PDA

View Full Version : Loose the boots, go for shoes!



SGT Rock
09-05-2002, 06:06
It keeps being said, and it also keeps being ignored, but a pound on the foot is like five on the back. Once you can get you pack weight below 35 pounds, and assuming your legs are in good condition, the feet are something you should pay close attention to. One of the best things I ever did was get rid of boots and switch to running shoes.

But what about the foot support I need? But what about my ankles? But what about kicking rocks? All are valid questions. Look, switching to running shoes is like any other lightweight gear switch, there are tradeoffs. But I think I should cover some of what I have found:

1. Ankle support. I personally have very high arches, so high I needed a waiver to join the Army, and I'm very prone to ankle twists. I've had a few bad ones in my day, but looking back, every one of them happened while I was wearing boots with ankle support. Once I switched to running shoes I didn't stop twisting my ankles, but I now had flexibility in my ankles to handle it while I didn't in boots, and I twisted them a lot less and a lot less severely. I also found that I was more careful about where I step, not on a conscious always looking level, but it does happen.

2. Foot support. This depends on what foot type you have. While boot manufacturers mostly make standard boots then expect you to get orthotic inserts for you foot type, running shoes are made to each foot type already. High arches need cushion sole, normal feet need a stability shoe, and flat feet need motion control. This is also one of the areas that Ray Jardine's book "Beyond Backpacking" does a great job by describing how running shoes are built and what will make a durable running shoe for hiking. For some information about running shoes and selection based on foot type, check out this foot glossary (http://www.gearwest.com/V00613/run-foot glossary.htm). Bottom line: I run hundreds of miles on my running shoes. Foot strike while I'm running has about the same, if not more, pressure per step than my hiking with a light pack does. If they are good for my feet when running, why not hiking?

3. Foot protection. Here is a tradeoff. You do loose some foot protection for lighter weight, but you will put you foot in safer places, I can attest to it myself. It won't be a conscience effort, it will normally just sort of happen. You can't go stepping directly on rock spikes or kicking roots, but you probably won't anyway. Our ancestors did fine for thousands of years without solid toe shoes while wearing soft sole moccasins. It will not kill you, and I bet your feet will enjoy it.

4. Foot Stress. Here is a tradeoff, but in a good direction. A solid sole boot is like being in a car wreck with in an old solid steel car - the car survives but your face takes the beating. Your foot gets the same thing, but by 1,000 - 2,000 times in a hiking day. With a solid sole, your foot gets a lot more shock transferred to it, then your ankles, then your knees, and your hips. With solid sole boots there were those times when my feet would actually be numb after about 12 miles, and it would sometimes last for days after I got off the trail. But with running shoes, all that cushioning designed for running does the job instead of your feet.

5. Wet feet. "But boots are waterproof and running shoes aren't" you may be saying. Sure they are - NOT! There isn't a way I have found that will keep your feet dry, believe me I have tried them all. Bee's wax, mink oil, GoreTex, heck - even rubber. If it is waterproof, it makes your feet sweat. "But GoreTex breaths" - RIGHT! Imagine walking every hour of every day in your GoreTex jacket and not sweating to death, it's the same thing. Also, there seems to be an unwritten equation that says that the more waterproof a boot is, the longer it takes to dry out once it soaks through. In Vietnam they invented the jungle boot based on this principle - let your feet get wet, but make the boot so it dries quickly. Running shoes will do the same thing. But what about cold weather? Get some of those GoreTex socks like Rockies or Sealskinz for that weather. Then you can wear them or not depending on the weather like a GoreTex jacket for your feet.

5. Durability. Here is the biggest trade off. While you can spend a few hundred dollars to get some boots that will outlast you feet, running shoes will eventually fail. According to Roland Mueser's book "Long-Distance Hiking: Lessons from the Appalachian Trail" the average running shoes lasted about 700 miles while the average boots lasted about 1000 - 1600 depending on the style - 1000 for lightweight and 1600 for the heaviest. But compared to cost, running shoes averaged $50 while the boots averaged $90 to $150 (again $90 for lightweight, $150 for the heaviest) so if you figure cost per mile, there isn't a real difference.

6. Traction. Depending on what you are shopping for, running shoes will most likely have worse traction on wet mud. That has been the only real difference I've seen; but, it isn't that big a difference. In my experience a pair of boots will eventually get the soles clogged with mud and be about as equally worthless. The main difference is that while the running shoes my now weigh about a pound on each foot when clogged with mud, the boots will weigh over two pounds, maybe a lot more, on each foot.

Besides running shoes, there are trail runners, or trail shoes, or even trail sandals. The point is you don't need a tank on each foot to make it on a trail - do your feet a favor and lighten up. Your feet are the #1 priority in body care while hiking.

