-12-2009, 16:38
I heeded the advice of the light weight junkies and wore trail runners the last bit of my sobo and they were definately not for me. I really did not notice the difference in weight btw my Asolo Powermatic's and the uber-light weight Salomon's....not enough to put up with the pounding the bottom of my feet took. I love the ability to walk over everything w/o thinking twice about it. I feel no difference in my legs either way so this "you can hike further and longer" statement is all hype to me. This is definately a topic worthy of advice but should be self learned through each individuals needs & experience.
wearing a brace or high boot actually will keep those stabilizers and tendons from strengthening through normal walking/running.
Now there's a lame 'old wives tale', if I've ever heard one.
I guess you should try both and see what works for you on a short weekend hike out. Your feet are so important on a hike, it's worth it to try both. Also, some folks use Trailrunners for general hiking, but in harsher climates like the Sierra's out west, or even up in NH, or PA for that matter (Rocks!) some prefer to have boots for that type of terrain. I hope you find works for you and have a great hike! ;)
garlic08
02-12-2009, 18:18
One problem with "trying them out for short hikes" is that that's where trailrunners do not work well. If you amble along for a couple of 6 mile days, it won't make much difference what you wear. On a thru hike when you start exceeding 20 miles per day, day after day, the lighter footwear really makes a difference.
Now there's a lame 'old wives tale', if I've ever heard one.
the lame old wives tale is that boots protect your ankle
Sometime when I have nothing better to do, I'd love to argue at length with those who advocate lightweight boots. I work long hours with a 20 year old, heavy German machine built to last forever that will outperform any piece of lightweight junk that needs to be fooled with all the time and before long replaced.
Most people today shop based upon price, not value and many companies which provided value went out of business because of it. That's why we have little in our pockets and our landfills are full.
You deserve my Limmers.
PM me. :D:rolleyes:
I shop based upon intended use and ability of the product to perform as I expect it to. My Limmers cost $305.00 in 1991. They did what I expected them to do: carry an overweight hiker with an overweight pack over the White and Green Mountains. They still have a few miles in them though the soles are nearly bald (sorry, I didn't keep track of mileage - I estimate 600-900), and the lace hooks broke off (an extreme disappointment given Limmer's reputation).
A lighter pack makes me lighter. Lighter shoes make me FEEL ligher. I enjoy hiking more now than I did when I was 30, mostly due to not feeling like a pack mule anymore.
If you're enjoying yourself, apparantly you've tapped into something that eludes me. I just wish I could buy good, lightweight footwear made by Amurricans. ;)
On a rain soaked mountain trail you are not going to keep water out of your shoe / boot no matter what you try. Waterproof shoes, hold in water and sweat and do take longer to dry than non-waterproof mesh shoes. The mesh allows the water to be squeezed out as you walk so your feet aren't swimming in water as with a boot or waterproof trail runner. I have found a good mesh trail runner and SealSkinz waterproof socks to be the best combination for dry feet.
Did I already say I like Sealskinz too? Now I know I have. Good stuff.
the lame old wives tale is that boots protect your ankle
Strawman. Might as well condemn boots because they don't make your coffee in the morning. But, uh, what does that have to do with why we wear boots?
Hoop Time
02-14-2009, 10:33
Rather than start a seperate thread, I will ask this here: Anybody have an opinion on the Nike ACG line? I picked up a pair of their trail shoes at an outlet last summer and enjoyed hiking in them. I have worn them down pretty much because they were so comfortable I started wearing them for casual wear, too.
Rather than start a seperate thread, I will ask this here: Anybody have an opinion on the Nike ACG line? I picked up a pair of their trail shoes at an outlet last summer and enjoyed hiking in them. I have worn them down pretty much because they were so comfortable I started wearing them for casual wear, too.
They don't fit me. I tried them in a store. Not for me.
Seems like these new threads repeat everyone's opinion over and over....
Here's mine:
It's too easy to get over your head in very lightweight (trail runner) shoes, and that's a terrible (and dangerous) feeling. On steep, rocky downhills you just can't rely on your foundation.
It's light hiking boots for me.
Montana AT05
02-15-2009, 15:58
Interesting to note that it's the Boot crowd who is defensive and in attack mode...while claiming "light weight hos" are doing that... hmmm...
As far as my opinion?
Feet are critical to any hike--and they are all different (heck one foot is even different than the other on most people!). Experiment--find what works. If you are blistered up, get those boots worn in better or tape your feet--or switch to trail runners.
One word of caution: Avoid the middle road. A step down from a full-boot to a mesh style mid-boot probably won't net you any improvement (at least it didn't for me...I eased into trail runners when I should have jumped in).
I was a die-hard boot guy for most of my hiking seasons. Then, out of blister and wet boot desperation, I finally switched to trail runners. Now I only use boots when snowshoeing and winter hiking now (as in no-trail-knee high at minimum snow).
And yes, yes, boots are great. In fact, to appease the "When I hiked we wore boots that went up to our ears, and we LIKED it!" crowd....boots are just fine. I know hikers who wear boots and never get a single blister or any issue associated to wet-feet. For other people, trail-runners are better. Then there are the sandal people--which will be the next Big Thang in hiking. <--then the boot people will really go berserk!
A human being is can adapt to most any circumstance. I have spent some time in the Philippines, where most people old and young spend their days and nights walking in flipflops. Up hill and down, at work or play, their only foot ware are those thin rubbers.
If sandals are the next big thing can flip flops be far behind? Why not just chuck it all and go barefoot? You'll be "intimately in touch" with the trail.
I don't care what others wear, and I promise not to "go berserk" but as for me it will be boots when circumstances declare their use. I won't use trail runners, lightweight shoes, or flipflops just because they're the "next big thang".
webejpn01
02-16-2009, 14:17
Well i think someone said something about for every 1lb on your feet is like 5lbs on your back. Well I weighed my North Face boots last night....wait for it...wait for it....3lbs 12oz:eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek:
Most of the trail runners I have been looking at are 12-14oz.
My options for shoes stores around here sucks badly, so i may just take advantage of zappos free shipping both ways and order a couple dozen pairs :)
i did try on some really nice Addidas shoes this weekend, not sure of model but they were red and black and had alot of mesh around the sides, but i had to go up 2 full sizes just to get them not tight. So really proably 2.5-3 sizes for hiking range. Im typically a 13, but those seem to run REALLY high.
web. prolly adidas kanadia's. i checked them out recently.
mark schofield
02-16-2009, 16:36
I always used boots 'till last year when I tried a pair of Montrail Hardrocks. With boots, at least for me, once they got wet they would stay wet for a few days. Wet, soggy, heavy. With the trail runners, they would dry out in a few hours. No big difference for me in ankle support and the lighter weight was an extra gift. Mark S.
hopefulhiker
02-16-2009, 19:26
I started out with Vasque Sundowners at Springer and switched to Montrail Hardworks with good insoles in Damascus in 05. It was probably the best single thing I did as far as gear went.. I enjoyed the hike more and also was able to put in more miles per day...