View Full Version : Running shoes
swjohnsey
11-25-2010, 22:11
I would like to use trail runners for my planned thru-hike but my feet ain't cooperating. I wear a narrow size (11.5 B) and no one makes one that will fit me. I am planning to use the same shoe I run in, New Balance 883 with a Sorbothane insole. I usually get about a thousand miles of running out of them then retire them to daily wear. I use them with Wright Socks Running Socks (been using this or a similar combination for years).
I figure that it will take a couple of pair to make the trip. The Wright Socks wear like iron but I have six new pair.
My choices have come down to this, issue combat boots or something from Danner.
The Cleaner
11-25-2010, 22:23
I've seen more trail runners the last few years also more trail injuries&ankle issues....:eek:
The Cleaner
11-25-2010, 22:31
There are some places on the AT I wouldn't even dayhike w/o a pack wearing running shoes.I think that's why they are called RUNNING SHOES.:confused:
swjohnsey
11-25-2010, 22:39
I don't have many options, issue combat boots (come in every conceivable size), New Balance running shoes or Danner Acadia.
I hiked for quite a ways in the trail running version of my running shoe (Brooks Adrenaline). They didn't hold up well over the rocks of NH - ate the bottoms up in short order.
I don't think the non-trail version would have been any better or worse. So, to answer your question - give it a try. A good fitting shoe is always better than one that isn't regardless of style.
Cameldung
11-26-2010, 09:26
Check out Zamberlan. My feet are narrow too. I find these fit me.
"I figure that it will take a couple of pair to make the trip."
If it's the AT you plan to thru-hike, I would be prepared to use more shoes than that. For thru-hiking, I think there is some consensus that more like 500 miles per pair of shoes is a prudent distance to plan for. Lots of people get more, it's a balance between budget/convenience and having more cushioning for your feet. Even where the shoes aren't obviously falling apart, you're walking on these all day long, so it might be wise to spend a bit more and replace the shoes a bit more often. And as 10-K said, the rocks in NH can chew up shoes, somewhere along the way in the white I lost three lugs off the bottom of one shoe.
All that said, lots of people hike the trail in shoes rather than boots; I used Golite trail runners for the entire trail this year, including the deep snow parts in the Smokies in March, the various rocky parts, muddy parts, whatever. If your pack weight isn't too high and you don't have unusually weak ankles I think trail runners are a fine choice.
In your case, I would just take the running shoe you're used to and make sure to do a shakedown hike of some decent distance, say, 50 miles or more before committing to this option on the AT. A shakedown trip is a very good idea in general, using the very same gear and clothing and everything that you plan to use on the AT. Every problem that you find and force to the surface ahead of time is one less that you have to figure out as you go on the trail.
Feral Bill
11-26-2010, 15:16
New Balance does make hikers in various weights more than pure runners. You might have to order on line. My wife has AAA feet and got some nice trail walking shoes from them.
Blissful
11-26-2010, 15:17
I've seen more trail runners the last few years also more trail injuries&ankle issues....:eek:
You can get ankle injuries and ankle issues on the trail with or without trail runners. Injuries have happened as long as there are trails. And health issues are because shoes and boots are not fitted correctly to a foot type.
If it's the AT you plan to thru-hike, I would be prepared to use more shoes than that. For thru-hiking, I think there is some consensus that more like 500 miles per pair of shoes is a prudent distance to plan for. Lots of people get more, it's a balance between budget/convenience and having more cushioning for your feet.
I've gotten as little as 250 and as much as 500 miles out of a pair of trail runners. Less when some of trips are off trail with lots of rocks and more on easy terrain. 1000 is unrealistic IMO. Even to get 500 for me usually means new insoles at 250 miles. Goretex liners usually are leaky by 200 miles for me, though they may be nice when new. Am now just getting non-WP trail runners that dry fast. Am experimenting with Goretex socks.
StormBird
11-26-2010, 19:50
I switched from an all leather boot to a pair of new balance trail runners in the beginning of my hike and I couldn't have been happier. Make sure that you have a good insole. I wouldn't worry about turning an ankle. I turned my ankles in my boots just as much as i did in my trail runners. I liked the trail runner better b/c they were much more comfortable and they dry alot faster. You can also maneuver better on varied terrain.
I vote for running shoes over hiking boots any day.
I've seen more trail runners the last few years also more trail injuries&ankle issues....:eek:
Interesting. The only people I've ever come across complaining about foot issues are those wearing heavy ass hiking boots.
swjohnsey
11-26-2010, 22:46
An insole y'all might want to check out is the Sorbothane (usta call 'em Ultrasole). They last a very long time. I think I will go with my trusty running shoe and have another pair ready to go to be shipped when needed. As soon as I ship them I will order another and possibly another.
swjohnsey
11-26-2010, 22:50
Oh yeah, I like New Balance because they are one of the last surviving American shoe makers. Not all their shoes are made in the U.S. but the 883s are. Also, Wight Socks are also still made in the U.S. They are a two layer sock that eleminates the need for an inner sock to prevent blisters. They work and last . . . but they are a little pricey. Sometimes thing that cost more are a good value.
My shoes are made in the USA ;) (I make my own shoes now.) I agree that trail runners are the way to go. I started wearing low-cut boots in the 90s and never looked back. Then I went to train runners and never looked back. Having full range of motion in my ankles and legs made me much stronger and faster going up hills. More than a few people have hiked the AT wearing Chaco sandals. Boots are not necessary. If you like them, that's your choice, but they are not necessary.
I'm still wearing the old New Balance 806's that carried me through PA and beyond, I'll never go back to traditional boots. The secret is to keep your pack weight reasonable.
swjohnsey
11-27-2010, 02:28
Pack weight is under 30 pounds including food and water.
There are some places on the AT I wouldn't even dayhike w/o a pack wearing running shoes.I think that's why they are called RUNNING SHOES.:confused:
No one has bothered to build footwear specifically for long distance thru hiking. Trail running shoes are the arguably the best solution, but most of them are too heavy and narrow.
No one has bothered to build footwear specifically for long distance thru hiking. Trail running shoes are the arguably the best solution, but most of them are too heavy and narrow.
For you, or in general? My trail runners fit perfectly. I buy them a half size bigger than my running shoe to allow for a thicker sock and I'm golden.
Try Adidas for a narrow foot--Trail Response is a great shoe. I have also worn their Kumasi, which is a light hiking shoe, and it was great, but they don't make it any longer.
Tenderheart
11-27-2010, 12:06
I used the NB 802's with a pack weight of mid to upper 20's. I think two pair would have gone the whole distance had I not grown a full size in footwear. I think NB took some of the "guts" out of their trailrunners as they evolved, but I would still give it a try. Be certain to get them large enough in length.
litefoot 2000