Wow, I just spent a lot of time on footwear. Maybe that should tell you just how important it is.

jlb2012
09-05-2002, 06:46
As one who has recently made the switch from a heavier boot to NB 805 trail runners I basically agree with the notes above - by the end of the day my legs feel a whole lot better/not as tired than they did with the heavier boots and while hiking I can generally maintain a faster pace with the NB 805's. Some personal opinions / notes:

1.) I didn't particularly like the footbeds in the NB 805s so I put my old Superfeet footbeds in from the old boots - the combination is very good and it makes a good trail shoe

2.) my ankles did notice the lack of support initially but after some strength buildup they are fine now with the increased flexibility

3.) I still have some reservations about using trail runners for bushwhacking or rock scrambles - in particular edges of the shoe are a bit more rounded and sometimes I need those edges to safely negotiate obstacles - the heal especially is something to watch out for, my old boots had a fairly well edged heal and I would step on small checks in rocks with the heal of the boot on my way down - doing the same thing in the new shoes has caused me to fall when the heal slipped

walkerat99
09-05-2002, 07:13
:) My feet were never happier once I switched to the Montrail shoes. I never had a problem at all with them and wished I had known about them on my thru hike. Ed

Hammock Hanger
09-05-2002, 10:06
I was so happy once I switched to trail shoes. I could tell the difference in my knees right away. -- Never had any ankle problems. Doubt I will ever go back to full boots. HH

The Weasel
09-05-2002, 10:57
For 3 season use on the AT, I am near to recommending formally my Bite-Golf Trail Sandals (see the preliminary reviews in the Gear Review section). They are about 4 oz. lighter than my trail shoes, with excellent support over the foot arch (far more than ANY other sandal) and the deepest footbed and comfortable sole I've seen on any shoe or sandal. They are best worn with socks (liner and outer), but for lightness and comfort I think they a winner. What sets this brand apart is an OUTSTANDING toe guard, unlike any other trail sandal I've seen.

The Weasel

Kerosene
09-05-2002, 14:27
Here are the ankle-strengthening exercises adapted from the physical therapist in an attempt to reduce my chronic Achilles tendonitis. Those of you concerned with ankle support in trail sneakers could do this regimen every other day for a month or so to see how it works for you.

1) Toe-ups on the stairs. Be careful not to go too far down until you're warmed up. I typically do about 50.

2) Stretch your calves on the stairs by carefully lowering your heel below your toes, keeping your knees straight. Alternatively, you can stretch calves by leaning against a wall with your toes about 2 feet from the wall you would "push up" against. Hold the stretch for at least 30 seconds. (You can stretch your Achilles on the stairs by slightly bending your knees).

3) Walk on your heels, scrunching your toes, for about 3 minutes on a carpeted surface. You'll feel the fronts of your ankles get tired after awhile. I typically do these exercises in my living room, watching TV to ease the boredom.

4) Using 3 feet of green or blue Ther-a-band (available from physical therapist offices and fitness centers for about $1/foot, with blue offering more resistance than green) tied in a loop, wrap the loop around the toes of one of your feet. Do 15-50 reps of the following four strengthening techniques. Push your toes away for one set, then put the loop under a chair or other heavy object and position yourself to "pull" the band toward your chest for a set, then left then right for two sets. Repeat with your other foot. Concentrate on your ankle and keep your knee straight and out of the exercise, especially on the sideways pulls. You can also replicate this exercise using a "wobble board" (a round board with half a round sphere on the bottom that wobbles), but it costs a lot more.

5) Here's the fun part. Now that your ankles are tired, stand up next to the chair on one leg, placing the other leg in front of you in the air. On a rug or other uneven surface (a pillow or mini-tramp), try to stand on one leg for 15-30 seconds. If this is easy, then close your eyes (you'll be amazed at how hard this is). After 15-30 seconds, move the leg in the air to your side for another count, then to the back, and then move it all over (left-to-right, front-to-back, whatever). Repeat with the other leg.

After multiple bad sprains and reliance on ankle braces for years, this regimen has worked for me, although I'm not sure that I'm quite ready to shift to low-cut trail sneakers quite yet!

wacocelt
09-08-2002, 21:45
I started the trail in Maine wearing, of all things, Army leg boots. I suffered heinous blisters... but worst of all were my Achilles Tendons. Every morning at dawn when I began moving about doing my waking routine, they felt like they would snap. Albatross was kind enough to show me a few of the stretches mentioned above.
The biggest relief was when I bought a pair of $45 dollar New Balance sneakers. I could then literally RUN up mountains when the urge took me.
I'll walk bare-foot through broken glass for 2000 miles before I put on a pack while wearing boots again.

steve
09-29-2002, 13:28
I agree. I had already decided to wear my running shoes before reading this post, especially since I'm trying to go lighter ( less than 30 pound pack). What are the best socks since I don't think my wool socks will fit too well in my running shoes?

Trail Yeti
10-03-2002, 15:05
Boots? NEVER! As for running shoes this is a list of what I wore this past year (if anyone cares).
Started off in a pair of NB 804's, around Hot Springs I started wearing my Chaco's to hike in. However, I couldn't do big miles in my Chaco's so I went back to the trail runners. They lasted around 700 miles. Got a new pair (prebought) at Trail Days and wore them for about 3 days but for some reason this pair hurt my feet (same size, same shoe, same everything, and no my foot size DID NOT change on trail) so I went back to the Chaco's.
Bought a pair of Vasque Vapors at Harper's Ferry which promptly started to fall apart after 10 miles. Got a new pair for free after much hassle (Vasque has BAD customer service) at Delaware Water Gap, and wore those until Mass. The second pair started to fall apart after 20 miles. So I REALLY needed new shoes by mass and since I knew the whites were coming and my feet were still sore from PA I bought trail shoes. Lowa Tempest Lows. They were awesome!! very comfortable, tough enough to take it and light enough that your feet don't feel like tanks. I wore them the rest of the way and they still have LOTS of miles left on them. Highly recommended.
So I think I did around 1300 miles in trail runners, 350 or so in sandals, and 400 or so in my lowa's. I know a guy that wore Lowa's the whole time....he made it on 2 pairs....one of which was a replacement from Lowa.
My partner wore Montrails from Harpers Ferry on...and although she loved the comfort, they didn't last long....2 pairs to get to Katahdin and the last pair was held together w/duct tape and a prayer when we summited.
Any questions? Class Dismissed!;) ha ha ha
life is good, WEAR A KILT!
Trail Yeti:cool:

Jeff
10-03-2002, 17:30
I also highly recommend the Lowa Tempest Lo's....low cut hiking shoe with a well made, tough as nails :D soles... Size 11 Mens = 40 oz.

Operator
10-05-2002, 02:59
After having the misfortune of my boots blowing out I ended up hiking about 60 miles in a pair of sandals. Tevas to be exact, picked up at trail days for camp shoes. I found that once I got the weight off my feet the miles flew by. My only complaint was that there not enough cushion for the sole of my foot. However I am definately going to try a pair of the NB's.

P.S. One little trick I learned on my hike was Gold-bond powder in the socks worked wonders. Very little weight for almost no blisters, plus my feet didn't smell quite as bad at the end of the day.

attroll
10-17-2002, 00:02
I am thinking about putting my hiking boots to the side and trying out some good trails sneakers. I am going to look at the NB Line. It seems that a lot of you recommend them. But the question I have for the thru-hikers is: What did you do about the rain when your sneakers got wet. Did you just deal with it? Then how long did it take them to dry or did you just wear then until they were dry?

Jeff
10-17-2002, 07:05
I am also considering New Balance and am wondering if Superfeet inserts should replace whatever comes with the NB?????

Peaks
10-17-2002, 07:39
I'll try to answer the last 2 posts.

First, yes, I'd replace the insoles that come in New Balance with Superfeet. If you look at the recent Road Runner Sports cataloges, they now sell green superfeet for runners.

Next, how do you handle wet sneakers? When it rains out, you tend to go squish squish no matter what type of boot you wear. Dispite waterproof gaiters and waterproof boots, water still runs down your legs and into your boots. It may take longer for your boots to get waterlogged, but it still happens.

So, the primary difference in this regard between boots and sneakers is that sneakers get wet (soaked) quicker, and dry out again quicker. We just deal with it. What ever footwear we are using, boots or snekers, both get worn again until they dry.

jlb2012
10-17-2002, 07:48
Jeff - I personally did not care for the NB 805 insoles so the first thing I did was to put in a pair of Superfeet - in my opinion it was one of the best gear choices I have ever made. Note however I had used Superfeet before so I was used to them and I knew that they would work for me. Superfeet footbeds are not for everyone - unusual feet may have problems with Superfeet.

Youngblood
10-17-2002, 08:20
Personally, I prefer to use the inserts that come with my NB trail runners. True, they do go flat pretty quick but the overall cushioning is still excellent. I'll try to list some of the things I prefer about the inserts that come with the shoes (compared to other replacement inserts I have used):

1) They are cheap and easy to find.
2) They are light weight.
3) They have some cushioning and they don't particularly hold odors.
4) They don't have any hard contoured edges that sometimes cause blisters.
5) They don't have anything that will come apart and cause bliters.
6) THEY DON'T ABSORB WATER! Seriously, some inserts will hold water like a sponge. I had water proof boots that came with inserts that absorbed water. When they got soaked in a steady rain, the inserts 'balled up' under my foot...not a good thing, I had to pull them out and hike the rest of the way without inserts.

If you do try out new inserts, you might want to hang on to the ones that came with the shoes in case you find out that the new inserts are not everything that you hoped for.

chris
10-17-2002, 08:39
I've used a pair of Salomon Raidsport shoes and NB 904s with both Superfeet and Sorbathane insoles.
The Raidsports were a bit narrow in the toe box, which caused blisters on the toes that, for some odd reason, generated no pain despite looking gruesome. Overall, they were good shoes, but are pretty much toast after about 600 miles. The Superfeet absorb a lot of odor, but don't take too long to dry. They provide minimal cushionning but a lot of arch support, which is important for some people.

The NB 904s have a 45 mile Smokys trip and a 23 mile day hike on them. Traction is sub-par. Far worse than the Salomons. The fit does appear to be better, however. I just have to adjust my hiking style a bit. The Sorbathane insoles that I have been using are about twice as heavy as the Superfeet and are more about cushionning than arch support. I spent 3 days in wet shoes in the Smokys, fording various creeks around 60 times in the aftermath of Isidore. The insoles took two days to dry out at home.

MedicineMan
10-29-2002, 01:30
Sorry Sgt. Rock, cant do it...I have tried them all, New Balance, Montrail Trai shoes, Teva Wraptors....one year spent close to 1000$ on 4 pair of Raichles but in the end it is the LLBean Cresta for me...at just over 200 trail miles they have never failed me, I can say the same for my all time favorite boot in the world-the Raichle Monta Rosa but the Cresta is much lighter, the Teva Wraptors were ok on the ups but gave me blisters on the heel on the downs and I have never had a blister before (honest truth), the New Balance didnt give the 'psychological' ankle support my id thinks I need....so I ordered another pair of Crestas just to have tucked away.

The Hog
01-02-2003, 19:39
I tried a new pair of these shoes on a 74 mile hike in Maine (Stratton to Monson on the A.T.) this Fall. My opinion: don't buy them for hiking! Although they are nice and light and comfortable, unfortunately, they don't grip on wet rocks

stranger
01-02-2003, 21:41
I was a die hard boot fan for almost a decade, the first day I hiked in trail shoes I did 30 miles, so that basically summed it up for me. I am currently using Merrell Ventilators, I like the support they give (they have a shank) and find they more comfortable than trail running shoes. I still use boots sometimes.

Footslogger
01-02-2003, 22:35
It's hard to be around the distance hiking community and not have seen the trend toward lighter footwear. In the past 5 years I have gone from a super-stiff all leather boot to a lightweight cordura/leather combination boot. I'm starting out on my thru this year with that boot but I have also gotten a pair of Montrail TRS Comps. I plan to switch over to the Montrails somewhere above Damascus.
Like many of the other hikers who have posted here ...I've done my share of ground pounding and have worn the "issue" leg boots and the jump boots. What has always been important to me and continues to be today is the ability of the outsole to withstand a solid step down onto a sharp rock or uneven surface.
Even though I have gone to a lighter weight boot and to the Montrail low-cut, the outsole remains the key to my foot comfort over many miles. I also use SuperFeet in all my hiking footwear which, at least for me, provides a much more solid walking surface.
Just my .02

Bad Ass Turtle
01-02-2003, 22:40
I did most of my hiking in 2001 in a pair of Montrail vercors -- VERY heavy boots. In the summer (when I got back on the trail after my butt injury), I switched to a lighter pair of Asolos. They were very comfortable for the first 100 miles or so, but then the blisters started -- the ends of my toes on both feet got covered with blisters. I ended up sending them back home, and Toot sent me back my Montrails, which I hiked in another 1000 miles.

I'm not ruling out lightweight footwear because of this experience, but I have found that for my shape of foot I need a VERY roomy toebox. I have yet to find a lightweight shoe that would give me that -- even my running and walking shoes tend to bother my toes if I wear them long enough.

Of course, I'm so happy with my boots that I haven't looked much . . .

moonstone
01-15-2003, 20:28
I also have toebox issues, and I have a general volume problem where a long enough shoe/boot for my toes has too much volume. There are products that fit under laces to snug shoes up for feet like mine, but I have found the best solution for me is sandals.

I've done enough (~300 miles) in my Teva Wraptors to value them so far as my favorite gear purchase, but I haven't had them long enough to assess durability (but I can't imagine they won't last as long as the leading trail runners). I also haven't yet done long distance in sandals, but I would plan on using them for any trip.

In the cold, I wear Fox River liners, Wyoming Wear fleece or Wigwam wool socks, and Sealskin oversocks. This system has taken me through 4" snow and shallow frigid streams with toasty, dry toes. Downhills are a dream--no more jammed toes. I loosen the straps in camp and need no separate camp shoes. I can adjust the straps on the fly much easier than relacing shoes. I also expect to never have a moisture-induced blister. As for rough-edge abrasion blisters--a simple liner sock even in the summer usually prevents them on me and once the shoe/boot/sandal is broken in, I tend to never get abrasion blisters again.

I like the Tevas because of their aggressive strapping which has saved the sides of my feet from many rocks. The straps also hold tight for good arch and ankle support. I can never get laces so tight, and laces tend to loosen on my feet as I hike. The sole at the toe of my Wraptors also curves up which has so far saved me from every rock I've kicked, which are legion.

Other sandal manufacturers with wildly different designs include: Chaco, Nike, Bite, and Shaka. Chacos have Vibram/replaceable soles, but the strapping leaves your foot wide open to the terrain. I also have Bites (mentioned above) which have the toe guard but I find their soles to be as soft as butter--no ankle support. Shakas are probably the closest to shoes, they have so many webbing straps accross the foot--looks like they'd provide lots of terrain protection (including at the toe) at the cost of trapping lots of debris.

BTW, I've also liked my Tecnica trail runners, no one ever seems to mention Tecnica.

Peaks
01-16-2003, 09:15
Hard for me to believe that sandles would give anyone enough arch support.

The reason that thru-hikers need a larger boot or shoe size as the hike goes along is that your feet "spread" because you are on your feet so much, and carrying extra weight. I think that for the long term health of your feet that some arch and foot support is needed.

MedicineMan
01-17-2003, 01:10
but they didnt work for me....I have a small fortune in boots, my daughter calls me the Imelda marcos of the boot world...I loved the Teva Wraptors for the ups but on a major down I got abrasion blisters---I was not wearing any socks, just the sandals...currently and my last 170 AT section miles I have been in LLBean Crestas--love them and the toe box is huge, I mean HUGE but my heal is locked in place....got 2 co-workers into them and the girlfriend....all say the same thing, they can always wiggle their toes but the heel is locked in place...I dont know a weight (embarassing for an ounce counter) and LLBean didnt have one listed as far as I could tell but just hefting them compared to a pair of Raichle Monta Rosas or Palus the Crestas are sig. lighter.
I will try the Wraptors again later this Spring but with socks and Sealskins.

Scorpion
03-18-2003, 09:05
Last fall I decided to try lighter hiking shoes. I since backpacked several times in my everyday Reboks, and they felt good on the trail.

I then decided to get a more trail specific shoe, namely New Balance 805's. I saw them at Bass Pro Shops recently for $79.99. This past week I saw a TV add from Just For Feet, the 805's for 49.99. That sounded a lot better than the 79.99. I went to their store and they did have the grey and black for 49.99. They also had the same shoes with a small amount of yellow trim for 42.49. The 42.99 ones fit well, and the price was even better than I had expected.

I weighed the pair yesterday and 12ee's weighed 1# 14.7oz.. I will give them a good trial weekend after next going from gooch gap to neels gap with a boy scout group, probably camping at slaughter gap.

The store where I bought mine was in Savannah GA. I'm not sure if the sale price was just in this area, or if it is more widespread.

Scorpion

rickb
03-18-2003, 09:37
Are you NB users buying a size up, so as to wear a relaively thick Thorlow-type sock, or wearing a Thorlow-type sock in your regular shoe size, or using a regular old gym sock in your normal shoe size? Or doing something else?

Rick B

tlbj6142
03-18-2003, 09:41
What do the NB 805 look like? Got a link?

Scorpion
03-18-2003, 09:45
Rick
I first tried them on with my everyday socks. I then switched socks to my heavier wool blend socks that I use in colder weather. They still fit good with the heavier socks. Big enough that my toes didn't hit the front of the shoe when the shoe jams into a rock or root, yet not overly big to fit loosly.
Scorpion

Jitterbug
03-18-2003, 11:04
I thru-hiked in NB 804s/ 805s and am pretty happy that I did... although I think what works for some won't work for everyone. I think I was able to hike more miles a day in shoes than I would've in boots and they are of course much cheaper. I used Superfeet insoles and wore lightweight synthetic running socks, except in cold weather when my socks were a bit heavier.

Once I was in a town that did not sell running shoes and I bought a Solomon low cut shoe with Vibram soles. I did not like how the Vibram felt at all.. it felt like I was walking barefoot on cement. Once you get used to shoes with softer bottoms you feel like you have more control over your feet, like your toes and feet are able to flex and "grip" the walking surface.

I did get plantar fasciitis (formerly called heel spurs) really bad, and only recently stopped having arch pain in the mornings. Some people have told me its from inadequate shoe support, but others say it can be from lack of training, over-used calf muscles, not buying new shoes more frequently etc. who knows.

cburnett
10-07-2003, 17:07
Yeh, trailshoes dry quicker than boots. But what do trailshoe wearers wear in late fall through winter and into early spring to keep feet dry.
I would think just walking with shoes in snow, slush would saturate a shoe (experienced during childhood) vs. a boot that will stay dry inside with the 'wet' is not water (experienced in jan. hike in the smokies)
because when my footware is going to become wet I'd reather my feet be dry than dry quickly.

chris
10-07-2003, 18:52
If I am out for a weekend romp in the Smokys in the winter and snow is on the ground, I switch to my boots and gaiters. If you are out on a longer hike (more than a weekend) and are on snow alot, you have no chance of keeping your feet dry. Snow scrapes off weather sealant rather quickly and the boots wet out. Quality boots last longer than cheap ones, but even the best will saturate rather quickly.
That is, unless you are wearing mukluks or something. If I seal my boots with SnoSeal or something similar, I can get about 30 miles of snow hiking in before the sealant is gone. Of course, a boot is going to be warmer than a runner, and this is nothing to sneeze at.

Kozmic Zian
04-20-2004, 23:01
Yea........Hiking Footwear. Like everything else, a choice. If you weigh (personally) between 125 and 170, and carry 25lbs or less for 4 or more days, you can legitamately wear a low-cut, non-supportive, intrusive soled, running shoes. But, if you(like me) weigh over 200 lbs, and carry more like 30lbs or more for 4 or more days (honestly), you may find supportive, non-intrusive full shanked hiking boots more to your liking. To enfer that all hikers should be wearing running shoes in a very dangerous, rugged and rocky, slippery and wet environment is to belay the features of solid, one piece, rugged, dry (because of excellent water profing accessories that are available) and practical, traditional hiking boots. Naw.....Rock, can't side with you on this one, either. But like stated earlier....choices. KZ@:cool:

Happy
04-20-2004, 23:16
Yea........Hiking Footwear. Like everything else, a choice. If you weigh (personally) between 125 and 170, and carry 25lbs or less for 4 or more days, you can legitamately wear a low-cut, non-supportive, intrusive soled, running shoes. But, if you(like me) weigh over 200 lbs, and carry more like 30lbs or more for 4 or more days (honestly), you may find supportive, non-intrusive full shanked hiking boots more to your liking. To enfer that all hikers should be wearing running shoes in a very dangerous, rugged and rocky, slippery and wet environment is to belay the features of solid, one piece, rugged, dry (because of excellent water profing accessories that are available) and practicle traditional hiking boots. Naw.....Rock, can't side with you on this one, either. But like stated earlier....choices. KZ@

Try and explain THAT to Jan Liteshoe of 2003 with one of the rainest hiking seasons in history, with her 35 pound pack and Montrail trailrunners she had on when I hiked with her at the beginning!!! I think she made it? :) :)

SGT Rock
04-21-2004, 06:57
But, if you(like me) weigh over 200 lbs, and carry more like 30lbs or more for 4 or more days (honestly), you may find supportive, non-intrusive full shanked hiking boots more to your liking. To enfer that all hikers should be wearing running shoes in a very dangerous, rugged and rocky, slippery and wet environment is to belay the features of solid, one piece, rugged, dry (because of excellent water profing accessories that are available) and practicle traditional hiking boots.

I don't think it is dangerous at all. I have carried up to 50 pounds using nothing but running shoes. Heck, the first trip I did on the At with running shoes, my start weight was still 38 pounds.

I have bad feet. High arches, heels of a flat footed person. I am prone to shin splints. I have had stress fractures in both legs. I have had bone spurs. I have twisted ankles more times than I can count. Heck, I even had to get a waiver to join the Army. Over almost 19 years of service doing, most of it in jobs I had to do a lot of walking, and coming up on about 25 years of hiking I have tried just about every waterproofing there is. I have tried all sorts of hiking boot styles from my $200+ Asolo Goretex boots to cheap low cut boots from thrift stores and many things in between. But the more I hike in running shoes, the more I am convinced that this is the way to go.

I can remember when I was a kid, about 12 or so, and did my first hikes. the boots had ankle support, they were shanked, we had liner socks and wool socks, all the "traditional" ways that hikers HAD to have. My feet were tortured and killing me at the end of every day and we carried camp shoes to allow our poor feet to relax at the end of the day. But when I wan't "Hiking", my brother and I would gp to the woods with our friends in nothing but sneakers and daypacks and live out there for a night or two and never think about needing boots and never had foot problems.

Fast forward 25 years and my son hikes just as far as I did, but I make sure he wears good running shoes that he wears all the time for everyday playing around in and at the end of a hiking day his only complaint is the marshmellows sticking together in the bag when we go to cook them.

Just like any other piece of hiking gear, sometimes people buy more than they need. You would need heavy boots with al the protection you could get on an assent of K2, but not walking down the AT. So many people hike in those full shank boots with all the ankle support they are told they NEED and yet they suffer for it. Blisters, shin splints, twisted ankles, swolen knees, etc. I think it is more harmfull to perpetuate the myth that everyone needs massive ankle support and steel shanks to make a hike and ignore the fact that the experience of many hikers and even some natives (try telling a person from some third world countries that he even needs more than sandals) is more irresponsible and dangerous. :-?

Blue Jay
04-21-2004, 07:32
SGT Rock, I agree with you 100%. I used to have severe ankle problems due to a motorcycle accident and the belief that you needed heavy concrete boots. Trail running shoes have set me free. I can carry a heavy pack with no pain at all. It's OK to kid yourself and continue to wear leather which is heavy, gets wet and stays wet. You could ask yourself, why am I not wearing leather shirts, pants and a raccoon skin hat?

Kozmic Zian
04-23-2004, 23:17
Yea.......Boots! For me. The key for a high volume foot supporting a heavily framed body is support. The Boots don't have to be heavy,just offer under foot protection. Boots have shanks for intrusion by rocks and scree. Don't have to wear a Dan'l Boone hat to want support in the under foot. Show me a running shoe with underfoot support. If the lighter shoe gives you what you want, go for it. Who's to say what's good for the other man? I like a waterproof, one piece leather hiking boot. If you fit it properly, and waterproof it right, it'll never get wet inside, and never give you blisters(given ample breakin time). You have to condition your feet to wear whatever you think is right for you. Soft skin, improper socking, inserts that are too big or small, inadequate waterproofing, and other naieve footwear pratices lead to all kinds of problems on distance hikes, to include, blisters, heel spurs, underfoot stone bruises, acheiles tendonitus, shin splints, and ankle and knee injuries. There is no panacea for hiking footwear. What is right for one man, may not be right for another. It's a very personal choice involving many variables. The best bet is to go to the outfitter and try lots of different combinations,taking your full pack with you. Understand that the foot spreads out over time w/ weight, and always buy a boot or shoe a size larger than you normally wear. You can always fill in the early extra space w/ liners and thicker socks, changing them out as the foot flattens out. Know your own feet and body type, and buy the footwear that best suits you. There's plusses and minuses for everthing relating to gear. Sometimes weight isn't the only consideration. Some boots offer shanked undersole protection for substantially less than 3lbs a pair. Most of the 'trail-running' low tops I've seen out there, if they have a well stiffened or shanked sole, weigh almost that much anyway. Some hikers don't have a problem with undersole intrusion, it dosen't bother them, but it does my feet, particularly on a LDH. I have to have a shank. Guess I'll saddle up ma' long rifle, and my buckskins and my 50lb. o' canned food, and my Dan'l Boone knift and go a searchin' fo' some buffalos up in them thar mountains! KZ@:D

p.s for a link to footwear info......

http://www.rei.homepage

Frosty
04-24-2004, 06:45
It's OK to kid yourself and continue to wear leather which is heavy, gets wet and stays wet. You could ask yourself, why am I not wearing leather shirts, pants and a raccoon skin hat?
My leather boots don't get wet. They are my boot of choice this time of year on muddy trails with higher water levels in streams. It's easier to cross streams if you can step on a rock that has four-five inches of water flowing over it with a waterproof leather boot than try to leap a long distance because there;s no place to put a running shoe without getting soaked.

I water-proof the boots every spring and they are good to go. I also have a pair of low hikers that are good on smooth trails (pointy rocks tend to hurt the balls of my feet) and are okay to get wet in the summer when it's warmer.

I suspect the main difference is that I'm 6'5" and 240 pounds, and so need something to protect the underside of my feet. Especially carrying a pack.

Whatever works, works. Reading last year's trail journals, though, I did notice many people who espoused the lightest footwear also spoke most often about blisters and knee problems. Not everyone. Like anything else, what works for you might not work for me, and vice versa.

So I don't think I'm kidding myself. My experience is jsut diferent than yours, that's all.

papa john
04-24-2004, 10:24
OT a bit...Slaughter Gap is closed to camping and hiking due to extreme overuse. The trail has be relocated and there are some tent sites just before your start your climb to Blood Mtn.

I hike in Merrills and love them. They are light and have good grip on rocks. They don't allow too much junk to get in the shoes and dry fast.

I tried NB 805s but had problems with room in the box. After hiking from Standing Indian Campground up to the AT and on to Stecoah Gap, my toes were severly numb and it took several months for the feeling to come back. Doesn't happen in the Merrills.

SGT Rock
04-24-2004, 11:10
I had the same problem with foot numbness using a pair of Asolos, turns out they were cut a little shorter than usual and the solution was a larger size.

Brushy Sage
04-24-2004, 18:34
Hiking boots beat up my legs, with bruises and rashes. It's trail shoes for me. If I walk all day in the rain, or slip off a rock and step into a stream, they are wet for the rest of the day, and still damp when I put them back on in the morning. Unless the rain is still falling the next day, the shoes will be dry by noon.

Tha Wookie
04-24-2004, 20:27
Just a comment about shoes getting wet - I hardly have a problem with that since I use an umbrella -no rain streaming down the body of a hiker with an umbrella. In the rare case when it's blowing hard and the umbrella is ineffective, the shoes get wet quickly, yet dry quickly also (must faster than boots).

I prefer Chacos over shoes. But I don't like the NB's. Montrail makes much better shoes in my opinion. The Leona Divide is amazing. They make me want to run.

tlbj6142
04-24-2004, 22:25
My problem, so far, with going the trial shoe route has been wet feet. At least here in the east, if your feet get wet they ain't gonna dry. Just too much humidity trapped in them woods. Must be 100% every night 'till fall.

Could be that I'm wearing too thick of a sock??? And/or I need to try a different shoe (NB806 don't dry. Ever!!)

So, its either a gore-tex shoe or sandals for me.

I'm trying out a pair of Z1 Terreno Chaco's (http://www.chacousa.com/) next weekend. I dare say I haven't worn a boot with the same level of support (under foot) that you get from a pair of these. But at 17oz each (ouch!!!) for Men's Size 9 "normal" width, you ought to get something. At least I don't need to bring camp shoes.:banana :banana :banana


The other thing that is very important is to take your shoes and socks off at every break (which I do every hour or so). It must take all of 30 seconds to do, and realy helps your feet.

But you folks know this is one of my pet peeves. Too many hikers don't take breaks while hiking. Just rush to the next stop. Of cousre the same folks get out of bed at 10am and are in camp by 4pm. So, I guess they are taking breaks, just one long continuous one every day.

SGT Rock
04-25-2004, 09:02
I have heard from a few sandal users that miss a little toe protection and sometimes have chaffing problems with straps, do you ever see this?

Moon Monster
04-25-2004, 12:00
I have heard from a few sandal users that miss a little toe protection and sometimes have chaffing problems with straps, do you ever see this?

I thru-hiked in Teva Wraptors sandals. The straps chaffed and cut during the breaking in period, but not much after that unless it was after several days straight of rain. I wore socks with the sandals. I now have a new pair of Chacos and their smaller webbing straps also chaffed during the break in period (especially when it is hot out), but only after a few dozen miles now, my feet are quite used to the straps even without socks.

As for the toes, it is a major issue. I made it from Georgia to New Hampshire with being able to count on one hand how many times I had stubbed a toe in my Wraptors. However, the eroded trails of NH and Maine, with their exposed rocks and tree roots, coupled with my thru-hike conditioned long and fast stride caused me to nail my toes almost daily there.

Now, a year after my hike, I still feel pain in the tips of my big toes at times. I don't know if I have bone spurs, mishealed broken tarsals, or nerve damage.

tlbj6142
04-25-2004, 21:33
I have heard from a few sandal users that miss a little toe protection and sometimes have chaffing problems with straps, do you ever see this?First I haven't "hiked" in them yet. I'll let you know after next weekend.

I don't expect much chaffing as the Chacos don't have neoprene backed straps like most sandals (Tevas, Bites, Keen). As such they don't hold mositure much. And they dry very quickly. And, I plan to wear socks (thin 3 pair for $2.74 kind from wal-mart). Both Flyfisher (risk) and HH/sue (did 1000 miles in her's) use Chacos.

Toe stubs might be an issue. I'm actually more concerned about the long-stick-above-the-toes-but-below-the-strap thing than smashing my toes. Too bad they don't have a toe gurad like the Bites.

Heck if they don't work out on the trail, I'll have a pair of sandals that will last me the rest of my life. And I can try something else like a gore-tex shoe or a very thin shoe (like a pure street running shoe) and thin sock (both in hopes of better drying times).

MedicineMan
04-25-2004, 22:12
Currently testing the Vasque Breeze...at 1lb 4oz/boot not bad, saves me 8oz per boot over what I was in...the closest 'feel' to a tennis shoe and over the ankle boot I've tried so far that hasnt quickly failed....
failed:
Nike Air Zoom Talac---seem in toe box actually blew out on a downhill
Montrail Storm ----too narrow and offered only in one width

So far the Breeze have 20 AT miles on them, both with lots of rocks/roots and big downhills.
I plan on taking them on the 50+ mile hike next week, that should give the true story.

tlbj6142
05-20-2004, 15:31
First I haven't "hiked" in them yet. I'll let you know after next weekend.Well I have about 30 trail miles on my Z1's so far. All in various conditions.

First trip (~6-7 miles) with my 6yo daughter in your "typical" east coast forest. A bit of rain the first day. Everything went well with the sandals. Sure my feet were wet (I had sealskinz but didn't use them), but they were quite comfortable and dried easily. As some points I was a carrying all of our gear (she ran out of gas). Probaby ~40#. The Chacos held up fine.

Fast-forward a week (to last week). I spent 10 days in LA. Did several day hikes in them. A hot/dry 1400' 6mile trip, a 13 mile summit of Mt San Jacinto (http://www.whiteblaze.net/gallery/showphoto.php/photo/3456/size/big/password/0/sort/1/cat/500) in a cool old forest with a bit of snow and a 3-mile evening hike on a dusty, gavel covered fire road. Later I did a 8 mile hike thru a "canyon" (we'd call it a valley) but I wore my running shoes instead of the sandals.


Didn't have any toe jams or such
Had a few "stones" under the foot problems that seemed to occur mostly on long down hills. I think I do need to tighten my straps a bit more to minimize the gap between my foot and the sandal bed.
Walked right through several snow piles without issue. My feet got a bit cold, but the snow melts right off.
Dust and grime are not really an issue (though it takes several showers to clean your feet completely) as long as it is dry.
Once I walked off trail on the summit climb and "sank" into the forest duff a bit. Had to take my sandals off to brush off my feet and sandals before continuing.
Mud and/or dusty trails mixed with water are an issue. I managed to avoid this. But I could easily see how this scenario could pose a problem as gunk would be stuck to your foot and you wouldn't be able to shake it loose without removing your sandals.
The balls of my feet did get a bit sore on a couple of these hikes. I thought I had a blister on one foot, but it never appeared. I think my stride changes a bit with sandals resulting in a bit more pressure on the balls of my feet rather than across my toes in shoes. This was especially true on down hills. Tightening my straps might help this a bit.
In short, I'll continue to wear the chacos on my east coast hikes. But for dusty dry trails, shoes may be a better option. Large mud fields might prove to be an issue as well. The summit climb had quite a few "small" rock fields and I passed those without issue.

That's it for now.

eyahiker
05-20-2004, 15:51
Wow, lots of great information in this thread. I pack as light as possible, but never skimp on shoes,

1 pair boots
1 pair Merrell trail hike/sneaker style mesh shoes
1 pair Tevas

Never have a problem, always have an alternative, so I justify the extra weight....

tlbj6142
05-20-2004, 15:56
Reading last year's trail journals, though, I did notice many people who espoused the lightest footwear also spoke most often about blisters and knee problems.I wanted to address this a while ago, but didn't. One problem folks have who use running shoes is not switching to a new pair often enough. Most runners would never run more than 300-350 miles in a pair of shoes, so what makes you think you could hike in the same pair longer? As as hiker you probably break down the shoe's internals more quickly than a street runner. How many folks that use running shoes on the trail buy a new pair every 250-300 miles? On a thru-hike that's about every 2-3 weeks. Or 7-8 pairs of shoes for an entire thru-hike.

Unfortunately, many buy a new pair of shoes based on the outside appearence of the shoe. The internals typically break down way before the outside does. I have a pair of court shoes I only use to play Wallyball (Volleyball in a racquetball court) in twice a week. After a year, or so, my knees start to hurt after playing. That's when I need to buy new shoes. The outside still looks brand new. Even the treads are barely worn out when I need to buy a new pair.

This could be a major cause for problems for those using light footwear. That and the fact that many that use light footwear are not carry light loads. They just think they are because its not the 60# they started with on Springer.

Kozmic Zian
05-20-2004, 16:17
Yea....SO! I did't say that you couldn't do it that way, just that I wouldn't want too. Is it OK to have a preference around here? Jeezzzz....lighten...up...?

tlbj6142
05-20-2004, 16:24
Yea....SO! I did't say that you couldn't do it that way, just that I wouldn't want too. Is it OK to have a preference around here? Jeezzzz....lighten...up...?Do you have the right thread? Your response doesn't seem to fit into this conversation.

If so, I was addressing the comments about shoe wearing hikers having bad knees. My point was to show that there maybe another reason for bad knees other than their shoe choice. The comments had nothing to do with footwear choice.

A reply doesn't equate to an attack.

Besides I quoted Frosty not you.

Fiddleback
05-23-2004, 10:54
Vasque Breeze are priced at $84.99, down from $110 at the REI Spring Sale that started Friday, 21 May. FYI, the Member's 20% Sale Discount does not apply to these shoes/boots. Thanks to the encouragement in this thread I bought a pair.

I've been wearing them around the house, in town shopping, and out for about an hour in our local 'foothills'. I'm impressed. I've got what I think is a great fit and the support seems to be as good as I get in my much heavier Scarpas. The top of my socks quickly felt wet from light rain and soaked grass but they just as quickly seemed to dry out.

It'll be a while before I get to test the Breeze with a pack on but I think they're gonna do great.

FB

SGT Rock
05-23-2004, 11:25
I saw quite a lot of hikers out there at Trail Days that were in shoes. Some that I talked to had recently switched out.